A little over a week ago, there was a rumor that Canon would be introducing a brand new digital cinema camera between the C300 and the C100 at NAB 2013. At that time, the C300 was retailing for $16,000 and the C100 could be had for $6,500. In terms of the price difference, it was feasible for there to be a camera in-between (even if spec wise it doesn't make much sense). Now, Canon has dropped the C300 price by $2,000 until April 30th for both EF and PL models, and it very well could be a permanent price drop. We've also got a rumor of a replacement 24 Megapixel camera for the aging Canon 7D. So what does that mean for the rest of their product lines?
The price drop makes me less inclined to think that they will bring out a camera between the C100 and the C300 -- but the $2,000 off the current C300 definitely makes it look like a little better of a deal, especially for those who may be in the market for a second camera body. If you were looking at C300s, now might be a better time than ever since the camera is barely a year old, and likely won't be replaced or superseded by a better model for at least another year. Either way, what it does make me think is that Canon may be more likely to introduce a C50 or 7D C -- which brings us to the 7D Mark II rumor.
It was also mentioned that their could be as many as 3 prototype configurations of the camera out there, and this one of them.
Specifications
24.1mp APS-C Sensor
Dual DIGIC V
10fps
Dual Memory Card Slots (Unknown configuration)
61 AF Points (I wonder if we’ll get red focus points in AIS?)
3.2″ LCD
Build quality like 5D3
GPS & Wifi
$2199 ($500 more than the 7D at launch, I’d like to see such a camera come in under $2000)
ISO Performance to get close to the 5D3
“Lots of video features”
Something else that has been rumored before, is a possible C50 camera coming in below the C100. While it's unclear exactly what Canon would strip away, we've also heard about a video focused camera in a DSLR body, possibly a 7D C. Could this be referring to the above 7D Mark II? The current Canon 7D is a workhorse, and it was the first DSLR from the company to natively shoot 24p -- and plenty of them are still in use now. The video quality is fine for most uses (obviously you can get great results with any camera), but we know Canon can (and probably should) do better with a second version.
This new camera could be a miniature version of the 1D X, which makes a lot of sense from a product line point of view -- having different tiers of consumer, semi-pro, and professional APS-C and full-frame cameras. We know the new 1D C is capable of great video in its 1080p Super 35mm mode, but they haven't extended that same quality down to the 1D X (even though they are almost the same camera). That doesn't make me hopeful the new 7D Mark II will have any better video quality than the 1D X since they are both photo cameras, but Canon could certainly introduce two models based on the same body as they've already done, only this time with a 7D Mark II for one price, and a 7D C with better video for a bit more money.
Will this actually happen? Who knows, but they've been pretty conservative with their offerings over the past couple of years. With increased competition from Nikon, however, a DSLR with video quality almost as good as the C100/C300 would probably sell well. It may be expensive for some people's A camera, but a $3,000 7D C would be a great B camera or crash cam for tons of productions, especially those who don't necessarily need or want the 4K or high prices of the 1D C.
At the moment this is just speculation, but we can definitely expect to see the 7D replacement in 2013 at some point, and I'm sure more details will be revealed near or at NAB, and certainly in the coming months.
What do you think about the price drop on the C300? Do you think that means anything for the rest of the Cinema EOS line? What would you like to see out of a 7D Mark II? Would you pay more than $2,200 for a 7D Mark II with better quality video?
I read somewhere that there are only two best-case scenarios for a great screenplay—either it meets the expectations of the audience or it doesn’t. Either they sigh in relief or gasp out loud in shock.
Giving your audience what they want shouldn’t be difficult for a practiced writer. A character has a desire, and they achieve it at the end of the story. Boom! Expectations met!
But there’s something oddly satisfying about not meeting those expectations in a screenplay, leaving the audience shaken in disbelief.
Many compelling screenplays use something called misdirection—it's sneaky, it's intelligent, and it takes viewers somewhere unexpected. It's all about planting subtle clues that seem insignificant until a revelation forces us to reconsider everything.
Let’s examine how this narrative tool, when used thoughtfully, can transform straightforward storytelling into something more complex and satisfying.
What is Misdirection?
Misdirection is distracting the audience to mislead them, preventing them from getting on to your scheme of actions, until you finally reveal the truth. In essence, it is a style of storytelling, where the “audience proposes, filmmaker disposes.”
In misdirection, a filmmaker manipulates information, character(s), and their timing in the narrative while building the conflict, until everything falls into place to reveal an unexpected resolution that does not match the audience’s expectations.
Many times, the audience is also purposefully misdirected by exploiting their biases, prejudices, and gullibility.
Why Would Any Filmmaker Misdirect Their Audience?
A story is as interesting as its narration. Be it a bedtime story or Nolan’s Inception, if the narrative is linear and flat, it may be less engaging to your audience.
Misdirection is one of the finest tools that acts like a hook to your story. Misdirecting elements are thought-provoking, working with the audience’s psychology to throw them off guard.
Fiction gives you the freedom to alter realities, but even while misdirecting, it is important that the dots connect effectively by the end of the story. Information shouldn’t be irrelevant and without context.
How Do You Misdirect Your Audience?
You can use any story element to misdirect the audience, but the most commonly used are characters, sound, props, plot points, strategic information reveal, and the time of the incident of any event.
Examples of Misdirection in Great Films
Gone Girl by David Fincher
Misdirection by unreliable narrator
This is one of those stories that is completely narrated in misdirection.
