C100: C100 mkIII?

[puredrifting]

MkII didn't START at $3500. Plus this one (if that is what it is) will be a huge leap forward. Also I will be super pissed if a much better cam comes out for $3500.

I paid a little over $5k new for my C100 MKI and wasn't the C100 MKII about $5,500.00 when it was a new model?

 

[DLD]

The pricing per feature set ain't what it used to be in 2012. Back then, only JVC Q10 recorded in 4K for a reasonable amount and even that separated it into four HD streams. Then there were Red Dragon (an Epic pre-order, if you pardon my pun) and F65. Now, you can shoot 4K with a sub-$1,000 bridge camera and get quality images. There are even rumors that Canon DSLR's will finally have 4K in 2018 in the sub-$2,000 range. And that makes $3,500 a very nice entry point for the pro product.

 

[puredrifting]

...And that makes $3,500 a very nice entry point for the pro product.

Time will tell. No official word that the C100 MKIII will even happen. You thinking IBC possibly?

 

[Gary T]

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.

A RAW to ProRes 4444 XQ workflow could make sense for me. I am deciding between the C200 and the EVA1 and in either case it is unlikely we would want to edit using the original files when shooting RAW. A transcode to ProRes 4444 XQ drops the data rate dramatically while still preserving a great deal of flexibility in post. I have seen a talented colorist do magic with a high quality ProRes 4444 file and would expect even better results from a ProRes 4444 XQ. One of the beautiful things about ProRes 4444 XQ is that it can be edited on a 5 year old Macbook Pro. Of course if Canon and Apple come up with a wonderful low overhead option in Final Cut Pro that would shift things towards the C200 and a compressed RAW workflow.

Of course this doesn't apply to high budget studio features but I have read that the vast majority of Alexa footage has been captured using ProRes rather than ARRIRAW. The latter is obviously "better" but apparently ProRes 4444 XQ is more than good enough when shot well and posted professionally. I have friend in LA whose personal experience confirms this. She has been an LA based Alexa owner operator for 5 or six years and upgraded her Classic to a Mini in 2015. She's always busy but says almost no one shoots raw with her package. When people discover how much it is going to cost to post a raw project they always say no, especially after they see the beautiful ProRes test footage.

Things are obviously different in RED world since they have had access to compressed RAW for so many years, but I also think the lack of a high quality full resolution intermediate codec on RED cameras also helped make RAW the only reasonable choice until recently.

 

[NorBro]

Believe me, I am all about ProRes. I've shot it for the past 5 years on 3-4 different Blackmagic cameras and love using Atomos recorders with various cameras. It's solid and straightforward.

But I'm just saying that IMO if you're going to shoot RAW then you want a RAW workflow with full control of more parameters or it just doesn't make sense to me.

PR422HQ+ holds up very well, but it won't be the same as shooting RAW.

DSMC2 REDs shoot ProRes now too, but resolution/FR depends on the model.

 

[puredrifting]

...A transcode to ProRes 4444 XQ drops the data rate dramatically while still preserving a great deal of flexibility in post.

You sure about that? Cinema RAW Light is one Gbps. This is from the recent Apple 2017 White Paper on Prores.

 

[DLD]

Time will tell. No official word that the C100 MKIII will even happen. You thinking IBC possibly?

This I doubt because all manufacturers want to spread their releases and C100MKII and C200 are too close to each other as it is. In that regard, Canon might tease C300MKIII/C400 before another in the 100 class.

Of course, we're waiting for the adjacent class C300 MKIII at the same time. In which case, C400 might be that C300 MKIII. Under the double-the-price ladder theory, which usually holds - C100MKIII - $3,500, C200 - $7,500, C300MKIII/C400 - $15,000, C700/C500 MKII - $30,000 (give or take a few hundred bucks either way).

And, yes, ProRes 444 is over 1 Gbps, very close to Raw Light. The question is whether they keep or toss out the same set of data. I presume not.

 

[puredrifting]

To me, tossing away your CRM files is an unwise move. Mine will all be archived. If you aren't going to keep RAW files, where you could change, at a minimum, WB and gamut, why shoot RAW? Why not just buy the C300 MKII and shoot some nice 410MBps XF-AVC? I doubt is many can tell the difference between well lit and shot 4k XF-AVC and Prores 4444 coverted files from the C200 although the RAW is 4K 12-bit, which is better, but visually, in an A/B random double blind, I bet few could tell the difference. RAW should be archived. If not, you probably bought the wrong camera, I say as a C200 owner who has also been shooting a lot with rented C300 MKIIs this year.