Re: C300 Discussion
 

The XF300 don't have 1080 60p either. This frame rate is probably not included in the spec of the Digic DV III cpu and/or the XF codec.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

I'm not really narrowing the F3, although it does narrow the market of the C300.

If you had $5m you're unlikely to be shooting either of these cameras, unless they're giving you something that an Epic, Alexa or a 35mm film camera won't. You pick the tool for the job and if say the C300 or F3 enables something that's going to improve how the story that's the one you you'll use. "28 days Later" was shot with a Canon XL-1S, even though budget would have allowed for 35mm film. They wanted a lack of detail as part of the look.

8 bit or 10 bit is one part of the decision process. The F3 and C300 are very different cameras, so you'll be looking at a number of aspects. One is more compact for a start.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

If you have even a very small fraction of that, I wouldn't use anything but an ALEXA. It costs just €900/day, times 3-4 for a week, and a month is around €12k or less.
Commercials and music videos are shot in a single day, features in a month. If there's no budget for this, there isn't for anything else and the project is not worth it.

Of course that is for a bare bones ALEXA, but full a package with the ALEXA also including ARRI MB, FF, NDs, cards, batteries, Sachtler 20 and a set of UltraPrimes is €1,400/day tops.

On the other hand, the F3/C300 is the kind of camera you can buy rather than rent.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Mark - the story of "Eastenders" going HD was reported in TVB Europe this time last year - Taking Eastenders HD - theworkflownews-content | TVBEurope Magazine Online & In Print
Eastenders may be one of the most high profile examples (at least in the UK) but there are many, many other "professionals" using 8-bit codecs very happily for drama.

Would I use this camera if I had a $5million budget? Probably not, and probably not 8 bit recording. But with that sort of money the 8-10bit issue would only be one factor. As others have said, it's time to go for something like an Alexa, not a 10bit C300.
Cost? Why spend money on something you don't need? Maybe 10 bit grading is preferable to 8 bit - but it's likely to come at a cost, and if you simply don't need that level, why bother?


Don brings up the subject of sensor. I strongly suspect that tests will show the C300 sensor is better than the F3 - we'll see. Not that anyone will be able to see very much difference in most real life work - but why fixate on bitdepth and ignore other atters such as sensor?

Re: C300 Discussion
 

I'm curious about the postulate that the C300 sensor will be better than the F3. Is this based on what people have seen? on the technology of the C300 sensor? other stuff?

Thanks.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

DAVID

Eastenders is a soap that runs four times a week and needs to be delivered quickly. Eastenders has been broadcast live and looked the same as always so grading must be done in camera Not much time for grading anyhow and probably the look set up in camera or at a controlled stage with camera setups and cameras that live on sets. With lights that stay the same on those sets.Except externals and outside broadcasts. Do they use 8 bits then?

8 bit undoubtably has advantages when it comes to eastenders built sets .

Are you saying the 4K sensor will down convert a better picture than the 1080p My thoughts were this was only an advantage in the on board S log.

I don't need 10 bit recording because it will come at a cost????

WOW

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Well you are if you tie the Nanoflash with the F3 as the nanoflash which is only 8 bit and you know the F3 can be partnered with the Gemini However the Canon cant.

But also no one at any budget could logically justify using the Canon with its 8 bit post workflow when they could use the Sony F3 with S log at 10 bit.

Grading in camera for all your setups and locations is just too risky and doesn't give you any room to change your mind in post or to improve on mistakes or to use all the great tools avialbale to a colourist.

Yes but it wont be very compact by the time you add a set of rails matte box hook up peripheral monitors and alll and any othre attachments you have. Looking at some of the demo films the camera sometimes fully loaded looked more like a bazooka.

Anyway that aside If someone wants to make a cinematic film with actors with a small camera to be incognito or to put it somewhere that is only a small space or where a light weight is essential Maybe remote control it from a few hydrogen balloons I dont know. then they must expect that grading could be a problem.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

You can make a camera bigger but you can't make smaller. If size is an important consideration for a production this becomes a factor in the selection. If you're shooting a film in the jungle with very little power, the needs are different to being in the middle of a city.

