November 27, 2014, 08:31:34 PM

Author Topic: C 300 is not an alternative to 35mm motion picture film.  (Read 3982 times)

ssrdd

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
C 300 is not an alternative to 35mm motion picture film.
« on: January 02, 2012, 04:23:24 PM »

72DB gain in image process is an advancement. but it only shoots 8 bit MPEG-2 422 and 50 Mbps!!!!!????
canon advertise it as a viable alternative to 35mm motion film. Dream it canon.

we expect RAW on board with 10bit 444 recording for the price range 16,000$.
not silly marketing tricks..

canon rumors FORUM

C 300 is not an alternative to 35mm motion picture film.
« on: January 02, 2012, 04:23:24 PM »

aaronofnero

  • Guest
Re: C 300 is not an alternative to 35mm motion picture film.
« Reply #1 on: January 02, 2012, 04:44:40 PM »

72DB gain in image process is an advancement. but it only shoots 8 bit MPEG-2 422 and 50 Mbps!!!!!????
canon advertise it as a viable alternative to 35mm motion film. Dream it canon.

we expect RAW on board with 10bit 444 recording for the price range 16,000$.
not silly marketing tricks..

on board 10bit 444 uncompressed for 16k? try 60k, and you got yourself an Arri Alexa.

bwhitz

  • Guest
Re: C 300 is not an alternative to 35mm motion picture film.
« Reply #2 on: January 02, 2012, 04:49:16 PM »
+1

I'm also sick of people on other forums acting like this camera is some sort of godsend from the heavens. It a $3000 XF camcorder with a large sensor. It running a DigivIII for craps sake. This camera is such a up-sell it's not even funny. The worst part is when people constantly support it... everyone should have said "f- you canon, back to the drawing board". Instead it just a bunch of elitist delusional non-sense about how you "only need 4:2:2 8-bit" and "now you can stop using 'cheap looking' DOF in night shots with the high ISO"

It's all a bunch of garbage from wannabe pros who just want big expensive cameras to make themselves feel more important that the 20 year olds with DSLRs that they despise.

The C300 is only a marginal upgrade from a 7D, if that. Not a $15,000 one.

on board 10bit 444 uncompressed for 16k? try 60k, and you got yourself an Arri Alexa.

It doesn't matter what Arri is selling the Alexa for. We should have 10bit 4:4:4 for $15,000 by now. The GH2 is capable of 200mb/s video... that's good enough for 4:2:2 at 10bit. The hacker who worked on the GH2 also said that the hardware to make something like the AF-100 into 4:4:4 10bit is only around $2. It's all smoke and mirrors marketing BS, that is in turn supported by "pros" who don't want the technology to become available to the masses.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2012, 04:53:13 PM by bwhitz »

Policar

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 427
    • View Profile
Re: C 300 is not an alternative to 35mm motion picture film.
« Reply #3 on: January 02, 2012, 05:06:11 PM »
That's a little harsh.  The codec might not be great, but the C300 makes a lot of huge advancements over the 7d in areas that matter more:  a reduction in aliasing, vastly superior low light, better latitude, almost no skew, etc.  Footage straight out of the C300 looks fantastic.

The codec does lag behind pretty seriously, though.  I've heard claims that the F3 with s-log is useable even in XDCAM, but I doubt it.  Never had much luck grading material from 8 bit MPEG-based codecs.  8 bit 4:2:2 is not enough space to capture a flat image and retain tonality when grading.  More disappointing, the uncompressed output on the C300 is apparently only 8 bit, putting it a step behind the F3 in that respect.

The C300 looks great for documentaries, tv series, etc. so for anyone who's considering between it and film for that--I can see it as a viable alternative.  But I agree that it's not competitive with the Alexa and Red for theatrical exhibition, just based on specs alone.

That said, it's almost certainly good enough that lighting, cinematography, and direction become the primary issue with it--good enough that anyone who knows what they're doing can get a solid product.  Even with the 7d you had to watch out for skew an aliasing to the point it was frustrating shooting anything with camera moves or detailed fabric.  The codec isn't holding you back THAT far and if it is, just rent an Alexa already.  If you're talented and successful enough that the difference between an 8-bit and 12-bit codec is holding your craft back substantially (i.e. you're shooting for theatrical release), you can afford to rent a $50,000 camera instead of a $20,000 one.

aaronofnero

  • Guest
Re: C 300 is not an alternative to 35mm motion picture film.
« Reply #4 on: January 02, 2012, 05:19:53 PM »
It doesn't matter what Arri is selling the Alexa for. We should have 10bit 4:4:4 for $15,000 by now. The GH2 is capable of 200mb/s video... that's good enough for 4:2:2 at 10bit. The hacker who worked on the GH2 also said that the hardware to make something like the AF-100 into 4:4:4 10bit is only around $2. It's all smoke and mirrors marketing BS, that is in turn supported by "pros" who don't want the technology to become available to the masses.

