Re: C300 Discussion
 

I'm confused by their explanation. How does the following relate to bit depth (quoted from Canon site)?:

"Why 8-bit instead of 10-bit?
The video components within the EOS C300 camera are processed at 13-bit for Green and 12-bit each for Red and Blue. This allows excellent nonlinear processing of the video that ensures a superb tonal reproduction over the nominally exposed range (that is, from reference white down to capped black level). A contrast ration in excess of 500:1 is achieved. In addition this bit depth has sufficient overhead to handle overexposed signals. When the camera is set to 850 ISO and the Gamma transfer function is switched to Canon-Log an 800% overexposure is achieved – which translates to the camera being able to capture an Exposure Latitude of 12 f-stops."

Re: C300 Discussion
 

We are way off topic, but I'll add this: Director always has final say, unless he or she doesn't have final cut. But the look is usually worked out in advance. Many films shoot with special filters or film stock to create a look, and many more DPs prefer that, so no one mucks with the look, but it's been approved in pre-production by the director. It's all in the contract usually.

But I can't imagine wasting money trying to re-grade a film in post if I'm not happy with it. That's why you do tests and make the decision in pre-production. On film production, you can't afford to be iffy on the look.

heath

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Thanks for getting back on topic.

heath

Re: C300 Discussion
 

8 bit HD SDI does sound rather strange given how the competition is offering 10 bit.

Having said that I gather the images from the camera are rather good.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

How much consideration do you think Canon placed on providing an image high end consumer could edit? Even with a pretty hot computer, even 1080-60P @ 28Mbps on multiple tracks with effects can be taxing.

So, could Canon be optimizing the "workflow value" for those editing on non-exotic computers and whose work is destined for medium sized screens for corporate viewing or large computer screens? In other words, it may be a smart play to provide a camera that provides for reasonably edited images that competes with more exotic cameras on all-but-large screen viewing where most of us play. Would the differences between a C300 and Alexa be significant for home or computer audiences? I can certainly still see the differences between an Alexa and a 5D.

The above logic doesn't work if we still get narrow dynamic range, moire, bad S/N.... But if Canon somehow avoids these issues at 50Mbps with a stunning image for less than big screen viewing, I'd be impressed.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

They're basically just saying "because 8-bit is good enough".

In nonlinear formats (i.e. most non-raw formats), your bit depth is a budget you scan spend on dynamic range or "depth" (i.e. "tonal reproduction" or "tonal range"). If you blow most of your budget on dynamic range, then the depth will be poor. If you spend it all on depth, then the dynamic range will be poor. The C300 default is 9 stops range, but it also provides an 8-bit 12-stop option (Canon-Log).

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Yes, but as said before, there are two separate issues. Direct image quality, and flexibility in post - an 8 bit image is capable of giving an excellent image, but may severely limit post grading options.

That said, 10 bit in itself isn't enough - it needs to be in conjunction with things such as S-log etc.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Having shot film I know you have to grade it in post and shooting a look with filters is in my opinion really dangerous. Not a move I would make. I wouldn't try and regrade footage that has been graded by the camera because I'd never do it in the first place. I have imagined altering the camera to give a grade but ultimately just wouldn't.

Is this off topic? I think grading on the C300 Just became very relevent as you would be grading in camera with it if it only has 8 bit out and you're using it in a professional capacity.
Something I may have to reconsider if this becomes a useful tool on the C300's later cheaper offshoots.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Grading, or at least professional grading, isn't limited to applying a simple overall look to a certain footage.

It's rather something much more complex but totally subtle to the viewer. Besides matching scenes and takes for continuity (which might have been shot days, weeks or years apart), there are an infinite amount of power windows that are used to change the color of certain items, unperceptibly vignete shots to add drama, darken or lighten parts of the frame to draw attention to certain objects or characters, etc, etc, etc.

Grading is essential for drama storyteling. And it needs ample room so that those changes don't affect image quality.

For that reason I don't understand the 8bit output of the C300, even through SDI, if this camera is really targeted at Hollywood and TV drama production.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Exactly Henry. I use all the tools you mentioned when doing my own grading and having attended a grading session know how skilled proper grading really is and why I personally would never try for a look in camera.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Thanks Daniel. Makes sense. I guess, all else being equal, 10-bit will still be better. The question is how much can Canon do to make things not equal.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

There's grading and then there's GRADING.

If your look is fairly realistic, you can set the look in camera, fine tune in post, and you're done. That's grading. With GRADING, you might want the forest silvery green, the sky desaturated, the skin pale peach, and the lips and blood cherry red. On a higher end production, you have art direction, costumes, and makeup that can help get this look in-camera (they can't generally recolor trees and sky though) and you still need to push the colors just right in post. With a budget film, we only have so much control when shooting. For us, it's really important to have latitude in post.

I see the C300 as being a great cam for television shoots, romantic comedies, and other applications where grading is really limited to small adjustments and scene matching. But it's not the right camera for a heavily graded modern horror film - especially if you don't have a large crew to pre-color your shots.

No reason to be angry at Canon though. If you want to do extreme grading (and a bit of slow mo), choose the Scarlet. If you're creating a straight ahead look and want fast turnaround, consider the C300 - especially for television production.

As always, know your project requirements and choose the tools wisely. Or, if you already have tools, design your projects within their limits.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Another option for those strapped for cash is camera sharing. Two cameramen i know bought a digibeta many years ago and made good money with it before selling and halving the cash. Camera's spend an awful lot of time in their bags, unless the owner is incredibly busy, which is unlikely in the current climate. As many others have pointed out, most pro's rent anyway.

Concerning Canon's ad campaign for this camera, AFAIK there was never any suggestion it would be priced at the prosumer level. Many posters simply projected their fantasies onto the announcement without a shred of evidence to support it. Considering Canon has never made a camera like this before, it is indeed "ground-breaking" as suggested in their press announcement.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

What I don't understand is - Is there a need to upgrade even from what is currently being used? I don't see anything in the C300 specs that would make such an upgrade worthwhile, especially when considering the price.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

I guess that depends on what you are upgrading from and what your workflow and goals are.

Key features include no aliasing, dual recording, genlock, timecode, HDSDI and clean HDMI out. For me, the lack of aliasing is important; the other features aren't. But in the pro television production market, dual recording, genlock, timecode, and external interfaces are critically important.