any chance Canon might upgrade the C100's bitrate to 50Mbps???

N

Nicholas Natteau

Veteran
I was just wondering whether there's any chance Canon might consider upgrading their C100's bit rate to 50 Mbps even if it remains 4:2:0

I'm struggling right now over whether to bite the bullet and finance the purchase of a C300 over 2 years, or instead wait until November to get the far less costly C100. Now I know that I would be losing HD-SDI, Genlock, and the broadcast quality standard 50 Mbps (as well as the C300's 422 color space) by getting the C100.

But is it unrealistic of me to hope that Canon might provide a future firmware upgrade that bumps the C100's bit rate from 24 Mbps to 50 Mbps? I mean if the Panasonic GH3 offers 50 Mbps (even up to 72 Mbps) for only $1,300, why couldn't the $6,500 Canon C100 have that option?

Personally, I could live without Genlock, HD-SDI, even without slow-mo of any kind on the C100 (since I just got the FS700), but I can't understand why the C100 couldn't have a higher bit rate even if it is 4:2:0. I mean would it really kill C300 sales, if the C100 just had the same 4:2:0 GH3 comparable bit rate?
 
Yes, that's unrealistic. You can of course buy the C100 and hook it up to an external recorder via HDMI to get an uncompressed video signal.
 
What's the max bit rate in it's spec? I'm a little confused now.

If that's the case, how come the GH2's AVCHD codec could be hacked up to 176 Mbps?
 
Nicholas Natteau said:
What's the max bit rate in it's spec? I'm a little confused now.

If that's the case, how come the GH2's AVCHD codec could be hacked up to 176 Mbps?
Click to expand...

AVCHD max bit rate spec is 24Mbps. AVCHD 2.0 max bit rate is 28Mbps, but this is only used for 1080p60 recording. In 1080p24 or 30, it defaults back down to AVCHD 1.0's 24Mbps.

The GH2 codec could go higher because it was hacked. It's a bit like overclocking a computer processor - making it perform beyond specifications at the risk of failure along the pipeline.
 
I see, thank you cowpunk52. Maybe I've been just lucky then. Because using a Class 10 card, I never had mishaps shooting at 42 Mbps, then 150, and finally 176Mbps with the GH2. Not that I was ever shooting that long mind you.

The only issue I had was the color temperature changing when pressing record in the GH2. Perhaps because it was hacked, not sure. But this occurred only under artificial lighting, not when shooting in daylight. But thanks for explaining. That was quite helpful.
 
Nicholas Natteau said:
Unless someone figures out a way to hack the C100's bit rate like they did on the GH2.
Click to expand...

There'd be no point. Why would someone try to put an unreliable hack on a camera that you can hook an external recorder to and get a codec equivalent to or better than the 50mbps that's in the C300.

There is no way I would ever trust a hack on a professional shoot.
 
Yoyodyne said:
Boy, I don't know if I would finance a camera over 2 years right now...
Click to expand...

Exactly... As fast as technology is changing, cameras are getting better/cheaper every year. Film cameras we kept for 10 years were replaced by digital cameras we kept for 5 years, which were replaced with even better cameras which we hoped we could use for 3 years, which have been replaced with cameras we change out every year. I no longer purchase what I consider expensive cameras. It just makes no sense to invest in technology at a higher price when it becomes outdated before you have paid off the camera. I now only purchase lower priced cameras which I can quickly pay off, and then rent any higher priced camera which might be needed for a particular shoot.
 
What about canon upgrading (or someone hacking) the firmware to allow the C100 to shoot 1080p 60fps?

I can totally understand why they reduced/changed the bit rate and codec so that it wouldn't hurt C300 sales, I get that, but not including 60p is just silly IMO.
 
When I look at the specifications of a C100 and compare it to a C300 with a Canon mount, I don't see how the C300 is a $9500 better camera. The really important features used for day-to-day shooting are on the C100. Since they will both output the same uncompressed 8-bit out to an Atamos Ninja, that negates any serious issue over the C100 codec. If any shooting limitations arose where I had to record onboard, I'd make sure the profile is flat, just like when I shoot with a DSLR. The C100 looks like a great value to me.
 
Tim Nitsch said:
What about canon upgrading (or someone hacking) the firmware to allow the C100 to shoot 1080p 60fps?

I can totally understand why they reduced/changed the bit rate and codec so that it wouldn't hurt C300 sales, I get that, but not including 60p is just silly IMO.
Click to expand...

That's what I don't understand. Why they did just that...when the GH3 offers 50 to 72 Mbps in a $1,300 camera. If they were concerned about hurting C300 sales: eliminating the HD-SDI port, Genlock, and not having 422 but instead 420 color space made sense. But offering 24 Mbps?

Now I know you can bypass that limitation by using an external recorder via the HDMI port. That's why the decision to limit the bit rate puzzles me even more. By doing it, they haven't prevented C100 users from being stuck with the low bit rate. They've just made it more inconvenient to get there by requiring the external recorder.

So if you wanted to do some run and gun shooting where the C100 would be ideal because of it's auto-focus ability (which C300 and C500 lack), if you want anything higher than 24 Mbps, you'd need to mount that external recorder on top. Cumbersome, IMO. That's why I've already ordered the GH3 and I'm still struggling between the C100 and C300.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top