Mobius on Vimeo

Mobius :: Behind The Scenes on Vimeo

So, how do you like it?

I have to say i'm not that impressed. The short looks fine, but giving the huge crew, the ample resources given to it and the $20K price tag of the camera, I'm somewhat underwhelmed.

The overall image looks quite video-y at times. The highlights clip quite nastily and on high-contrast scenes there's a lot of noise in the shadows (as they obviously had to push up levels in post). This tells me there's a limited amount of latitude, which I'd assume it's due to the 8bit@50Mbps codec. I have to say I like the overall 5D2 looks better. There I said it.

Compared to its natural rival, I REALLY don't understand why Canon didn't implement a dual SDI like the F3, if they intend to sell it for $20k. The F3 with S-Log has (on paper at least) 2-3 more stops than the C300 and from the tests so far, the F3+Log with a Gemini or even a KiPro looks so much better, almost like an ALEXA.



On a side note I don't get how they invest so much time and resources for this show-off piece, but they don't light scenes properly, making it all look like a cheap amateur film. That's not the way to show the low light capabilities of the camera, specially when this one is not targeted at the DSLR guys -who don't light at all-, but at $20k plus all the other costly equipment required to shoot with it, it's destined to professionals who prepare each scene with care.

I complete disagree, wholeheartedly.

I've watched this with other DPs that do high-end commercials (Jaguar, Lancome, etc) and they all agree with me.
They say it looks like an amateur low budget movie, in the line of "el Mariachi" but with a video-DSLR look rather than cheap stock film.

BTW, Alister Chapman says in his blog, regarding the EOS C300 that "the Laforet video “Mobius” has quite a “video” look to it"

I disagree as well. The video had no appreciable aliasing, excellent dynamic range, and low noise without losing texture. Isn't that all one needs from a camera? One may or may not like the look of this particular film, but from what I saw, it showed off the camera well.

I have yet to hear anything negative about the camera images from those who saw the footage projected at the event.

Good high quality images but definitely does not look like a "film". Wouldn't shoot a feature with any sort of budget on it.

I've watched this with other DPs that do high-end commercials (Jaguar, Lancome, etc) and they all agree with me.
They say it looks like an amateur low budget movie, in the line of "el Mariachi" but with a video-DSLR look rather than cheap stock film.

BTW, Alister Chapman says in his blog, regarding the EOS C300 that "the Laforet video “Mobius” has quite a “video” look to it"

Looks pretty good to me. Great details, excellent skin tones. Its impressive in every way.

The outdoor scenes (with no expensive lighting to control the environment) are particularly nice.

To me the 'DSLR' look means a couple of things: focus hunting, over use of narrow depth of field, aliasing, moire, artifcating, color banding. I have to say I see none of those things in this video. A typical DSLR video would have fallen to pieces during some of those chase scenes and the quick movements.

What are you actually seeing, specifically, that makes you think it looks like a DSLR, or videoish?

What are you actually seeing, specifically, that makes you think it looks like a DSLR, or videoish?

I think people equate lifted blacks and/or lack of noise to be traits of video.

Looks to me like as a conscious choice, Laforet/Canon wanted to leave the material mostly uncolored. I myself understand what I'm looking at because it looks very similar to uncolored footage from my F3 with S-Log.

I see a few highlights that could be burning out a little prettier, but on the whole it looks like a very nice image to start post with. Certainly prettier than my stock F3, but now that I have S-Log it's much nicer.

My DP friends and I are judging Laforet's "MÖBIUS" from two different points of view: image quality and approach.

Regarding the APPROACH, Canon has been boldly targeting Hollywood with his "revolutionary announcement" and even got Scorsese on stage to talk about it.
But then the show-off pieces, like this one from Laforet, resembles an amateur no-budget movie; with no proper lighting at all; mostly hand-held, even in scenes when it shouldn't; with a focus puller that misses all the time; with excessive use of ultra shallow depth of field, as if it was a novelty, etc, etc.
ALL of this as if the camera was targeted at the DSLR "I_have_zero_budget" crowd, just like Revere was.

The camera sells at $20K and will need another $20K at the very least to be able to shoot (lenses, tripod, FF, MB, Mics+transmiters, VF, 17", etc), though many pros will raise that amount to well over $100K. Laforet uses a huge crew, a lot of expensive tools and professional Post resources, but then the results are targeted -at least in our opinion- at the DSLR crowd, who is now amazed by the film (read the forums), and the camera ( that they cannot afford).

