C200: C200 Raw Black Bars at top and bottom of frame

S

shorty15

Well-known member
Anyone have any idea why all C200 Raw clips have thin black bars at the top and bottom of the frame? They appear in both Premiere and Resolve. Very strange. You would think that the Raw mode would be using the full sensor rather than cropping it. I can't find any answers online about this.

Edit: Nevermind, I figured it out. 4096 X 2160 raw files will have small bars when using a 1920 x 1080 timeline. Using a 2048 x 1080 timeline eliminates the bars.
 
Last edited:
shorty15 said:
Anyone have any idea why all C200 Raw clips have thin black bars at the top and bottom of the frame? They appear in both Premiere and Resolve. Very strange. You would think that the Raw mode would be using the full sensor rather than cropping it. I can't find any answers online about this.

Edit: Nevermind, I figured it out. 4096 X 2160 raw files will have small bars when using a 1920 x 1080 timeline. Using a 2048 x 1080 timeline eliminates the bars.
Click to expand...

Just look up DCI (Digital Cinema Initiative). It's a 17:9 aspect ratio versus the normal FHD 16:9 we are used to that is also used for UHD. Personally this is the feature I like least about our C200. Everything we output is UHD or FHD and always having to crop out the bars is a PITA. I've been begging for Canon to give us a menu choice to shoot DCI 4K versus UHD.
 
The CANON Cinema Raw Development Application allows for different cropping formats. Check out "Export Configuration" and look at the options under "Resolution for 4K1K RAW".
 
brm said:
The CANON Cinema Raw Development Application allows for different cropping formats. Check out "Export Configuration" and look at the options under "Resolution for 4K1K RAW".
Click to expand...

Right but when you have shot hours and hours of footage, using the CRD app to process and output it all is a time consuming PITA. Would be so much easier to just record UHD RAW or 1080 FHD RAW. Power to the people Canon, stop making us jump through hoops to do what the majority of your users want to do. So few people really want to shoot DCI 4K compared to UHD.
 
We should continue to apply steady pressure on Canon for future C200 firmware updates. No reason they can't give us UHD RAW or 1080 RAW , as an example...
New thread?
 
I'm not sure I understand the request for clean UHD. Or rather, sure.... if you know you'll only need UHD it would be a convenience to have that setting of course...

But seeing that it's already "included" in the DCI frame, what is the problem/issue you're seeing? Do you want to save the data/file size by eliminating the extra pixels? Do you lack frame guides when filming because you're not sure what's in frame?

I would have assumed that most would appreciate the small amount of 'overshoot' (albeit only horizontal) you get with DCI over HD/UHD.

During all the years of shooting with 1Dc and 1Dx mkII I've never seen the extra pixels as a nuisance, even if many things I've exported have been fit either within HD or UHD frames.

PS. I do get that it should be a non issue to implement in software. Just like I would like to have 60fps available when I have my cameras set to PAL, and not be limited to 50fps and lose 10fps just like that.
 
I agree. The extra real estate the DCI frame offers is great. But I would certainly be grateful for a 1080 and/or UHD RAW solution irrespective of aspect ratio. Much rather have the color space than the 4k resolution. Especially for talking head interviews, run and gun situations, etc.
And in conversations with Canon, ie. at a recent EOR R event, there are indications that there are features on the C200 that they're going to "unlock"... who knows what those features might be? but for C200 owners on the board, wondering if gentle pressure would land us some additional flexibility with the raw codec.
BTW, still use my 1DC weekly. The only truly weatherproof 4K solution. Useful for wilderness shoots like this...
https://vimeo.com/channels/littlewolfproductions/115087419
 
AndreeOnline said:
I'm not sure I understand the request for clean UHD. Or rather, sure.... if you know you'll only need UHD it would be a convenience to have that setting of course...

But seeing that it's already "included" in the DCI frame, what is the problem/issue you're seeing? Do you want to save the data/file size by eliminating the extra pixels? Do you lack frame guides when filming because you're not sure what's in frame?

I would have assumed that most would appreciate the small amount of 'overshoot' (albeit only horizontal) you get with DCI over HD/UHD.

During all the years of shooting with 1Dc and 1Dx mkII I've never seen the extra pixels as a nuisance, even if many things I've exported have been fit either within HD or UHD frames.

PS. I do get that it should be a non issue to implement in software. Just like I would like to have 60fps available when I have my cameras set to PAL, and not be limited to 50fps and lose 10fps just like that.
Click to expand...

I'm a documentary shooter so the prospect of having to do this with hours of RAW footage is distinctly unappealing. Sure, if you're shooting a music video or narrative where you just have a handful of takes at the end of the day, not as big of a deal, or if you just live with DCI until you edit and have time to crop in editing. It's not difficult to do, it's just time consuming and a PITA when you're under deadline. Being able to to switch it in camera would make life easier as would being able to output from the HDMI and SDI simultaneously, not having to switch the frame rate from 60p/50p back to 23.98/24/25 when you switch media formats and a lot of other little things that add up to a combined hassle and things to deal with when under the pressure of shooting. Like everyone else, I would so appreciate being able to worry about artistic/creative decisions when shooting than BS like these easily corrected camera issues. Canon needs to show a little goodwill to all men/women/none binary users, I am sure they would like to foster camera love more than frustration.
 
You can also "fit" the footage in any timeline (or whatever your software calls it), which is what most people do if needed.
 
puredrifting said:
It's not difficult to do, it's just time consuming and a PITA when you're under deadline.
Click to expand...

NorBro said:
You can also "fit" the footage in any timeline (or whatever your software calls it), which is what most people do if needed.
Click to expand...