I won't disagree with you on the level of disappointment from Canon on behalf of it's "cinema forerunner" ...but to expect so much for $15k is somewhat silly in my opinion. The GH2 was hacked.. it wasn't marketed with that in mind. That wasn't a business decision on Panasonic's behalf. By the same mentality, you could potentially hack the C 300 to be a 4k 4:4:4 uncompressed ISO beast for all we know, and get exactly what you're hoping for. I'm not saying it should be worth more for 444 uncompressed 10bit, but what i am saying is that market value is decided upon by those who run the market and make the products. For all we know someone could create a video camera for $300 that can do everything you could dream of. Why is an old Sony film camera worth 6 figures? Why is a Zacuto DSLR rig worth 6 grand? As far as i'm concerned, you can look at it the same way you can look at jewelry. Who decided finding a diamond in some dirt made it worth hundreds of thousands of dollars? it's all about the demand of the market, and who's willing to spend what amount of money on what product. Companies don't owe the consumers anything. Sure, they can make decisions that drive their customers to other companies.. but at the end of the day, if you feel 444 uncompressed 10bit is worth 5 grand, but no one is offering it for that amount.. are you going to just complain and wait until the day it is released for that amount? Or are you going to sit back and acknowledge that to own and operate a cinema camera used to cost half a million dollars not more than a decade ago.

If you do feel so strongly about it, then I encourage you to learn how to develop a camera that can do it and sell it for 15 grand. That's the wonders of free market business structure. 

Canon-F1

  • Guest
Re: C 300 is not an alternative to 35mm motion picture film.
« Reply #5 on: January 02, 2012, 05:41:11 PM »
we expect RAW on board with 10bit 444 recording for the price range 16,000$.
not silly marketing tricks..

we? as "we" in the royal we?   ::)

i care a S___ what other people want.

HurtinMinorKey

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 429
    • View Profile
    • carolineculler.com
Re: C 300 is not an alternative to 35mm motion picture film.
« Reply #6 on: January 03, 2012, 01:04:31 PM »
Codec, SHmodec. What i see from the C300 on the screen compared to RED makes it look worth it. I just saw Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, and was again reminded how muddy the RED makes images look.  I can always tell when a commercial was shot with a RED, and that's not a good thing.  Right now, it looks like the c300 is best thing available for the price, so.....

canon rumors FORUM

Re: C 300 is not an alternative to 35mm motion picture film.
« Reply #6 on: January 03, 2012, 01:04:31 PM »

awinphoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2010
    • View Profile
    • AW Photography
Re: C 300 is not an alternative to 35mm motion picture film.
« Reply #7 on: January 03, 2012, 01:40:58 PM »
You want that 4:4:4 at 10bit raw footage for $15000 and I want a 30MP 5d3 with 51 AF points and ISO usable to 51000 for $2000, but it's probably not in the cards...  I'm not one to speak for video and can understand frustration from Video pro's however I do know that vincent l is promoting the new camera, but he has canon in his back pocket and wallet so it's understandable, but also I remember a few months ago someone posted a video comparing the 5d2/7d/1d4/Red and other top video cameras and the canon cameras held their own, especially how cheap they were compared to competitors...  so an improvement on that... well... in laymens terms is welcome nonetheless
Canon 5d III, Canon 24-105L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 F4L, Canon 100L 2.8, Canon 85 1.8, 430EX 2's and a lot of bumps along the road to get to where I am.

Mt Spokane Photography

  • EF 50mm F 0.7 IS
  • *********
  • Posts: 9185
    • View Profile
Re: C 300 is not an alternative to 35mm motion picture film.
« Reply #8 on: January 03, 2012, 04:19:05 PM »
You want that 4:4:4 at 10bit raw footage for $15000 and I want a 30MP 5d3 with 51 AF points and ISO usable to 51000 for $2000, but it's probably not in the cards...  I'm not one to speak for video and can understand frustration from Video pro's however I do know that vincent l is promoting the new camera, but he has canon in his back pocket and wallet so it's understandable, but also I remember a few months ago someone posted a video comparing the 5d2/7d/1d4/Red and other top video cameras and the canon cameras held their own, especially how cheap they were compared to competitors...  so an improvement on that... well... in laymens terms is welcome nonetheless

Vincent also promotes and uses the Red Epic, the Sony and even Arri digital models.  He does not claim that the C300 outdoes them, but does say that the low light ability and color rendition is outstanding.  He also said the original $20K price was too high.

He seems to be fairly objective, and since he uses all the digital as well as some film movie cameras in his work, his opinion is at least from someone who has used them and knows the strengths and weaknesses.

Its simply a matter of the right tool for the job.  No one camera does it all.

awinphoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2010
    • View Profile
    • AW Photography
Re: C 300 is not an alternative to 35mm motion picture film.
« Reply #9 on: January 03, 2012, 04:40:00 PM »
You want that 4:4:4 at 10bit raw footage for $15000 and I want a 30MP 5d3 with 51 AF points and ISO usable to 51000 for $2000, but it's probably not in the cards...  I'm not one to speak for video and can understand frustration from Video pro's however I do know that vincent l is promoting the new camera, but he has canon in his back pocket and wallet so it's understandable, but also I remember a few months ago someone posted a video comparing the 5d2/7d/1d4/Red and other top video cameras and the canon cameras held their own, especially how cheap they were compared to competitors...  so an improvement on that... well... in laymens terms is welcome nonetheless

Vincent also promotes and uses the Red Epic, the Sony and even Arri digital models.  He does not claim that the C300 outdoes them, but does say that the low light ability and color rendition is outstanding.  He also said the original $20K price was too high.

He seems to be fairly objective, and since he uses all the digital as well as some film movie cameras in his work, his opinion is at least from someone who has used them and knows the strengths and weaknesses.

Its simply a matter of the right tool for the job.  No one camera does it all.

Fair enough... cant overstate your last statement... no one camera does it all.  I'm not as well versed in key players in the video industry as I am in the photo industry, however every time canon has something going on about the DSLR's and video, Vincent always seems to be the face of the company but I'm sure he's skilled in just about most video cameras out there... 
Canon 5d III, Canon 24-105L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 F4L, Canon 100L 2.8, Canon 85 1.8, 430EX 2's and a lot of bumps along the road to get to where I am.

HurtinMinorKey

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 429
    • View Profile
    • carolineculler.com
Re: C 300 is not an alternative to 35mm motion picture film.
« Reply #10 on: January 03, 2012, 05:07:25 PM »
Looking further through this :

http://learn.usa.canon.com/app/pdfs/white_papers/EOS_C300_Sensitometric_Characteristics_WP.pdf

It appears that the camera is capable of parallel outboard recording over a 10-bit carrier (if desired). Does this mean 10-bit is just a firmware upgrade away?


AG

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
    • View Profile
Re: C 300 is not an alternative to 35mm motion picture film.
« Reply #11 on: January 03, 2012, 06:01:42 PM »
Id say that like the 5D2, the firmware can be upgraded to allow the missing features that we desire.

So yes the 10 bit could be available in the future, so could faster fps (60 @1080p or even dare i suggest 120).

Remember the cameras they have released so far to the public (pro film makers), have been pre production models, so there is still plenty of time for changes to be made.
Yes, i shoot video on a DSLR.

aaronofnero

  • Guest
Re: C 300 is not an alternative to 35mm motion picture film.
« Reply #12 on: January 03, 2012, 06:17:16 PM »
Looking further through this :

http://learn.usa.canon.com/app/pdfs/white_papers/EOS_C300_Sensitometric_Characteristics_WP.pdf

It appears that the camera is capable of parallel outboard recording over a 10-bit carrier (if desired). Does this mean 10-bit is just a firmware upgrade away?

That's my view on the matter personally. While it is a shot in the dark for me to make such suggestions - back when it was announced, my thought process was that it could be fully capable of being upgraded or "hacked" so to speak. Alexa is being allotted a firmware/software upgrade that allows for 120fps at 1080p i believe (don't quote me on that - it could be 720p). Nonetheless, if such is capable, then it's just a matter of hardware limitations that the software is willing to push. Similarly, offering software upgrades allows for Canon to make additional income off the product without their need to manufacture additional models, while circumventing the complaints of those who have already purchased the camera. If i wanted to make a creative guess, I'd say the C 300 ought to be upgradeable to, as mentioned by AG, a potential 120fps @ 1080p with 4:4:4 uncompressed output via external recorder. I could even see additional c-log upgrades for better ISO and DR performance, as well as color adjustments, 4k output (even if it is up / over sampled) and furthered noise reduction. Bare in mind this is entirely speculative, but again - it is just a matter of firmware abilities to push the technology. This is similar with Arri and Sony, and seemingly RED - although they tend to offer an actual upgrade of the sensor.

