PDA

View Full Version : Canon C100 output



avro
10-04-2012, 02:47 AM
Is there any official specs for Canon c100 HDMI Output?
Is it 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 ?
It is hard to find out from Canon.......

Menno Mennes
10-04-2012, 02:55 AM
Is there any official specs for Canon c100 HDMI Output?
Is it 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 ?
It is hard to find out from Canon.......

Here you can find all information about the C100 http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2012/eos_c100_whatsnew.shtml?categoryId=22

Liam Hall
10-04-2012, 05:03 AM
It's the same as the C300, 8 bit uncompressed.

mhood
10-04-2012, 05:54 AM
It's the same as the C300, 8 bit uncompressed.

Has anyone actually recorded the C100 HDMI output and compared it to a matching C300 file?

Tim Nitsch
10-04-2012, 06:23 AM
Has anyone actually recorded the C100 HDMI output and compared it to a matching C300 file?

It's hard enough to get regular footage from the C100.

People are posting reviews of the body of the camera (which is nice) but they won't even talk about, much less actually show samples of the footage, probably because of NDA restrictions.

Hopefully we'll get some love soon.

philiplipetz
10-04-2012, 06:50 AM
There are only four prototype bodies making the rounds of dealers, and each gets half an hour with the camera, no filming. When the preproduction samples are done we will get another round of films. However, I remember the XF100 shipping, I got the third one made, before real footage hit. So Canon does not always wait to do well produced films. they knw they are in a race with the BMCC, and on BMCuser and the Blckmagic Design comoany forum some people are already talking about switching to the C100 if it ships in reasonable quantity first. It would pay Canon to drop the C100 as quickly as possible even if that meant before demo films. It is not like we cannot guess the performance of the camera with an external recorder, it will be identical to a C300 with an external recorder. Enough info for many people,especially people who havehadthe pleasure of working with the C300.

Liam Hall
10-04-2012, 07:17 AM
It is not like we cannot guess the performance of the camera with an external recorder, it will be identical to a C300 with an external recorder.
In theory identical pictures, certainly there looks to be more functionality (auto exposure/focus) and better ergonomics (lighter, better positioning of buttons, integrated monitor). Time will tell...

Menno Mennes
10-04-2012, 07:48 AM
In theory identical pictures, certainly there looks to be more functionality (auto exposure/focus) and better ergonomics (lighter, better positioning of buttons, integrated monitor). Time will tell...

Somewhere I read that te EVF is not adjustable and is half the size of the C300 EVF...

philiplipetz
10-04-2012, 08:10 AM
EVF is not adjustable but the LCD is better positioned, it no longer requires you to add the XLR handle so stripped handheld work is much easier, as is crane/slider/jib work.

Liam Hall
10-04-2012, 08:20 AM
Somewhere I read that te EVF is not adjustable and is half the size of the C300 EVF...
Yep - the EVF on the C300 isn't the most useful either. It's one of my major complaints. It's got several design faults; an operator shouldn't have to take their eye away from the EVF to check exposure or access any other features they might need, the diopter sucks and the rubber eye-piece should be left in the bag.

cowpunk52
10-04-2012, 10:11 AM
Yep - the EVF on the C300 isn't the most useful either. It's one of my major complaints. It's got several design faults; an operator shouldn't have to take their eye away from the EVF to check exposure or access any other features they might need, the diopter sucks and the rubber eye-piece should be left in the bag.

Eh, I disagree. I think the C300's EVF is really nice, far better than most I've used on any other camera. It's big and sharp as hell; easy to pull focus on. I wish I could have scopes in the EVF, though, but dual zebras are usually enough fro me to judge exposure accurately. I've used the camera so much I can operate controls with my eyes closed, and the diopter works great for me since I have terrible vision without my glasses. The rubber eye piece I leave in my bag only if I know I'm not going to use the EVF, but if I am I find it necessary to block out excess light. I'll be picking up a chamois cover for it soon, though. Being able to swivel up for me to look down into is very handy for stabilisation, too, I find. It would be nice if there was a way to close it from sun within the EVF, I'm constantly paranoid I'm going to lose the cap or forget to put it on and have burn-in.