The film opens through husband Nick’s (Ben Affleck) perspective, who becomes the prime suspect in the disappearance of his wife, Amy (Rosamund Pike), on their fifth marriage anniversary. As the investigation and media frenzy take over, we are let into the lives of our two main characters and led to believe that Amy might actually be dead.
We learn about their failing marriage and Nick’s extramarital affair. Thus, when Nick lies through his teeth about his loving relationship with Amy to the police, he instantly becomes an unreliable narrator in the story.
Thus, even though his alibis are believable, you cannot trust him and can’t take his word. Rather, you, with the police, start suspecting him.
This automatically shifts all your trust to Amy instead, even though you know even less about her than Nick. Wonderfully, you have begun rooting for her now.
What you might not realize is that you have been misdirected to dislike Nick as a character, so that you automatically take Amy’s side right from the beginning, until it is revealed that Amy is alive and purposefully in hiding.
This is one of the many misdirections in the film.
By regulating how the audience judges the characters, their morality, and their intentions, a filmmaker often shatters the expectations of the audience with misdirection to give them a more surprising resolution than expected.
The Sixth Sense by M. Night Shyamalan
Misdirection by character
Just by establishing a character in a certain way and revealing information about them strategically, a filmmaker can determine the character’s impression on the audience.
This is what M. Night Shyamalan does in The Sixth Sense. The magician of misdirection keeps both the characters and the audience engaged, looking for the ghost, all the while narrating the events through the ghost’s perspective!
The beauty of a nuanced misdirection lies in the clues left throughout a film’s events, leaving you both frustrated and delighted at the same time that you didn’t pick up on them!
Money Heist by Álex Pina
Misdirection by sound
In the Spanish drama series, Money Heist, the makers use a powerful misdirection but with a genius twist. This misdirection is not only for the audience per se, but for the main character—the Professor (Álvaro Morte), too.
In the Season 2 finale of the drama series, the Professor and Raquel (Itziar Ituño), the love of his life and newly minted partner-in-crime known as “Lisbon,” are sprinting through a dense, shadowy forest. The air crackles with urgency as police hounds close in, their shouts breaking the eerie silence of the forest.
Eventually, they are forced to separate, with a radio as their only mode of communication. Raquel ends up taking refuge in a barn, but not for too long. The police arrive, and she is completely surrounded. A gun to her head, she is ordered to compromise the Professor, but she’s steel-willed and denies the police any information.
All the while, the Professor is on the radio with her, frightened and worried, begging her to tell them everything in exchange for her life. The Professor frantically runs through the forest to reach Raquel, when… bang! A gunshot rips through the radio.
The Professor stops dead, the forest swallowing his anguished cry. But as the episode races to its close, the fog clears. The shot? A cruel ruse. She’s alive and in police custody. The Professor’s despair was their bait, and he bit—hard.
What I love about this particular sequence is that the filmmakers don’t use misdirection as a generalized cliff-hanger of “what happens next.”
Instead of revealing that Raquel is alive in an upcoming episode of the next season, they make a choice to reveal it at the tail end of the same episode.
Raquel is a crucial character in the series at this point, so to lose her in the narrative would have been a huge plot twist. At times, thrillers do go for the cheap surprise, whether it makes sense or not. But in Money Heist, the reveal elevates the value of the misdirection because now the audience knows things are going to change forever—for better or worse.
Final Destination 5 by Steven Quale
Misdirection by props
The sequence leading up to Candice’s fall in Final Destination 5 is a series of brilliantly crafted misdirections that keep us on the edge of our seats until the mishap finally happens.
The misdirections also seem to be symbolic, as the death of poor Candice (Ellen Wroe) is a sharp irony. Throughout the scene, we keep worrying about the loose screw in her gymnastic apparatus but how she is killed by it in the end is absolutely unexpected—just how a nuanced misdirection should be.
Psycho by Alfred Hitchcock
Misdirection by casting
Killing the heroine halfway through the film was a risky but brilliantly used misdirection by Alfred Hitchcock in Psycho, especially considering the film dates back to the ‘60s.
An actor’s face value is as important as their acting skills. Big actors usually have strong plot armor and are expected to survive the story.
In Psycho, when a star like Janet Leigh is killed off midway through the movie, the audience is thrown off guard and does not know what to assume, whose story to follow, or what to expect next. This amplifies the shock factor of the plot twist.
Misdirection can turn your story into a fun experience with plenty of unexpected twists and turns. When done well, a reveal should prompt viewers to think, "Of course! How did I miss that?" rather than, "That came out of nowhere!"
The audience hates being deceived. So, not meeting audience expectations doesn’t mean you lie and fill the screenplay with deceiving information, revealed in an untimely way, aiming for a plot twist in the climax that feels isolated and seemingly unmotivated.
Also, be careful not to clutter your narrative with forced misdirections.
For a better understanding, check out the examples in the article—how each misdirection is a strategic literary device, not just a stylized form of storytelling.
A little over a week ago, there was a rumor that Canon would be introducing a brand new digital cinema camera between the C300 and the C100 at NAB 2013. At that time, the C300 was retailing for $16,000 and the C100 could be had for $6,500. In terms of the price difference, it was feasible for there to be a camera in-between (even if spec wise it doesn't make much sense). Now, Canon has dropped the C300 price by $2,000 until April 30th for both EF and PL models, and it very well could be a permanent price drop. We've also got a rumor of a replacement 24 Megapixel camera for the aging Canon 7D. So what does that mean for the rest of their product lines?
