C100: C100 mkIII?
- Thread starter Gweilo66
- Start date
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Link?
Thats a ridiculous statement, C300 MKII has 10bit 4K DCI and 12bit 2K DCI and it's now under $10K, only feature it's lacking is 60p at 4K but most people are still complaining about the lack of 10bit in the C-series which is complete rubbish.
The C100 MKIII could be viable without the RAW feature as that seems to be confusing a lot of punters out there who clearly don't intend on utilizing the Raw functionality of the C200 which is a shame... but then people who buy a RED Raven or SW have to go through the same workflow so pretty sure the C200 are squarely aimed at those RED guys who want better low light and built in ND's etc
The C300 MKII is a bargain for most shooters now at under 10K and has a great image at 10bit but the even the 2K 60p is workable solution upscaled or perfect for HD delivery so it's all there folks.
I agree with most of your post but Red users do have it easier right now because their raw format is very well supported in a variety of NLEs. There's no need to transcode into another format. Hopefully we'll see the same thing with Canon Raw Light eventually.
NorBro
Major Contributor
99% of those who are planning on or buying a RED do not have a Canon camera in mind. Many of them don't even know Canon still makes cameras, ha
You just can't compare them; they are too different. On paper they may have similar specs, but one ends up learning they are still different in practice (even with the same specs).
It's effortless to make RED cameras look cinematic and the workflow is a thing of beauty. The transcoding with the C200 right now is just silly. There is almost no point of shooting in RAW if you cannot control the data in real time while you edit.
You just can't compare them; they are too different. On paper they may have similar specs, but one ends up learning they are still different in practice (even with the same specs).
It's effortless to make RED cameras look cinematic and the workflow is a thing of beauty. The transcoding with the C200 right now is just silly. There is almost no point of shooting in RAW if you cannot control the data in real time while you edit.
Why not bring up C700 and the 8K model that records to four Convergent Design Odysseys.
https://www.cinema5d.com/look-canons-crazy-8k-camera-prototype/
But, presuming there will be a C100 MKIII recording 4K for ~ $3,500, I'd give it 90% chance of not having 10-bit.
I understand at this juncture it's very early days on the raw side but there is A workflow and whether it's Davinci Resolve or Canon Raw Light there is something in place that works but on the other hand, the camera has some benefits with ND's and low light and lighter ergonomics which make for a better shoot...
I would disagree that RED users aren't talking about the C200, hop over to Reduser and you'll see some of those guys debating selling their RED's in favor of the Canon.
I agree on the point that it takes less effort to make a cinematic image, it's mostly in grade but then you are also paying double the price for that premium and the Ursa Mini 4.6K is also pretty cinematic out of the box, we will see how Canon progresses with it.
Can't figure out why the attachment is so small but if you can read you'll see
Last edited:
NorBro
Major Contributor
Should probably link to that thread instead...
https://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?160435-RED-Price-change
Most people there (as you'd expect) are for their REDs and against the C200 (or Canon in general).
---
There will always be some talk about new cameras...it's like that on every forum with every new camera. But in reality, no serious RED shooter with a S-W or E-W or even a Raven is going to sell their camera for a Canon C200 because it's comparable. It only makes sense for someone to downgrade after just trying a RED out and realizing it's not for their type of work or their style of shooting or maybe having a high-end camera is overkill...but nothing else.
And the fact that Resolve (at least the last time I checked) does not support the data in a traditional RAW workflow way (CinemaDNG and REDCODE) is troublesome. We'll see what happens though with the other NLEs and any updates as you mentioned.
https://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?160435-RED-Price-change
Most people there (as you'd expect) are for their REDs and against the C200 (or Canon in general).
---
There will always be some talk about new cameras...it's like that on every forum with every new camera. But in reality, no serious RED shooter with a S-W or E-W or even a Raven is going to sell their camera for a Canon C200 because it's comparable. It only makes sense for someone to downgrade after just trying a RED out and realizing it's not for their type of work or their style of shooting or maybe having a high-end camera is overkill...but nothing else.
And the fact that Resolve (at least the last time I checked) does not support the data in a traditional RAW workflow way (CinemaDNG and REDCODE) is troublesome. We'll see what happens though with the other NLEs and any updates as you mentioned.
Im sure there's some valid points there but nobody really truly knows how well the canon raw performs against redcode at 4K right now until we see much more content but we saw some major players using C500 on features and TV spots a few years back and I'd say the C200 can't be that far off with 12bit raw internal.
