Why Did Canon...?

[James Carlsen]

My guess is less, but will have more rolling shutter, h.264 codec, lower DR, Moire and many other DSLR traits that the c300 has worked out of it. But then again...thats just a guess...I could be wrong.

Incredible how misinformed some people are and yet still utter statements that are based on BS...

The DSLR C300 does NOT shoot H.264... But Motion JPEG. And that on a full frame sensor...

To OP...

1 - Scartlet does NOT shoot Movies in 5k

2 - If you can't afford $100,000 worth of lighting equipment and shoot a lot after sunset, then RED cameras are inferior to canon. REDs in lowlight are nothing compared to Canon.
I don't mean that as in REDs are bad, they are incredible. But they were designed for folks who can afford proper lighting in low light. NOT for Available light Shooters after dark :wink5:

That said, I think the Scarlett has some incredible specs.

If you need more and thorough information go to www.phillipbloom.net --- He has a long blog about REDs with lots of real-world parallels.

 

[Jacques Mersereau]

<<<2 - If you can't afford $100,000 worth of lighting equipment and shoot a lot after sunset, then RED cameras are inferior to canon.>>>

Are you 100% positive that Epic with HDR is inferior? Do you have experience? I would love to hear about it.

 

[Eric J Kosinski]

Incredible how misinformed some people are and yet still utter statements that are based on BS...

The DSLR C300 does NOT shoot H.264... But Motion JPEG. And that on a full frame sensor...

To OP...

1 - Scartlet does NOT shoot Movies in 5k

2 - If you can't afford $100,000 worth of lighting equipment and shoot a lot after sunset, then RED cameras are inferior to canon. REDs in lowlight are nothing compared to Canon.
I don't mean that as in REDs are bad, they are incredible. But they were designed for folks who can afford proper lighting in low light. NOT for Available light Shooters after dark :wink5:

That said, I think the Scarlett has some incredible specs.

If you need more and thorough information go to www.phillipbloom.net --- He has a long blog about REDs with lots of real-world parallels.

So far the DSLR C from the C300 Canon line is just a concept at this point. The C300 is Super 35mm, Not FF

Shooting in low light with High ISO isn't being a good cinematographer, it is trying to pull anything out of the camera. The ability to shoot RAW is far superior with RED than any compressed codec from Canon.

Canon states the camera can go to 12,000 ISO plus with good results. All the tests online look like shit at that ISO. Yes, better than RED at high ISO at that level probably, but I'd rather light my films and sets. You don't need to be rich these days to buy some simple LED panels. Check out www.flolight.com and you'll be pleasantly surprised how much light you can get for a low cost.

Cinematographers Use Light to shape the image and tell the story. It is the entire essence of Cinematography outside of composition. You are correct in one sense that the RED isn't an available light camera after dark, so my advice would be learn to Light. Adding ISO in low light situations is degrading the image and adding noise regardless of the camera you are using. Wouldn't you simply just want to learn to light and get the best image possible?

 

[Eric J Kosinski]

<<<2 - If you can't afford $100,000 worth of lighting equipment and shoot a lot after sunset, then RED cameras are inferior to canon.>>>

Are you 100% positive that Epic with HDR is inferior? Do you have experience? I would love to hear about it.

Most independent film sets I've been on for feature/commercial do not even have $100,000 of lighting on set to light 35mm film. This is a complete myth that you need to break the bank on lighting for RED. The newer MX sensor is rated at 800. Sure you can pull a decent image at higher ISO from Canon C 300, Sony F3, etc, but at what cost. Compression Codecs and higher noise than simply lighting a good scene. Again a few Kino Flos or Fresnels would do the trick. Hell, even a cheap Lowell Omni kit can light a film set if you know what you are doing.

 

[Timur Civan]

Timur.
Did you even bothered to read my post?
If both cameras record to an external device, then there is no 8 bit issue whatsoever. Both output 10 bit- F3 dual SDI 444 10 bit and C300 single SDI 422 10 bit. The 8 bit signal only present, if C300 recorded internally.
And what does "squeeze log into an 8bit space" means? 8 bit is a sample rate and not a space. And Log is just a curve, just like a video curve. So, I don't understand your point. Grading 8 bit with any encoded curve is a bad idea, period.
So, don't use 8 bit recording

The C300 outputs 8bit over sdi. The signal is 10bit, bit it contains 8bit info. Sitting here at abel discussing it. And that's the first question I asked them. It is only an 8bit camera. You're placing 12+ stops of greys into 256 steps.

