C200: C200 Philip Bloom review

I just see a message saying "SORRY the video will be available for viewing shortly" both in this thread and on his blog page.

Is he maybe replacing the file on Vimeo with a newer version?
 
Grading for a look seems odd to me in a camera test.

I want to see footage untouched, then the stock lut applied which should pull in decent proper grown up 709 colour not red shadowed faux log weirdness.

Or maybe the camera produces faux log weirdness?

S
 
To be fair, the mp4 looks better than I'd have expected, not a fan of his grade either, looks plugged.
 
150mbs should make nice workaday HD is my guess.

Chuck in raw for specials.. and AF and you have a tempting combo... sounds like an annoyance on the AF in that you have to hit a shot destabilising button to select a new target?

S
 
A camera review that reviews RAW should provide the RAW footage.
The audience cannot evaluate RAW using a processed video.
 
You can say the same about posting a review of pre-production camera.

ProAV posted their source footage, why should this be different?
 
So far, it's growing on me, that 8bit definitely doesn't disappoint and the raw looks pretty good.

Although I still have a soft spot for the very cinematic look of the Ursa Mini Pro, I think the Canon could be crafted to go anywhere you want once you crack that the workflow.

On different note:

I have to say, I am also liking a lot of Kinefinity Terra 6K stuff Im noticing lately, again very filmic and really nice small form factor and it's also partly reason why I like the C200, the size looks good.
 
First of all, thank you to PB. I always enjoy your reviews (if you would be reading this).

2nd, I was really drawn to the quality and soft detail of the RAW footage and immediately noticed edge fringing when the MP4 footage was put up right after. This makes me say great step forward Canon but then that leads me to say still 8bit video along with 16bit audio in 2017? I would expect these stats to be higher in a in a $7-8,000 camera. I see this camera as supposed to be a real step up from a stills camera. I am sure it is more refined but it shares the same specs as all of the current stills cameras (outside of RAW) and has less than the GH5. There is more to cameras and images than codecs, but I think this does not help the C200's cause.

3rd, I am not a fan of this semi-LOG look that I am seeing more and more. It is somewhere between washed out and stylized. Sometimes I kind of like it but most of the time I just think "nothing in cinema or television ever looks like this". It is like the editor/colorist sees LOG footage so much that they become too used to it and are afraid of midtone contrast. I partly jest...sorry Philip! It does look modern though.

The C200 is a nice camera evolution.
 
I see it very similar as this first impression review: without a 10bit codec I miss something in this price class, regardless how well the 8bit codec will perform. Raw is a pain and I see it with my FS7 and my Shogun: the situations when I use raw are rare. So I agree with this review that the C200 is a great tool from some other aspects - but that it will not substitute my FS7.
 
That footage looks really good to my eyes, both the raw and the MP4. Once the C200 gets the intermediate codec in 2018 it'll be a powerhouse camera.
 
DLD said:
Those were heavily overexposed frames. That's all.
Click to expand...

It is mostly the grade. He would have slapped a filmconvert preset onto the footage, though there is none for the c200, and done some other stuff - like the other poster said, it is unique but not in a good way. Can't expect much more from a sony shooter though :grin::grin:
 
So far, I am not regretting my early pre-order. Barring unforeseen issues, I think the C200 is going to be the perfect, affordable tool for my projects and our client's projects. Been tempted by a few used C300 MKIIs close in cost but overall, I think I will want the C200 internal RAW and the touchscreen more than the XF-AVC.
 
puredrifting said:
So far, I am not regretting my early pre-order. Barring unforeseen issues, I think the C200 is going to be the perfect, affordable tool for my projects and our client's projects. Been tempted by a few used C300 MKIIs close in cost but overall, I think I will want the C200 internal RAW and the touchscreen more than the XF-AVC.
Click to expand...
I'm just surprised you think your doc, EPK, ENG, etc., type of clients will accept RAW. Or are you wanting RAW more for your own projects that you're producing and the MP4 for your freelance clients when you're not editing?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top