The EVF in the C100 is similar to what you'll find in the XF100 cameras, which I think is good for framing and decent for checking exposure in bright shooting conditions, but I wouldn't want to pull focus on it.

philiplipetz
10-04-2012, 10:55 AM
The EVF in the C100 has much higher resolution than the XF100 EVF, but both are tiny. Never used the XF100 EVF except in bright light where the LCD was useless without a hood.

aly324
10-04-2012, 11:20 AM
The rubber eye piece I leave in my bag only if I know I'm not going to use the EVF, but if I am I find it necessary to block out excess light. I'll be picking up a chamois cover for it soon, though. Being able to swivel up for me to look down into is very handy for stabilisation, too, I find. It would be nice if there was a way to close it from sun within the EVF, I'm constantly paranoid I'm going to lose the cap or forget to put it on and have burn-in.

The EVF in the C100 is similar to what you'll find in the XF100 cameras, which I think is good for framing and decent for checking exposure in bright shooting conditions, but I wouldn't want to pull focus on it.

Onthat note, the c100 evf doesn't seem to come with an eyepiece and I wonder about its usability in sunlight.

Liam Hall
10-04-2012, 11:52 AM
I wish I could have scopes in the EVF, though, but dual zebras are usually enough fro me to judge exposure accurately.
Maybe I was being a little unkind. It is sharp, but seriously, it should show the scopes.


I've used the camera so much I can operate controls with my eyes closed
Me too, but that kind of proves my point, in that it is only through many hours of use that you develop the muscle memory to be able to move around the controls quickly. I still reserve particular hatred for both the function button and menu scroll wheel neither of which function or scroll as I'd like. It's interesting to note that Canon have shifted a few things around on the C100 - most notably the ND.

I like my C300, I like it a lot, but I'm not blind to its design flaws, as I'm sure neither are Canon.

avro
10-04-2012, 01:55 PM
Eh, I disagree. I think the C300's EVF is really nice, far better than most I've used on any other camera. It's big and sharp as hell; easy to pull focus on. I wish I could have scopes in the EVF, though, but dual zebras are usually enough fro me to judge exposure accurately. I've used the camera so much I can operate controls with my eyes closed, and the diopter works great for me since I have terrible vision without my glasses. The rubber eye piece I leave in my bag only if I know I'm not going to use the EVF, but if I am I find it necessary to block out excess light. I'll be picking up a chamois cover for it soon, though. Being able to swivel up for me to look down into is very handy for stabilisation, too, I find. It would be nice if there was a way to close it from sun within the EVF, I'm constantly paranoid I'm going to lose the cap or forget to put it on and have burn-in.

The EVF in the C100 is similar to what you'll find in the XF100 cameras, which I think is good for framing and decent for checking exposure in bright shooting conditions, but I wouldn't want to pull focus on it.


EFF on C300 is absolute joke as it is on other cameras like F3.
Anybody coming from Broadcast used to 2-3" vf finds el-cheepo C300 vf (and other) unusable especially on Large sensor cameras. Thats why optional EVFs are so popular now. Decent optional EVF like new Alphatron is an important part of any High End camera...after all F3 or C300 or worse C500 is not Z1.

avro
10-04-2012, 02:04 PM
I have contacted Canon Australia about C100 HDMI output. They will ask Canon Japan. I should know within 24 hours.

MarcoPolo
10-04-2012, 03:12 PM
"It is not like we cannot guess the performance of the camera with an external recorder, it will be identical to a C300 with an external recorder."

That is what I presume, and if that is in fact the case, the C100 sales are definitely going to cut into the C300's. Unless the C300 features are worth an extra $9500 dollars (and they are for lot of professionals), I can see the C100 become the go-to camera for a large chunk of the production world. You can buy (2) C100's + (2) Atmos Ninja 2's and several SSD's for recording for the price of a single C300.

philiplipetz
10-04-2012, 03:30 PM
"It is not like we cannot guess the performance of the camera with an external recorder, it will be identical to a C300 with an external recorder."