The F3 dual link costs approx $3.700 from one dealer, then you need to add the recorder. How all this compares with the final street price of the C300 remains to be seen. Quite possibly Canon may come out with a camera that gives a similar spec for post work, but it isn't the C300.

There are always a number of considerations when selecting a camera for a film, what works for one doesn't always work for another. Applying a look in the camera isn't that risky, you just need to know what you want. It's been done for a number of pretty large feature films in the past.

In the end it just comes down to your budget and what you need to tell the story, 8 bit or 10 bit is just one part of the equation.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

If you take a cast and crew out to the jungle you will be taking a lot of equipment and what you need. I really wouldn't buy a camera because I'd be afraid of runiing out of power. I'd buy more batteries.

If you're buying this sort of kit to make a film with you will want to do your grading in post in ten bits. If you just use the F3 with S log you will be safe Wheras if you colour correct in camera and make mistakes you might have wasted the shoot. Who would take that risk?

I imagine that Canon have something just around the corner with full 10 bit workflow. Seriously they wouldn't make a $20,0000 camera with 8 bit out without there being a sound marketing strategy behind it. My guess is they wil want top dollar for a new camera that will be king. By putting ten bits out on the C300 it would be shooting itself in the foot and the C300 would be king of the hill.

Yes thats true Unfortunatly though the Canon doesn't have ten bit out and it's a camera designed for grading how daft is that?

Yes in the ten bit world so they could undo any damage.

No it's not one part its a massive part in a camera designed for grading. Its only explanation is so it doesnt tread on the feet of something bigger and better and is a protective strategy. They may very well have shot themselves in the foot with this as it's a camera that Indie film makers want but cant afford and a camera that professionals wont want but can afford in my opinion.

Who knows if it is a strategy maybe its some kind of natural justice. Unless (which may be the case) people just buy into the absolutely gorgeous pictures and forget the rest. People have a tnednecy to have blinkered vision and sometimes just fall hook line and sinker. I certainly wouldn't want to miss inform or glam up something I didn't really believe. I feel compassion for those spending money on this sort of equipment that they don't have and getting something they didnt expect Because thats what we film makers do We will do our utmost to improve our lot even if it means selling posessions and taking loans we can ill afford.. However out there in some blogs and people who would help them out of every penny and call it business.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

More batteries aren't much use if you can't recharge them fast enough because you don't have access to enough power.

You can colour correct 8 bit 4:2;2 enough in the camera to get it close enough for the final fine adjustment. I know because I've seen people completely screw a grade on DVCAM and there was wide range of maladjustment, while the video the the two cameras on the set perfectly matched up We could switch between the cameras on the set they were the same.

I think you should test the camera and see if there any issues with that you don't want, otherwise you don't really know in practise what the C300's limits are.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Brian
So do you see 8 bit as acceptable for professional post work that includes grading?

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Yes, but just don't push your luck and keep things under control at the shooting stage. A good DP will pin things so you don't need a wide range of adjustments in post, just finessing. Gordon Willis used to expose film so that the studio couldn't change things during the grade.

Again this comes down to your budget, not having 10 bit isn't an excuse for not making a film, there are now range of options for shooting lower budget films. You can do camera tests to work out your limits with a particular camera, it's the same as a DP does with film stock. I know of people having problems grading with a RED because they didn't make allowance for it's weaknesses and it's 12 bit.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Yes, all true..... and true for many, many other productions. Which is really the point. If 8 bit is good enough for Eastenders (which for people not in the UK, gets some of the highest audiences in the country) surely it's not a problem for a lot of other people either? People who are exactly who this camera is targeted at?
Read the quote from the article. "the combination of the HSC-300 and PDW-700 XDCAM HD422 camcorders were selected. The XDCAM’s were for location work .....
Read the full article and you'll see they use switched cameras for the regular sets, recorded direct to server via Avid DNxHD at 120Mbps (which I believe is 8 bit?), and PDW-700 XDCAM HD422 camcorders for location work. Effectively the same codec as the Canon C300, and yes, 8 bit. For location drama.

If it's good enough for the BBC to use when they migrate one of their most watched drama programmes to HD, don't you think that's a pretty good recommendation? Do you have any complaints about the technical quality of Eastenders?
Purely theoretical - I did say "I strongly suspect that tests will show the C300 sensor is better than the F3 - we'll see"

Reasoning. The F3 has a Bayer sensor whose active dimensions are about 2456x1372 (3.36MP effective). After deBayering this will give a R,G,B raster of the same size, but with a resolution somewhat less. The 2456x1372 will then need to be downconverted in real time to 1920x1080. The deBayering and downconversion will take quite a lot of processing - and downconversion is not an easy thing to do well.

The C300 sensor may best be thought of as a 1920x1080 matrix of Bayer blocks, each of the form

G R
B G

And what the C300 does is read out the photosites individually - so directly gets an R,G,B value for each block. Simple - no deBayer processing. And each frame it directly gets 1920x1080 RGB samples. Simple - no downconversion!

How they will compare can really only be determined by measurement, but let's just say the Canon sensor is starting from a far easier place. The larger differences may turn out to be more practical than "quality" - simple processing frequently means lower power (hence heat).

Re: C300 Discussion
 

So can I ask what made you change your mind since this?
HDCAM or DVCPRO-HD - Cinematography.com

Re: C300 Discussion
 

DAVID

Look no one is disputing the Canon couldn't be used for professional broadcast it could.

So lets split this into two parts.

NON GRADING
But why would you? There are other cameras out there like the Sony F3 that can do it cheaper and give you S log out if you did want to grade in post. If you don't need a large sensor there are even cheaper options.

GRADING
You wouldn't use the Canon for professional grading because it's only 8 bit out..

Fair enough?

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Yes, I certainly do because I have actual experience grading 8bit footage from cameras including EX3's internal 35Mb 420, EX3 to nanoFlash at 280Mb/s 422, Red One down converted to 720p at 8bits as well as 3D renders to 8bit PSD (after hours of rendering and testing, I now use 8bit PSD for 90% of my 3D renders). I also have experience with vfx and compositing elements into an 8bit plate. The reason I can get good results with an 8bit image is due to Floating Point 32bits per channel. I already stated that all Pro grading apps such as Resolve and most Pro vfx software and NLE's can edit in 32bpc. Personally, I use After Effects CS5 for my grading (and soon will be Resolve when released on Windows in a couple months). When I need to push an image, I work in 32bpc mode within AE. When I edit with Premiere, I always check the box to render in 32bpc mode, and I have never had a problem.

This isn't to say that I completely disagree with the complaints about no 10bit output. On a $20,000 camera in 2011 designed for high-end work, there is absolutely NO excuse. If Sony can put a 10bit HD-SDI output on their $4,000 cameras, then why did Canon put an 8bit output on their $20k camera?

Furthermore, I don't understand people's comments about 'grading' in-camera. If you saw what a colorist does in Resolve, you would understand that its impossible to 'grade' in-camera. I think a more accurate term would be "color correcting" in-camera. A common adjustment in grading is to key a face, add blue to highlights and green to shadows while keeping faces a natural color - this is impossible to do with any camera.

I also do not understand why Canon made a $20k camera with ONLY 9 stops of DR using standard gammas. The F3 has 11-11.5 stops with standard & cine gammas.

If the C300:
1) had 10bit out,
2) sold for $10k,
3) had a better design for adding accessories on top like the F3 and a cheese plate on top,
4) one body with both PL and EF mounts like the F3 with its F mount and PL adapter,
It would be a killer camera when using its C-Log and recording 10bit Pro Res HQ to a PIX240.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

I forgot to add this: the C300 has more noise than the F3 but Canon's history of noise reduction should mean that the noise looks more like film grain. With an 8bit image and large amounts of gradations, this grain is actually beneficial because it will dither and help prevent banding.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

DAVID

Okay now we're talking about the 4k sensor and possible benefits from being an easy fit in down conversion and so is speculation.