Yes, as long as we're talking about just getting to a frame with no black bars, then it's a one click project setting in Resolve, or a question of selecting the whole timeline in FCPX and choosing 'Fill' as scaling option. I'm guessing other NLEs have similar commands.

I deeply sympathise with the frustration of manufacturers not polishing their software with small, simple updates to make life easier for customers.

Just want to make sure that there's no manual, tedious labor involved going from DCI to UHD.
 
puredrifting said:
So few people really want to shoot DCI 4K compared to UHD.
Click to expand...

And so few people actually need to shoot Raw compared to 10-bit 422. C'mon, Canon...

AndreeOnline said:
I would have assumed that most would appreciate the small amount of 'overshoot' (albeit only horizontal) you get with DCI over HD/UHD.
Click to expand...

The thing is, if you're seeing a preview of the whole 4K DCI image on in the monitor, then you're actually getting the exact opposite effect - you think you've framed something perfectly on set but when it comes to delivering a 16:9 render, you've got to cut someones hand off at the edge of the frame.
 
deltoidjohn said:
The thing is, if you're seeing a preview of the whole 4K DCI image on in the monitor, then you're actually getting the exact opposite effect - you think you've framed something perfectly on set but when it comes to delivering a 16:9 render, you've got to cut someones hand off at the edge of the frame.
Click to expand...

=)

It obviously makes sense to make a decision about what your target frame is before capture! That's what I meant about using frame guides (available in many cameras or monitors) in post #6.

It's not a good idea to frame for, and shoot in DCI, and then crop to 16:9 in post.

But you can use 16:9 frame guides during shooting, still shoot DCI, and then crop in post. The additional pixels could be used for lateral reframing in post as an option, or they can be "discarded of as planned".

Personally, most of the time I'd stick to the DCI aspect as I think it's quite nice and adds a little something, without going "full retard letterbox".
 
brm said:
We should continue to apply steady pressure on Canon for future C200 firmware updates. No reason they can't give us UHD RAW or 1080 RAW , as an example...
New thread?
Click to expand...

You will not get 1080 or 2K RAW from Canon. If you did, it would be a crop and the footage would be worse than the internal 1080p codec.

I am convinced that Canon has a philosophy of focusing on giving all or nothing. They think that if people want to shoot in RAW, they want every bit of information they can get for extensive post work. Otherwise, the shooter is probably looking to shoot in a well compressed format that requires minimal work for immediate broadcast. They might be right in general since that seems to be the two examples of shooting requests that I get. And that certainly seems to be the design idea for the C200.
 
brm said:
...And in conversations with Canon, ie. at a recent EOR R event, there are indications that there are features on the C200 that they're going to "unlock"... who knows what those features might be? but for C200 owners on the board, wondering if gentle pressure would land us some additional flexibility with the raw codec...
Click to expand...

This could make sense nowadays. I have a feeling that manufacturers are not pushing new products as the did it couple years ago. They could try to lure new customers on current model like Blackmagic did it with BRAW. For example one more compress ration like 10:1 could be quite hit for C200. But we will see.
 
NorBro said:
You can also "fit" the footage in any timeline (or whatever your software calls it), which is what most people do if needed.
Click to expand...

I do it, but I find if I hand off RAW or the 2K proxy to almost any other editor or company and it gets posted to social media, they forget to do this and you have the stupid looking black bars. If you have a long and complex timeline, it's just one more blanket operation you have to do and remember to do. Bah Humbug!
 
puredrifting said:
But that horse has left the barn, the C200 will never get a 10-bit 4:2:2 codec, I've been told this by several higher ups at Canon...
Click to expand...

True. I would rather see more compression ratios. Year ago everyone was saying that Canon is not able to do it because of RED has patents for it. But now Blackmagic has compression ratios too, so how BM have solved this? Maybe there is little chance for C200 (or future models).
 
KrocanX said:
True. I would rather see more compression ratios. Year ago everyone was saying that Canon is not able to do it because of RED has patents for it. But now Blackmagic has compression ratios too, so how BM have solved this? Maybe there is little chance for C200 (or future models).
Click to expand...

At this point, I'll be surprised if Canon even offers any more bug fixes or feature enhancements for the C200. They put out the new firmware, which in their mind, probably solved everything they intend to solve even though for most of us users, there are still a lot of features and fixes lacking. Luckily most of the "bugs" are just weird operational quirks that most can live with, even though they are not ideal. Like only being able to shoot DCI RAW.
 
Sounds like a business opportunity. Make a small box with 2 CFast 2.0 slots, can run on LiIon or wall power. Insert card from camera and blank card. Box transcodes to RGB 444 12-bit or YUV 422 10-bit (etc. Configure via USB to keep cost down if necessary). Could also use a USB3.0 external HD target etc. Can do while shooting, on location, so no time wasted in post. Or even lower cost but requiring a laptop: simple app which does this. As soon as CFast 2.0 card inserted, everything is automated. Desktop app could also transcode directly to any target vs. back to another CFast. For more production speed, support LUTs etc. This could be done manually with a variety of tools as well (e.g. Adobe Media Encoder, Resolve), however given the number of comments about this issue, that appears to be too much work for most people. The key here is to be able to simply insert cards and walk away, or work on something else while the magic happens...
 
KrocanX said:
True. I would rather see more compression ratios. Year ago everyone was saying that Canon is not able to do it because of RED has patents for it. But now Blackmagic has compression ratios too, so how BM have solved this? Maybe there is little chance for C200 (or future models).
Click to expand...

Blackmagic has had them for a few years (3:1, 4:1), but I don't think RED was ever interested in ratios...more of what kind of RAW technology someone is offering.

Nevertheless, the world has changed and in my opinion I don't think they have the same mindset anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top