Canon EOS C300 = Awesome

Im not sure if this bad boy has been talked about yet, found this review tonight! Quite a Funny review.

Looks very Impressive:

http://vimeo.com/32067​654

Love the video.

Yeah, seen that already. Not sure if it was here or not, but man oh man does that C300 look like an amazing camera. PL mount or EOS mount! Get the Funk Out!

I had an invite to go and see one up close and personal, but I had to work instead and missed it. Oh well, soon enough.

It's one of those things that if you see it you will want it, so perhaps you had a lucky escape..... or at least the credit card bill did.

Yeah, probably so... Problem is that there are so few of them available yet. And I'm not a 1st adapter. Meaning, let others find all the bugs and I'll get the 2nd version of the firmware with all the bug fixes.

It's still only 4:2:2 and 8 bit compressed =p

You would expect at least 10 bit and uncompressed out as an option on any camera that costs more than $10k, much less one that's slated to come in around $16k.

Seen that video, it's nice, but old news.

gibsonla wrote in post #13577451
It's still only 4:2:2 and 8 bit compressed =p

You would expect at least 10 bit and uncompressed out as an option on any camera that costs more than $10k, much less one that's slated to come in around $16k.

^This.

4:2:2 50mbps is alright, but 8-bit is not, especially on something that supports a Log recording mode.

Since sensors write down data in a linear fashion, the highest stop of data represents half of all available tones in the image, so the number of bits is largely proportional to the the number of complete stops of dynamic range that a camera can record.

8 bits of data can record 8 real stops of DR and here's an easy way to test this - divide 256 by half and count down how long it takes to get to 1.

128
64
32
16
8
4
2
1

Try doing the same with 16-bit (65536 tones) and you'll get 16 stops starting from 32768 on down. The reason I brought this up is because the Canon C300 has the potential to record up to (and perhaps over) 12 stops of DR, as suggested on some video forums, which is a lot more than the codec can hold.

Although you can technically represent over 8 stops of DR in 8 bits, it will be compressed (not real DR), so as soon as you start grading that footage, it's going to show posterization from relatively small changes in tonality.

I'm thinking the best immediate use of Log recording on the C300 will be to create an intentionally low-contrast look, or if you intend to throw on some film-grain in post to dither the image.

It's 4:2:2 because it's a video camera and not a "digital cinema" camera. It's not intended to compete with RED or Arri.

No point in generating anything above 8-bit when chances are very good that productions shot with it will be broadcast in mpeg anyways.

Buddy of mine got to play with one recently and said that footage shot by "table lamp" (his description) showed basically no noise whatsoever. Cleanest video signal he's ever seen (and he's been in the business for quite a while.)

4:2:2 is damn near enough for just about anything. There are many cinematographers who claim there isn't much difference to warrant using 4:4:4 over it unless you really want to get as close to a moving photograph as possible.

There aren't any video cameras with Log output either, with the exception of the 3700 Varicam.
But why put in a feature you won't be able to make full use of because of a bit depth limit? Even an inexpensive Panasonic camcorder in the $6~9k range has 10-bit output.

Some of these features are just so trivial to implement on a technological level, but for some reason everyone wants money for them - in fact, many features do already exist in many cameras but are simply locked off or artificially limited in some way.

You guys are forgetting about the Sony F3. 4:4:4 10 bit uncompressed out and log capable at the same price point.

As someone who does freelance color grading, I can certainly tell the difference between 8 bit and 10 bit footage.

What's "Color Grading?"

Are you a video guy or do you do film -> tape transfers?

I color correct & grade films. Wish I had the equipment to do film <--> tape transfer, those guys make bank.

Post-processing for video, to put it simply. Where a photographer may use Photoshop to adjust color and tonality in an image or paint masks, color grading suites do the same thing for motion. Doesn't sound like much on paper, but it requires a whole other level of software/hardware and know-how to make use of it.

Wow totally misread your response flyingphotog

kolor-pikker summed it up pretty well.

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #13580011
Post-processing for video, to put it simply. Where a photographer may use Photoshop to adjust color and tonality in an image or paint masks, color grading suites do the same thing for motion. Doesn't sound like much on paper, but it requires a whole other level of software/hardware and know-how to make use of it.

So it's scene to scene color correction then...

Heck we've been doing that for years in live TV. Did it in film to tape suites as well.

FWIW, if you're interested (and I doubt you are), this was my world for nearly 25 years. I've also got five of these paperweights around the house as well.

I've slung an electron or two along the way... Interesting Discussion here.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'