# Canon Suspends Downloading of New C300 Firmware



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 15, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/11/canon-suspends-downloads-of-new-c100-c300-firmware/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/11/canon-suspends-downloads-of-new-c100-c300-firmware/">Tweet</a></div>
<p>To Users of the Canon EOS C300 and C300PL Cinema EOS Cameras.</p>
<p><b>Details</b></p>
<p>We have suspended download services for Firmware Version 1.1.0.1.00 that was posted Tuesday November 12, 2013 at 8PM EST, because it has been determined that discrepancies in color balance can occur with footage captured by the EOS C300 and EOS C300PL running Firmware Version 1.1.0.1.00.</p>
<p>We are currently preparing new firmware with a fix for this issue and will release it as soon as it is available.</p>
<p>We are very sorry for the inconvenience, but we ask for your patience during this time.</p>
<p><b>Support</b>

We are preparing new firmware with a fix for this issue. If you have updated your EOS C300 or EOS C300PL firmware to version 1.1.0.1.00, Canon will restore the camera’s firmware version to 1.0.9.1.00 for any EOS C300 or EOS C300PL camera running firmware version 1.1.0.1.00. Please contact the Canon Customer Support Center in your region for further details.</p>
```


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 15, 2013)

Exactly why I always give these things at least a week or two...


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 15, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Exactly why I always give these things at least a week or two...



And this is exactly why I always keep at least two previous versions of any software or firmware I update, so that I can revert to an earlier, known working version, if needed. Of all my updateable devices, my Synology NAS is the only one on which the software cannot be downgraded.


----------



## wockawocka (Nov 16, 2013)

I wish they'd test their stuff better before release.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 16, 2013)

wockawocka said:


> I wish they'd test their stuff better before release.


 
Of course, there are a near infinite number of things that could go wrong, so it would take a near infinite amount of time to test them all. Unfortunately, several thousand users can run more tests in a week than 10 testers working for a year.


----------



## breht (Nov 16, 2013)

I updated my C300 the same day it came out. Two days later they announced there being a problem and I found out about two hours before I had to do a shoot. I thought, "Oh well. Nothing I can do about it now." Needless to say, from what I understand, this discrepancy comes into play if you've begun a project and then updated in the middle of that project and then you went back to finish that project. There may be some coloring differences. If you are starting something from scratch you will not see any issues. And from the way they make it sound, your computer may see the differences but you, a human, probably will not. Probably deals with shooting test charts or something. Someone else mentioned that thousands of users are going to be more inclined to find bugs in a few days rather than Canon's small team of testers over the course of months and months, and it's true! Look at something like the iPhone iOS7 update. It comes out and within a few days they're releasing 7.01. Another two weeks 7.02 and now with a few more weeks here comes 7.03. Since the C300 has been released, it's had quite a few firmware updates that have fixed various issues. Same goes for Sony, Red, Blackmagic, our Canon DSLR's, computers, iPhones, iPads, Galaxy Tabs, you name it! The beauty behind it all is they can find these issues and continue to fix them in future updates. Now, if we could just get Canon to give us some legitimate slow motion in one of these updates, then we'd be talking


----------



## Valvebounce (Nov 16, 2013)

Hi Mt Spokane.
I do agree mostly with what you say but I thought the whole idea of computers was to make our lives easier, not just for reading CR Forum!
Should it not be possible to run hundreds of thousands of permutation simulations on computers in very short periods of time, computers are great at chomping through numbers, its what they do best.
I know that there will still be a chance of some random permutation of settings that will cause a conflict , but that should be an incredibly small chance, not in numbers that would cause a withdrawal of an upgrade?
It is at least good that the update can be rolled back to restore the cameras to useful condition.

Cheers Graham.




Mt Spokane Photography said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > I wish they'd test their stuff better before release.
> ...


----------



## breht (Nov 17, 2013)

You've got human error and computer error and let's not forget who's programming those computers. It's just how things go. Like I said, everything from your iphone and ipad to your home computer, and the built-in gps in your car, allows for firmware upgrades. My projector even has a USB slot for firmware upgrade. It's smart actually. It's future proofing everything that these companies build. If Canon did release all of that coded information and there was only one fluke, that's honestly not bad. Plus, the cool thing is, they'll fix it!


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 18, 2013)

Valvebounce said:


> Should it not be possible to run hundreds of thousands of permutation simulations on computers in very short periods of time, computers are great at chomping through numbers, its what they do best.
> I know that there will still be a chance of some random permutation of settings that will cause a conflict , but that should be an incredibly small chance, not in numbers that would cause a withdrawal of an upgrade?
> It is at least good that the update can be rolled back to restore the cameras to useful condition.



The extra burden on video is broadcast safe levels, a particular gamut that broadcast use camcorders should adhere to. It's not just linear signal voltage, it's colours too, and it may only become a problem affecting very specific hues under very specific lighting with a particular sensor. That is to say, it is a problem that can only be identified or triggered optically. Computers cannot model this. Standards determined by now obselte (in most regions) analogue transimitters. But like the story of the horses ass and the space shuttle some things just predate contemporary logic.

I don't know the reason for the shelving of the firmware, but colour in video is far more complex for video in stills, just because of regional standards, technical and bereucratic.

It's unfortunate for the early adopters (who should listen to Murphy a bit more) but good that canon are at least acknowledging problems more quickly. Canon and I have a lot of history, not all of it good.


----------



## Valvebounce (Nov 18, 2013)

Hi Paul.
Thanks for that information, that makes a lot more sense. 
So are you saying we all go and get new technology TV's supporting X+Y% more colours but the broadcast standards are so old that they still only send X colours? 
What about Blue Ray wasn't that advertised as having colours so vivid it will blow your mind? Do they film for that then down scale movies to broadcast levels or upscale from these levels somehow for Blue Ray Dics?
Or do I just ave the wrong end of the stick?

Cheers Graham.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 19, 2013)

Valvebounce said:


> So are you saying we all go and get new technology TV's supporting X+Y% more colours but the broadcast standards are so old that they still only send X colours?



Broadly speaking yes. A broadcast engineer will run various tests on submitted material, such as vectorscope checks on device recorded colour bars, signal waveforms, harding flash tests and audio checks.

Illegal levels could potentially damage transmitters, or will not show properly on some equipment.



Valvebounce said:


> What about Blue Ray wasn't that advertised as having colours so vivid it will blow your mind? Do they film for that then down scale movies to broadcast levels or upscale from these levels somehow for Blue Ray Dics?



Blue Ray isn't for broadcast, it's for domestic use on personal equipment so not the same issue. It may be that some movies are closer to the directors vision as they haven't been through broadcast safe filtering.

With 1&0's the issue should be dead, but the standards are still in place, how do you know your viewer doesn't have an expensive Loewe CRT?


----------



## Valvebounce (Nov 19, 2013)

Hi Paul.
Well that answers those questions thanks. ;D
I'm going to guess that an expensive Loewe CRT is one that might not react well to out of limit signals?

Cheers Graham.


----------

