BA
The C300 isn't an SLR (i.e. single lens reflex) design, instead it's Canon's answer to those who wanted a DSLR look but at broadcast quality.
Thanks for the information.
As has been very eloquently stated, the C300 (it's not the Mk2) is based from the DSLR origins of Canon but is very much a "video camera" rather than stills. Proper audio/video/timecode inputs and outputs, etc, and meeting 50mbps acquisition specs.
For a short history, when I first got involved it was shot on in SD on Sony DVCam on a DSR450/570 whilst using available TVC galleries, before moving to Red Bee playout for the links. When it moved to NBH it also moved to HD (as was mandated that all new programming was to be HD 50mbps minimum and it did indeed switch to the Canon XF305 which became the go-to camera that was cheap and met spec. A hateful camera in my opinion. Only used because it met BBC specs whereas the Sony rivals (EX1/3) were only 35mbps and using external recorders was in its infancy.
The XF codec used by the XF range cameras is widely supported and ingests easily within the BBCs internal systems (shot in London, edited in Belfast, previously Birmingham) It was at my suggestion to the new producer to trial the C300 so as to give some superior production value/quality for the links for the programme, since then we've shot on Canon C300. I've dabbled with primes (made it look green screen at f1.2 and most often use the humble 24-70mm f2.8 for most of the links now.
Bail
Moderator
Looks like one of those Canon DSLRs designed for video (C300?) with a iPad based TelePrompTer hood on it.
The C300 isn't an SLR (i.e. single lens reflex) design, instead it's Canon's answer to those who wanted a DSLR look but at broadcast quality.
Thanks for the information.
There are plenty of factual programmes shot solely on C300s or the XF305.
Poor craftsman's tools and all that....
Poor craftsman's tools and all that....
As has been very eloquently stated, the C300 (it's not the Mk2) is based from the DSLR origins of Canon but is very much a "video camera" rather than stills. Proper audio/video/timecode inputs and outputs, etc, and meeting 50mbps acquisition specs.
For a short history, when I first got involved it was shot on in SD on Sony DVCam on a DSR450/570 whilst using available TVC galleries, before moving to Red Bee playout for the links. When it moved to NBH it also moved to HD (as was mandated that all new programming was to be HD 50mbps minimum and it did indeed switch to the Canon XF305 which became the go-to camera that was cheap and met spec. A hateful camera in my opinion. Only used because it met BBC specs whereas the Sony rivals (EX1/3) were only 35mbps and using external recorders was in its infancy.
The XF codec used by the XF range cameras is widely supported and ingests easily within the BBCs internal systems (shot in London, edited in Belfast, previously Birmingham) It was at my suggestion to the new producer to trial the C300 so as to give some superior production value/quality for the links for the programme, since then we've shot on Canon C300. I've dabbled with primes (made it look green screen at f1.2 and most often use the humble 24-70mm f2.8 for most of the links now.
NG
Totally agree with everything apart from the above. Using external recorders (Nanoflashes usually) with EX3s was bog-standard for HD production from late 2009 - as the EX3 camera met BBC HD specs, but the recorded didn't. Bolt on a Nanoflash shooting at a decent bitrate in a decent codec, and you got a Frankencamera which met specs and didn't cost the earth. When shows like The One Show went HD, 6 years ago in 2010, the EX3+Nanoflash combo was widespread, so I'm not sure I'd describe external recorders as 'in its infancy'.
Tapeless self-shooting in HD on EX3+Nanoflash was the first real low-cost HD acquisition we had that met BBC HD specs, and pre-dated the XF305 by a year or so. (Some show workflows meant that 35Mbs in-camera EX3 recordings were also allowed - but usually only on live shows not pre-recorded)
noggin
Founding member
A hateful camera in my opinion. Only used because it met BBC specs whereas the Sony rivals (EX1/3) were only 35mbps and using external recorders was in its infancy.