NorBro
Major Contributor
I agree that we should wait a bit more to see what happens and I even mentioned the other day how it takes time for people to really learn their cameras, but the workflow between REDCODE RAW compared to the C200's Cinema RAW Light is day and night.
Regarding the attached still...having all of those options available provides you literally hundreds of looks in post without even doing anything else! SO MUCH flexibility. With the C200, you're basically shooting RAW so you can have a high-quality format. When the camera was first announced, I mentioned how Canon only mentioned adjusting 2 things in the RAW data. Not sure if this will change, but if that's the case...shooting RAW on this camera is not what I had in mind.
With the C500...I mean...it was a few things with the major players, lol. The C500 was an awesome camera and the C200 is awesome too, and I do believe better technology for less money keeps closing the gap, but just not in this case when it comes to comparing the C200's cinematic potential with a RED system even though both have their strengths and weaknesses.
Regarding the attached still...having all of those options available provides you literally hundreds of looks in post without even doing anything else! SO MUCH flexibility. With the C200, you're basically shooting RAW so you can have a high-quality format. When the camera was first announced, I mentioned how Canon only mentioned adjusting 2 things in the RAW data. Not sure if this will change, but if that's the case...shooting RAW on this camera is not what I had in mind.
With the C500...I mean...it was a few things with the major players, lol. The C500 was an awesome camera and the C200 is awesome too, and I do believe better technology for less money keeps closing the gap, but just not in this case when it comes to comparing the C200's cinematic potential with a RED system even though both have their strengths and weaknesses.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
My hope is that with Apple, Adobe or someone like FX Factory or Crumplepop can write an app/plug-in or program that will expand the functionality and usability of the Cinema RAW Light adjustment parameters. Or maybe Resolve will be there once 14 is out of beta? If the RAW data is there, isn't it up to the code in the program as far as how to interpret and process that data?
NorBro
Major Contributor
I'm not really sure how it works to be honest, but if the next Resolve public release doesn't have support for anything else, that's a bad sign as they are usually the first who can support anything and everything to its fullest potential.
But as you mentioned, maybe some coding/engineering has to be done and maybe discussions with Canon have to take place to allow more.
I've never shot ARRIRAW so I can't comment on how that workflow is, but RAW shooting should allow you to change all of this stuff in post. That's real RAW shooting IMO. I don't know why anyone would want to shoot a data hungry format only to be able to adjust white balance later, and take the time to export everything only to have a "baked-in" ProRes file.
It makes no sense...but again I am still hoping for expanded support as I understand Cinema RAW Light is SO new and things take time.
But as you mentioned, maybe some coding/engineering has to be done and maybe discussions with Canon have to take place to allow more.
I've never shot ARRIRAW so I can't comment on how that workflow is, but RAW shooting should allow you to change all of this stuff in post. That's real RAW shooting IMO. I don't know why anyone would want to shoot a data hungry format only to be able to adjust white balance later, and take the time to export everything only to have a "baked-in" ProRes file.
It makes no sense...but again I am still hoping for expanded support as I understand Cinema RAW Light is SO new and things take time.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
It would seem that since the software is what needs to De-Bayer and "interpret" the RAW camera data that anything should be possible but what do I know, I am pretty far from a software engineer and perhaps something to do with the 5:1 built-in compression over Canon RAW makes that more difficult?
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Agreed, I don't see $3,500.00 happening. I don't even see $4,500.00 happening. Paying about a $2,000.00 to $1,500.00 premium for Cinema RAW Light sounds about right, based upon Canon's past strategy. Anyone who paid the same for a new C100 MKI or MKII would probably still step up to a C100 MKIII to get that Touchscreen DPAF and 4K.
MKII is $3,500 and bringing it up to $5,000 or so would effect either the C200 or MKIII own sales. With the Log upgrade, 5D MKIV footage looks pretty darn nice but I would assume that a pro video rather than a stills/video hybrid would have an MP4 codec. The real question is its bit rate. 150, not 305, would be my guess.
As to the NLE's, you'd think they'd have been ready to implement Raw Light by now.
The competing train of thought is that there's more than one camera coming out - Sony CineAlta full frame will have its presentation on the 6th, then EVA1 is arriving - and the software engineers can't do everything at once and have to treat major manufacturers equally.
As to the NLE's, you'd think they'd have been ready to implement Raw Light by now.
The competing train of thought is that there's more than one camera coming out - Sony CineAlta full frame will have its presentation on the 6th, then EVA1 is arriving - and the software engineers can't do everything at once and have to treat major manufacturers equally.