On the other hand, professional people, for instance from the high-end advertising world -not to mention the Scorseses- are left scratching their heads saying what is this amateur thing?




On the IMAGE QUALITY, yes, the camera doesn't have moire, aliasing and there's hardly any skewing. But the image looks at times as it was shot with an EX1, with clipped highlights and limited dynamic range, which is mostly what diferentiates video from film. The bare F3 also does look like this, but when equipped with S-Log and a proper recorder (HDCAM, Gemini or even a KiPro) it totally transforms into a film camera, with an enormous amount of latitude, excellent color rendition, etc.

That's what's lacking from the Laforet short and it's therefore -to us- an odd example for trying to sell the virtues of a camera that, again, sells for $20K and is competing with the F3, and supposedly looks like film, as Hollywood needs.

Do have a look a the short again. Does it look like film or like video to you?

Could you post some of your work please. Because I don't see one of the thing you are describing, perhaps if we see some of your work we might understand your point of view. I did not see one of your criticism in this short movie. In fact I was quite impressed by the DR of the camera. It was shot outdoor in very contrasty desert environment. I was only looking when the guy was in the car at the background through the window and I was telling myself if they have used tinted glass in the car because the highlight was still there, in a desert contrast lighting it is quite impressive.

One well known EU commercials DP at the actual screening thought that the C300 gave "subtle good looking pictures", although one demo film had grading problems and someone else has done some experimental grading with the camera and over all he was impressed.

Looking at highly compressed pictures on line isn't the best way to make a final judgement, especially looking at just one film.

The price is a common complaint, so it'll be interesting to how Canon respond to that particular issue over the next few months.

The RED One doesn't look like film and I've seen the Alexa not looking like film, often that look is something which part of the grading process. I've a suspicion that the resolution of the C300 may be higher than that of the F3, which also may give it a cleaner look.

For me Mobious is the perfect film to showcase the camera Nice story that is enjoyable on repeat viewings. As for the footage mostly it did look like film and does it well. If this is straight out of the camera like I expect it to be as a demonstration then I want one. If it had of been around £6000 my order would be in I had already called the shop before the camera was out and told them to put me in the front of the queue. Some very lucky people who can afford this as a luxury item will be having a lovely early xmas present!

Not me though or any indy film makers I know.

Having said that I'd still give it a miss because of the 8 bit HDSDI I'd still like it as my fav toy though.

How would "proper lighting" (whatever that is) sell a camera? With proper lighting you can make all kinds of junk take a great picture.
If it looks like they just whipped it out on the side of the road at noon in the desert and it still looks great that's got to be a plus.

There is one ideal way to judge the quality of a camera against others in the marketplace, and that is to shoot properly designed tests (or view someone else's). I don't intend to make any decisions about which sub $20K camera is going to be the choice for me until I do so. I'm not as blown away by the specs of the C300, but then again, if one judged the DSLR's purely on specs, they would have never used them. Demo films such as these are always worth a look but you can't fully judge a camera on them--too many variables in the chain. A great DP may be able to make an inferior camera look better than a poor DP can achieve with a superior camera.

It is true that having enough crew and resources to make a camera look its best helps considerably, especially in an exterior, high contrast situation. You can bring a subject up to key with a silver flexfill or a 20x20 bleached muslin; of course the latter will look more realistic and less "lit".

Heading to the Canon event today and looking forward to seeing this on the big screen.

If the film looks videoish, it is because it is shot with a video camera. Everyone on this forum keeps going on about how wonderful pin sharp focus is, and now they want to see the softness of film it seems. My point being, that the only time it looks video like to me is when we see the close-ups where you can see every blemish in the actors complexion. Then again, this could be sorted out in post in five minutes if required.

The question for me is not whether it looks like film (or video), but whether it looks cinematic.

And my answer is an unequivocal yes. Nice one Canon.

Heading to the Canon event today and looking forward to seeing this on the big screen.

Also, the Steadicam work on this one was lacking compared to Laforet's prior projects. That's probably part of the problem.

I guess my amateur answer based on nothing but looking at the "film". Does this "look" like something I would see in the movie theatres - absolutely not (based on current "Hollywood" movies out there, movies I would pay admission to). Does this look like something I'd see on TV, definitely. What is this based on? Absolutely nothing regarding technicalities and the like, just "quality" wise nothing I would spend $10+ to see in the theatres, TV sure, just not on the big screen. Looks like very nice HD footage to be viewed on my 55" flat screen (impressive at that) but too "amateur" looking for the big screen. Just my 2 sense

Could you post some of your work please. Because I don't see one of the thing you are describing, perhaps if we see some of your work we might understand your point of view. I did not see one of your criticism in this short movie. In fact I was quite impressed by the DR of the camera. It was shot outdoor in very contrasty desert environment. I was only looking when the guy was in the car at the background through the window and I was telling myself if they have used tinted glass in the car because the highlight was still there, in a desert contrast lighting it is quite impressive.