Totally agree with everything apart from the above. Using external recorders (Nanoflashes usually) with EX3s was bog-standard for HD production from late 2009 - as the EX3 camera met BBC HD specs, but the recorded didn't. Bolt on a Nanoflash shooting at a decent bitrate in a decent codec, and you got a Frankencamera which met specs and didn't cost the earth. When shows like The One Show went HD, 6 years ago in 2010, the EX3+Nanoflash combo was widespread, so I'm not sure I'd describe external recorders as 'in its infancy'.
Tapeless self-shooting in HD on EX3+Nanoflash was the first real low-cost HD acquisition we had that met BBC HD specs, and pre-dated the XF305 by a year or so. (Some show workflows meant that 35Mbs in-camera EX3 recordings were also allowed - but usually only on live shows not pre-recorded)
BA
Totally agree with everything apart from the above. Using external recorders (Nanoflashes usually) with EX3s was bog-standard for HD production from late 2009 - as the EX3 camera met BBC HD specs, but the recorded didn't. Bolt on a Nanoflash shooting at a decent bitrate in a decent codec, and you got a Frankencamera which met specs and didn't cost the earth. When shows like The One Show went HD, 6 years ago in 2010, the EX3+Nanoflash combo was widespread, so I'm not sure I'd describe external recorders as 'in its infancy'.
Tapeless self-shooting in HD on EX3+Nanoflash was the first real low-cost HD acquisition we had that met BBC HD specs, and pre-dated the XF305 by a year or so. (Some show workflows meant that 35Mbs in-camera EX3 recordings were also allowed - but usually only on live shows not pre-recorded)
I only call it "infancy" because, it never matured (for me at least) The nanoflash was so IMHO unreliable, constantly crashing/corrupting and just being an arse of a thing. I can see why the BBC jumped at Canons XF range when it launched, despite in my opinion producing sub par images compared to the Sony EX's on the time which I still bump into now and then, and 35mbps is still permissible for newsgathering so they linger on.
Bail
Moderator
A hateful camera in my opinion. Only used because it met BBC specs whereas the Sony rivals (EX1/3) were only 35mbps and using external recorders was in its infancy.
Totally agree with everything apart from the above. Using external recorders (Nanoflashes usually) with EX3s was bog-standard for HD production from late 2009 - as the EX3 camera met BBC HD specs, but the recorded didn't. Bolt on a Nanoflash shooting at a decent bitrate in a decent codec, and you got a Frankencamera which met specs and didn't cost the earth. When shows like The One Show went HD, 6 years ago in 2010, the EX3+Nanoflash combo was widespread, so I'm not sure I'd describe external recorders as 'in its infancy'.
Tapeless self-shooting in HD on EX3+Nanoflash was the first real low-cost HD acquisition we had that met BBC HD specs, and pre-dated the XF305 by a year or so. (Some show workflows meant that 35Mbs in-camera EX3 recordings were also allowed - but usually only on live shows not pre-recorded)
I only call it "infancy" because, it never matured (for me at least) The nanoflash was so IMHO unreliable, constantly crashing/corrupting and just being an arse of a thing. I can see why the BBC jumped at Canons XF range when it launched, despite in my opinion producing sub par images compared to the Sony EX's on the time which I still bump into now and then, and 35mbps is still permissible for newsgathering so they linger on.
SP
I think your question is answered by the first line of your post.
In practically every usage I've seen it looks like it's been slapped on top of something else, as if it is covering up some old branding at the last minute.
Why does it have to be in a white rectangle? Why not just white text like the rest of the credits?
Why does it have to be in a white rectangle? Why not just white text like the rest of the credits?
I think your question is answered by the first line of your post.
EL
What are the main differences between the XF305 and the EX3? I've used the 305s to death and I love them to pieces, and I'm struggling to understand what a much older camera like an EX3 (used one of those the other day for the first time ever) would be better at.
Lens/sensor better on the EX3?
Lens/sensor better on the EX3?