C200: From Canon: XFAVC support in 2018 will be 8 bit

[tillhavis]

For me there is a simple answer, just allow it to record 8bit 4:2:2 internally to the CFast cards like the XC10 and XC15.

The C200 is over two and a half times more expensive than the XC15 and has no middle ground broadcast codec.
If Canon announces it now it will end all the silly speculation. (I worry that Canon is incapable of making this decision until it's too late)

The EVA-1 is going have 4K 10bit 4:2:2 Internally as will most new cameras announced in 2017-2018.
8bit 4:2:2 is not going to stop broadcasters buying a C300III that has 10bit 4:2:2 and a host of other frame rates instead of the C200.

Keep the 10bit 4:2:2 for the C300 III and include all the flavours of XF-AVC plus Internal Raw and Raw Light and you are still distinguishing the products and market segments.

JMO.

 

[cpreston]

As I see it, the current premium that you pay for the C300 II over the C200 is for Genlock/TC and the ready to use Codec options. This can save massive amounts of time in post and makes the C300 II clearly targeted to a different market. Most of the people on these boards are camera geeks and therefore more excited about the idea of playing around with RAW despite RAW not being a particularly efficient way of shooting. In the end, shooters just need to know why they need the camera rather than just assume that the C200 is a categorically better camera than the C300II as seemed to have happened when it was first announced. Almost all of my work is multicamera, so the extra cost for a couple of C300II over the C200 can really help out with my clients if only just for the genlock and tc.

 

[DLD]

For docs/BTS/corporate, it looks like an external recorder will be the way to go. Still 8-bit for 4K but, at least, in 422. Prices start at around a grand (unless one wants a BMD).

And my odds of C100 MKIII not having 4K in 10-bit have been upped to 95%.

 

[Erik Naso]

For docs/BTS/corporate, it looks like an external recorder will be the way to go. Still 8-bit for 4K but, at least, in 422. Prices start at around a grand (unless one wants a BMD).

And my odds of C100 MKIII not having 4K in 10-bit have been upped to 95%.

I would pay Canon a grand to stick the codec in the C200. They should offer it. Why give the money to someone else. I like the new design a lot. The clam-shell is a PITA on the C300. It's a big reason why I don't want the C300 MKII. Add in the stingy codec options and frame rates.

 

[DLD]

I would pay Canon a grand to stick the codec in the C200. They should offer it. Why give the money to someone else...

It's not an engineering problem. The new Nikon 850 looks like a great camera. And it will be for the stills photographers. No Log and crappy codec undermine its effectiveness for the video. Was it too difficult for the Nikon engineers to give the consumers both? No. Was it difficult for Canon to include 10-bit codec? No. Is there a reason for them not to do this? Yes. And that reason doesn't lie in the engineering/software department either. It's how the Japanese companies do business.

 

[puredrifting]

This IMO is the point and what I've been saying about this complaint from jump. Complaining that a RAW camera isn't suitable for docs and events is like complaining that your new Maserati isn't great for a grocery run.

Not really complaining, more observing the reality of RAW from my own few shoots with the camera so far. This just means I will be buying a Ninja Inferno to shoot 8-bit Prores, not the end of the world, just makes the camera big and clunky for shoulder mount but I don't need that intermediate codec all of the time and most of the time when I do need it, I am on tripod, shooting green screen where having a recorder would be no problem. Based upon my experience so far, the .MP4 with C-Log 3 looks pretty decent for a lot of my shooting, RAW for my own projects where I want the best quality and the recorder for when it is needed. Still end up with a camera that can shoot three different codecs in a bunch of different qualities and bit depths. I will have enough CFast cards to shoot over 4 hours as soon as the EgoDisk 512GB cards hit in September, just have to figure out which projects will make shooting RAW worthwhile.

 

[Jim Feeley]

I hear you on genlock and TC. As an audio guy, good TC makes things smoother on set and helps out post. But with a small TC generator feeding an audio channel, we can mostly address the issue (except for long concert-style runs, etc). Sigh.

Most of the people on these boards are camera geeks and therefore more excited about the idea of playing around with RAW despite RAW not being a particularly efficient way of shooting.

