Was it just me or did the motion on those sample videos seem somewhat videoish, especially XXIT. The Desert video looked the best in my opinion.

Mmm, prices are already going down?

Canon Cinema EOS C300 EF
Our Price: £10,000.00 + VAT
|
£12,000.00 inc VAT
€11,959.54 + VAT
$16,434.68 No VAT
http://www.creativevideo.co.uk/index.php?t=product/canon_eos_c300

Canon Cinema EOS C300 PL
Our Price: £13,500.00 + VAT
|
£16,200.00 inc VAT
€16,145.37 + VAT
$22,186.82 No VAT

More so that they have the Scarlet-X to compete with now. Somebody should tell me what did they drank before choosing the pricing of this camera. For me it is just company greed, they just surfed on their dslr success and thought that they could put anything at any price and everybody would applaud them and buy it because they could slap a Canon logo on it.

@Vitaliy I have watched the Vincent Laforet short and I find the imagery very very good. I am sure that such a camera in good hands is going to output some very very good image. In fact everything is a question of threshold. Once you reach it, you can do some nice to very good imagery. A true 1080p HD resolution, with about 12 stop of DR is already very very good (The 8 bit is a let down). Everything that comes above is just icing on the cake. For example, until now I did not see any video from the Sony F3 that is better than the Canons one. This tells you all about production value because on paper the s-log F3 is superior.

But I have seen a lot of people on many forum or even here that have already committed money to the scarlet-X. Not one I have seen that has said that they are going to buy the Canon in January. This camera could have been a hit for $ 5000 to $ 8000 price range. It would have constituted a natural upgrade for much of Canon DSLR video crowd, but now even the scarlet-X seems more of an upgrade as it can autofocus with the EOS lens while the Canon camera cannot.

I am confused. I have seen reports that the Canon records 1080p MJPEG and other reports that say that it is 4K but that it actually records 1080p 4:2:2 MPEG2? So which is it? Is this truly a 4K camera? Does this record MPEG2 or MJPEG? Is there a difference between those two?

It also says that in 4K mode it actually records less than true 35mm. Really this press release was not very clear.

Honestly, the camera itself doesn’t look that exciting. What I want are lenses with the same specs in m4/3s mounts(ie: smaller).

Edit: Never-mind, I see now that I was confusing the future 4K press release with the 1080p one.

@ mpgxsvcd
it'll even be more unaffordable then.

JVC is smart, they waited....
Dont no when they come with there 4k. (in 60 fps...
The new cinema camera entry level price of the FS-100 (6-7k €).
http://pro.jvc.com/pro/events/4Kforums/index.html

you have Scorcese be a guest speaker but churn out crap like this? If this was supposed to be history making, why not get a fucking ultra talented director to create an indelible vision here?

I couldn't agree more.

@mozes When I saw the protype JVC 4K earlier this year on a 4K display, the Image Quality screamed- "hey, we strapped four JVC 4:2:0 HD consumer cams together to give you EVEN MORE frames of a big crappy 4K picture in 8bit!"

I might have missed a word or two in the translation, as I don't speak native Falconbird...

@mpgxsvcd

Because P and B frames are not "real" frames. They cause detail to "slide" instead of "blinking/refreshing" like they would with 24 independent frames per second. The quality is still good... but the motion is just off. And if there IS enough bandwidth... they why not just be I frames?

In cinema... no frame ever has the same detail. An algorithm should not be deciding what changes in detail should be encoded or not. ALL OF IT is a change in detail... even a plain white wall. Every frame should be separate and independent.

I think their sensor looks absolutely wonderful. But the dynamic range is unworthy of cinema. They really need some kind of S-Log and a much better codec.

I find it extraordinary, I wrote the post below on DVX and I think perhaps I will be banned. It is about the C300 an open letter and some people defending the 8 bit thing. I wrote what is below, do anybody think it is out of order, so if some folks being paid by a company telling something, so you should think that it not bias and true. I did not mention the name of anybody but the principal behind it.

I find it a bit naive for some to take the words of people that are working or have been contracted by Canon as necessarily truth. In a court of justice it is called conflict of interest. So do you think all those professional that have been surely well paid will tell you anything bad about this camera. If you were in their place what would you do. They are not a bunch of students or hobbyist that would have done it free for Canon. These people are established professional that walk only to the tune of money.

I have been a graphic designer and then pro photographer the last 20 years. So anybody can tell anything he wants about 8 bit, I know what it is. I know the difference when I shoot raw or jpeg. I know how they work and what are there limitation and not even someone on the payrol of Canon from Hollywood that 8 bit is good. Do anybody know how those shots were taken. If there was need of much more re-shoot than usual because they had no flexibility in the files that they had to be bang on. How much massage those files went through. how much take that were binned even if they would have been better. How much did not pass trough because at dawn or dust the gradation in the sky is such that it will cause banding in a 8 bit file. Who knows, the history of film is full of stories where the crew had to make choices or shortcuts because of some limitation. Sometime they came with very creative way to do that, that became a style in itself. but the question here is not that, the question is how 8 bit has suddenly come good enough for Hollywood? They should get rid of all those high-end post station etc. who needs that when 8 bit is enough.

The last thing I would add is I have only seen the La Foret short an been impressed by it. Now what went behind, did it need two three time more time to shoot of post process and decision where made not to shoot X or Y scene because it would expose the camera weaknesses. We will have to wait to see some independent test to really judge. Before that I won't believe that 8 bit is good enough.