Part of me wants to believe a majority of these camera companies will ultimately run into similar spec performance in the long run, whilst the name of the game comes down to a pricing-for-market competition. 

canon rumors FORUM

Re: C 300 is not an alternative to 35mm motion picture film.
« Reply #12 on: January 03, 2012, 06:17:16 PM »

Axilrod

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1376
    • View Profile
Re: C 300 is not an alternative to 35mm motion picture film.
« Reply #13 on: January 04, 2012, 03:31:07 PM »
+1

I'm also sick of people on other forums acting like this camera is some sort of godsend from the heavens. It a $3000 XF camcorder with a large sensor. It running a DigivIII for craps sake. This camera is such a up-sell it's not even funny. The worst part is when people constantly support it... everyone should have said "f- you canon, back to the drawing board". Instead it just a bunch of elitist delusional non-sense about how you "only need 4:2:2 8-bit" and "now you can stop using 'cheap looking' DOF in night shots with the high ISO"

It's all a bunch of garbage from wannabe pros who just want big expensive cameras to make themselves feel more important that the 20 year olds with DSLRs that they despise.

The C300 is only a marginal upgrade from a 7D, if that. Not a $15,000 one.

on board 10bit 444 uncompressed for 16k? try 60k, and you got yourself an Arri Alexa.

It doesn't matter what Arri is selling the Alexa for. We should have 10bit 4:4:4 for $15,000 by now. The GH2 is capable of 200mb/s video... that's good enough for 4:2:2 at 10bit. The hacker who worked on the GH2 also said that the hardware to make something like the AF-100 into 4:4:4 10bit is only around $2. It's all smoke and mirrors marketing BS, that is in turn supported by "pros" who don't want the technology to become available to the masses.

Are you basing all this on personal experience or spec sheets?  Have you actually used it yourself?
I don't think that anyone was acting like it was from the heavens, if anything people were disappointed bc it's not 4K (like that is all that matters).  I'm not sure what your definition of "marginal" is, but the 7D's rolling shutter/aliasing/moire can be quite terrible.  If it's only slightly better and 10X the price, then I guess no one will buy it, right?

7D is a great camera for the money, but it doesn't have HD-SDI outs, built-in ND filters, and you can't comfortably shoot over ISO 800, and you have no codec options aside from H.264.  It doesn't have the ergonomics, it doesn't have the adjustability, or the dynamic range, they are nowhere close in my book. 
« Last Edit: January 08, 2012, 09:32:52 PM by Axilrod »
5DIII/5DII/Bunch of L's and ZE's, currently rearranging.

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3238
    • View Profile
Re: C 300 is not an alternative to 35mm motion picture film.
« Reply #14 on: January 04, 2012, 03:58:34 PM »
+1

I'm also sick of people on other forums acting like this camera is some sort of godsend from the heavens. It a $3000 XF camcorder with a large sensor. It running a DigivIII for craps sake. This camera is such a up-sell it's not even funny. The worst part is when people constantly support it... everyone should have said "f- you canon, back to the drawing board". Instead it just a bunch of elitist delusional non-sense about how you "only need 4:2:2 8-bit" and "now you can stop using 'cheap looking' DOF in night shots with the high ISO"

It's all a bunch of garbage from wannabe pros who just want big expensive cameras to make themselves feel more important that the 20 year olds with DSLRs that they despise.

The C300 is only a marginal upgrade from a 7D, if that. Not a $15,000 one.

on board 10bit 444 uncompressed for 16k? try 60k, and you got yourself an Arri Alexa.

It doesn't matter what Arri is selling the Alexa for. We should have 10bit 4:4:4 for $15,000 by now. The GH2 is capable of 200mb/s video... that's good enough for 4:2:2 at 10bit. The hacker who worked on the GH2 also said that the hardware to make something like the AF-100 into 4:4:4 10bit is only around $2. It's all smoke and mirrors marketing BS, that is in turn supported by "pros" who don't want the technology to become available to the masses.

Are you basing all this on personal experience or spec sheets?  Have you actually used it yourself?
I don't think that anyone was acting like it was from the heavens, if anything people were disappointed bc it's not 4K (like that is all that matters).  I'm not sure what your definition of "marginal" is, but the 7D's rolling shutter/aliasing/moire can be quite terrible.  If it's only slightly better and 10X the price, then I guess no one will buy it, right?

7D is a great camera for the money, but it doesn't have HD-SDI outs, built-in ND filters, and you can't comfortably shoot over ISO 800, and you have no codec options aside from H.264.  It doesn't have the ergonomics, it doesn't have the adjustability, they are nowhere close in my book.

Remember, this is the Internet where everyone and anyone with a web browser can be an expert in anything and everything with just a little bit of typing and clicking.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: C 300 is not an alternative to 35mm motion picture film.
« Reply #14 on: January 04, 2012, 03:58:34 PM »