That is what I presume, and if that is in fact the case, the C100 sales are definitely going to cut into the C300's. Unless the C300 features are worth an extra $9500 dollars (and they are for lot of professionals), I can see the C100 become the go-to camera for a large chunk of the production world. You can buy (2) C100's + (2) Atmos Ninja 2's and several SSD's for recording for the price of a single C300.

That's exactly what our team manger decided.

BTW you do not need SSDs to record with a Ninja2, standard HDDs are a low cost alternative for situations without sudden g forces. Then you simply store them as backups at pretty much the same cost as copying them to a backp drive, but without the hassle and staff time involved in copying.

Jim Martin
10-04-2012, 05:53 PM
I have contacted Canon Australia about C100 HDMI output. They will ask Canon Japan. I should know within 24 hours.
I posted this on other threads and if your use the search function, you would find it......HDMI is a standard....4-2-2 color 8 bit with audio...all coming out of the C100.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

cowpunk52
10-04-2012, 06:08 PM
I still reserve particular hatred for both the function button and menu scroll wheel neither of which function or scroll as I'd like.

Agreed here; it's not the most elegant solution and takes some getting used to.

avro
10-04-2012, 08:08 PM
I posted this on other threads and if your use the search function, you would find it......HDMI is a standard....4-2-2 color 8 bit with audio...all coming out of the C100.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com


Thank you,
But i have C100 manual in my hands and it does not say anything regarding HDMI output.
thanks again.

philiplipetz
10-04-2012, 08:13 PM
Where did you download the C100 manual?

avro
10-04-2012, 08:39 PM
Friend of mine is evaluating c100 for Sydney Show on October the 18th ..

avro
10-04-2012, 09:27 PM
So it is official from Canon Australia.
Hdmi is 4:2:0 only!

anatusa
10-04-2012, 09:33 PM
So it is official from Canon Australia.
Hdmi is 4:2:0 only!

is it sucks or is it sucks?

avro
10-04-2012, 10:54 PM
SUCKS b i g way!!

avro
10-04-2012, 11:13 PM
Sorry to you all.
Canon Japan just confirmed to me it is 4:2:2 out. Sony Aus got it wrong.

philiplipetz
10-05-2012, 03:48 AM
I remember when Canon Pro support told me that the C100 was only 4:2:0 out. Avro saw a manual that does not mention the color space of the external feed. perhpas at one point Canon considered among it 4:2:0 out and that is what they told their tech support, but the they came to their senses since every camera in this price range has 4:2:2 out.

but have they crippled the signal in some way, just as Sony did with the FS100 out? This is the big question that someone should ask Cann at their October 18th Hollywood presentation on the C100.

Pelican
10-06-2012, 09:36 AM
How was the FS100 crippled? If Canon in any way diminishes the C100 HDMI ouput to anything less than the C300, it will kill the sales of C100,, at least my sale.
Is there a way someone can confirm (prior to the Oct 18th presentation) that the C100 output is indeed equal to the C300?

philiplipetz
10-06-2012, 12:14 PM
Even though the Fs100 and the F3 share the same sensor the output on the two of them is not equal DR or color detail.

Jim Martin
10-06-2012, 12:28 PM
STOP THE MADNESS!!!!! It's HDMI standard 8 bit 4-2-2 out!......from the highest level at Canon Engineering......now let's move on.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

philiplipetz
10-06-2012, 01:01 PM
Crippled or equal in all ways to C300? I will ask that at the Canon presentation. No one doubts that it is 4:2:2 that is not the question, but did they pull a Sony with the output?

Noel Evans
10-06-2012, 02:37 PM
I just dont see how there would be a difference between the HDMI out of the C100 and the HDMI out of the C300 considering its 4:2:2 8 bit on both.

Kegan
10-06-2012, 08:36 PM
I like you Jim. Straight to the point!

avro
10-07-2012, 12:24 PM
STOP THE MADNESS!!!!! It's HDMI standard 8 bit 4-2-2 out!......from the highest level at Canon Engineering......now let's move on.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Since You are in touch with Canon Engineering, ask them if they can give us Firmware upgrade to 50P/60P in 2012.This should not be a big task since $1,000 camera can do it last 2 years....

avro
10-07-2012, 12:29 PM
One more interesting product for your new C100 is this 6Kg Sachtler ACE.

http://www.sachtler-ace.com/en-gb/home.aspx

cowpunk52
10-07-2012, 04:10 PM
Crippled or equal in all ways to C300? I will ask that at the Canon presentation. No one doubts that it is 4:2:2 that is not the question, but did they pull a Sony with the output?

Just out of curiosity, Philip, because I haven't heard much about the issue - how did Sony cripple their hdmi outputs and what cameras are affected?

philiplipetz
10-07-2012, 09:13 PM
Just out of curiosity, Philip, because I haven't heard much about the issue - how did Sony cripple their hdmi outputs and what cameras are affected?

FS100 is 8 bit only and F3 10 bit but both will output 4:4:4, and the FS100 runs the 4:4:4 digital signal through the analog optimzed for 8 bit conversion and then reconverts it and outputs to digital HDMI, degrading the signal compared to the F3. http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/archive/index.php/t-278176.html

http://setlafilms.com/2011/06/04/report-from-cinegear-fs100-does-444/ Report from CineGear - FS100 does 4:4:4, but is it all that?

A paragraph taken from the report.
"I just received a call back from the Sony Rep from CineGear and he confirmed that the Sony FS100 now does true 4:4:4 Color Space out of RGB output. Now why is this important? well let’s look at how the camera works. The FS1oo records the image in digital format. it then sends that signal through the an analog channel (RGB) only to be converted to digital again through HD-SDI to be recorded to Apple ProRes 4:4:4. Think that there might be some loss of quality here? I think so… so the obvious choice here is to record AppleProRes 422 from the HDMI port at HQ quality if you have the space. I think that this was an oversight on the part of Sony personally, but when I get the cameras I will do a test with them and get back to you."

Not sure about analog being in a digital chain, but the point is the same, the DSP has do some processing and that processing will be optimized for the final delivery product. That is why several people report that the FS100 HDMI signal goes though a slightly different internal processing than the F3 and this creates differences in output even when similar gammas are chosen.

Andy Shipsides at AbelCine states clearly that the FS100 uses different DSP algorithims and this lowers the quality of its signals. http://blog.abelcine.com/2011/05/27/sony-fs100-ratings-and-dynamic-range/ Remember that we are not talking about RAW, the sensor signal is processed to some degree by the DSP before it flows as the HDMI/SDI signal.

In the case of the FS100 this processing degrades the signal more than it does with the F3, resulting in things like lower DR. How many people say that a FS100 with an external recorder is the poor man's way to duplicate the F3? No one.

Yet, we feel that Canon will allow the same thing to happen with the C100/C300. There is no reason that it cannot be true. IT all depends on whether the signal passes though sections of the DSP that are different when optimized for AVCHD rather than 4:2:2.

In the case of the FS100 the 8 bit 4:2:0 AVCHD destination created a difference even in the HDMI signal. Canon uses the same DSP in both the C100 and the C300 so both cameras could very easily output identical signals, or the C100 could suffer from the same signal path as Sony used in the FS100 since the FS100 and the C100 cameras are primarily 4:2:0 AVCHD. There is no way to know, except that Canon would the be cheapening the Cinema EOS label if the signal is degraded so I feel, operative word "feel," that they did not do the same thing Sony did.

Therefore, I feel that this is a legtimate question. Think of it as due diligence similar to termite and foundation inspections before you buy a home. No one expects there to be a problem, and most of the time there is not. However, no bank will make a loan without answering these questions because rarely, but still too often, there is a problem. Our team members want me to do due dilegence before they purchase several C100s. It is their money, and they asked me to check everything possible.

