KyleProhaska
Veteran
Sorry, I was debating C300/100 in my head at the time and mixed them up lol...edited.
C100 raw clip
- Thread starter KINOKS
- Start date
KINOKS
Well-known member
Not good
How can it be at 24Mbs??? And with all the noise/grain flying around compressed into 24Mbs (turned into "blocky" noise) I doubt it would be something that you would want to look at.The C100 codec is it's biggest limiting factor.
Unfortunately it looks like you are right. The raw clips show blocks flying around in different colour channels even at base ISO. I hope they fix that in the production version. Otherwise it seems to be only a small step up image quality wise from a dslr. I would expect more for $6500.
I was really hoping this could be my next camera.
I was really hoping this could be my next camera.
Finnegan
Well-known member
Isn't it the same codec as the FS100? I'm in agreement with you that it's a limiting factor, but people were/are getting great images out of the FS100 despite those limitations and I think it'll be the same with the C100.
G
Guest
Guest
说的也是
I see where you're coming from, though the same could be said about every camera out there today. The sad thing is, the video world has separated the "pro" from the "consumer" in image quality. This may have once been a technology limitation, but now is a marketing thing. Wish manufacturers would just quit that. Many consumers wish they could capture their birthdays, vacations, with a nicer IQ. I don't care if I have to watch Prometheus on Netflix 360p, but I sure as (poop) do not want to see macro blocking in my home videos 10 years from now. Especially when I know for a (poopin') fact that it is an intentional limitation.
...But we do have the option of external 1080p 4:2:2 @ 100+ Mbps, which should take care of any AVCHD CODEC issues.
KyleProhaska
Veteran
For those who are used to the AF100 and didn't mind the compression much, it's totally fine. I don't think the footage from this thing can be compared to a DSLR at ALL based on what I'm seeing. The detail in the picture is as far from DSLRish as you can get.
The camera is basically the AF100 I always wanted with the ergonomic advantages, internal ND's, fast turn around codec, but it's a huge step up in image quality and dynamic range.
The camera is basically the AF100 I always wanted with the ergonomic advantages, internal ND's, fast turn around codec, but it's a huge step up in image quality and dynamic range.
mraaron895
Well-known member
Coming from an FS100 and it's AVCHD compression I would be wary of two shooting conditions that bothered me and henceforth made me upgrade to a C300.
1. Camera Flashes
Because of the camera's low bit rate, and I'm referring to the FS100 in both these instances, when a camera flash would go off, and I was recording, the frame directly after the flash occured would pixelate.
2.
Fast moving action was quite pixelated as well, the image would fall apart under certain run and gun situations.
Now like everyone is saying, an external recorder would slove these problems. Bottom line is, I think for people that can't spend over $10,000 on a camera, they will continually be dissapointed in the image quality out of the box. Once you get past the $10,000 dollar mark, most issues with image quality seem to dissapear.
I guess my point is you get what you pay for, and that if your serious about your buisness you'll invest seriously. Now I think the C100 is going to be a great camera, I was seriously considering one for myself. But I know I would have limited myself in the amount of commercial jobs I would be able to book if I would have gone that route.
1. Camera Flashes
Because of the camera's low bit rate, and I'm referring to the FS100 in both these instances, when a camera flash would go off, and I was recording, the frame directly after the flash occured would pixelate.
2.
Fast moving action was quite pixelated as well, the image would fall apart under certain run and gun situations.
Now like everyone is saying, an external recorder would slove these problems. Bottom line is, I think for people that can't spend over $10,000 on a camera, they will continually be dissapointed in the image quality out of the box. Once you get past the $10,000 dollar mark, most issues with image quality seem to dissapear.
I guess my point is you get what you pay for, and that if your serious about your buisness you'll invest seriously. Now I think the C100 is going to be a great camera, I was seriously considering one for myself. But I know I would have limited myself in the amount of commercial jobs I would be able to book if I would have gone that route.
G
Guest
Guest
It's Canon, Not Ikea or Home Depot. Stop the lousy work arounds.
Canon isn't giving us a choice in their lineup. You either work around or pay more than double the price. Hopefully the landscape will change in the next few years as companies like bmd show how companies like Canon are strategically keeping prices high to maximize profits. I mean profits are the only reason for their existence and I have no illusions about that, but there's a limit to how much artificial limiting of quality I personally am willing to pay for.
dustylense
Veteran
That would be great StMad. Please share some samples and thoughts once the camera gets in your hands.
andykwilkinson
Well-known member
Great StMad - much appreciated. We are all looking forward to seeing your clips!
You could wait a bit and then pay at exactly 2x the price when the 1DC is released!
Ruben/Sheri
Well-known member
...I don't understand why people are so steamed over having to use an external recorder ?
Yes, it would be nice if Canon provided a 50+ Mbit/sec 4:2:2 internal recording format, but I don't consider an external recorder to be a "lousy" option. ( I think we are becoming spoilt with all the options we have today )
KINOKS
Well-known member
Wow, really?
There are a lot of scenarios where using an external recorder is a burden. First of all it's just another thing to worry about on the shoot and secondly you have to attach it to something, which
inevitably means putting together some sort of a rig. Why do I need to worry about: filling up another pair of batteries, about thinking if it's going to work O.K., if it won't get
disconnected or something, if I even took it with me on the shoot or did I forget it at the office, about learning to use another device and to work around it's bugs and what not, thinking about a rig - how to construct it..., about using it in the field, etc., etc. In short: it's a burden. Spoiled or not it's energy that I would rather use it for something else.
This artificial limiting the cameras to a lousy codec is getting on my nerves to. But then again if this means that I can get a C300 for half it's price then so be it!
Is the C100 processing the same as C300? Or is it not so good? For instance F3 and FS100 that don't have the same processing...
Haha yeah, it's true. Honestly the c100 seems like it's still, even with the lack of 60p (which is unforgivable), the best run-n-gun around. Jury's still out of the footage, but if it lives up what other camera can you get that is good without a rig, that's sensitive in low light, has wide DR, has built in NDs, has long lasting internal replaceable batteries and has XLR? Not to mention it's not attention grabbing. It's funny; earlier in my life/career, when the best I could afford was an HV20 I really wanted something that would be big and noticeable and said to the world that I'm a pro. Loved, loved, loved that when I upgraded to an HMC150 people were nice and impressed. Yay look at me! I'm a pro!! Eff that. Now I only care about the footage and not being run off by security or the cops when I'm shooting guerrilla style.
Anyway the FS700 is the closest in terms of features and has slo-mo; but it's $1,500 more, won't take my canon glass without an adapter and for me the ergonomics are an issue.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
Spoilt???
Spoilt only if the codec weren't a software limitation.
But even beyond simple software limitations, if you look at digital cameras objectively, they are, in general, not that great. Digital video has looked crappy only until the Alexa. The alexa still has it's draw backs, but is probably the first digital camera to cross over into "good" territory. Every other video camera up to this point has been crap. That is why the term "video" is such a negative term. "Oo that looks video-sih" or "It looks digital" No, sorry we have not been 'spoilt'. We have been making do. I think the engineers and designers are doing amazing things, but just because they are working hard, and doing things that boggle the mind, doesn't mean they have produced cameras that are good. So, if we are being objective, we are not spoilt, we are compromisers and have been patient for the most part. We understand it takes time for these developments. But when a limitation is largely an omission of software, that becomes an issue.
Last edited: