C300: C300 Mk2 RAW - Struggling to find results

S

Stuperhuman

New member
I'm new, hi all!

I own a C300 Mk2 and after a year of being impressed with the in-camera image, I'm interested in the RAW output (via something like an Odyssey 7Q+).
But I'm really struggling to find any footage/discussion online, other than some fairly run 'n' gun stuff.
:undecided:undecided
Does anyone have any links to some properly finished commercial/feature, or a thread discussing the RAW image?
All I can find is endless chat about the infuriating C200 12 bit RAW...I'd like to see how this holds up against the 10 bit C300 Mk2.

If better I know not to bother with an Odyssey and save up for a C200 (to get the RAW and get a decent B Cam in one)!

:undecided
 
At work, we have the C300 MKII now and I like the camera but feel UHD has less detail. HD looks great. I haven't tried the RAW out on it yet to the 7Q+. Now I want to. I wouldnt be surprised if the image is better with more detail.

I've been playing with the C200 Raw to Cfast and the image is very good. Nice detail. You get about 19 min. on a 128GB. Raw isn't supported in Premiere Pro yet but it cuts great in the new FCPX update. No transcoding to ProRes 4444 from the Canon Raw Development App.

When using UHD MP4 it's softer with less detail. HD to me has better detail. If you edit the UHD files in HD and punch in you can see the detail is less. I find this with the C300 MKII as well.

The MP4 surprisingly grades well if you don't go crazy. C-log 3 is a good option with MP4. If I was buying the C200 I would rather get a couple large Cfast cards and record internally.
 
Last edited:
I use my C300mk2's 4k Raw out to the O7Q for a number of projects. I did it originally to by pass the faulty noise reduction artifacts from a past firmware.

I found the 4k Raw-> 4k Prores was the way to go over the straight raw CRM files. The data-to-qaulity ratio for the straight raw didn't seem worth it to me. The 4k/10bit/prores files offer a little more flex in post and added a bit more clarity to the image. I was able to push the grade just a bit further with the prores.

Here's a project I did via the O7Q:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/b7bcdeb2eb/i-m-not-equipped-to-be-a-father

That being said, as a test and a way to keep data down for that project I recorded 12bit/4444/2k internal, I lost power to the O7Q for a very important close-up shot and didn't know until after we had moved on. I had to sub in one of the 2k files and grade it to match. Wasn't a big deal at all, the 2k looked great and a bit smoother since it was a person's face. If I had to do it again I'd probably add a bit more diffusion to the lenses on set, the detail in the 4k can be a bit unforgiving. I chased the IQ/resolution dragon for a bit on this camera and while I can keep that raw out in my back pocket, now I think I've regressed, I'd rather shoot 2k now. I have project coming up where I'm just going to go 2k/12bit for cosmetic purposes.

I've also done some testing with the C200's raw lite, it's impressive but I would expect similar results from the mk2's raw out. Having it internal is a huge advantage, but at least with the C300mk2 I can rely on the internal recording being high quality if there's a problem or workflow issue.
 
Stuperhuman said:
...All I can find is endless chat about the infuriating C200 12 bit RAW...I'd like to see how this holds up against the 10 bit C300 Mk2.
Click to expand...

I've used many adjectives and superlatives to describe the C200's CRL but 'infuriating" isn't one of them, it's great. ;-)
Getting 34 minutes of CRL on an EgoDisk 256GB card, $299.00 on Amazon and they have a been a rock.
 
I've only fiddled with the Odyssey7q Canon offerings briefly, but I was surprised at how much sharper the raw to prores was over the C300ii internal 4K files, it's quite a significant difference. The 2K 12bit 444XQ prores from 4K raw is also definitely worth a look. Overall, it feels like you have a sharper, fatter file to move around compared to the internal codec, which to be fair is exceptional on its own. The only gamma you can record raw to prores on O7Q is C-Log2 which looks very rich at base ISO and cleans up quite nicely when put through neat video. I tested some 12800 iso raw to prores at home one night and was pretty happy with the results neat video provided.

Would definitely suggest people give it a go if they can, but as for whether it's worth lugging a O7Q around just for those raw to prores improvements over the internal codec, that's up the shooter. I wouldn't bother given the extra weight, but if you usually shoot with the 7Q onboard, it shouldn't disappoint.
 
Last edited:
jm.gardiner said:
I use my C300mk2's 4k Raw out to the O7Q for a number of projects. I did it originally to by pass the faulty noise reduction artifacts from a past firmware.

I’ve also done some testing with the C200's raw lite, it's impressive but I would expect similar results from the mk2's raw out. Having it internal is a huge advantage, but at least with the C300mk2 I can rely on the internal recording being high quality if there's a problem or workflow issue.
Click to expand...

I’d love to see some comparison shots! I have a C300 Mark II and it’s internal codec works great for most of the corporate work I do, but I’d love to see if the O7Q would be worth it for scripted stuff. What’s the post workflow like?
 
jm.gardiner said:
I use my C300mk2's 4k Raw out to the O7Q for a number of projects. I did it originally to by pass the faulty noise reduction artifacts from a past firmware.

I found the 4k Raw-> 4k Prores was the way to go over the straight raw CRM files. The data-to-qaulity ratio for the straight raw didn't seem worth it to me. The 4k/10bit/prores files offer a little more flex in post and added a bit more clarity to the image. I was able to push the grade just a bit further with the prores.

Here's a project I did via the O7Q:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/b7bcdeb2eb/i-m-not-equipped-to-be-a-father

That being said, as a test and a way to keep data down for that project I recorded 12bit/4444/2k internal, I lost power to the O7Q for a very important close-up shot and didn't know until after we had moved on. I had to sub in one of the 2k files and grade it to match. Wasn't a big deal at all, the 2k looked great and a bit smoother since it was a person's face. If I had to do it again I'd probably add a bit more diffusion to the lenses on set, the detail in the 4k can be a bit unforgiving. I chased the IQ/resolution dragon for a bit on this camera and while I can keep that raw out in my back pocket, now I think I've regressed, I'd rather shoot 2k now. I have project coming up where I'm just going to go 2k/12bit for cosmetic purposes.

I've also done some testing with the C200's raw lite, it's impressive but I would expect similar results from the mk2's raw out. Having it internal is a huge advantage, but at least with the C300mk2 I can rely on the internal recording being high quality if there's a problem or workflow issue.
Click to expand...

"Wait a minute, maybe I should have me a little white baby" Amazing.
Nicely shot! I think some unfortunate compression on their player but I can see what used to be a good DR in there, I imagine the master export is beautiful.

The overall impression I'm getting is: mk2 RAW looks good, not miles better enough to warrant the extra hassle of external recording over internal 12bit 2k 444.
I guess RAW light is the issue here, perhaps when they expand that codec there will be more to shout about.

Thanks everyone!
 
puredrifting said:
I've used many adjectives and superlatives to describe the C200's CRL but 'infuriating" isn't one of them, it's great. ;-)
Getting 34 minutes of CRL on an EgoDisk 256GB card, $299.00 on Amazon and they have a been a rock.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think I'm more infuriated at my 10bit RAW option than the C200!
This is exactly my point though, I am seeing a lot of people shouting about the C200 but little evidence to compare against the C300 mk2.
 
Stuperhuman said:
Yes, I think I'm more infuriated at my 10bit RAW option than the C200!
This is exactly my point though, I am seeing a lot of people shouting about the C200 but little evidence to compare against the C300 mk2.
Click to expand...

You've gone through the "shot on the C200 thread" here? Some pretty nice looking footage there to my eye. Quite a few on YouTube/Vimeo also. I shoot a lot with the C300 MKII and I feel both cameras look pretty good but I am not a pixel peeper. Others who are have said that the CRL on the C200 blows away the XF-AVC from the C300 MKII in sharpness and detail, which you would expect, comparing data rates. I have never shot RAW on the C300 MKII, too much hassle, weight, bulk, time, expense, cables, etc.
 
If you want to email me I can sort through some tests and put some files online for you.

jm.gardiner@gmail.com

Worth it? Depends, that music video I wanted to test out the workflow. Probably not needed for the comedy, I've shot a few commercial pieces via the same method and it was great. I typically have my O7Q on my camera regardless, so it's not a big extra hassle for recording. I will say that music video ended up being around 1.3TB of data with. With the 4k Prores and the 2K/12bit. Side note, we even recorded proxies and cut those and married the 4k in post. The editor loved that. We gave the talent a 4k H264 for Youtube, not sure if that will ever go up.

I think Canon's headed the right way with this progression. This method is the best image out of the mk2 in my opinion. The C700, due to it's extra processors has a similar image internally and now the C200's raw lite, is even just as good if not better. Luck of the draw I guess that users in my position are in such a middle of the road situation with the specs!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top