I hope to be at the October 18th C100 presentation to complete due diligence. I'm the guy with gray hair and glasses with frames only at the bottom of the lenses. I look forward to many people telling me that I was wrong; but I never said there was a problem, only that based on past experience we should make sure that there is not a problem.

maarek
10-07-2012, 11:53 PM
I don't think you understood those links you put. FS100 does output only 4:2:2. It doesn't do an analogue to digital conversion anywhere. The internal processing is at 8-bits though compared to the F3 which is higher. There is no "conspiracy" here.

philiplipetz
10-08-2012, 04:41 AM
I agree with both of your statements. It does 4:2:2 output, and i doubted that there is analog in a digital stream. My point was that FS100 4:2:2 output was not as good as F3 4:2:2 for a wide variety of reasons, including 8 bit processing but also due to preliminary optimization of internal routines for the final delivery product (which the OP misinterpete the Sony rep as saying was analog). HDMI in the FS100's output is altered by otomization for delivery steps to codec encoding, even if it does not take them. The difference , in that case, starts eearly enough that it alters the output signal even if it is not encoded to the Codec. Just because the FS100 and F3 share the same sensor it does not mean that their external feed signals are the same.

There are many many more references but it was late and I have other things to do than belabor a point that should be obvious, so I agree with Jim that it is time to stop the madness.

The only point I wanted to make was that internal DSP processing is optimized for final delivery encoding and that it can, but does not have to, alter the external output signal. All I wanted to do was confirm the probability, but not the certainty, that this is not a problem in the C100 since it shares the same DSP with the C300 but has different encoding for different codecs., has the internal programming been changed in way that subtly alters the external feed. Clearly The internal DSP programming has to be different.

Not all 4:2:2 outputs are indentical.

Jim Martin
10-08-2012, 10:11 AM
Since You are in touch with Canon Engineering, ask them if they can give us Firmware upgrade to 50P/60P in 2012.This should not be a big task since $1,000 camera can do it last 2 years....

Canon has listened to many C300 owners and their requests for firmware upgrades....and I think we are going to see something soon. As for a 60P upgrade on the C100, I did ask this and was told it was not possible based on the capabilities of the "engine" in the C100.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

jimagine
10-08-2012, 10:29 AM
FWIW here, the implementation of 60p in the C300 is exactly the thing that would influence us toward the C300 this year vs the C100.

Honestly there are things about the C100 that are more appealing for some of our regular work (doc specifically and much of that outdoor, back country, sports.)
These are, the screen that doesn't need to be mounted, size/weight, even the AF/Exposure buttons.

Getting both as A and B cameras is very appealing but there's no way I would invest in a two camera system today where neither allowed for 60p 1080.
In essence Canon has "almost" everything with the C300.
I've been told that the 50mps codec won't allow for 60p above 720. I'd love for Canon to say otherwise.
I know that they're not going to make any promises, but we talked directly with them after the initial 5DII launch and they were very tuned in and very responsive with the requests for full manual control.

Bern Caughey
10-08-2012, 11:48 AM
Canon has listened to many C300 owners and their requests for firmware upgrades....and I think we are going to see something soon.

If 1080p/60 got added I'd place an order for a pair of C300s right away.

Even just 1080p/48 would simplify my decision.

Nicholas Natteau
10-08-2012, 12:42 PM
Just curious to know why zebras are enabled on the C300's EVF monitor but not the waveform display.

Regarding possible firmware updates, I wish Canon could give us the waveform monitor as an option on the EVF display.

jimagine
10-08-2012, 12:44 PM
If 1080p/60 got added I'd place an order for a pair of C300s right away.

Even just 1080p/48 would simplify my decision.

Well there ya go, three pre-orders for a C300 w/60p.

Noel Evans
10-08-2012, 02:08 PM
60P didnt influence my decision not to get a C300, of course I'd like it there but, clearly Canon should look at the above posts, I can see 6 sales on this page alone with the addition of 60P.

Here's a question to you guys. What if Canon couldnt make the changes to get it onto the card and you needed to use an external recorder for 60P?

philiplipetz
10-08-2012, 02:32 PM
60P didnt influence my decision not to get a C300, of course I'd like it there but, clearly Canon should look at the above posts, I can see 6 sales on this page alone with the addition of 60P.

