Canon EOS C100

[Glen Vandermolen]

Originally Posted by Jim Martin

Just got off the phone with the higher ups at Canon......the HDMI out is the HDMI standard 8 bit 4-2-2 color and the timecode is NOT superimposed on the screen.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

ps. my phone has been ringing off the hook for info and wanting to place orders for the C100!

Thanks for clearing the HDMI issue up, Jim. The rumor mill is going crazy. Not bad for the first day, huh?

And do you have further news on the expected price?

[Andy Wilkinson]

Thanks Jim. Very useful info.

I am still working out what positions and angles that articulated/flippable Back LCD might be capable of so if anyone has any info on that I am all ears.

[Jim Martin]

Yes Glen, quite a day......

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

[Philip Lipetz]

the press release says that the HDMI has 3:2 pulldown. Is this the only way it feeds out?

[Kris Zimbelman]

Originally Posted by David Heath

I see it selling very well. The big negative is obviously the codec - it wouldn't cost any more, or mean any engineering issues to have produced it with the 50Mbs 422 codec - so why not do so? I think we can all guess the answer to that........

That said, this is firmly in the price camp of the AF100 and the FS100. It's pretty safe to predict from the C300 results that this wll beat the AF100 hands down for quality in several key respects, and the inclusion of built-in NDs and a seemingly more ergonomic form should also give it the edge over the FS100. Whilst the C100 would be better with the 50Mbs 422 codec, with AVC-HD it's no worse than the AF100/FS100 - merely the same in that respect.

Arguably, it's likely to prove the better buy of the three.

How do you think it will compare to the FS700?

[Jim Martin]

The C100, in my book, is better simply because it has the same magic chip that's in the C300 & C500. Slo-mo is nice but, and I read this somewhere 2 years ago, on average, about 3% of all projects...so I'm much more concerned about everyday performance...and this camera, like it's brothers, will save you money everyday on lights alone.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

[Murray Christian]

What is the sensitivity score between those? I think Bloom did one some time ago, but I don't remember the details. The FS100 and 700 are known to be pretty awesomely sensitive in their own right though. Not as clean at the high ISO level as the c300 perhaps but still pretty great. So I don't know.

(I also think that if more people could afford more than 3% of slo-mo they would definitely use it. The FS700s influence has yet to be felt there, I suspect. But that's by the by. The price point and being a clear upgrade in most respects from a DSLR while still keeping the lenses without fuss makes this number pretty great. Although if its presence starts dropping the FS700 down a bit, I might have to think harder).

How do people think C-log will go with AVC? I'm not as enamoured with ultra flat profiles on DSLRs as I once was. Fun now and then but it's easy to forget compressed 4:2:0 doesn't take much punishment. Will this be better y'think? (obviously good with an external)

[Sean Seah]

the slow mo would require lighting kit support, so i didnt go for that in the end. FS700 is a nice bang for the money but the form factor was a killer for my run and gun use.

[Glen Vandermolen]

I stopped watching FS700 video samples months ago. There's only so much slo-mo video I can take. EVERY video was a slo-mo example. Enough, already.

[Philip Lipetz]

Originally Posted by Murray Christian

What is the sensitivity score between those? I think Bloom did one some time ago, but I don't remember the details. The FS100 and 700 are known to be pretty awesomely sensitive in their own right though. Not as clean at the high ISO level as the c300 perhaps but still pretty great. So I don't know.

(I also think that if more people could afford more than 3% of slo-mo they would definitely use it. The FS700s influence has yet to be felt there, I suspect. But that's by the by. The price point and being a clear upgrade in most respects from a DSLR while still keeping the lenses without fuss makes this number pretty great. Although if its presence starts dropping the FS700 down a bit, I might have to think harder).

How do people think C-log will go with AVC? I'm not as enamoured with ultra flat profiles on DSLRs as I once was. Fun now and then but it's easy to forget compressed 4:2:0 doesn't take much punishment. Will this be better y'think? (obviously good with an external)

Canon has included an electronic extension to C Log that appears to stuff 3 stops more DR into C LOg AVCHD. Perhaps to make it comparable to the C300's MPEG2 C Log. Not sure.

People seem to like flat profiles on the GH2 and the 5D, both 4:2:0 cams.

[Pavel Sedlak]

some first LCD position info.

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Murray Christian

(I also think that if more people could afford more than 3% of slo-mo they would definitely use it. The FS700s influence has yet to be felt there, I suspect.

The amount of slow motion you use depends on the types of productions you're making. For example you're more likely to use it in a commercial than say a drama. Some really smart slow motion is at say 36 fps, not the wow look at this really sloooow motion. Overall 3% probably covers a broad range of productions, which mostly involve using natural actions like speech and trying to keep the pacing up, rather than slowing it down.

[Sabyasachi Patra]

Will the footage be accepted by BBC?

[Jim Martin]

AVCHD/Mpeg 4 is not okay with the BBC or Discovery.....they probably allow 20-25% max of any given project. Anyone across the pond could clear this up????

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

[Simon Wood]

Originally Posted by Jim Martin

AVCHD/Mpeg 4 is not okay with the BBC or Discovery.....they probably allow 20-25% max of any given project. Anyone across the pond could clear this up????

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Probably need to use a Nanoflash to get approval.

C100 + Nanoflash = C300 (roughly the same codec, and the same chip).