 

[Stephen Wheeler]

Dose any one else find the argument that the C300 is better because the noise it has at higher ISO's looks more like film grain dumb. When I still worked with film making the film grain visible was considered as bad of a thing as having noise in your video image.

What is the biases for this $100,000 lighting package? While you will need to light for the RED, you don't need that much light. I've lit projects just using 5 $25 500watt halogen work lights I bought at cosco. Sure I had to bounce them and flag the shit out of them to get it to look good, but it worked great in the end. I was using 500 ASA 16mm Vision 2 stock for this. But I've done similar set ups for the RED MX and had it work out. It takes work but you can inexpensively light a scene for the red. You just need to know how to light. If you don't know how to use light you're a camera operator, not a cinematographer.

 

[Mike P.]

Honestly, my initial reaction to the C300 teetered on disgust - it's pointless to say 4k sensor when it finishes in 1080p, and the camera that inspired it (the 5Dmk2) was $2500 and they were talking $20k!!?? However, after seeing the footage and features (built-in NDs, insanely high ISO, insanely cheap recording media, etc.), it's kind of grown on me...

Now I'd never buy one for $20Gs when you could get a pretty good SX kit for that (with extra batteries and REDmags), but I'd definitely consider it before something like an Alexa (which is still 4x the price and also finishes in 1080p with internal recording). And that is where the camera will do well; potential Alexa owners/users will probably flock to it for it's point-n-shoot-ness...

If the EOS Cinema FF DSLR, which I'm inclined to believe will be the spiritual 5Dmk3, ends up producing the same type of image (proper 4k to 1080p scaling, high ISO performance, but without built-in NDs and video form factor) using the 50mbit/422 codec AND COSTS ~$2500-3500, I totally be on board for that. That would even trump the SX for 75% of the projects I work on.

In other words, I think those that are considering the C300 probably weren't ever really considering RED Scarlet/Epic (and were instead planning on getting Alexa), and all of those HDSLR users who can't afford the C300 or Scarlet were probably going to wait for the "5Dmk3" EOS Cinema FF DSLR anyway. Know what I mean?

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

The 4k sensor does help make noise look a lot more like organic grain.

An other nice touch in the C300 is the ability to swivel the side handle. I would love that on Scarlet and Epic. That could happen down the line; with a new RED side handle that incorporates a thin plate, rosette and then the handle.

The C300 outputs 8bit over sdi. The signal is 10bit, bit it contains 8bit info. Sitting here at abel discussing it. And that's the first question I asked them. It is only an 8bit camera. You're placing 12+ stops of greys into 256 steps.

Wow. That sucks... So even if using external recorders you need to nail the look in-camera. Correct? I'd love to see how much the image can be pushed.

 

[Madjid El ayari]

Incredible how misinformed some people are and yet still utter statements that are based on BS...

The DSLR C300 does NOT shoot H.264... But Motion JPEG. And that on a full frame sensor...

To OP...

1 - Scartlet does NOT shoot Movies in 5k

Yep 4k is enough for a lot of people around
​

2 - If you can't afford $100,000 worth of lighting equipment and shoot a lot after sunset, then RED cameras are inferior to canon. REDs in lowlight are nothing compared to Canon.
I don't mean that as in REDs are bad, they are incredible. But they were designed for folks who can afford proper lighting in low light. NOT for Available light Shooters after dark :wink5:

People usually shot with some fast prime , remember kubrick in Barry Lyndon with his f:0,7 50mm lense and the scene just lighted with candle !!! What a great dOP !!! Amateur always talk about low light and expect the iso to save them , it s getting borring ! Light and fast Prime plus the max acceptable iso out of the camera is the key !!!



If you need more and thorough information go to www.phillipbloom.net --- He has a long blog about REDs with lots of real-world parallels.

Phillip Bloom is not a good DOP imo ! How it is possible that a good DOP make some Crop fake anamorphic out of a canon lense , and don t see that the line on one corner have some huge distortion and on the other side it s ok because the image have been crop in a strange way !


www.madjidelayari.com

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

The last InterBEE 2011 Tokyo told us that the "future proof" is 8K and already made 4K obsolete.