Here's a question to you guys. What if Canon couldnt make the changes to get it onto the card and you needed to use an external recorder for 60P?

In a heart beat. Even 48p.

anatusa
10-08-2012, 02:36 PM
guys is there any other cam that use same long gop codec and has 60p? if so then its maybe possible to see it over an update, if not - probably we will never see it... but i still want c300..... most likely i will buy it over fs700!

jimagine
10-08-2012, 04:44 PM
Here's a question to you guys. What if Canon couldnt make the changes to get it onto the card and you needed to use an external recorder for 60P?

To us it would be a plus either way but obviously more so direct to CF. That's one of the real beauties of the C300 vs say, the Red workflow.
As an independent creative shop, sometimes we have full crew on set and sometimes it's run and gun, but all for high end use.
As the CD I have to plan for the worst case scenario (which is lot's of days shooting remote action in virtually any and all conditions.)
I know that we're hardly unique. In fact I think we're representative of a big chunk of potential "C" adopters.

Right now, if we continue to shoot Canon (which is what we're doing) I have to plan a second camera for every shoot.
It would be absurd to travel and shoot some of the one of a kind stuff we do with out the ability to slow some down in post.
Canon should, in my opinion, know that this is not an option for lot's of their producers but an absolute requirement.

It's pretty obvious to us and lot's of other pros that this is the one thing that keeps the C300 or C100 from being the complete production tools that they should be at this point.
The C300 and C100 as an A/B camera pair is an absolutely great opportunity, especially when the C100 can HDMI out to 4:2:2 Pro Res.
But the idea that neither of them could be shooting at 60p just ruins the party.

It's not a criticism, but a sincere request from pretty dedicated users with a shit load of EF glass..

jimagine
10-08-2012, 04:48 PM
guys is there any other cam that use same long gop codec and has 60p?

That was my thought.
Why not focus on recording the 60p to a reduced AVCHD codec...say the 24fps flavor and keep it in camera.
It would look a lot better than upresed 720. In fact it could be profiled in camera to cut perfectly with the 24p footage.
To me that would be the ideal solution.

anatusa
10-08-2012, 08:02 PM
keep in mind avchd is 4:2:0 codec

Bern Caughey
10-09-2012, 09:29 AM
Here's a question to you guys. What if Canon couldnt make the changes to get it onto the card and you needed to use an external recorder for 60P?

Add-ons would reduce the luster.

But even internal 4:2:0 1080p/48 would be workable.

Rick Burnett
10-09-2012, 10:57 AM
I am in the boat of not cross grading into the C300 or C100 because I actually do use my 60p on my FS100 on most productions. Not sure how many people do fight cinematography, but when shooting with higher shutter speeds, actually getting the hit recorded can be tough. The higher the frame rate, you can pick which frame set you want and get the hit recorded.

I guess I could keep the FS100 and pull it out when needed, but, I'd rather just shoot on one camera. If the C300 came out with 1080p60 upgrade that shot internal, that would be what would change my mind.

anatusa
10-09-2012, 04:04 PM
i dont see how you guys can dream or expect 1980x1080 60p long gop ...... as canon xf305 camcorder is few years on market and still no 60p , and i am sure xf305 owners are crying about it also......

Noel Evans
10-09-2012, 04:12 PM
Not sure anyone's crying about it. From what I see these guys are simply posting their position on it as it stands.

Barry_Green
10-09-2012, 06:59 PM
i dont see how you guys can dream or expect 1980x1080 60p long gop..
If the C100 was MPEG-2 (like the XF305), I'd agree with you, because we are likely to never see 1080/60p in MPEG-2.

But the C100 is AVC, using AVCHD. And AVCHD already has a 1080/60p format in it. And there are already camcorders out there that support it, including the FS100, FS700, AF100 (with SFU100 upgrade), AC160A, AC130A, AC90, and I'm sure scads of consumer cameras have it. Because the format already exists, is probably why the optimism comes about that the C100 might include it someday. I don't share that optimism, I think Canon made the product exactly as they intend it to be, but -- the AF100 had it added as a later upgrade, and the AC160 got it added as a later upgrade, so I can see why there would be optimism that Canon would do similarly.

anatusa
10-09-2012, 07:18 PM
If the C100 was MPEG-2 (like the XF305), I'd agree with you, because we are likely to never see 1080/60p in MPEG-2.