If you're talking about the HUGE storage requirements, I agree. But I end up working with RED cameras a lot (usually as audio or producer/director; rarely as operator and never as DP), frequently on two-camera shoots. And one nice thing about RED RAW is the leeway it gives you for exposure. Sure, the people I work with know how to expose correctly and are great at their craft. But you know, light sometimes shifts and other things happen. With RAW, we can still get the cameras matched up in post (and get each image pretty) without too much work. So in some ways, RAW is more efficient.... Uh, if you have enough storage.


Anyway, I'm not 100% convinced the Newsshooter headline is accurate. I mean, Matthew Allard seems like a smart and careful guy and I don't doubt that he was told what he reports, but I'd like to see an official announcement from Canon. Allard writes:

=====
Well today I found out directly from the Canon C200 engineers that the new codec that will be introduced early in 2018 will be XF-AVC YCbCr 4:2:0 8bit, and it will be a free upgrade (if you can call it that). It will also be recorded to the SD cards and not the CFast card.

This is contrary to what was told to me just a few weeks ago at a seminar in Tokyo where the literature they were handing out clearly stated that the new codec would be recorded to the CFast card.
=====

So he's been told at least two different things in the last month. it looks like Canon doesn't have their messaging together. Have things changed? Was the marketing seminar (complete with chart!) wrong? Is Canon still undecided about what they're really going to do (which they might be)?

We'll know soon and Allard's article certainly pushes the conversation forward and will hopefully prompt clarification/confirmation from Canon. A bunch of us know people at Canon and I'd assume some of us have reached out to them for more info. Let's hope Canon makes an official announcement soon about what's going on.

 

[Tim Nitsch]

So he's been told at least two different things in the last month. it looks like Canon doesn't have their messaging together. Have things changed? Was the marketing seminar (complete with chart!) wrong? Is Canon still undecided about what they're really going to do (which they might be)?

We'll know soon and Allard's article certainly pushes the conversation forward and will hopefully prompt clarification/confirmation from Canon. A bunch of us know people at Canon and I'd assume some of us have reached out to them for more info. Let's hope Canon makes an official announcement soon about what's going on.

Exactly, I'm not believing in anything anyone says till I see proof one way or another.

Also I find it interesting that people are so upset by this, calling it a deal breaker that it doesn't have 10bit because supposedly 10bit is needed for broadcast work, I say supposedly because I just talked to the media ingest department at a top tier broadcast company about what their requirements are as far as codes and if 10bit was mandatory and they said "anything that's brought to us in 10bit will be compressed, we only work in 8 bit." Which really surprised me because they regularly shoot on Amira's and FS7s and C300's, so I figured the 10bit thing was true, but nope.

So then what companies require 10bit? (serious question)

 

[Fahnon]

Not really complaining, more observing the reality of RAW from my own few shoots with the camera so far. This just means I will be buying a Ninja Inferno to shoot 8-bit Prores, not the end of the world, just makes the camera big and clunky for shoulder mount but I don't need that intermediate codec all of the time and most of the time when I do need it, I am on tripod, shooting green screen where having a recorder would be no problem. Based upon my experience so far, the .MP4 with C-Log 3 looks pretty decent for a lot of my shooting, RAW for my own projects where I want the best quality and the recorder for when it is needed. Still end up with a camera that can shoot three different codecs in a bunch of different qualities and bit depths. I will have enough CFast cards to shoot over 4 hours as soon as the EgoDisk 512GB cards hit in September, just have to figure out which projects will make shooting RAW worthwhile.

Oh I didn't mean to imply YOU were the one complaining. I was more thinking about the general complaints I'm seeing here, at newsshooter and cinema5d. I'd love to have as much camera for my money as possible and so want a better codec too, but I'm literally seeing people say they would rather the camera not have RAW and have a better codec. What you'd have then in a smaller touchscreen C300 II with no timecode.

This is a RAW camera in the style of BMD and RED, with a 4K C100 thrown in...

I think you and I are on the same page.

 

[Erik Naso]

Exactly, I'm not believing in anything anyone says till I see proof one way or another.

Also I find it interesting that people are so upset by this, calling it a deal breaker that it doesn't have 10bit because supposedly 10bit is needed for broadcast work, I say supposedly because I just talked the media ingest department at a top tier broadcast company about what their requirements are as far as codes and if 10bit was mandatory and they said "anything that's brought to us in 10bit will be compressed, we only work in 8 bit." Which really surprised me because they regularly shoot on Amira's and FS7s and C300's, so I figured the 10bit thing was true, but nope.