That's one of reasons in general I agree with an American artists Jenny Holzer who told use years ago that THE FUTURE IS STUPID.

Actually the future is more or less something like a sort of zig-zag movement.

What does it mean to us, filmmakers and cinematographers?

It means that you can mix and combine all in one movie if you would need it HD, 2K, 4K, even 8K.

That's the main reason I just ordered both cameras: Scarlet-X and Canon C300.

So oh lord won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz...?!

Hey, I don't need Mercedes Benz because I already have VW Tiguan instead of....

But I need Scarlet-X and C300 to live my own "future zig-zag proof":

4K, RAW R3D, great colors, accurate skin tones, gorgeous low light performance,

amazing latitude, film like noise at high ISO, both cameras are lightweight and handhold-able,

Ti PL, Ti Canon EOS, Leica R, Leica M, Nikon F/G mounts and adaptors,...

And I'm such a lucky guy, I know that very well and you don't need to tell me that again...!!!

 

[Mike Garrick]

Ok I'm not here to rubbish this camera it is a good, possibly a great camera. Its not as good as Scarlet but hey I can see it's strengths having spent some time in broadcast. Anyway there is a promo video getting around, I will not post the window here in deference to Reduser policy but here's the link to Vimeo. http://vimeo.com/32067654

Anyway if you look @ around 58 secs into the clip ( the focus puller who isnt a focus puller bit, groan) There is huge noise or is that "organic grain" from shooting a very high ISO showing the true lowlight capabilities of this camera. Other scenes are good, though corny. I always worried about the statement from mister Bigwig Canon MD about how the need for lighting ceases to a be a problem with this camera. Is this the logical result, pushing a good/great camera into position of failure with the mistaken believe you don't need to light?

Maybe it's my problem that I don't like organic grain, certainly this level of organic grain. What do you think ?

 

[Eric J Kosinski]

Ok I'm not here to rubbish this camera it is a good, possibly a great camera. Its not as good as Scarlet but hey I can see it's strengths having spent some time in broadcast. Anyway there is a promo video getting around, I will not post the window here in deference to Reduser policy but here's the link to Vimeo. http://vimeo.com/32067654

Anyway if you look @ around 58 secs into the clip ( the focus puller who isnt a focus puller bit, groan) There is huge noise or is that "organic grain" from shooting a very high ISO showing the true lowlight capabilities of this camera. Other scenes are good, though corny. I always worried about the statement from mister Bigwig Canon MD about how the need for lighting ceases to a be a problem with this camera. Is this the logical result, pushing a good/great camera into position of failure with the mistaken believe you don't need to light?

Maybe it's my problem that I don't like organic grain, certainly this level of organic grain. What do you think ?

I completely agree. I don't quite understand why people feel they can push the limit with ISO just because the exposure is okay. The grain/noise just looks bad. Some noise and organic grain is acceptable in some situations, but I can never understand why a cinematographer would sacrifice quality to push ISO instead of using a lower setting and simply lighting up.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Low light sensitivity doesn't mean abuse of low light sensitivity. All cameras have a breaking point. Please don't point at a 20,000 ISO shot and call out grain...

It is pretty obvious the C300 can go deeper into low light than M-X. Now, would I buy one? Epic/Scarlet beat it in every single other measurable way, and you'll be able to drop in a Dragon sensor not too far from now.

The only 'problem' I saw in that video was that the graded Log never looked best. I am on a bad monitor right now, but I don't think that is the reason. And with the info just posted about even the external recordings being 8-bit... I guess we know why.

 

[Imran Farouk]

I have to say, if anyone is thinking of going Indie and shooting natural light with a fast lens and on the C300...good luck to you and all the best...

I think I'm pretty damn close to self figuring out (I'm sure most have figured it out but its one of those things that you need to open your eyes to personally I guess) what makes the difference between Indie films and Blockbuster hollywood films, mostly when you put aside the effects. They don't try and shoot natural light, they light for a reason, to present the scene in a reason. They could easily use the highest ISO and everything but the footage is so clean, its so nice and pleasant to look at, the scene just brings you into it.

Basically what I'm saying is, I'd expect an indie film to try and go without lights. I got slapped on the wrist for suggesting this in the off topics section, what can a product survive without? The RED is pretty good at low light, 2000 ISO I think is rather good for 4K/5K...That is a personal thing though since some won't go past 1,600. Having said that...I would hope no one expects to go for the maximum when they could produce something rather nice with lighting, with some cinematography and tell a good story. If your going documentary style or in a scenario where lights aren't practical, sure...the high ISO really does well. There are films that would've benefited from the C300, like 'Another Earth'. Though in the end, it is a 4K camera with a 1080p output (4K sensor, hence 4K camera?). They obviously use that extra to get rid of the rolling shutter try and make it non-existant.

Light your set or area appropriate, shoot clean and use a nice set of lenses that suit your tastes. This is one key part. Secondly tell the story and use all your tools at your disposal to do so. Don't go doing something 'because you can' but give it a better more significant reason. The C300 is great, its awesome for run and gunners or Indie films that believe 4K isn't really worth it yet (yeah we've seen them around haven't we?). It's great for RED haters and for those that wan't to pay to have their camera obsoleted (was bit once, never again, well a little lie).

I do really want to see their 4K camera though...I wish they went head to head that day with 4K versus 4K. That would've been WAY better.

 

[Eric J Kosinski]

Low light sensitivity doesn't mean abuse of low light sensitivity.

That's actually a very good pint Roberto. Camera sensitivity is very important, but IMHO not as important as the quality of the image, resolution, etc as you can always light a shot to get a good image, but can't increase things like image quality, and resolution.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

That's actually a very good point Roberto. Camera sensitivity is very important, but IMHO not as important as the quality of the image (...)

You don't say...

 

[Timur Civan]

Incredible how misinformed some people are and yet still utter statements that are based on BS...

The DSLR C300 does NOT shoot H.264... But Motion JPEG. And that on a full frame sensor...

To OP...

1 - Scartlet does NOT shoot Movies in 5k

2 - If you can't afford $100,000 worth of lighting equipment and shoot a lot after sunset, then RED cameras are inferior to canon. REDs in lowlight are nothing compared to Canon.
I don't mean that as in REDs are bad, they are incredible. But they were designed for folks who can afford proper lighting in low light. NOT for Available light Shooters after dark :wink5:

That said, I think the Scarlett has some incredible specs.

If you need more and thorough information go to www.phillipbloom.net --- He has a long blog about REDs with lots of real-world parallels.

Since when is 800 iso slow?

 

[z luye]

c300 is a great camera, but the fact of the matter is that it is still priced leagues above the Scarlet, and on top on that, it is much less of a camera. I've had very few situations where I've been struggling for light and had to complain about/push the ISO to inappropriate levels.

If you're shooting with a camera that costs $20,000, chances are you are more than likely lighting your subject properly, not to mention planning accordingly to the problems that can arise with dangerously low lighting situations.

Announcing the 4k DSLR may have only served in spooking away a few Scarlet customers; it's possible.

At the end of the day, the c300 is an amazing camera. I'm just infinitely confused at its price point in relation to the competition. It would make much more sense to price it sub 10k and give it a go as a competitor to the Scarlet.

 

[Luis Caffesse]

c300 is a great camera, but the fact of the matter is that it is still priced leagues above the Scarlet

Not quite -
aside from the fact that the c300 is expected to come out at below the announced price of 20K, a ready to shoot Scarlet package will run a bit more than the 14K kit costs.
As I go back and forth on the best way outfit my Scarlet order I'm working hard to keep it under 20K, and it's not an easy feat.

Say what you will about the C300, but at the end of the day it will be a less expensive camera than Scarlet - and it SHOULD be less expensive due to its limitations.

 

[z luye]

Not quite -
aside from the fact that the c300 is expected to come out at below the announced price of 20K, a ready to shoot Scarlet package will run a bit more than the 14K kit costs.
As I go back and forth on the best way outfit my Scarlet order I'm working hard to keep it under 20K, and it's not an easy feat.

Ready to shoot will run a bit more, you're totally right. But it's possible to cut corners and sacrifice a bit to keep that price down down. I'm spending an easy 20+ on mine personally. That said, the c300 won't be out of the box brilliant filmmaking material either. Both need their share of things to make it work. But your closing sentence is totally right.