C100: Canon C100 Mark II Announced 60P, New VF, & New OLED Panel Texas Media Systems
- Thread starter delete
- Start date
traviswears
Well-known member
Ah yes, true! I meant in relationship to 24p. In reference to the discussion on whether the camera could shoot 24/35mpbs at 24.
AndreeOnline
Veteran
Sure, given the same framerate, a higher bitrate allows for less compression.
I just meant that the reason you are seeing 35mbps in the higher frame rates is not to make a BETTER image. It's to allow for the SAME image as in the 24/25 fps footage.
The exact bitrates are pretty standardised between camera brands. The are probably the lowest bitrates possible, without introducing compression artefacts in most scenarios. Many tests have shown how good the C100 AVCHD is for example. Still, they are not broadcast level.
There was quite a bit of fuss when the 1Dc was certified by EBU as a broadcast level HD camera, for the simple reason that not too many cameras are.
If you shoot higher frame rates specifically for slow motion, you can record 59.94P (slow x0.4) 60 Mbps for 23.98P, or 48 Mbps (slow x0.5) 50.00P for 25P.
(Source: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/profe...a_eos_cameras/eos_c100_mark_ii#Specifications)
| 24 Mbps/23.98P | 59.94P [Slow x0.4] | 60 Mbps | Class 10 |
| 24 Mbps/25.00P | 50.00P [Slow x0.5] | 48 Mbps | Class 10 |
(Source: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/profe...a_eos_cameras/eos_c100_mark_ii#Specifications)
AndreeOnline
Veteran
Yes, here we go—black on white. (Thanks Alex).
To confuse things the max bitrate we have seen here previously, 35mbps, is the max "project setting". It turns out that the C100 mk2 actually doubles the "recording (actual) bitrate" when over cranking. This is great, but isn't always the case with other cameras. This means no compression penalty in 60fps.
Last edited:
But then it also says:
MP4:
Mode |
Resolution
[/TD][TD="width: 118"]
Frame Rate
[/TD][TD="width: 73"]
35 Mbps
[/TD][TD="width: 81"]
1920 x1080
[/TD][TD="width: 118"]
59.94P
50P
[/TD]50P
[TD="width: 73"]
24 Mbps
[/TD][TD="width: 81"]
1920 x1080
[/TD][TD="width: 118"]
29.97P/23.98P
25P
[/TD]25P
AndreeOnline
Veteran
Those are project settings. It's better to look further below at the more complete table for actual recording frame rate and bitrates.
For instance, the 35Mbps/59.94p project setting yields 17.5Mbps in a 29.97p timeline (2x fast motion). It would be 35Mbps straight in a 59.94p timeline of course.
The max slowmo/highest bitrate is a:
23.98p project @24Mbps with a recording frame rate of 59.94p. This gives your 0.4x speed with a 60Mbps bitrate.
Ebrahim Saadawi
Carbonite Member
So 60mbps at 60p 1080p? That sounds great. I hope there's no visual loss in image quality like on their 1DC and 7D mk II (compared to 24p)
AndreeOnline
Veteran
=)
Yes, 60Mbps in the RECORDED stream. Meaning: when when the camera plays the 60fps back in the 24fps timeline in order to get slow motion you will be stretching the 60Mbps out with a factor of 0.4x resulting in the 24Mbps (60*0.4=24).
In other words: in order to have de facto slow motion footage in a 24p timeline with 24Mbps bitrate, it needs to be captured at a higher speed and bitrate since slowing it down means "spreading it out" over more frames. I mean, that is what slow motion is: take a 2 second event and play it back over 15 seconds (or what ever).
+1
It's going to be painful, as I own two cameras from the list on the left, but I have to agree and admit that that's exactly how it is.
At least when it comes to Red, there's very little you can nibble about it's iq. It sort of like a NASA spaceship during race to moon in 60'. It will cost you millions (file sizes, workflow, heavy processing power needed, glitches, etc.) but it will get you there. It will get you wherever you want to go.
Last edited:
Jim Martin
DVXuser Sponsor
Andre-
Excellent, detailed explanation.....so good, I have to buy you a bier (Quollfrisch) at the Federal bar (Zurich Hauptbahnof)at 5pm on Jan 29th when arrive!
Jim Martin
As far as I'm informed, not exactly.
