Canon Releases White Paper for Cinema EOS C300 Mark II

[9VIII]

I really wish they would just let us eat the file size and use a 16bit file.

Theoretically 10 bit displays are going to become mainstream in the coming years (to match the UHD Blu-ray spec), which could make the extra detail in gradients more important.
Or maybe I'm just a picky technophile who dislikes compression.

I'd happily take the file size, especially if the MP are kept at a reasonable mid 20's. Sure the 5DS/R look like very nice cameras, but I'd definitely take the 16bit 15 stop over the 14bit 50MP any day.

Which brings up an interesting point in that for many years they had no problem using files that were oversampled by two or three bits. Basically the entire industry moved to 12 and then 14 bit files regardless of the capability of their sensors, but now all of a sudden everyone wants to cap it at 14 bit even when sensor technology surpasses that spec.
What gives?

 

[emko]

I really wish they would just let us eat the file size and use a 16bit file.

Theoretically 10 bit displays are going to become mainstream in the coming years (to match the UHD Blu-ray spec), which could make the extra detail in gradients more important.
Or maybe I'm just a picky technophile who dislikes compression.

I'd happily take the file size, especially if the MP are kept at a reasonable mid 20's. Sure the 5DS/R look like very nice cameras, but I'd definitely take the 16bit 15 stop over the 14bit 50MP any day.

Which brings up an interesting point in that for many years they had no problem using files that were oversampled by two or three bits. Basically the entire industry moved to 12 and then 14 bit files regardless of the capability of their sensors, but now all of a sudden everyone wants to cap it at 14 bit even when sensor technology surpasses that spec.
What gives?

file size i assume they cant get a big enough buffer for continues shooting

 

[rfdesigner]

I really wish they would just let us eat the file size and use a 16bit file.

Theoretically 10 bit displays are going to become mainstream in the coming years (to match the UHD Blu-ray spec), which could make the extra detail in gradients more important.
Or maybe I'm just a picky technophile who dislikes compression.

I'd happily take the file size, especially if the MP are kept at a reasonable mid 20's. Sure the 5DS/R look like very nice cameras, but I'd definitely take the 16bit 15 stop over the 14bit 50MP any day.

Which brings up an interesting point in that for many years they had no problem using files that were oversampled by two or three bits. Basically the entire industry moved to 12 and then 14 bit files regardless of the capability of their sensors, but now all of a sudden everyone wants to cap it at 14 bit even when sensor technology surpasses that spec.
What gives?

The problem could be ENOB

That's Effective Number Of Bits.

you can have a million bit ADC, but if it's non linear or noisy then it might only have an ENOB of 8 bits.

What you're asking for in an ADC with an ENOB of at least 15 bits.. ideally I'd want a bit more than the signal source which means an 18~20bit ADC, with a 16 bit ENOB. And more ENOB means it takes more time for each conversion.

Now ADCs have come a long way. I was looking at a 10bit 4Gsps ADC from Ti a few months back.. not fast enough for our application but interesting never the less. Crucially an 18 bit ADC is not going work as fast as a 14 bit ADC everything else being equal. That means slower readout, which could hamper video and high frame rates.

What I'd be much happier with is a non-linear 14 bit path for video/sports and a slower hyperlinear ADC with >16bits ENOB for slow frame rate, or multiple readout paths each with it's own ADC. But that's more stuff.. more to test.. more to go wrong (lower production yield.. once it's built right it should stay right).. that's going to add cost.

 

[syder]

But just another point, remember that this is a 20 thousand dollars camera. So the sensor technology and performance and accuracy will probably be ahead from the sensor technology put on a 3K DSLR. Just a though. Even the C100 MKII, a 6000$ cinema camera doesn't get these sensor technology upgrades, so more likely to see 15 stops of DR and noise levels of a C300II in a 1DxII rather than a 5D MK IV?

The C300 mk ii is a US$16K camera. Which is a similar amount + inflation to where the C300 mk i launched, like the C100ii is not far off where the C100 launched price-wise. And like the mk i has been and will continue to be until 4K is the main broadcast format (which is a long way off) it will probably be a staple for broadcast work where that is a relatively small outlay.

And compared to the C100ii, the C300ii has a boatload of features (4K, slo-motion, etc), whereas the mki's were differentiated by recording media (CF/SD), codec (XF/AVCHD) and EVF quality.

Unless I'm reading wrong, the white paper also suggests that the C300ii will allow 4K RAW output via 3G-SDI, which I might have missed before now, and previously was the main difference between the C300/500 (as in the C500 did this and C300 didn't).

Its probably worth noting that the 8-bit C300/100 have 12 stops of dynamic range - slightly more than the 1DX/5Dmiii's 11.8/11.7 14-bit stills, which is achieved by using C-LOG. We can probably expect something similar with the C300ii and any increased in DR with similar tech in a linear 1DXii/5Div, especially given that the C300ii is using 2xDigic DV5s to drive the processing. But then it's spitting out 4K at 30fps...

Reading the white paper I'm not sure if the expected use of DPAF tech to increase dynamic range is what we're seeing here. It's also interesting to compare the situation of where the dynamic range sits with the C300 mki/ii - two of the the extra three stops are below 18% grey.

now I know why the C100/300 HD images look better than any other 1080p image out there that are just reading a 1920x1080p pixels and debayering. I always saw it clearly being MUCH superior to all HD cameras but didn't understand until now.

I eagerly await the day that 1080p quality comes to sub 3000$ canons. The closest I've got now is the generation one C100 at 2900$ but the lack of any slowmotion and useless EVF put me off entirely, the C100 MKII is perfect 1080p and ergonomics wise, but out of my range.

C100 mki can do slo-motion if you shoot 60i and then conform to 24p. Using Avid's timewarp effect (both fields/interlaced source/progressive output/adaptive deinterlace) looks great. If you want really slow footage - say 120 frames per second, then you're out of luck in-camera, but depending on the amount of control you have over the light you can often do a decent job using something like twixtor. The EVF is unfortunately crap. Your best option there would probably be to use the zacuto c100 z-finder.

To be honest, even if the 5Div has better dynamic range, 4K and gets CLOG2 and proper monitoring without Magic Lantern I'd still rather use a C100 for most things I'd do, where the built in XLRs, NDs, and ergonomics and handling just make it a far better overall package where the image quality is still plenty good enough (especially when shooting DNxHD/Prores onto an atomos external recorder). But then the 5Div will almost certainly also be a great stills camera...

 

[IglooEater]

Would any of the gurus/gearheads happen to know what the difference in file size would be between 14 and 16 bit RAW (for a stills camera) would be? I don't recall people having trouble going from 12 to 14 bit..

 

[privatebydesign]

Would any of the gurus/gearheads happen to know what the difference in file size would be between 14 and 16 bit RAW (for a stills camera) would be? I don't recall people having trouble going from 12 to 14 bit..

Well it depends a lot on subject and iso, but Hasselblad H5D-50 16 bit RAWs come in around 65mb and Canon 5DSR 14bit files come in around 52mb. So not a big difference between the two 50MP cameras.

 

[jeffa4444]

Would any of the gurus/gearheads happen to know what the difference in file size would be between 14 and 16 bit RAW (for a stills camera) would be? I don't recall people having trouble going from 12 to 14 bit..

Well it depends a lot on subject and iso, but Hasselblad H5D-50 16 bit RAWs come in around 65mb and Canon 5DSR 14bit files come in around 52mb. So not a big difference between the two 50MP cameras.

That difference is also explained in the larger image area for the Hassalblad over the Canon 5DS.

 

[IglooEater]

Would any of the gurus/gearheads happen to know what the difference in file size would be between 14 and 16 bit RAW (for a stills camera) would be? I don't recall people having trouble going from 12 to 14 bit..

Well it depends a lot on subject and iso, but Hasselblad H5D-50 16 bit RAWs come in around 65mb and Canon 5DSR 14bit files come in around 52mb. So not a big difference between the two 50MP cameras.

That difference is also explained in the larger image area for the Hassalblad over the Canon 5DS.

That's cool, so we're talking like 20% increase, not like double or something. Thanks!

 

[jeffa4444]

I feel that Canon have used the C300 MKII to try & narrow the gap with the Sony F55 something the C500 has never done. Because of the Netflix dic-tat that its 4K shows must shoot with a 4K camera the F55 has taken off to some degree in 2015 even though its been around for 3.5 years because officially the Alexa is 3.8K in its latest guise.
The F55 in raw mode is 16 bit and its maximum DR is 14 stops this must have been a bench mark for Canon along with the Sony F55 XAVC compression ratios, ProRes & DNxHD compatable formats.

Both these cameras at the high end however will not userp the Arri Alexa even though the camera is not true 4K because its the only camera to offer open gate which means its a true anamorphic camera which 16x9 cameras will never truly be. Add to that Arri colaboration with Codex & being first out the gate with CFast 2.0 on the Amira (now on the Alexa) and they have a lot of catching up to do.

The way forwards is colorspace not more MP, 8K sensors oversampling to 4K and using Rec.2020 / H.265 is what were come to see as normal in the not too distant future and if Canon President is serious about taking on Arri & the Alexa the C300 MKII and or 16X9 sensors wont cut it oh and the mere fact that the Arri Alexa II will also be with us in the not too distant future.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I'd be surprised if I knew the EOS cinema sensor development/manufacturing/designing is separate completely from the stills sensors drsign/development teams. I would bet big money that they're probably the same team/company using their expertise and technology in developing sensors for both the large chip cinema line and DSLRs, which makes me pretty confident that any breakthroughs in sensor performance in the cinema line could very likely be utilized in DSLR sensors.

But just another point, remember that this is a 20 thousand dollars camera. So the sensor technology and performance and accuracy will probably be ahead from the sensor technology put on a 3K DSLR. Just a though. Even the C100 MKII, a 6000$ cinema camera doesn't get these sensor technology upgrades, so more likely to see 15 stops of DR and noise levels of a C300II in a 1DxII rather than a 5D MK IV?

I have no idea, just thinking out and loud.

The problem is that if Canon can only do it in ways that only make it feasible to put into 20k cameras and others can do it with sensors that can go into consumer-priced DSLRs....

I think it's hard to believe the tech in this sensor can be truly priced at 20k though from what we see here, although it's always possible it might be 2x-3x more expensive than other tech, which would be unfortunate. It's also quite possible that it barely costs more at all and could appear in their other stuff, unless they can only get it to work at low MP counts, which is also possible.

the cinema ridiculous colour gamut covering all film stocks every produced

Canon DSLRs already produce a huge color gamut, much larger than even a wide gamut PC monitor of today shows. As a side note I should also add, that all those complaining about Canon blowing red so fast should invest in a wide gamut monitor and stop with the horribly outdated sRGB. You'll instantly realize that so many of your issues with intense reds or things like flowers, super brilliant clothes/cars, extreme sunset bright color bands, etc. are nothing to do with Canon sensors not being able to grab colors or one needing to underexpose 4 stops to save red, etc. it's all that you are insisiting to stick with sRGB! (and IMO it's more than time that Zenfolio and Smugmug, who is ultra snotty about it, end their ridiculous forced ban on wide gamut images).

Also, little known, there is already a consumer camera that can shoot HD video in extreme wide gamut.... the 5D3 with Magic Lantern installed and RAW video mode set to on! It's pretty cool. I've made some custom gamut (set to the exact gamut of my wide gamut monitor) videos of brilliant stuff like flowers or crazy intense fall foliage/sunsets and it makes quite a difference (of course for many things there is no difference at all). In this one sense the 5D3 is still state of the art in some ways for video since it does extreme wide gamut RAW HD (thanks all to Magic Lantern).

 

[privatebydesign]

Would any of the gurus/gearheads happen to know what the difference in file size would be between 14 and 16 bit RAW (for a stills camera) would be? I don't recall people having trouble going from 12 to 14 bit..

Well it depends a lot on subject and iso, but Hasselblad H5D-50 16 bit RAWs come in around 65mb and Canon 5DSR 14bit files come in around 52mb. So not a big difference between the two 50MP cameras.

That difference is also explained in the larger image area for the Hassalblad over the Canon 5DS.

jeffa, I hate to disagree with you but the size of the pixel has nothing to do with the bit depth or the size of the file that it creates. One pixel is one pixel, the readout from that is one number, the only difference between the Hasselblad and the Canon is the bit depth and less than 1MP.

 

[douglaurent]

The future is 4K 60fps. Even without that 60fps would be the minimum to expect from a $15.000 camera, looking at a $1.000 Sony RX IV pocket camera and its 4K look and slowmo specs. This means the C300 II will already obsolete and i won't buy. With 60fps and for around $12.000 i would. A C500 II might contain 60fps, but of course will be way to expensive and again few people will buy that. I bet it will be tough to distinguish the image of the C300 II from the 1DC in most cases. So i keep the 1DC and have a great photo camera on top. By the time Canon starts to sell a decent cheaper 4K 60fps camera in 2-20 years, the market will be full of competition with better features and cheaper prices. I will never buy a Canon camera again as long as they hold back features and keep prices to high.

 

[privatebydesign]

The future is 4K 60fps. Even without that 60fps would be the minimum to expect from a $15.000 camera, looking at a $1.000 Sony RX IV pocket camera and its 4K look and slowmo specs. This means the C300 II will already obsolete and i won't buy. With 60fps and for around $12.000 i would. A C500 II might contain 60fps, but of course will be way to expensive and again few people will buy that. I bet it will be tough to distinguish the image of the C300 II from the 1DC in most cases. So i keep the 1DC and have a great photo camera on top. By the time Canon starts to sell a decent cheaper 4K 60fps camera in 2-20 years, the market will be full of competition with better features and cheaper prices. I will never buy a Canon camera again as long as they hold back features and keep prices to high.

The problem with 4K on a spec sheet is it means very little. There seems to be a bigger difference between the quality out of the various 4K cameras than between good 1080 and '4K'.

See the comment about high quality 1080 and native 4K viewed n a 4K monitor here http://petapixel.com/2015/08/17/is-shooting-4k-resolution-worth-it-for-web-video/

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

The future is 4K 60fps. Even without that 60fps would be the minimum to expect from a $15.000 camera, looking at a $1.000 Sony RX IV pocket camera and its 4K look and slowmo specs. This means the C300 II will already obsolete and i won't buy.

This is what we get by reading specs, that the rx100iv is 4k like the c300ii and has better slowmotion, it's higher speced than the c300, it's obsolete.

What specs forget to mention is that it does 4k for 5 minutes and slowmotion for 2-4 seconds depending on the frame rate with near standard definition resolution and hideous aliasing. While this shoots unlimited 4K 10bit 4:2:2 footage and 120p continuous slowmotion at perfectly full 2K resolution with 15 stops of dynamic range.

Need 60p at 4K? this is not your camera. Get a cheaper C500 mark one with a 7Q or an FS7 or a Red Scarlet. Is 4k 60p the future? No. Almost nobody is shooting it, nobody is talking about it, nobody is delivering it, nobody even wants it except for a few eastern Japanese markets wanting it for sports in 2020. It is in no way even a feature that will be used by 95% of the target shooters who will be shooting 4K 24p and 25/30p for broadcast and HD for slowmotion as 60p is not enough today anyway.

The C300 has every single feature out there jammed in it except for 4k 60p, this is the one canon camera I've seen in years with a full-fledged spec list actually, but we still deem it obsolete because it lacks one.

The problem with 4K on a spec sheet is it means very little. There seems to be a bigger difference between the quality out of the various 4K cameras than between good 1080 and '4K'.

See the comment about high quality 1080 and native 4K viewed n a 4K monitor here http://petapixel.com/2015/08/17/is-shooting-4k-resolution-worth-it-for-web-video/

I agree specs mean zero, I wrote this: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/8900-do-specifications-mean-anything-regarding-cameras-performance-a-research/

but the information and claims made in this video is absolutely horrifying that so many are believing it, just 100% wrong information.

 

[syder]

I agree specs mean zero, I wrote this: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/8900-do-specifications-mean-anything-regarding-cameras-performance-a-research/

Great post.

Specifications do mean something, but they're often very difficult to understand in context, because effectively what you're looking at is corporate marketing, not an attempt to provide an objective and balanced take on a camera.

The Blackmagic cameras are a great example. Internet forums were filled with people wetting themselves with excitement based on the specs, because when they saw prores/raw, 13 stops DR etc they thought that meant taking all the things they liked about their existing camera and just adding those features on rather than the issues with reliability, batteries, and anything at or above 1600 iso being unusably noisey. By contrast the C100 and C300 were absolutely slated by the same Internet 'experts' who compared the C300 to the 'similarly priced' red scarlet which was announced on the same day, but have been hugely successful because they've been reliable and versatile cameras which deliver very good (if not mind blowingly great) images which don't need much post production work done to them (add the clog LUT and you're often almost there).

On the positive side, digital cinema cameras have come along an awfully long way in a relatively short time. Nowadays 99% of the time the problem isn't the equipment, it's the operators.

 

[rosaklebhead]

If anyone here is in the NYC area, Adorama is doing a demonstration of the C300 Mark II on September 16. It's free. And, yeah, full disclosure... I work there.

http://www.adorama.com/alc/browse/pages/free-film-school-camera-cinema-featuring-new-canon-c300-mark-ii