Completely agree with this.

Matt's perception of this looking like TV footage, rather than cinema footage, strikes a chord. With 8-bit 1080p, the C300 seems to be targeted at teleproduction rather than the big screen. Nothing the matter with that.

Keep in mind that this is the first camera targeting professional production in Hollywood from Canon. Targeting television first - which is less picky than cinema - makes a lot of sense. This gets their foot in the door. I expect that they'll move up the food chain later.

I should watch the movie Traffic again. The look of Mobius seems to have the same intent as the Mexico scenes in Traffic. For those who haven't seen that film in a while, it has three very different looks: Mexico, US suburbia, and the US streets. As I recall, Traffic (Mexico) has quite a bit of grain. I could see them considering adding grain but quickly dropping the idea. You don't show off a camera by adding noise in post. The rest of us can add all the grain that we want. :)

I think the footage looks great, well shot and edited. Is this camera worth the 20K that is on the table at this time, I don't know?

There is so much gear out there at the moment that is great and Canon have added to the pile.

I'm so glad that I made a decision last year with a format to stick with and hope this see's me through for some time.

Cheers

My comment on my blog about the video looking video-ish comes from what appear to me to be over sharpened edges and textures. This might be from the camera or it could well be the online compression, it's impossible to tell. There are a few shots where the highlights are not handled all that well, but without seeing the true light conditions I'm not going to make a judgement on the cameras true performance. For me Mobius just does not have the "wow" factor I was expecting.

Unfortunately, the only way to judge these films was to be there at the Paramount theater. As I said in the other thread, Canon had the films playing in 2 smaller screening areas on the 2 stages and they didn't look as good as they did in the theater. Both, the owner of our company (25+ years DP/operator SOC) and a fellow staff member (20+ years operator, local 600, USC instructor) were extremely impressed by the footage they viewed. Some of the previous posts were pointing out flaws that none of us saw in the screenings.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Unfortunately, the only way to judge these films was to be there at the Paramount theater. As I said in the other thread, Canon had the films playing in 2 smaller screening areas on the 2 stages and they didn't look as good as they did in the theater. Both, the owner of our company (25+ years DP/operator SOC) and a fellow staff member (20+ years operator, local 600, USC instructor) were extremely impressed by the footage they viewed. Some of the previous posts were pointing out flaws that none of us saw in the screenings.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

I know its silly to ask (because there are so many variables), but it will come up eventually: how did the images stack up against movies shot on other digital cameras? By that I mean was the image comparable to movies shot with RED1, Epic, Alexa etc?

I'm sure this would have come up with DP's and projectionists who saw the movies at some point....

OP edited to show the 1080 HQ Vimeo clip, also added the BTS clip.

Title changed from "C300 Laforet short film" to "C300 Demo: Mobius by Vincent Laforet."

I know its silly to ask (because there are so many variables), but it will come up eventually: how did the images stack up against movies shot on other digital cameras? By that I mean was the image comparable to movies shot with RED1, Epic, Alexa etc?

I'm sure this would have come up with DP's and projectionists who saw the movies at some point....

I'd put it very close to the Alexa.....

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Wish I could have been there Jim. Say hi to the gang for me!

I think the C300 and Scarlet are very different cameras that will fit into different sectors. Scarlet is heavy and power hungry, the workflow will be relatively slow (in comparison). The C300 looks like it's simple to use, the workflow will be quick and easy and it's small, light and low power. If your really shooting movies and shorts then Scarlet may be the better fit. If your shooting Docs or Corporates then the C300 might be the one for you. However there is fierce competition in this sector now from many corners.

Well, I've seen again Laforet's short several times -at the highest resolution you can download-, as well as other shorts made with the C300.
I still keep my original impression and remain fairly disappointed with the C300.

I put a lot of hope on whatever Canon was announcing and definitely wanted to like the camera/s, which I was ready to acquire, not bothered by its announced price tag. I think I'll get an F3 with a Gemini instead (and rent Alexas when needed).


Regardless what Web compression might do, there are some artifacts that are not produced by it, as you can see when also watching web-compressed stuff shot with other cameras, that look totally different.
Of course there are things you cannot judge with web-compressed footage, as noise and compression artifacts, but other technical aspects aren't masked by such compression.


What have I seen on Laforet and other C300 videos? Well, to me looks like the camera has a limited latitude, nasty highlights and all white clipping go to yellow, all of this is what it's giving it an undesirable video look. Those limitations are most evident with specular reflection, which happens on any polished and reflecting surface: metal, glass, rocks, but also in other smoother materials such as leaves, the road and with skin- specially if it's wet-, when light hits in a certain way.

While the C300 might be very sensitive and have lower noise in the shadows (though doesn't appear to be better than the Fs100/F3), I'm seeing a very limited latitude from middle grey to highlights and very nasty clipping. Look in Laforet's short every time there's a car on camera, how the desert rocks shine or the specular reflection on skin: 709 video-look.

You can try to hide all this things at the grading suite, but you'll be working with an 8bit signal with the C300. And it would be better if those things weren't there to start with.


Some months ago I saw in Amsterdam (IBC) what the F3+SLog can do with a proper uncompressed 444 10bit recorder like the Gemini. I was taking special attention to latitude and highlights, which to me is what distinguishes film from video. I have to say that it was stunning. There's not much from this combo out there yet, but you can see a bit of it here.

World's first official Convergent Design Gemini 4:4:4 recorder short test on Vimeo



On a side note, I'd like comment that not jut because a camera is more sensitive, it means you don't need lights or don't have to light properly (and 'lighting' and 'illuminating' are two different things btw).

On the C300 videos, people are getting away with no lights or light very poorly and that makes footage look cheap and amateur.
On "Sword" you see interiors with nothing but practicals that not only look terrible, but all windows are blown out as they're 4 stops over key.
On Laforet's, when the hero is kidnapped for instance, you see shots into the car with: available light at midday, others shots later in the day and others at dusk with a pair of bold X-Y PARs with hardly any diffusion, throwing double shadows (!), ALL intercut together. That screams CHEAP film.

Please take the time to light properly!

What have I seen on Laforet and other C300 videos? Well, to me looks like the camera has a limited latitude, nasty highlights and all white clipping go to yellow

There is a lengthy interview with Vincent Laforet at fxguide.com. One of the reasons why you are seeing yellow in the highlights on his film is because he used a Sahara Gold filter during the shoot. He admits that may have been a mistake on his part. He also addresses many of your other criticisms of the camera including the now endless discussion of 8 vs 10 bit and lack of raw.

It is a good listen to learn more about his first hand experience with the camera and his opinion of its many strengths and some weaknesses.

I had a feeling that the yellow highlights were an effect, rather than a camera artifact. On the Zacuto 2011 Shootout, the Canon DSLRs all clip through white, rather than through yellow. I'd be surprised if the C300 doesn't also pay attention to this aspect of proper imaging.

Thanks for the video Henry, Ah de grachten in Nederland!
I'm puzzled as to why you would be critisizing the blown highlights of the Laforet video shot in extremely high contrast desert light, then go on the post a video shot in drab flat light in the Netherlands. I think i could shoot that with my cell phone & get decent exposure!
I'm sure there will be other camera's coming from Canon, not to mention from all the other manufacturers. This is what Canon is offering this time round & i'm sure for many it will work very well. For others like yourself, maybe not.
I agree that not lighting a scene correctly is a bad idea, but i'm sure the idea of these videos is to show off what can be done with no lighting at all. Just think of what could be achieved with proper lighting!!
I'm excited about what's to come next! Hopefully it will be more in my price bracket.

Bryce.

For me Mobious is the perfect film to showcase the camera Nice story that is enjoyable on repeat viewings. As for the footage mostly it did look like film and does it well. If this is straight out of the camera like I expect it to be as a demonstration then I want one. If it had of been around £6000 my order would be in I had already called the shop before the camera was out and told them to put me in the front of the queue. Some very lucky people who can afford this as a luxury item will be having a lovely early xmas present!

Not me though or any indy film makers I know.

Having said that I'd still give it a miss because of the 8 bit HDSDI I'd still like it as my fav toy though.

Hi Mark,


In the Netherlands you can order the Canon C300 for:
Euro 12,000
GBP 8,269
US dollars 15,000
All prices are exc.VAT

nivo-schweitzer.nl (http://www.nivo-schweitzer.nl/filter)

Best wishes,

Menno Mennes