C200: C200 Philip Bloom review

Eric Coughlin said:
I 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?
Click to expand...

Bingo, pretty close. The only missing piece is green screen, I shoot a ton of green screen. I have a feeling that the 8-bit 4K, recorded out to an Atomos 4K recorder will suffice. 8-bit recorded to 10-bit has been pretty good to me and the clients, I never receive complaints that it's not 10-bit. That's what I have been doing with the Blade and the C300 and 100 for the past three years and we shoot some great looking stuff.

I think an Atomos until next February, then the XF-AVC will make most of our clients happy. And if not, they can deal with Cinema RAW Light.
 
C200+External Recorder (+eventually XF-AVC) sounds like a great way to go.

I'm just bummed the C200 doesn't have "standard" TC and genlock in... But that's not an issue for everyone and I could probably survive with TC to an audio channel (as I have to so often now anyway).

Interesting that Panasonic's EVA1 is "nice codec now, RAW probably later (and TC!)" and Canon's C200 is "(light) RAW now, nice codec later."

So spoiled what we/I are concerned about the options we now (or will kinda soon) have!
 
The Achilles' heel of Canon cameras: Handling Dynamic Range

Tough conditions though, so understandable.

I actually don't mind PB's grade in this one. You can see how nice those colors are. If you go back and watch some of his other videos, he can be very extreme.

Footage looks soft, but I doubt he sharpened any of it and half of it contained the .MP4s...and the video is 1440p max.

Overall, this doesn't change my mind about the camera, but just saying. The Cinema5D footage would have already sealed the deal for me.
 
NorBro said:
... Footage looks soft, but I doubt he sharpened any of it and half of it contained the .MP4s...and the video is 1440p max...
Click to expand...
What do you mean? PB's C200 footage is in 4K.

In any case, I doubt Film Convert has made LUT's for Raw Light yet and he might be using those for C300 MKII. The review seems a bit forced, TBH. He could have shot enough footage in his one day with the unit, then played around with the various grading options.

One has to expect more videos from across the globe soon. Before the first shipment.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
I'm just surprised you think your doc, EPK, ENG, etc., type of clients will accept RAW.
Click to expand...

I think Canon see raw as the new normal - every bit of logic says it should be - in a world of cheap HD space and cards (not quite there as of today) - as it has become for stills.

As for those ENG/EPK clients.. I dont know the score?

The Beeb thing I shot I was forced to cripple my FS7 by shooting 50mbs, baked, that was a couple of years ago - is it still the case?

Clearly top tier Beeb eg Natural history is all over the best format for the job.

S
 
I thought it was rather ironic that the colours from his little Sony point and shoot were a significant improvement over the canon footage.

If PB was shooting CLog3 then how did he manage to clip highlights? I'm not dissing his professionalism so don't go there, it's a question of about what monitoring of the recorded signal does the C200 have? On an FS7 the user has a display LUT with zebras and a postage stamp waveform of the recorded SLog3 signal so it's almost impossible to clip whites even if you're rating the camera at a lower ISO. I can't recall ever clipping whites with the FS7.

Having to Transode the Canon RAW to ProRes will get old very fast and you're basically left with an 8bit camera which is all bit dated.
 
Instead of commenting on PB's admittedly strange footage, why not just download a few raw files and check them out yourselves?

There is no transcoding needed. They grade just fine as they are. Since these Raw Light files don't need debayering, they play back with great performance. On my Mac performance is roughly the same as ProRes.

C200_girl_bypass.jpg


C200_girl.jpg
 
AndreeOnline said:
Since these Raw Light files don't need debayering, they play back with great performance.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I might have missed it, but is there some information yet what exactly is stored in the Raw Light files? Is it the raw sensor output with log gamma applied? From what you are saying they already did a debayer in the camera?

Thank you and BR
Michael
 
MichaelFischer.at said:
I'm sorry, I might have missed it…
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting on a white paper.... I don't think there is one for Raw Light just yet.

But importing these files into DaVinci Resolve, there is no 'raw data' available like there is for other cameras like RED and Arri. They just play back as they are. But looking at other Canon documentation for raw in other Canon cameras, they are doing a thing where they extract each color channel from the Bayer matrix into a separate video tracks (like R, G, B) and then remux them in this raw container (with audio obviously). That would then allow software to offset these internal channels in post – which would be the same as changing white balance.

In some implementations, Canon also "fills in the holes" of each color lattice from the Bayer-pattern, essentially interpolating the channels in an effort to avoid aliasing. But I don't know what's being done here exactly, since I haven't read anything official. Don't take what I say too literally, since I'm just speculating, but this is how I think about it.

I haven't played with the camera myself, but I think you can assign a log profile when shooting raw, but that you can then change it in post as part of the Raw Light-workflow.
 
NorBro said:
He definitely filmed in 4K, but where is 2160p on the list?

According to YouTube: 1440p = 2,560 x 1,440
Click to expand...

If you're using Safari it is limited to 1440p due to Youtube changing codecs. If you use Chrome then 2160 is viewable.
 
Given that Philip produced his review in a single day, while he was prepping for a big shoot that was starting two days later, I think he did a great job. I'm not fond of the grading, but I think having no time to spend on the grade is the main reason why it looks the way it does.
 
When did they change it? I could have sworn it was available even on FireFox just a few days ago. I do see 8K still.
 
Actually I know what it is...I have a MacBook Pro that I haven't upgraded in a while because I'm keeping the old FCPX for some projects on it and for whatever reason the 4K option (2160p) is available in FireFox there (and that's where I usually watch videos). It's not on Safari as you mentioned though.

But FireFox still shows 4K on that computer, but only 1440p on the MacBook Air.
 
NorBro said:
When did they change it? I could have sworn it was available even on FireFox just a few days ago. I do see 8K still.
Click to expand...

It changed a while ago. I suspect the new Safari in High Sierra will restore UHD playback.
 
AndreeOnline said:
I
There is no transcoding needed. They grade just fine as they are. Since these Raw Light files don't need debayering, they play back with great performance. On my Mac performance is roughly the same as ProRes.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Andree, what are your Mac's general specs?
 
morgan_moore said:
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
Click to expand...

yes. having to hit a button every time you want to establish the AF point struck me very odd and is disapointing. i have a 1DXmkII and not having to do that is what makes AF tracking so nice and useful. do you think this is a hardware/technical reason or a way to cripple the camera for some reason?

david
 
david_p said:
yes. having to hit a button every time you want to establish the AF point struck me very odd and is disapointing. i have a 1DXmkII and not having to do that is what makes AF tracking so nice and useful. do you think this is a hardware/technical reason or a way to cripple the camera for some reason?

david
Click to expand...

I have no idea. What I do have an idea is that Ive not seen a usable interface to AF video presented by anyone. Jabbing the screen? Hitting buttons?.. well thats the sort of thing an operator learns not to do mid shot because it bumps the camera.. its the way an annoying director will ruin your shot.
It needs something with real feel and tactility.

(maybe a smooth barrel round the lens where you turn it one way to tell the camera to focus further away and the other way to tell the camera to focus closer??)

S
 
The DSLRs only need a light touch...extremely responsive screens that wouldn't be affected in almost any shot in any circumstance. Maybe with a 200mm lens. But you have a better chance of getting camera movement from wind or someone walking by the tripod. Realistically, if the touch would cause a minor image vibration, it would probably not matter in the grand scheme of things where a video will probably contain lots of editing and camera movement that may or may not already be perfect.

The C200's touchscreen AF in-practice...I don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top