But the C100 is AVC, using AVCHD. And AVCHD already has a 1080/60p format in it. And there are already camcorders out there that support it, including the FS100, FS700, AF100 (with SFU100 upgrade), AC160A, AC130A, AC90, and I'm sure scads of consumer cameras have it. Because the format already exists, is probably why the optimism comes about that the C100 might include it someday. I don't share that optimism, I think Canon made the product exactly as they intend it to be, but -- the AF100 had it added as a later upgrade, and the AC160 got it added as a later upgrade, so I can see why there would be optimism that Canon would do similarly.

yes thats exactly what i told before ..... c100 maybe as the standard already exist and popular (still cant understand why canon used older codec) , but c300 totally agree with you - i dont believe it will ever happen!

btw i believe read somewhere here on forum that its maybe possible to write full hd 60p with c300 (but i did not understand the tech side of it)...... on gemini i think

Barry_Green
10-09-2012, 07:33 PM
btw i believe read somewhere here on forum that its maybe possible to write full hd 60p with c300 (but i did not understand the tech side of it)...... on gemini i think
In 720p maybe, but never in 1080p. The C300 has a single HD-SDI output port, which cannot handle 1080/60p. The maximum you can get out of an HD-SDI port is 1080/60i, or 1080/30p, or 720/60p. You cannot now or ever get 1080/60p out of an HD-SDI port.

You'd need two of them working together ("dual link") or a 3G-SDI port. The C300 doesn't have those capabilities.

Barry_Green
10-09-2012, 07:35 PM
EDIT: unless maybe they're talking about the HDMI output... HDMI (as a standard) has the capability to handle 1080/60p, but I don't know if the Canon C300's HDMI port has that ability.

anatusa
10-09-2012, 08:00 PM
thanks for the info Barry, now its clear!

Rick Burnett
10-10-2012, 10:48 AM
Yeah, I'd want it internally. I don't use an external recorder and have no desire to use one. So that pretty much probably puts the C300 out of my sights. Maybe if they added it to the C100. I'm doing fine with my FS100 which is why I never went to the FS700 either. Sure, it's not perfect, but I've reached the point that I am going to stop upgrading to cameras that make me loose something I use. I am sure Canon will eventually have 1080p60 in something I like eventually! :)

jimagine
10-10-2012, 11:42 AM
I am sure Canon will eventually have 1080p60 in something I like eventually! :)

This really is the boat that Canon for some reason keeps missing.
It's something their dedicated users simply need for countless professional reasons.
They're turning out "nearly" complete, wonderful new cameras missing a critical component (in order to be adopted by a big slice of the community.)
I don't get it and I don't think Canon is blind or deaf, so I expect to see movement.

Rick Burnett
10-10-2012, 11:50 AM
This really is the boat that Canon for some reason keeps missing.
It's something their dedicated users simply need for countless professional reasons.
They're turning out "nearly" complete, wonderful new cameras missing a critical component (in order to be adopted by a big slice of the community.)
I don't get it and I don't think Canon is blind or deaf, so I expect to see movement.

It would be interesting to know why it has taken so long, but, given the complexity of these system designs, it's possible it just wasn't worked into their roadmap yet at least for these architectures and it is possible that the performance needed might be hit with a bottleneck that they've not overcome. I know people see other cameras doing it and don't understand why Canon doesn't, but, when you get down into the physical system there could be a particular limitation somewhere that the time to fix for them would make them miss the market. Something like supporting the datarate of 1080p60 might have been missed due to designing a slower system that saves on power. Like, if they are using off the shelf designs they've already done to get to market quicker instead of redesigning for a faster throughput. Obviously I have NO insight to Canon but that would be my professional guess. :)