Re: C300 Discussion
 

With it's internal broadcast accepted codec it's better than the FS 100, However, the C300 seems to be targeting the F3 ^why hasn't it got an on board broadcast codec" market, but the current pricing is placing it against the s-log version of the F3 in the selection process.

To succeed it needs to demonstrate it has positive advantages over the other camera. Perhaps one may be the recording media, which reduces the running cost difference over time.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

I was commenting, not summarizing what you were saying. The C300 acquires the same amount of real information recording in 1080p or 4K, except for what is lost in compression.
At 1080p at each pixel the C300 has full RGB plus a complete luminance measurement. The F3 at each pixel has color and luminance for one color, and estimates luminance and the two remaining colors from the neighboring pixels.
Unless the F3 has far superior read noise performance compared the C300, the Canon puts considerably more information into a 1080p file.
It may not matter if the Canon is shot with an external recorder at 4K, or a 4K projector simply interpolates C300 1080p by adding lines. Either way has the same amount of real information. This is likely also the reason C300 1080p output looks good on the big screen. There isn't the compromise of a 2K bayer sensor.
Red doing 1080p from their high res bayer sensor is more interesting comparison to the C300. Mathematically there should also be less error in building individual pixels in Red compared to the F3. If Red runs the demosaicing algorithm on the PC it may be quite sophisticated. Both Red and the C300 have considerably more real data to work with than the F3.
We may be at the point where web compression is inadequate to see differences.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Is that unique to 8 bits? My understanding is different at the capture end. I though even without log the relationship between luminance and bits was geometric - brighter has more bits per stop.
In editing 8 bit Canon log it might be beneficial to dither to 10 bits.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

In post no 313, you quote something I wrote (post no 308) - but attribute it to Brian Drysdale.
No, that's not true. The way the C300 does it is easy to understand. You effectively get the same as a 3-chip camera with 3 1920x1080 sensors. Effectively, full 4:4:4 1080p. Compared to the full chip, it's 50% resolution for luminance and chrominance.

But if you take the whole sensor and do a "true" deBayer, you'll end up with a 4k (3840x2160) raster - the question is what the "real" resolution will be. The actual figure will depend very heavily on the deBayering algorithm used, but something like 80% for luminance may be a decent ball park figure. Hence something like 3000x1725 - hopefully better with a good algorithm.

http://www.stark-labs.com/craig/arti...yering_API.pdf gives some good detail, and compares a poor (but very easily processed) algorithm ("nearest neighbour") with more complex ones giving better results. See why the 80% is such an approximation?
But the F3 doesn't have a 1920x1080 Bayer sensor. See my previous post (no 293, page 20), it's about 2456x1372 effective. Hence, using the 80% estimate, I'd expect output luminance resolution of around 1950x1100 - just what you'd want pre-downconversion! See why Sony chose the 2456x1372 figures? :-)

For 1080 output, there shouldn't be much difference in perceived resolution between the two - but the C300 will be able to make it with far simpler processing. Another sign of that should be if you compare the difference in power consumption between the two cameras.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

This writeup from Adam Wilt provides some good details on the C300

Quick Look: Canon EOS C300 LSS 1080p Camcorder

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Regarding the bit depth, it shouldn't be controversial.

* Yes, 10-bits is more than 8 and carries more information.
* 8-bits is enough for many productions.

The real question is what YOU want to achieve with it. If you are a heavy grader, every time you see contours, you'll wish you had more bits. If your style is more modest grades, you'll be perfectly happy with 8-bits.

It's clear that using an existing chip is the reason for 2K and 8-bits. Canon had a choice: release an 8-bit cam or delay the launch by months, a year, or more. They chose 8-bits, now. For this particular product.

The question isn't whether 8-bits is enough for the market. Is 8-bits enough for you, your shooting and processing style, and your end product?

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Just to clarify Jon's post: existing chip = Digic DV III image processor.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

If you only have time to read two articles about the C300, they should be the above and Chris's initial write up, linked at the beginning of this thread. As usual, it's hard to fault anything Adam Wilt says.

It may be worth making one small clarification though. Adam says:
The actual sensor is 4206 x 2340 (according to the Canon website) - though the actual read photosites are less, 3840x2160. In the case of the C300, the difference may be academic - BUT it's a very strong pointer that we are likely to see a more advanced model.

QFHD (3840x2160) is only one "4k" resolution (see 4K resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) With the sensor Canon have developed, it's capable of more than QFHD, capable of other forms of 4k. For example, from the wikipedia link: "In July 2010, YouTube began streaming certain videos at 4096 × 2304 pixels (in the 16:9 aspect ratio)....."

