Re: C300 Discussion
 

Off-topic: Mark, I hear ya on shooting "flat," and color correcting in post, but I learned from DPs who were paranoid about their stuff being altered too much, so I do 95% of my looks in camera, then touch it up in post. But more and more, I'm going your route.

Also, I love local camera dealers vs. big box shops; I can get all the info I need, and then some! Which leads me to this question: does RED allow their cameras to be sold by dealers? Or is it all direct sales.

And to tie this to the C300, I'm curious if dealers will sell it, or if Canon will just go straight to Panavision and rental houses?

Heath

Re: C300 Discussion
 

But I'm not blaming my tools and if I add tools to my toolbox they will be tools that I can use to properly do the job.

BRIAN

Of course you change your mind when grading only a fool would stick religiously to a grade. When a film is being shot that is a different film to what ends up on the screen The edit the score even the emotion of it can change. Once edited your film can take on a different meaning and the grade can look better a different way. Changing my mind was a flippant remark I should have said go with the film as a whole as it develops as for having a vision thats great as a start and hopefully that vision will end up on screen but the vision can be improved on and it can change

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Thanks Heath. I haven't actually come across to many DP's who don't want the look changed or at least that have said that to me.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

I just wrote a long rant about cameras in the Scarlet (re-re-re-etc.) announcement thread today, but to sum it up... it isn't your camera, it's your talent. I've seen plenty of movies that I thought were shot on 35mm, but were done on the XL1 with a 35mm lens and adaptor. See: 28 Days Later... Audiences are sophisticated, but with the right talent behind the camera, a great gaffer and crew, plus excellent editing, no one will know the difference. An audiences is also savvy enough to know when a story is bad, though, so no amount of RED shooting can fix that.

Footage from the Canon 5D Mk II made cameos in Iron Man 2, Captain America, The Avengers and others. (Not the iPhone, which the DP of Avengers said he was misquoted.) Didn't House shoot an entire ep with the 5D Mk II?

heath

Re: C300 Discussion
 

After my last post - I got an answer from Canon about dealers. The dealer channel for the C300 is not yet established. It will be something new, and dealers will be selected and announced in January.

As for RED, despite dealers like myself making efforts to get RED to see the added value of using a dealer channel, they have stuck to direct sales thus far. They make no special considerations for rental houses either. We are both. Strange..

Allan Barnwell
Omega Broadcast Group - Professional Video Sales, Rental & Services

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Thanks for the info on this, Allan. Interesting what Canon is planning, and too bad about RED.

heath

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Yes I have seen films like this too The DSLRs can give a great film look until you look closely at the footage that is in some way compromised. I think the zacuto shootout proved beyond all doubt the shortcomings. Footage can often look great in a small box on the web. Not so good blown up on a cinema screen Lets face it if an XL1 can really shoot like film and look as good on a cinema screen then forget the Alexa or F3 bring the XL1 back. So why haven't they. Watching Mobious today shot on the C300 You can clearly see its a film look and in my opinion speaks I'm a film shot by professionals because of the way I look. If I want a look like the C300 I need a camera like that especially for skin tones and highlights where the lessor cameras mean you have to be careful. The C300 Looks like the camera everyone will buy because they want the look they know their audiences will buy into as professional I saw some AF100 footage shot in venice that was spectacular but it was venice where the bright sun and the use of its ND filters worked in its favour. In the right circumstances with the right workaround many cameras can work splendidly. However I want a camera that will give me the look I want when I want how I want.

Personally I really dont want to go back to buying an EX1 and using the Letus combo now. If thats my fate then I am resigned to it but please dont make me feel like I dont know what I'm talking about Because I know about workarounds and how they can disrupt a shoot lose time lose shots and not look as good.I know that when time is running out and you need those shots and setting up or cutting out lights to fit in with the cameras short comings can be a loss. If I go on a seven week shoot with the Letus combo and the Letus breaks down I and the cast and crew are stuffed. Would I should I take that risk? NO Maybe on a short film I can mess about.

Bottom line TOOLS TOOLBOX make sure you have the right tolls to do the right job IE reliability versatility and the best you can get to give a professional look in all circumstances. And you know things have changed so much Only a few years ago the Letus was grounbreaking The tools are now much improved and that means now we could compete with the big boys if only we could afford the damn things.

I'm sorta wondering now about the Scarlet. £10500 all in but with potential problems with the camera reliabilty Probably an idea to wait on that one.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

You gotta do what's right for your film, but you can also run into the biggest issue of all: the producer. He or she may stop us from using a RED, because it doesn't make financial sense. But no great camera in the world, like an F65, will look good if you don't have the right crew behind it. I can't tell you how many people I know (and I was one of them) who thought a better camera meant better footage.

But I'll stop right there, because we are getting way off topic.

heath

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Things do change, although I'm not sure that a feature film usually takes on an overall different meaning, more a voyage of discovery about what's within it. All these changes can depend on you having time to make them and when you've got a tight schedule you're not in the same position as when you're doing everything for yourself.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Most directors and DPs know what look they're going for during pre-production, and some DPs have it in their contract that they color time (correct) the final, otherwise they'll lose that look they developed. My DPs have it in their contracts whenever I do a film, and I'm okay with that.

But we're getting way off topic here from the C300.

heath

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Brian. Do you insist on colour correcting the films you DP or do you attend the grading but leave it to the director with words of advice etc or do you mostly shoot with the look already adjusted in camera I appreciate every film is different but when you get the chance what is your preferred method.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Wow, even the HD-SDI is limited to 8 bits:

"The serial representation of the uncompressed 4:2:2 component set is structured from the parallel 8-bit component set and is fed to the camera's HD SDI interface allowing parallel outboard recording to be implemented if desired."

Canon DLC: Cinema EOS Frequently Asked Questions

Re: C300 Discussion
 

eek that's torn it!

Re: C300 Discussion
 

It depends on the production, I've done it both ways.

It mightn't even be the director supervising the grading, it could be the editor.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Wow the editor grades the film sometimes.

I think if it was me I'd listen to the post house if ever I could afford one or lucky enough to get proper financing and let them show me various grades and ideas and then make a choice as the director. Always open to ideas but I would always want the final say on that.

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.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Indeed, that's why the current C300 sale price is too high, it needs to be close to the F3 base price, where it's just competing with that camera's internal codec, so it will be attractive to those people who aren't doing a lot of grading in post, or at least no more than they'd do with say HDCAM.

In that case it would be doing what quite a few people were wondering about the F3 at the time, why it didn't have a broadcast accepted on board.

Another point could be if the C300 proves to be an extremely robust, reliable camera, that will attract people for whom that is important. In that case, having the 10 bit or RAW option could slip down the priority list, if the cameras offering those features can't withstand the shooting environment to the same degree.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

I think the C300 has a lot more going for it than specs and they have worked hard to get the look of film. From what I've seen of the footage they have suceeded.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

As for the marketing, I wonder how many people sold their cameras in anticipation of buying a new one, and also in anticipation of a 'groundbreaking' camera that might make their camera worth less...
kinda like playing the stock market? Still, a clearer target for the marketing may have been a little kinder.
Anyway,exciting times, but I'll always be a $tep behind the late$t greate$t camera... just phasing out an XH-A1 for a 5D/T3i... still pretty happy, though!

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Don't mean to be a wet blanket here but 8-bit SDI output is insufficient for S-Log/Log Gamma post grading processes. Having only 256 vs 1024 is a BIG difference and for me is a deal breaker for this camera. Many posts on other forums including my own experiments with 8-bit gamma log footage confirm that 10-bit is a necessary prerequisite for rich detailed color grading in post.

I do like the way the camera handles it's photosites in full 1080 mode - that's new and novel, but it's a little arrogant for a manufacturer to state that 8-bit is "good enough" to a world of experts who know better.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Although I own 2 F3s, I am excited by the C300. It's a different beast with a lots of advance features and much better ergonomics. It really departs from traditional camera designs and I can only praise Canon for thinking out of the box. The price of the C300 is just fine when compared to the F3. Just having a nice viewfinder and the capability to record 422 50Mbps worth a few thousand dollars and will make your life much easier. Now people will finally realize that there is no super duper 5D Mark X in sight to replace a camera that separately can stand to sell for $20k on its own. That's a good thing for professionals.

Have a great week-end.

Thierry.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

I've been saying this form the beginning.

No matter what other things the camera might do, there's an abysm in image quality in 2^8 vs 2^10, even with Log curves.
An 8bit camera in 2011 and for $20k, while others are cheaper and at 10bit 444 or even RAW, is not very understandable. Specially if such camera is targeted at Hollywood, where heavy post is the norm.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Yep, in typical impulsive fashion, I sold mine the day after Canon broadcasted their "historic global announcement" -- and man was I in for a surprise; a $20k 1080p30 moping surprise. So inevitable I'm now having a gander at the Scarlet as a viable option, (if I only could figure out how bare-bone I could make it, and just how much more of my music/sound equipment I must sell). Though, before I make yet another knee-jerk move, I wish I knew how soon Canon will release their "Concept Cinema DSLR".

-- peer

Re: C300 Discussion
 

I suspect it's not so much targeted at Hollywood movies, but television is the market where it can either be a B camera or an A camera on quite a few productions. How important the 10 bit 444 aspect is in the market place really depends on how many F3 are used this way compared to the those F3s that either use the internal codec or record onto 8 bit nanoflash.

It's easy to obsess over RAW and 10bit 444, but many productions are never graded or at most get a film look run through on Magic Bullet, with a few minor grading adjustments.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

I read that the CEO of Canon during his speech, asked Hollywood to accept Canon in their community.
Yet almost everybody in this forum agrees, that although this camera is extremely suitable for TV programming, or high end commercials, its not adequately provisioned for cinema oriented material.
1080 50/60p (for TV screens you can get away with 720) ,
4K,
10bit processing or 10bit out
are essential features for digital cinema, all of them absent from C300.

Is the "historic announcement" a historic marketing blunder. Seems, although the camera excels in many ways, disappointed buyers by raising expectations for a very different market orientation.
It gets even more bizarre if you think that Canon doesn't have to protect a high end segment like Sony and Panasonic.

I don't know if the price is very enticing, for episodic TV professionals to abandon Alexa. I know that the crowd that started the 5DII revolution, is totally apathetic.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Some people here are confusing Canon's "historic announcement" with the announcement of the C300 camera.

That's not it. The announcement is the beginning of the new Cinema EOS product line, which is dedicated to Hollywood / higher-end television production. The C300 is only their very first camera body in that line. The announcement is not so much the hardware itself, but the direction they're taking -- the new market (new for them) that they're going into.