So normally then the debayering compromises the image. If true how much is resolution and colour compromised or does some sort of algorithym put it together in an undetectable way which in practice will mean the Canon will make no discernable difference whatsoever unless put under a microscope?

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Does this help? Demosaicing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (DeBayering and demosaicing mean more or less the same thing.)

As far as "how much is resolution and colour compromised?" then it's a highly complicated subject with no pat answers, just approximations. But as a rule of thumb, if a Bayer sensor was 1000x1000, then deBayering may give approximately luminance resolution of about 800x800, chrominance res of about 500x500. Very approximately.

Hence the reasoning for the F3 sensor to be larger than 1920x1080 - 2456x1372 in this case.

But there's a limit to what the numbers can tell you. Downconverters range from very good to abysmal, and the effects can't be expressed in simple numbers. But generally, if you can avoid a downconversion - avoid it!

Re: C300 Discussion
 

In the case of the Canon C300, the sensor has a standard Bayer-pattern but it is not a standard de-Bayering readout.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

I remember reading a conversation on the cinematography website with Phil Rhodes and I think Jim Jannard about debayering Very confusing for me then and it sort of ended in a stalemate with both sides convinced they were right. Be nice to see an animation explaining it all. Although the new Canon sensor may have a better way of doing things would it improve in a way that would be beneficial I think we can speculate all we want and would be nice later to see some tests. Personally I'm going to say probably not.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

I haven't changed my mind, they are cameras for a different markets, If we were talking about the modern equivalent of a HDCAM camera we would considering HDCAM SR or equivalent. There a good chance that the codec in the C300 is better than HDCAM in a camera that is lot less expensive.

As is usual with these things are trade offs going on in designing a camera. Canon should have considered putting a 10 bit HD SDI in the camera, whether there was a problem in doing so only they know. They may have been trying to keep the processing down and therefore the heat inside a compact body.

Re grading, you're not doing shot to shot grading as such, but you can achieve the basic overall look within the higher bit processing of the camera before recording onto 8 bit. This is something that the DITs did with the F900. They'd carry a notebook or memory stick with the different settings for the looks, using the waveform monitor and vector scope combined with the colour charts to do this. With these tools, you can also get the exposure pretty precise as well.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Brian You were advising the guy on that forum 3 years ago about his 16mm shoot school project to avoid using 8 bit and to avoid using HDCAM but then you told me on here earlier that professionals often use 8 bit HDCAM as an example why 8 bit is okay on the Canon.

Sorry I'm confused?

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Mark, it sounds like your mind is definitely made up! I think you have firmly
established your thoughts about the C300. I'd like to thank you for your input
here, and I'm looking forward to your continuing input on our XDCAM boards.

Just as a reminder to everyone here, the way we've been doing things on
this site for the past ten years is that we strongly encourage folks to hang
out and participate in the areas representing whatever gear they happen to
own and use. One thing we tend to discourage, however, is camping out in
a forum for a camera that a person has no intention of buying. Instead of
nay-saying whatever equipment you don't like, it's much more productive
and helpful for everyone if that time is spent being active and talking
about what you're using (or want to use).

We've done the 8-bits vs. 10-bits thing for several pages in a row and it's
really gone around in circles quite a bit. The entire discussion remains in
full view for anyone to read through and research.

The Canon C300 is definitely 8-bit, for better or for worse, and that is not
going to change. If there's anyone out there for whom two bits is a deal-
breaker, please read through the previous pages. If you're convinced
that you need 10-bit output regardless of what the image looks like,
then most likely this is not the camera for you.

At this point we need to move forward... since the "anti-8-bit" mantra has
been explained more than a few times, we really don't need to rehash it
anymore (until the camera comes out, perhaps). Any other questions,
comments or issues regarding the C300 are warmly welcome, of course.

Thanks for understanding,

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Yes, Canon offered to print up the centerfold as well as some from the drive they gave out so we could mount them and put them up on the walls of our store & camera room......those printers really put out very nice prints!

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Re: C300 Discussion
 

That's a totally post process, it doesn't involve a camera and the 16mm student film may need more grading than you need with a video camera, where you can pretty much nail the exposure and most of the colour within the camera. The skill levels needed in lighting is higher because you don't have a monitor that allows to to see what it looks like, so they may need that extra help grading. A bigger problem if they're doing a single light transfer on the telecine.

With a totally photochemical process using prints there can be aspects you can't control, so you have to nail lighting contrast by experience and judgement.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Thanks for the FilmTools baseball cap, Jim -- that's good swag!

Re: C300 Discussion
 

How about this? HowStuffWorks "Demosaicing Algorithms: Color Filtering"

Scroll down and click on "Begin Demoisacing algorithm".

What it shows is how each OUTPUT pixel is interpolated from several sensor photosites. Hence a sort of "averaging" process going on - which is why the luminance/chrominance resolution figures fall short of the total.
Direct 1080 read out (as with the C300) means no downconversion. That can only be a good thing.

Additionally, if you DO deBayer the full sensor, you end up with something approaching 4k resolution (and a 4k raster). So for the future, it opens the way to an optimised dual 4k/1080p camera. In that case (for 4k), expect RAW recording, so the deBayering done in software.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

In a nutshell, that's pretty much how Larry Thorpe explained it on Nov. 3rd at Paramount.

The short answer is that color information goes to the processor the same way as it would from a three-chip sensor block.

In this pic, L to R:

L. Thorpe, E. Peck, (translator? unk.), M. Maeda, J. Fauer, A. Krudo, S. Nicholson, F. Alcala, V. Laforet

Re: C300 Discussion
 

And start saving up for Canon's version of the Red Rocket ... or a seriously powerful 12+ core PC .... or hope that your NLE adds GPU assisted debayering ;)

Re: C300 Discussion
 

My pleasure.......

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Chris Hurd at 3.41 pm

Thank heaven's for that. Some sanity at last. Great post!

Re: C300 Discussion
 

It's interesting that 4K has no more real information than the 1080p output. Which is a backwards explanation of why the C300 image could/should be superior to the 2-3K bayer image like the F3.

Resizing C300 1080p output to 4K should produce about the same result as capturing 4K from SDI.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Now that we are over the bit argument, a link with some interesting info for the camera:

10 Things You May Not Know About The Canon EOS C300 & Future Of Cinema EOS » Dan Carr Photography - Photography Product Reviews + Ski, Snowboard and adventure photography tips

Re: C300 Discussion
 

I hate to drag it back to this, but I'm late to the bit party and I feel like with all these knowledgeable types around I'd be crazy not to.

Haven't we, as a viewing public, been slowly moving towards 10bit presentation as standard? (I have a 10bit monitor, for example. Its not true 10bit but it's accommodating such)

Is that a)totally irrelevant to this argument for technical reasons I don't understand? and/or b) really something that, like higher frame rate standards, has been "any day now" for a decade and truly no one with any real clout cares to push it forward?

"Not in this thread. Go away". is an acceptable response.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

In this case and following a discussion I had with a Sony rep about the F3 not having a broadcast standard codec on board, I suspect one of the reasons is keeping the power requirements of the camera down. The RED cameras are power hungry and you really need to keep on top of the your batteries. The Epic appears to be less demanding than the RED One, but it is one of the considerations for the designers.

With the points made in Emmanuel's link, the C300 appears to be one of a family of cameras. The often referred to sticking point is the price, so how it and the family fit in with the competition remains to be seen. Until it's been tested and used on productions, we won't know if the C300 is worth the premium over the base F3.

RED keep their camera costs down because you're more or less buying directly from the factory warehouse, rather than a chain of dealers. There have been a number of products that have done this in the past.

Someone may know this area better, but I suspect the TV transmission chain is 8 bit, so a couple of the bits mightn't be used on 10 bit displays, although still giving high quality with what they're getting.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Here's Canon's managing director being interviewed.

Interview with Canon Managing Director Mr. Maeda | Film and Digital Times: News

Re: C300 Discussion
 

That's not what I was saying. (And I think you've attributed one of my quotes to Brian?)

At the root of all this is the fact that "4k" has become a very misused term. Marketing people like short snappy quotes - so "our camera is 4k!" is great to them. Accurate technical descriptions are what they hate - people switch off.

The most important point is to distinguish between a "4k system" resolution and 4k sensor resolution. (Sorry, all you marketing people!! :-) )The former implies full 3840x2160 luminance resolution (see note below), and chrominance dependent on the colour space. A 4k sensor will have 3840x2160 photosites - half green, quarter each red and blue - but that will not, CAN NOT, give full 4k system resolution. It will give it's maximum with a proper deBayer - something of the order of 80% (?) of 3840x2160 for luminance, less for chrominace.

The significance of what Canon are doing is saying that for a 1080p output, we don't need 80% of 4k - just 50% of 4k is 100% of 1080p. And we can get that standard SIMPLY via direct read out. "Simply" here means with little processing, no downconversion, scaling etc. That means lower power consumption, and no downconversion is likely to make alias charecteristics more like you'd expect from a 3 chip design.

It's not true to say that the 4k sensor has no more inherent information than 1080p. What is true is that Canon are choosing to say "with 1080 recording, we'll ignore that resolution *at the readout stage* for the sake of simplicity, that will still give very good 1080, and true 4:4:4 at that". In this case, "simplicity" needs to be seen as a good thing. It's also refreshing to see a manufacturer being so open, and I suspect it's because they know they're on to a good thing.

[NOTE - "4k" doesn't even have an exact meaning in terms of numbers - it's a family rather than a unique specification. I've used the QFHD (Quad Full High Definition) form of 4k for above (3840x2160) as that's most relevant to the C300 here. Note that the full sensor has a lot more photosites than currently being used, which could be used in a future camera for other forms of 4k.]

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Yes, this is an interesting point.

Larry Thorpe has said that the C300 will have "brothers and sisters" in a few years. So given the current specs and the typical Japan tradition of incremental upgrades, just one at a time, I wonder how those might be.

The C300 might have a better or worse sensor, we don't know yet. But the C300 is actually an FS100 kind of camera. It's better built, has a Log curve and an additional SDI, but for the rest it's just like the FS100, only the latter also includes 60p and AF.

The question is how much will be a future model with 60p, 3Dlink, LUTs and a better body (actually F3 features) when the C300 is already $20k. Let's not forget Sony might introduce an F4 sooner, perphaps as soon as NAB2012.

And which features will be taken out to make a camera in the FS100 price range? Let's remember that price range is the one that sells in the hundreds of thousands and it's the most profitable segment. Will it be 7bit? (sorry, couldn't resist)


As for 4K , who really cares? Ask any producer and they'll tell you:

-It makes everything way more expensive
-Everything from Terminator2 to Avatar has been done at HD/2K
-There's no distribution channel for it, and won't be for more than a decade or two

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Scooting through the latest posts i wanted to add something.

The C300 claims to produce an 8 bit log output - a flatter version suitable for grading. This isn't in camera but the output image is log.

In a typical 8 bit system the colour divisions (256 of them) are distributed linearly through the image from shadows to highlights. But that's not the way light works, light is exponential and a typical 256 bit image wastes values either in highlights or shadows. Now it depends what kind of log file the C300 produces but the potential is that it allocates those 8 bits to the areas within the image that require then. If it's an S log type curve then we should get better shadow and highlight roll off.

Yes the wrapper is 8 bit, easy to deal with, grade etc,. One graded then the final output would most likely be 10 bit+ because that will be linear.

Most bayer HD sensors don't have as much resolution as say a 3 chip 1080p camera because the sensor is dealing with colour recreation etc,. The 4K internally, as mentioned before, would produce a real 1080p resolution image.

If you look at something like the Scarlet. The filter is quite soft (if it's the same as the Epic) and you're probably going to be running in 4k or even 3k which is a windowed area of the sensor. So the resolution and field of view will suffer accordingly. If you want high speed, you'll be at 3k which is like 16mm. To cut that with 4k you'd need to move the camera or change lenses.

Without empirical evidence it's difficult to verify.

I would expect the C300 HD image to have more resolution than the scarlet and perhaps the F3/FS100

cheers
paul