I'm also relieved to find that I and Adam are in broad agreement over true deBayer resolution. (Page 2, scroll about half way down.)
Well worth reading Adams explanation of what the camera is doing and how it compares with normal Bayer sensors.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

I second that, Thanks Chris....

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Interesting article, although I would say that the shoulder rig shown is the most horrendous piece of industrial design I've ever seen. Fortunately, it's early days and I hope the 3rd party manufacturers will come up with a more elegant piece of modular design, rather than an improvised piece.

Canon aren't alone in this, it's surprising how many threads there are in forums about this every time a camera comes out. Yes it's modular, but the ergonomics of how the modules fit together should be part of the design. It's nothing new, the Panaflex is modular and it goes back to the early 1970s and there's a lot of hand held in "Jaws" on the boat. It's heavy, but balanced.

This is more of a problem when the camera is kitted out with 35mm cine lens accessories than in the neat looking configuration with the still lens when it's more Canon Scoopic

Re: C300 Discussion
 

The Sony F3 MPEG-2 codecs at 25Mbps and 35Mbps are fully broadcast compliant. As a matter of fact, MPEG-2 is broadcast compliant all the way down to 18Mbps (and less) for live transmissions and digital broadcasting. It is true that a few networks require a higher bit rate and 422 color space codecs for programing acquisition but often, a specific list of cameras is what is approved or not. For example Discovery Channel and National Geographic usually favor 50mbps 422 but have approved the F3 on board codecs for acquisition because they evaluated the front end as being of exceptional quality. The additional amount of power that may be used to encode at 50mbps 422 vs 35mbps 420 is very minimal.

Thierry.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

The on board codecs are not currently accepted by the BBC for HD, you can use them for SD. There could be a case by case consideration going on, but the BBC's concern seems to be increasing the compression errors through the post and transmission chain, rather than the actual camera front end.

I'd clear with the commissioning editor involved before using the internal codec, productions shot using 35 Mbps as the main recording have been rejected by BBC quality control.

I agree there wouldn't be much of a difference in power terms and it'll be interesting to see if Sony increase the on board to 50 Mbps, since I heard from a BBC senior cameraman that the electronics were the same, Of course, that could be just a rumour he'd heard.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

I guess the Beeb rules then :)

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Following up your point, Discover have 3 tiers, so the 35 Mbps should fit in the Silver.

Discovery HD Gold, Silver, Bronze tiers | In depth and practical guide to television production | eyefish.tv

The BBC currently only have the higher standard, if they reduce it remains to be seen as HD becomes more common on their channels. Although, I suspect the chances are that, with the reduced cost of the external recorders, their current minimum broadcast codecs probably will stay in place.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

To anyone who has handled the C300 and the FS100: how would you compare the side handles? They seem to have a similar design.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

If no one here has, Adam Wilt discusses the handle.

Quick Look: Canon EOS C300 LSS 1080p Camcorder

Re: C300 Discussion
 

You are equating quantifiable camera performance with actual camera performance. Unless the use of the camera is shooting line pairs the precise percentages of performance you quote aren't highly meaningful.

The Canon is sampling much more real data than the F3. How well the F3 can sharpen up blurry line pairs post capture is only moderately relevant to the real world of image capture.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

In what I can see from the pictures and taking in account canon's experience with control and ergonomics on DSLRs, I think the C300 is going to be much better fit for filming handheld.

Thierry.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

I found out this regarding Canon Log Gamma (from Dan Carr):

"you will be able to enable what Canon are calling 'View Assist' to preview a final graded look on the camera’s LCD screen. So whilst recording to the CF cards or out via HD-SDI is happening with Canon Log Gamma, you can see an estimation of the final graded outcome on the 4″ LCD or in the viewfinder. It is not possible to send this View Assist signal out via HDMI or HD-SDI as they did not want people to accidentally think they were recording Log Gamma"


Laforet has said, as politely as he could, that both the VF and the TFT are useless, (just as expected). So if you really can't 709-LUT the HDMI/SDI for monitoring while recording Log in the CFs, you're supposed to focus with a Log image with a proper external EVF/monitor? And do we need a very expensive Cinetal to avoid sending a Log image to the Producer/Client?


I'm really wondering who is Canon targeting with this camera. It's too expensive for the DSLR crowd and it lacks too many essential features for professional work.

Unless you use a FF which will force you to put the EVF just behind the camera or at a side, at the end of the body, as there's no other place left. Then the entire thing (camera, PL lens, FF, Mattebox) will be protruding your body and you'll need very long rails with lots of weight on the back to balance al those Kg in the front.
I've seen this in every C300 acessory video from Zacuto, ARRI, etc.

Look at this picture with ARRI accessories. An external EVF has to be placed sideways, parallel to the camera body and at the end of it. Then you'll stick your head to the EVF, which means the entire package will be in front of you, and you'll have to counterbalance that protruding the rods with lots of weights on the back.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

I think this is a problem with all these compact cameras like the Epic. They're getting to the stage where the camera is being attached to a heavy lens and it's accessories, so they're going to be naturally front heavy. Given that this camera doesn't need a large battery or a 400ft magazine of film, there probably is no option but to put an inert mass towards the rear.

Adding weight for balance is something that has been done in the past, camera operators have used 1000ft magazines to balance out the camera. The early Steadicams sometimes had small weights attached for balance. It can still be a light weight shoulder rig, but there should be better design than a mass of tubes cobbled together.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

One of the things that I'm looking forward to with this camera is to put pressure on other CMOS camera manufacturers to reduce the rolling shutter artifacts. Canon has certainly set a new high water mark for minimizing skew in this price range from what I've seen in the sample videos.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Does anyone know why the power consumption is rated at 11.4w for *normal* use (with both EVF & LCD on) but the max power consumption goes all the way up to 20.9w? (all according to Canon) Canon DLC: Cinema EOS Frequently Asked Questions

That is a huge increase of 9.5 watts (an 83% jump).

I bring this up because I have been thinking about why Canon took certain routes like 8bit SDI output. Both the AF100 and FS100 have 8bit outputs and the reason for Sony doing this is power consumption. The internal processing and DSP bit depth must be high enough for a 10bit output. A 12 or 14bit DSP in the F3 requires more processing power than a 10bit DSP in the FS100. By using a 10bit DSP in the C300, power consumption is reduced.

Another possible explanation is the processor taken from the XF300 because it also only outputs 8bits.

Lower power consumption equals smaller batteries, which fits in with the C300's small footprint.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

From the same Canon site site you link to:
Whatever the reason for 8 bit output over HD-SDI, it's nothing to do with a 10 bit DSP. That's not what the C300 has. I did think Jon Fairhurst and Chris answered this a few posts back. As Chris said: "Just to clarify Jon's post: existing chip = Digic DV III image processor. "

My own belief is that power consumption has far more to do with the general mechanism by which read out occurs, rather than bit depth. The way in which the C300 reads out is fairly simple - hence low power consumption. The way in which the F3 does it requires far more arithmetic (independent of bit depth) - hence more power. It's the deBayering and downconversion that consumes the power in the F3 - two things the C300 doesn't need to do.

The same argument for the FS100 and the AF100. They likewise have far lower power consumption than the F3, and I increasingly think this is down to the way the chip is being read out - simplified in the same (or similar) way to the C300. But it's because they don't have the precise QFHD chip dimensions that they (especially the AF100) don't give the performance of the C300. Direct read in these cases gives lower than 1920x1080 resolution, and it's because the AF100 only reads one quartlet block in four that it's sensitivity is so much lower than the FS100. This theory matches observed results quite well for resolution, sensitivity, power consumption, and such as rolling shutter.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

I'm not sure if this is the polite statement you are referring to

--"We found ourselves using Zacuto EVFs with the camera and the new Marshall monitors with built in waveform graphs with excellent success." -- (sorry if that's not it...but I couldn't find any other mention of the monitors on his blog...but maybe he said it on stage with the canon folks...I missed that :-) )

..but I think you're reading him wrong. Useless would be an interesting choice of words, as the EVF and LCD on the C300 are both of extremely high quality. The best I've ever seen permanently attached to a camera...in the same range in terms of contrast and resolution to RED's excellent monitors. This statement seems to be directed at letting folks know that external monitoring was no problem.

In addition, Laforet, during a talkback at friday's event, talked a lot about C-log and how it doesn't look like the typical muddy mess we are accustomed to. He said in fact it's quite pleasant to view and that he had no problem sending rough cuts to the producer in c-log without grading.

Barry

Re: C300 Discussion
 

If C-log is both easily viewed for focus and gradable, that's a unique combination.

One thing that hurts CineStyle is that the absolute black level is somewhat lifted on the 5D2. The false colors on my Marshall monitor (after a firmware upgrade) see black fine on "Normal", but it never sees black on "CineStyle" even with the lens cap on.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

No, that's not the quote. It's not written anywhere, it's on a long phone interview -somebody posted the link here-.
He was directly asked about the quality of those and why they never used them (as can be seen on the BTS video) After some laughts, he said something like, "er.., let me put it this way. They're nothing you'll be going to use to shoot with". He tried to be polite about it, understandably as he's on Canon's payroll.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Was there supposed to be a link in your post? Thanks.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

The RC #100 C300 with Dir. Laforet & RED ScarletX | fxguide

the podcast is rather long at 2hrs, there's an interview with Laforet somewhere there.



Here are the exact words, when asked about that and been told by the interviewer that F3's VF was the worst thing about it, how whas it on the C300:

"I'm going to bite my tongue on that one… I.., I don't think people will use C300's VF or LCD screen as much as they'll be using external EVFs and Monitors. Let's put it that way"

Re: C300 Discussion
 

I suspect that's no great surprise, unless you're using it in their basic hand held mode you'd be needing the 3rd party V/F accessories. There all kinds for mods now out for the F3, so the C300 would be in the same position.

On a sunny day the RED One LCD screen can be a bit difficult to view at times and you need to have very good close vision in order to use it for shoulder hand held, so I'd assume that the Canon has similar limitations.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Perhaps the C log is more hypergamma than a pure log curve. With the Sony cameras, even those curves that are intended for grading in post are pretty viewable on the set.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Fwiw.. He goes on to say that these were prototype cameras and that canon may have changed the monitors prior to release. I don't know that they did. But I can tell you that canon had zacuto's evf mounted on several cameras at the event and so the comparison was quite easy to make-- the onboard monitors are in a completely different league. My very first impression of the camera when I walked up to the stand was that the 4" LCD was quite focusable. The evf too. When compared to a larger standalone monitor like the Marshall sure, they might be found lacking...as they should...mostly due to size. But useless? Ill have to say I highly disagree.

Thanks Henry for steering us towards that very candid interview. Laforet spent much of the time singing this camera's praises and talking about its place in the market between the f3, Alexa and the red and points out some of the distinct advantages the c300 has.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

A question for those who have seen the camera in person. From the pics it seems that all the playback functions rest on the monitor/XLR attachment. Can you control the playback functions without it?

Re: C300 Discussion
 

The Laforet interview is interesting as he compares it to the Alexa. He speaks as if the IQ is clearly better than the F3. I wonder if he has shot with the F3? The F3 images are very sharp. Which some people take as ideal, others as not film like.

I realized that the C300 ergonomics designed to be able to shoot stills. Put metering and autofocus in that body and it's a hybrid camera. Canon was clearly thinking of rails as optional. A design choice perhaps not appreciated by the core group who aren't interested in normally using the camera that way. Laforet calls the camera ugly. But look how the handgrip works with the EVF. Would he rather hand hold the C300, F3, or Scarlet?

Canon is clearly thinking ahead with the design of the camera. I wonder if there's space for FF35 sensor?

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Yes you can. On the side of the camera below the second selector wheel are two buttons. One is for Index/Stop and the other is for Play/Pause. Pretty much every button on the monitor/XLR unit is duplicated on the camera (except for the audio controls for the XLR input channels -- I believe).

Re: C300 Discussion
 

*** Larry Thorpe of Canon is planning to talk on a live webcast tonight (11/17/2011) @ 6:30 PM EST. Just heard it,

Jtown.tv

Re: C300 Discussion
 

The setups I have seen so far on the EF version do not use the traditional tripod collar, will this fatigue the lens when all of the accessories are attatched ?? I know that it was normally used to de-stress the camera side on DSLR's but is the lens side strong enough for no collar plus accessories ??

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Not to bring it up again, but I had a fun conversation with Dana Christiaanson at the Canon Hollywood Service Center on Thursday night. We were there for the showing of "XXIT" followed by Q & A with Dana and Jung Ahn, Sr Pro Tech rep from Canon. Many questions were asked and, of course, about the 8Bit issue. Dana repeated that there were no issues and the camera performed extremely well. Most were amazed about the low light performance and how few lights were used. In the cable car scene, they used about 4 Rosco LitePads (3x12,3x6,3" circle) placed inside the car....and everyone was quite impressed.

As for the 8bit, Dana said he only found out about it when they went to prep at the Paramount theater 2 WEEKS before the event. All through the shooting, green screen, and editing, he had no idea it was 8 bit.He said he cringed when he heard, expecting the 4K projector to show problems, but then was blown away when they watched it.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Re: C300 Discussion
 

Interesting comments, if you haven't seen this .....

First Look: Canon EOS C300 Cinema Camera

Cheers.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

I'm not totally convinced that it'll have the level of impact that they're mentioning. With multipliable cameras those daily set up figures are already manageable and 3 day shoots aren't unusual on shorts. The factors that add to production times tends to be things other than the camera and the comments about large crews etc sound rather similar to those made during the early 1970s.

Re: C300 Discussion
 

BTW, We should have pricing info by mid-next week.....I see there has been some price info posted for Europe on various sites....

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com