C300: Canon have just released XF - XF-AVC media import update for Final Cut Pro X

Strange- I've been importing C300 II XF-AVC files since the C300 II was released- FCP X had no problem playing these files- in real-time, fluidly. CPU utilization was somewhat high (over 50% on a 12-Core), perhaps they added GPU accel.
 
jcs said:
Strange- I've been importing C300 II XF-AVC files since the C300 II was released- FCP X had no problem playing these files- in real-time, fluidly. CPU utilization was somewhat high (over 50% on a 12-Core), perhaps they added GPU accel.
Click to expand...

Not strange at all. Final Cut Pro X up until this release did not support any 12 bit footage as has been very well documented. The only XF-AVC files you were importing were 10 bit.

Did you ever try importing 12 bit 444? One of the best features of the camera IMO.
No you did not.
 
The Apple link describes XF and XF-AVC, which FCP X did support. I tried every format provided by the C300 II. 12-bit imported and played audio, however video was not displayed (perhaps the release info would be more accurate stating that only 12-bit support is new).4K, AF, and Canon colors are the reason we purchased a C300 II. 12-bit 1080p isn't that appealing- can you show a real-world example where 12-bit provides an improvement over 10-bit? I'm sure there are good cases, however they appear to be rare when the final display most people see is 420 8-bit.
 
jcs said:
The Apple link describes XF and XF-AVC, which FCP X did support. I tried every format provided by the C300 II. 12-bit imported and played audio, however video was not displayed (perhaps the release info would be more accurate stating that only 12-bit support is new).4K, AF, and Canon colors are the reason we purchased a C300 II. 12-bit 1080p isn't that appealing- can you show a real-world example where 12-bit provides an improvement over 10-bit? I'm sure there are good cases, however they appear to be rare when the final display most people see is 420 8-bit.
Click to expand...

12 bit gives you more breathing space/latitude in post. The case for using 12 bit over 10 or even 8 bit is not rare at all. The colourist and editors I work with prefer 12 bit 444 over 10 bit 422/ 8 bit 420 without exception.

The argument that the final display is 420 8 bit so why bother is fundamentally flawed. If I get back from a shoot and my footage is terribly underexposed I have more chance of fixing it without banding, artefacts etc if it is 12 bit over 8 bit. I can basically push or pull the under or over exposed areas that need adjusting without fear that my footage will fall apart. The fact that it ends up 420 makes no difference to the final accuracy of colour-dynamic range achieved in 12 bit 444.

I guess it comes down to what you are shooting, how you are shooting and a whole range of factors including environment. If you are nailing your shots every time, more power to you. I don't.
I also use a lot of effects and major colour adjustments where 12 bit 444 is just what the doctor ordered.
 
For my day job I write code. Processing pixels from cameras. While it's clear more bits capture more information, unless one can show real-world examples that there is a real benefit, the extra bits can just be wasting disk space. Initially after shooting with the 5D3 (and ML RAW 14-bit) I too believed that full frame had some kind of unique look. However after reading about the math and physics for equivalence, and doing actual tests to prove it to myself, I realized that full frame doesn't provide a unique look at all (same is true of MF vs FF). Only that it provides more lower cost options to achieve shallow DOF. Here are the example images: http://brightland.com/w/the-full-frame-look-is-a-myth-heres-how-to-prove-it-for-yourself/

Thus I ask again, can you show examples demonstrating that 12-bit 444 is actually better than 10-bit 422 for real-world shooting? (green screen keying might be a good example with fine blonde hair, etc.). I'm sure a lot of other folks would find such information useful.
 
jcs said:
For my day job I write code. Processing pixels from cameras. While it's clear more bits capture more information, unless one can show real-world examples that there is a real benefit, the extra bits can just be wasting disk space. Initially after shooting with the 5D3 (and ML RAW 14-bit) I too believed that full frame had some kind of unique look. However after reading about the math and physics for equivalence, and doing actual tests to prove it to myself, I realized that full frame doesn't provide a unique look at all (same is true of MF vs FF). Only that it provides more lower cost options to achieve shallow DOF. Here are the example images: http://brightland.com/w/the-full-frame-look-is-a-myth-heres-how-to-prove-it-for-yourself/

Thus I ask again, can you show examples demonstrating that 12-bit 444 is actually better than 10-bit 422 for real-world shooting? (green screen keying might be a good example with fine blonde hair, etc.). I'm sure a lot of other folks would find such information useful.
Click to expand...

I thought I kind of explained it but I guess not. Probably something you will need to figure out for yourself through doing.

Thus here is my real world example:
Part of my day job at the moment is shooting a reality television show , sometimes 15 hours a day. Lot's of building, construction, talent walking from inside to outside. Talent walking from outside to inside. Difficult situations regarding light and exposure. Not every shot has any time or chance of being set up optimally, you kinda do the best you can at the click of fingers and when something interesting might be happening. Sometimes in blistering heat and light. Sometimes in pelting rain. 12 bits in post is a life saver for me - I keep my job even though sometimes the footage is not 100% on the money - why? Because it can be fixed, saved, augmented in post. 12 bits gives me and the editors the best chance possible of a positive outcome in this regard. It aint rocket science.

Try it out, do some tests with 444, you might surprise yourself. : ) I really don't have time to post examples ATM but I will endeavour to when I actually have a day I am not working. I also apologise for not actually checking out your shallow DOF images, again I don't have the time and kinda fail to see the relevance when the thread is basically about a codec upgrade.

I just posted a link to let folks know about an Apple upgrade that was important to me and others who have been patiently waiting (and it is important) but it just aint that important to you. I get it. Next time I won't bother.
 
Initially I was surprised by this update because I was editing the C300 Mark II footage in FCPX before this update. Now I realise that it is for 12bits capture. I still haven't updated because I am in the middle of a project. Seems from your experience that the upgrade is stable.

At times I get some specific requests for shooting in 1080p at 12 bit 444. It was not possible with the C300 Mark I. Now I can do that with Mark II. Mostly those kinds of requests are for cinema where the client would be doing the grading themselves to match with their footage, greenscreen etc.

Frankly speaking if my client will demand 1080p @ 12 bit 444 then I am not going to argue. I will just shoot whatever is asked.
 
Getting this thread a little bit back on track, has anyone tried all the formats to see if they are supported? I can't get 2K 12 Bit to read. Only seeing audio. On the latest version with the plugin installed.
 
Yes, everything works as it should after update. Strangely, I didn't seem to need to install plug in either but did anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top