1. You cannot record 1080/60p at 60Mbps. The "regular" 1080/60p (1080/59.94p) is up to 28Mbps in AVCHD or 35Mbps in MP4.
2. To achieve a bit rate of 60Mbps with 59.94 frames per second you have to record in 23.98P MP4 at 24Mbps and use the Slow and Fast Motion Recording function to capture your footage at 0.4x speed. Please note that no audio will be recorded when using this mode, and it is only available for MP4, not AVCHD.
Like AndreeOnline wrote:
if you are using 1080/59.64p strictly for 40% playback slow motion in a 23.98p timeline, then I guess the answer could as well been yes.
However one other point to note is the different codecs. Just because MP4 has the higher bit rate does not mean it provides the best image quality. But that's a whole other discussion.
AndreeOnline
Veteran
nutmegger
Well-known member
I was at the Photo Plus Expo in New York today. Canon had two C100 Mark II cameras on display. Very nice. The upgrades may be minor, but the C100 Mark II is now more user friendly. Sony also had a couple of FS7s on display. The camera body is light but feels very cheap. I do like the new Sony 28-135 ENG lens for the FS7. I wish Canon would make a similar lens for the EOS C100/300 at the same price point.
Ebrahim Saadawi
Carbonite Member
Regarding FS7 vs C100 mk II, since you held both, what would you say feels better in hand, has better ergonomics and feels higher end? How do they compare in size and weight? Thanks.
Jon Roemer
Well-known member
I spent some time with both at PPE, too.
It's hard to say how they compare in weight. I'm guessing the FS7 is heavier. Very different form factors. Long and thin for the FS7.
If you like to handhold more in the style of a medium format stills camera (Hasselblad, Mamiya RZ, twin lens, etc.) then the C100 is like that - no different than the Mark I version. The FS7 really feels like it wants to live on your shoulder and it is very comfortable there. I didn't have the same feeling as Nutmegger, to me the FS7 didn't feel cheap, and it certainly feels light years better than the FS700 style shoebox.
That said, I didn't pick up the Sony and think, "My god, this is it!"
I was impressed with the C100 - the new viewfinder is what it should have been when the Mark I version was released. The facial focus tracking is very very cool.
Other notes:
-The C100 Mark II image processing pipeline has been rejiggered so it's more like that of the C300 in how the 4k capture gets sized down to 1080p.
-The new viewfinder does arc up but it does not extend out like the one on the C300.
-The new screen looks very nice and it looks like it probably runs less blue than the previous one the C100 Mark I and the C300.
-The C100 Mark II is actually a bit heavier than the Mark I version.
-The C100 Mark II will let you record in different formats to each card - e.g. mp4 to one, avhcd to the other.
Last edited:
ntouched
Well-known member
Very good information and thanks for taking the time to share. I'm seriously considering upgrading from my C100 (to the C100 MK II)! I'm glad Canon introduced the C100 MK II at $5499 (of course anything less would have been greatly appreciated too)! Too bad they didn't increase the bit rate to at least 50 Mbps (wouldn't have to use the Ninja). However, the Ninja Star has been working great for me!!!!
I wouldn't put much confidence in that statement. Given the extensive amount of testing and shooting I have done with both cameras, I would say they capture identical images externally. Internally the only difference we(myself and 3 other dp's) could decipher was the finer noise quality of the c300's broadcast codec. As far as actual detail and resolution goes, they shoot identical images.
stevedocmaker
Well-known member
Personally, I think the FS7 wins hands down, but I think the lens issue is what will tip the scale in the long run with the Sony vs all the C-line cameras. Canon EF prime lenses are great, but I've never been happy with any of their zooms for film work. The Sony 28-135 is pricier than an EF zoom, but with what you're getting it's a very decent price. With the FS7 (and even A7S to some extent) you now get large sensor, film-like image quality with the utility of an ENG camera in a package that's light and around 10 grand. And no Edward Scissorhands rigging required.
nutmegger
Well-known member
Regarding my comment about the FS7 feeling cheap. I may be wrong, but the FS7 body appeared to be made of plastic. I'm not used to a shoulder mount camera this light and I had doubts about the camera's durability in the long run. Once again I may be wrong. The Canon rep I spoke with touted the Mark II's new image processor and the improved image quality in the Mark II. I would like to see a side by side comparison of the image quality between the original Ç100 and Mark II. I think a C100/300 kit with a lens similar to the Sony 28-135 ENG lens would be killer product.
Last edited: