Canon Cinema EOS failure to tap Netflix

[IronFilm]

1 hour ago, BenEricson said:

Depends on your market. The C300 is way more popular in Seattle. Lots of corporate work with Amazon and Microsoft.

I would imagine FS7 is really popular for TV. 

Am sure the ratio of FS7 to C300mk2 varies from market to market and niche to niche. 

But when you're talking about a large city like Seattle, then I don't believe a C300 could be waaaaay more popular than the FS7. Globally the FS7 would be the #1 most popular cinema camera for corporate shoots. (and heck, popular for all kinds of low budget shoots. Just for instance do a search for the #SonyFS7 vs #CanonC300 hashtags on IG, the FS7 has waaaaaaaaaay more)

Am not a local Seattle resident, so I can't speak from first hand experience, but what I did was I went productionhub and did a search for C300 vs FS7 in Seattle.  23 vs 19 result, so yes, Canon is ahead, but only marginally so, within the sampling error for sure. But additionally.... there is a big weakness in this methodology: I bet *many* of these C300 results are referring to the old C300mk1. And we're getting a false positive in the search results. As after all, a very large proportion of veterans who are shooting with a FS7 today were shooting with the C300mk1 before the FS7, so would still have "C300" listed under experience/CV. (as the C300mk1 was the #1 Camera for this bracket before the FS7 stole its crown)

Thus I went through the C300 search results reading each profile to see how many had an FS7! Half of them. (plus saw a few more too with a FS5 instead, the "baby FS7")

 

41 minutes ago, Mokara said:

There are usually hardware or IP reasons for those things, it is not "crippling". You can't implement something if the hardware can't do it

Sure, crippling can occur for more than one reason: market segmentation, lack of horse power, plain old oversight/cluelessness, etc

And that's the point, Canon has frequently simply lacked the grunt of cutting edge electronics to give the consumer what they really need. 

That is why the Canon 1D C had such an efficient codec, that is why the C300mk2 has its weird hidden limitations too, etc

[Mokara]

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Sure, crippling can occur for more than one reason: market segmentation, lack of horse power, plain old oversight/cluelessness, etc

And that's the point, Canon has frequently simply lacked the grunt of cutting edge electronics to give the consumer what they really need. 

That is why the Canon 1D C had such an efficient codec, that is why the C300mk2 has its weird hidden limitations too, etc

1DC used mjpeg because the processor at the time could not handle 4K hardware encoding without a cooling solution, which was not acceptable in the DSLR form factor. So they compromised and used a software solution instead, and the only way that would work was with an inefficient codec like mjpeg.

The 1DC did use hardware encoding for 1080p footage, which the processor encoder could do within the thermal envelope presented by the form factor.

I know people at the time said that mjpeg was better/superior because it damaged the footage less bla bla bla (the only downside in their mind was the large file size), but that was not the reason it was implemented that way, it was implemented as mjpeg because the processor encoder could not handle H.264 encoding of 4K footage. If the processor had been up to snuff they would have done it using H.264.