So then what companies require 10bit? (serious question)

Not local broadcast news. Heck they will take iPhone video if they need it, but that's less the issue for me. I want more color space and that's what 10bit 422 gets me. I would settle for 8bit 422 as well. The C300 MKI is pretty good and it's only 50 Mbps.

The fact that the C200 is just so stingy with only 420 is disappointing and I don't see a point in it. Banding is an issue with 420. Just when you think your safe it will happen and could ruin a a great shot.

 

[mosesm]

So he's been told at least two different things in the last month. it looks like Canon doesn't have their messaging together. Have things changed? Was the marketing seminar (complete with chart!) wrong? Is Canon still undecided about what they're really going to do (which they might be)?

We'll know soon and Allard's article certainly pushes the conversation forward and will hopefully prompt clarification/confirmation from Canon. A bunch of us know people at Canon and I'd assume some of us have reached out to them for more info. Let's hope Canon makes an official announcement soon about what's going on.

There is also an other possibility: Engineers are working on an implementation of an 8bit 420 Codec that can be used with SD Cards, but there will be also other existing Codecs implemented for using CFast Card. So both versions could be true. But who knows, it is official when Canon announce it.

 

[indiawilds]

People who can't handle RAW files in their current set up and due to the cost of CF Cards and hard disks should ideally not look at C200 at this moment. C300 Mark I for HD and C300II for 4K is a better bet for them.

Canon has placed a bet on folks who want RAW at a lower cost then RED and on the fellows who were trying out ML in DSLRs with a better and less cumbersome option. Also Canon thinks there would be sufficient demand for this as a B/C camera in bigger productions. If Canon would have provided a better XFAVC codec then people will stop buying the C300 II. Lets see how successful this camera will be.

There is so much talk about 10 bit codec and I find it a bit strange. The reason is while shooting freelance for some US as well as UK clients, I found that the post guys are cropping the 1080p image for CU. I think for lot of those low budget work will be fine with the 4K .MP4 codec. The HD delivery will likely to continue for sometime.

I also know that Canon's 8 bit is way different from the 8 bits of other guys. So I would like to see the impact of the XFAVC codec that they are going to launch next year.

It should be noted that not every shooter is an internet warrior. If these forums are to be believed then C300 Mark I would have been a failure. Similarly C100 should also have been a failure. We will know in the coming months. Till then bloggers and news websites will continue to rehash the opinions of posters of forums (such as dvxuser) to attract traffic. :2vrolijk_08:

 

[KrocanX]

People who can't handle RAW files in their current set up and due to the cost of CF Cards and hard disks should ideally not look at C200 at this moment. C300 Mark I for HD and C300II for 4K is a better bet for them.

Canon has placed a bet on folks who want RAW at a lower cost then RED and on the fellows who were trying out ML in DSLRs with a better and less cumbersome option. Also Canon thinks there would be sufficient demand for this as a B/C camera in bigger productions. If Canon would have provided a better XFAVC codec then people will stop buying the C300 II. Lets see how successful this camera will be.

There is so much talk about 10 bit codec and I find it a bit strange. The reason is while shooting freelance for some US as well as UK clients, I found that the post guys are cropping the 1080p image for CU. I think for lot of those low budget work will be fine with the 4K .MP4 codec. The HD delivery will likely to continue for sometime.

I also know that Canon's 8 bit is way different from the 8 bits of other guys. So I would like to see the impact of the XFAVC codec that they are going to launch next year.

It should be noted that not every shooter is an internet warrior. If these forums are to be believed then C300 Mark I would have been a failure. Similarly C100 should also have been a failure. We will know in the coming months. Till then bloggers and news websites will continue to rehash the opinions of posters of forums (such as dvxuser) to attract traffic. :2vrolijk_08:

You're right that we are internet warriors and most of us are b*tching about codecs, aperture blades, bits, resolutions and actually our clients dont give a sh*t about our nerd's discussions .

