C300 vs. Scarlet-X lowlight

[Zakaree Sandberg]

hilarious thread...

 

[Dan Kanes]

I thought a C300 was a car by Chrysler?

 

[Erik Franzén]

I thought a C300 was a car by Chrysler?

Give this man a trophy. Thread win to you, sir!

 

[Malvin Ng]

I thought a C300 was a car by Chrysler?

Naw that would be the 300C ... instead the C300 is a car made by Mercedes (C-Class)

 

[Sergio Perez]

When I placed my Epic order (and first I placed a Scarlet which I cancelled for stage 4 Epic) I knew the Red cameras where not as good in low light. With a bit of research (its a 14K investment for Scarlet users, a bit of research should be done) one could access Philip Blooms statements on the fireplace test, for example, or the Great Camera shootout with the Red MX. But, like Jason Rudd said and well, we are comparing apple's to oranges. The both depth, the Dinamic range, the Raw workflow, the 4K resolution and frame rates are of a different class: we are talking digital cinema here.

The C300 is an excellent camera. I've used the X300 extensively in event coverage and the codec is excellent for broadcast (however the damn LCD is over bright and very inaccurate for exposure even after extensive settings changes). HOWEVER, its not Redcode, not by a long shot. Its like comparing a Formula 1 engine with a Formula 3 one. Both can race, but the Formula 1 just completely obliterates it.

For low light to no light shooting, or fast turnaround event shooting, I would definitely get the C300. But for everything else... Come on!

 

[Michael Millichamp]

Kodak wins!

End of story!




***I actually found this camera at the Walgreens were I work...

 

[Niko Pueringer]

A lot of people must feel threatened by the C300...

Relax guys. The C300 has better light sensitivity. The Scarlet has lots of other things going for it. How about we acknowledge that there are strengths to other camera systems, rather than attack the guy who wrote this article, or ridicule the other camera?

When reading this thread, I would've preferred to have seen how people would approach dark scenes with the Scarlet, and how they address the lower light sensitivity of the camera. Wouldn't that be a great discussion to learn from?

 

[Marc Wielage]

This has been written by Nino Leitner who had the C300 for a few days and I went to the same spot as he did during the night and took the same shot. He compared the two frames, C300 is clearly superior in terms of lowlight, which is not something that degrades the Scarlet-X for me by the way, it was both technically as also Company wise clear to me that the result would be that way. The Scarlet has a larger sensor which makes lowlight harder, and the Canon has always been the leader in lowlight.

A better question might be: how do the cameras perform under optimum lighting? Shooting with very low lighting is not necessarily a big factor in filmmaking. I bet if I pulled out a Panavision film camera, a great lens, and high-speed 800 ASA Kodak film, it would probably be crushed and noisy, too.

This is kind of a bogus comparison. The big problem to me with the Canon isn't just the 1080 sensor -- it's the fact that it's an 8-bit camera, and compressed on top of that. When they do a real 4K camera, we'll know they're serious.

I could see using the Canon for certain reality show/live TV situations, but I'm not sure it's appropriate for the kinds of things I imagine most people are using Red cameras: commercials, short films, features, dramatic shows, etc.

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

A lot of people must feel threatened by the C300...

Relax guys. The C300 has better light sensitivity. The Scarlet has lots of other things going for it. How about we acknowledge that there are strengths to other camera systems, rather than attack the guy who wrote this article, or ridicule the other camera?

When reading this thread, I would've preferred to have seen how people would approach dark scenes with the Scarlet, and how they address the lower light sensitivity of the camera. Wouldn't that be a great discussion to learn from?

Agreed. More so, I wonder how many of them who actually own a Scarlet or even have actually worked with one or it's footage. It's not an accurate test but they also state that, but it clearly shows that Canon handles lowlight pretty well. So instead of dismissing - be constructive about it. What can b done with Scarlet to achieve as much a possible. Discuss how to learn prons and cons and how to tackle it. The useless fanboy attitude leads to bad reputation in the biz.

 

[Antony M]

Grain is also a part of film. I don't understand why people do not like grain anymore. Grain is the key part of making it look like film. It's beautiful, and yes there are limitations when it comes to grain. But do not let it vanish from your production because I believe grain is key to a good video.

All a matter of taste.

Personally I hate grain.

Back when I used to use film, I always tried to use 50 ASA colour or 25 ASA B/W stock just to avoid grain.
When I watch BluRays of the Bourne films, it ruins it for me seeing all the graininess.

 

[Antony M]

... as for the Canon stuff too bad there's no movies I've seen commercially or in theaters that have been shot by Canon cameras in its 74 years of operation. Oh wait there was the one independent short movie at Sundance last year,...

Seriously?
There have been many films shot on Canon cameras.
To name just one (because I can't be bothered to Google on Xmas Day "28 Days Later"

 

[Hector Berrebi]

Seriously?
There have been many films shot on Canon cameras.
To name just one (because I can't be bothered to Google on Xmas Day "28 Days Later"

which was shot on mini DV (if i remember correctly xl1) and though was a very good movie, and very well directed, looked like s**t on big screens.
i have a vivid memory of a long shot of a green field with actual blocks of green pixels subtly moving in the wind..

canon did make great cameras. but up until today no proven "real" cinema cam. we'll have to wait and see

hector

 

[Hector Berrebi]

I could see using the Canon for certain reality show/live TV situations, but I'm not sure it's appropriate for the kinds of things I imagine most people are using Red cameras: commercials, short films, features, dramatic shows, etc.

C300 does not seem optimal at all for "live" TV work. definitely very useful in many other situations, seems like the best camera ever for documentary/wild-life work... size, low light and (cheap) dual card recording are huge factor in these.


hector

 

[Tim H.]

which was shot on mini DV (if i remember correctly xl1) and though was a very good movie, and very well directed, looked like s**t on big screens.
i have a vivid memory of a long shot of a green field with actual blocks of green pixels subtly moving in the wind..

canon did make great cameras. but up until today no proven "real" cinema cam. we'll have to wait and see

hector

You have to remember that 28 Days Later was released almost 10 years ago. Pretty amazing what that film was back then. No one I talked to that saw the movie in the theater said anything about pixels. In fact it's medium actually worked for it's subject matter. The Director Danny Boyle http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000965/ has done some other decent films. Look at the success he had with Slumdog shot with a combo of film and the SI-2K. Then there is 127 Hours shot on Canon DSLR's. It had a rather large budget for what it was and they still shot on DSLR's. Why? Because for the type of film it was those cameras made sense.

Not sure why people hate on other cameras. They all have their place.

 

[Björn Benckert]

You have to remember that 28 Days Later was released almost 10 years ago. Pretty amazing what that film was back then. No one I talked to that saw the movie in the theater said anything about pixels. In fact it's medium actually worked for it's subject matter. The Director Danny Boyle http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000965/ has done some other decent films. Look at the success he had with Slumdog shot with a combo of film and the SI-2K. Then there is 127 Hours shot on Canon DSLR's. It had a rather large budget for what it was and they still shot on DSLR's. Why? Because for the type of film it was those cameras made sense.

Not sure why people hate on other cameras. They all have their place.

We did this with a 7D, it's a bit softer than if shot with epic or such but since focus is so short it hard to tell even in HD: http://vimeo.com/29251044

 

[Tim H.]

We did this with a 7D, it's a bit softer than if shot with epic or such but since focus is so short it hard to tell even in HD: http://vimeo.com/29251044

Impressive use of the 7D. The client was probably very happy.

Also, what we have discovered about the 5D (prefer this sensor over the 7D) and the 7D is that the compression and softness is what actually makes the image from these camera appear filmic. As strange as it seems, it just works. There is some magic in these little cameras but I'm excited to see what the next few years brings to digital cinema. Red, Canon, Sony - the race is on.

 

[Robert Andriessen]

You have to remember that 28 Days Later was released almost 10 years ago. Pretty amazing what that film was back then. No one I talked to that saw the movie in the theater said anything about pixels. In fact it's medium actually worked for it's subject matter. The Director Danny Boyle http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000965/ has done some other decent films. Look at the success he had with Slumdog shot with a combo of film and the SI-2K. Then there is 127 Hours shot on Canon DSLR's. It had a rather large budget for what it was and they still shot on DSLR's. Why? Because for the type of film it was those cameras made sense.

Not sure why people hate on other cameras. They all have their place.

what happened to this thread? this has nothing to do with the original subject.


oh and btw I don't think there is a single video shot of 5d in 127 hours, most of that movie is sl2k and i'm guessing some go pros. It's definently not one of Danny's best looking films. Darn, can't believe I took the bait

 

[Mark Toia]

If I was shooting in black conditions (which is almost never)... I'd use the c300.
The EPIC for everything else.
clean images @ 20,000 asa... is certainly a great abiltiy.

I'm expecting DRAGON to have this sort of range.

But at the moment... 99.999999% of what I do, the EPIC does it perfectly.

This has been written by Nino Leitner who had the C300 for a few days and I went to the same spot as he did during the night and took the same shot. He compared the two frames, C300 is clearly superior in terms of lowlight, which is not something that degrades the Scarlet-X for me by the way, it was both technically as also Company wise clear to me that the result would be that way. The Scarlet has a larger sensor which makes lowlight harder, and the Canon has always been the leader in lowlight.

Canon EOS C300:

RED Scarlet-X (post processed):

Excerpt:
Despite the fact that those two are very different beasts, we grabbed the chance to put the two cameras in the same extreme low light situation, and look at what we get.
In fact, fellow Vienna-based DP and Cinema5D admin Sebastian Wöber called me and said that he wanted to try out his new Scarlet at the exact same spot as we did for our C300 short “13:59”, which we shot in less than 2 days when we had the camera for only a short while about 3 weeks ago (click here to check it out and read the full review). I’ve had a similar thing in mind already, so I was really looking forward to the results and gave Sebastian exact details of the location. And the results are probably as expected, but I didn’t really think there would be THAT much difference.

To the full article here: http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=9371

 

[Nick Morrison]

oh and btw I don't think there is a single video shot of 5d in 127 hours, most of that movie is sl2k and i'm guessing some go pros. It's definently not one of Danny's best looking films. Darn, can't believe I took the bait

Yeah I read the AC article about it, and I agree, I think it was all sl2k, I don't even remember mention of GoPro, but could be wrong. But def no Canon DSLR, that I recall at all.

 

[Antony M]

Yeah I read the AC article about it, and I agree, I think it was all sl2k, I don't even remember mention of GoPro, but could be wrong. But def no Canon DSLR, that I recall at all.

"...the Silicon Imaging SI-2K camera played a dominant role, but other formats included 35mm film (3-perf and 4-perf), S-VHS, a Canon Elura (mini-DV) camcorder and a Canon EOS 1D Mark IV digital SLR. The Canon 1D was used for some HD video, but also for stills photographed in a burst mode. This allows the camera to shoot a series of full-resolution, sequential stills at a frame rate less than 24fps. These clips were assembled by Union VFX in London as motion media files at a variety of frame rates.

The Canon DSLR cameras were used in a couple of ways – in a burst mode to gave us a hyper-real, kinetic look that was used in the flashbacks – as well as for traditional time lapse shots."

http://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/127-hours/