DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Canon Cinema EOS Camera Systems (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-cinema-eos-camera-systems/)
-   -   C300 Discussion (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-cinema-eos-camera-systems/502305-c300-discussion.html)

Justin Molush November 3rd, 2011 06:43 PM

Re: C300 Discussion
 
I want to see some footage from it before I make any judgements.

I recommend everyone else do the same.

John Cummings November 3rd, 2011 06:45 PM

Re: C300 Discussion
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Marriage (Post 1693824)
Canon could have really pulled out an ace here but I'd call this a 7 of Clubs.

LOL That is right on the mark.

Nate Weaver November 3rd, 2011 06:45 PM

Re: C300 Discussion
 
I wish Canon had seen this as an opportunity to one-up the F3 by recording 10bit internally. Even to MPEG2 50mbit, if it had to be.

That alone would justify the price premium.

Nate Weaver November 3rd, 2011 06:47 PM

Re: C300 Discussion
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin Molush (Post 1693883)
I want to see some footage from it before I make any judgements.

I recommend everyone else do the same.

I'm sure it's beautiful, and the camera will be able to make amazing images.

But some of the shortcomings are known quantities.

Mark Kenfield November 3rd, 2011 06:50 PM

Re: C300 Discussion
 
You can watch Vincent Laforet's short film 'Mobius' shot on the C300 here:


Quite frankly, the image looks superb. And seems to handle what must have been a very contrasty daylight extremely well.

The $20k price tag is genuinely surprising (and disappointing) though. I wonder what the lenses will come in at?

David Rice November 3rd, 2011 06:54 PM

Re: C300 Discussion
 
Hyped as a dream, but delivered as a nightmare. I'm walking toward the ocean......

Daniel Browning November 3rd, 2011 07:03 PM

Re: C300 Discussion
 
Canon has revealed the identity of the "second shooter":

Canon Global : News | News Releases

Tito Haggardt November 3rd, 2011 07:04 PM

further to David Heath on page one of this topic
 
i have been wondering if re arranging these color wells into a super pixel that reads out at the 1920 x 1080 is possible on my 5D, which seems to have a lot more pixels in the stills than the video. i wrote magic lantern last night and suggested it as a possible hack.

i don't know a lot about this stuff and could as usual be very wrong. appreciate any thoughts. it might seem off topic but it might be this is whats behind this c300.

aloha
tito

David Heath November 3rd, 2011 07:05 PM

Re: C300 Discussion
 
I fully expect the quality of the pictures to be very good - at the price they had better be!

But for that price I'd expect more. Not just great images when correctly exposed and colour balanced, but with flexibility, the ability to grade etc. That really means RAW, or S-log at the very least, and they need high bitdepths to be effective. And given it's a 4k chip, at this price I'd expect to be able to get the 4k resolution for recording.

Let's see what Red have to offer......

Nate Weaver November 3rd, 2011 07:08 PM

Re: C300 Discussion
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by David Heath (Post 1693895)
at this price I'd expect to be able to get the 4k resolution for recording.

Let's see what Red have to offer......

It will be superior on paper, flawed in execution, and 9 months late.

Steve Kalle November 3rd, 2011 07:17 PM

Re: C300 Discussion
 
WOW!!!

I totally expected to be annoyed by all the fanboys, but it seems almost everyone is extremely disappointed in the C300. Canon's marketing department should be fired for creating all this hype when there is nothing special about the camera. At the least, they should have shown a mockup of the body so people would have had some sense of where they were going. This camera is more like a Red Epic in that it requires a lot of accessories for decent ergonomics; thus, the total package costs far more than just the body.

Their log gamma is not any better than the F3 with Hyper/Cine-gamma because they are limited to how much DR can be squeezed into an 8 bit codec (appx. 11-12 stops).

I also think that Canon really messed up with the price and peoples' desire to use their EF lenses. If people have been accustomed to the low quality and low price of DSLRs, then why would they want to spend over 8 times as much (ie. 7D) just to use EF lenses? Most of these people are very price conscious; so, the $16k seems astronomical to the $1800 of a 7D.

Steve Kimmel November 3rd, 2011 07:17 PM

Re: C300 Discussion
 
Canon's specs here:

Canon U.S.A. : Professional Imaging Products : EOS C300 PL

Henry Coll November 3rd, 2011 07:22 PM

Re: C300 Discussion
 
It's hard to tell from this Laforet short, but taking into account how Vimeo compresses stuff, looks like the F3 with S-Log handles better the highlights and has more latitude than the C300. That is specially evident in some of the high contrast scenes in the C300 movie, where there's plenty of noise in the shadows.

That's not surprising considering the C300 appears to be 8bit@50Mbps while the F3 outputs uncompressed RGB at 10 bit through dual link.


At $20k I fail to see how this new Canon C300 can compete with the F3.

David Heath November 3rd, 2011 07:28 PM

Re: further to David Heath on page one of this topic
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tito Haggardt (Post 1693894)
i have been wondering if re arranging these color wells into a super pixel that reads out at the 1920 x 1080 is possible on my 5D, which seems to have a lot more pixels in the stills than the video. i wrote magic lantern last night and suggested it as a possible hack.

i don't know a lot about this stuff and could as usual be very wrong. appreciate any thoughts. it might seem off topic but it might be this is whats behind this c300.

Sorry - but no. It's the fact that the sensor dimensions are exactly 2x 1920x1080 that makes it possible to read it simply and effectively the way they do in the C300. In the cases of DSLRs, the numbers don't work so well - they aren't an exact multiple of 1920x1080. I wrote about such in this topic - http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-...ml#post1689657
Quote:

It may not be necessary to do a full deBayer/downconvert (difficult to do well) *IF* the number of photosites are chosen carefully - and that means being in an exact multiple of 1920x1080. The issues with pevious DSLRs and the AF100 is that this hasn't been the case in those cameras - the sensors were designed just with stills in mind, and compromises made for video.

Hence optimum numbers would be 3840x2160 (2x), 5760x3240 (3x) etc. Total photosite numbers would then be 4x, 9x, 16x etc greater than 1920x1080. In other words - 8 megapixel, 18 megapixel, 32 megapixel etc. Now, what is this new Canon - hmmm, 18 megapixel.......?? Let's see if it's actually 5760x3240.

The principle is that you take a square of photosites (2x2, 3x3, 4x4 etc) and just extract the red, green blue values straight from the corresponding photosites. Each case gives full 1080p resolution with relatively simple processing..

Typical for a stills sensor might be to do it similarly to how the C300 does it, but need to miss blocks out, so only read the photosites below in bold, deriving one "output pixel" from each block of 16:

G R G R
B G B G

That would be OK if the sensor dimensions were 7680x4320 (4x 1920x1080) - but still sensors are less than that. Hence why the resolution tends to be more like 1200 horizontally - the sensor dimensions are more typically likely to be 4800 horizontally. This then gets scaled up to 1920x1080 for recording. It's easier to scale up than scale down.

David Knaggs November 3rd, 2011 07:39 PM

Re: C300 Discussion
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate Weaver (Post 1693896)
It will be superior on paper, flawed in execution, and 9 months late.

They reckon it will ship on December 1st, for US$9,750.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:13 PM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network