But one point where I disagree with you and many others defending Canon is that I am sure that Canon lost many customers with "8 bit" move. Why? Because there are way more people who need 10 bit than raw. For example me, I dont care about raw at all. I suppose you are going to say that c200 is not for me and I should buy c300ii. But it is more expensive and dont have new af, better ergonomics etc. I could live for some time with Canon's great 8 bit in c200 since footage looks great but I am not willing to pay for 8 bit camera in 2017 so much money. It's easy, thats the point. I understand that "raw people" are excited about c200 but rest of use are not going to buy c200 or c300.

So, what I could buy from Canon now? I dont have money for c300iii, c200 is to expensive for 8 bit, c100 is ancient. I would buy c200 without raw (even 8 bit!) for resonable price - lets say 3999. Unfortunately I am sure thats not going to happen).

 

[Fahnon]

You're right that we are internet warriors and most of us are b*tching about codecs, aperture blades, bits, resolutions and actually our clients dont give a sh*t about our nerd's discussions .

But one point where I disagree with you and many others defending Canon is that I am sure that Canon lost many customers with "8 bit" move. Why? Because there are way more people who need 10 bit than raw. For example me, I dont care about raw at all. I suppose you are going to say that c200 is not for me and I should buy c300ii. But it is more expensive and dont have new af, better ergonomics etc. I could live for some time with Canon's great 8 bit in c200 since footage looks great but I am not willing to pay for 8 bit camera in 2017 so much money. It's easy, thats the point. I understand that "raw people" are excited about c200 but rest of use are not going to buy c200 or c300.

So, what I could buy from Canon now? I dont have money for c300iii, c200 is to expensive for 8 bit, c100 is ancient. I would buy c200 without raw (even 8 bit!) for resonable price - lets say 3999. Unfortunately I am sure thats not going to happen).

Man, it just sounds like you want a different camera altogether that isn't being made. I think Canon wants to go up against BMD and RED, not the broadcast cameras with this one.

 

[fhammond]

Man, it just sounds like you want a different camera altogether that isn't being made. I think Canon wants to go up against BMD and RED, not the broadcast cameras with this one.

...and it's not being made by anyone (perhaps that's what you're saying too). KrocanX, it sounds like the camera you want is the Panasonic EVA1. But it's almost double the $4000 price you're looking for. For around $4000, you could either get the C100 Mark II or the Sony FS5. Both have good HD codecs but the C100 doesn't do 4K at all and the FS5 only does it in 8 bit 4:2:0. You could wait for the EVA1 or get the Ursa Mini Pro now but they both have their downsides. Seems like the EVA1 is probably the closest thing to the C200.

 

[DLD]

Panasonic GH5 and an external recorder.

And people should be livid about this feature crippling. When a $2,000 GH5 has both internal and external 10-bit codec, a $7,500 should have it as well. Clearly, some deals have been struck between the Japanese manufacturers to what camera should have what feature. This is, by the way, only a tip of the iceberg as these companies also control the distribution and financing in their native land.

 

[Alexander.M]

Clearly, some deals have been struck between the Japanese manufacturers to what camera should have what feature. This is, by the way, only a tip of the iceberg as these companies also control the distribution and financing in their native land.

Do companies like Sony, Canon and Panasonic actually do this?

 

[fhammond]

Clearly, some deals have been struck between the Japanese manufacturers to what camera should have what feature.

True but only if you've redefined the word "clearly" in this sentence to me "I have no proof but my theory is that..."

;-)

I think Canon's decided to go out on a limb here and take the jump to internal raw on a mid-range camera. Lots of people - ok, some people on the Internet, many of whom aren't in the market for this type of camera anyway - think that's crazy and won't work. Personally, I think it's fantastic and think we'll be looking back on this in a few years, saying "remember when cameras didn't have internal raw?". Personally, I'm totally sold.

 

[puredrifting]

...Personally, I'm totally sold.

That's because you already bought one! ;-) (I did too!)

 

[DLD]

Do companies like Sony, Canon and Panasonic actually do this?

It's legal in Japan and extends far beyond the camera manufacturers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keiretsu

True but only if you've redefined the word "clearly" in this sentence to me "I have no proof but my theory is that..."

;-) ...

The Japanese companies are vertically and horizontally integrated. It's quite common for the companies to own portion of their competitors. There have been a slew of studies describing how the Japanese economy works in general, including the government protection of the home markets.

And, for those interested further, there's plenty of info online.

And, getting back to the cameras, I hope people get vocal about this.