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

[puredrifting]

By the way, Allard said in his review that he's been getting different answers from Canon on whether the codec will be 8-bit or 10-bit. So who knows what will happen. Here's to hoping it's as robust as they can make it because even though I don't require 10-bit for work, I'd rather have as great a camera as possible.

And even if not 10-bit, at least 305Mbps like the XC10/15 have. If they make it 150Mbps like the .MP4s, (some rumors have stated this is what it will be?) what's the point of having it over the .MP4s, other than more metadata? Who wants to use expensive CFast cards for the same data rate as your cheap SDXC cards?

 

[Spartacus]

And even if not 10-bit, at least 305Mbps like the XC10/15 have.

This.


But I'm still wondering what would be left to differentiate the C300MIII from the C200?
Dual slot RAW recording?
An even better (AVCHD) Codec? The MII is broadcast ready already.
Internal ProRes recording?
A high brightness touch-lcd?
A full-frame sensor?
A 8K Super35 sensor for a future 8K TV standard?
But hey, I got conditioned by Apple to up-pay for sth as little as a FW800 port...

 

[puredrifting]

I doubt the C300 MKIII will have FF or 8K. They probably would not make the sensor any higher resolution than the C700, which is 4.5k. Which honestly is plenty for the broadcast world. Personally I find REDs 6k and 8k to be pointless, but others don't. But REDs are cinema cameras and C300s are not.

Dual Slot Cinema RAW Light
Timecode I/O
Genlock
Don't know if they will bother with AVCHD, probably more like the same .MP4 the C200 has?
Internal Prores would be cool but out of character for them
High brightness touch LCD. Hmm...possible but unlikely, they seem to like to dip into the same parts bin for multiple cameras.
On body XLRs
Handle will attach detach with one knob like the C200

Overall, I think it will just be a more fully featured/broadcast oriented C200 for twice the money. Unless they go rogue and put a bunch of new stuff into it. Kind of like the rogue element of introducing internal RAW for $7,500.00 like they did for this camera. At least Canon has us guessing again about "will they/won't they" which we had all kind of lost hope for six months ago.

 

[DLD]

They'll probably will have to throw in several compression rates into Raw Light - 3/1, 5/1 as in C200, 9/1 as in Sony X-OCN.

The rule of thumb is that, much like in autos, the features from a higher end model make its way into a lower end step by step, tier by tier. This, of course, presumes that C300 MKIII/C400 won't be the replacement for C500 because that will bring all sorts of feature shuffle.

PS. Considering that Raw Light at 5/1 is slightly slower than ProRes 444, a move to ProRes is highly unlikely.

 

[SherwynS]

There's a segment of the newshooter's written review talking about the new firmware update of XFAVC HD being 10 Bit.

http://www.newsshooter.com/2017/08/14/canon-c200-production-camera-review/

Canon have said that a higher bitrate codec will be implemented in 2018, but there has been plenty of debate whether that will be 8 or 10-bit. Depending on who you talk to at Canon you seem to get a different response. At a seminar in Japan I was told that the MXF codec will be 10-bit and only be able to be recorded to the CFast2.0 card. Even the brochure Canon handed out shows that the MXF codec will be recorded to the CFast 2.0 slot. This makes a lot of sense because this is exactly how the higher bitrate recordings are done on the C300 Mark II and C700. On the other hand, the reason for the delay in adding the MXF codec may well be because Canon is having to translate the C300 Mk II’s 10-bit into 8-bit.

I personally don’t see any point in adding another 8-bit codec as a recording option, even if it is at a higher bitrate. The problem Canon is facing is exactly the same one Sony has struggled with for years. As soon as you introduce a new camera you don’t want it to cannibalise sales of your other cameras. For Canon, the C200 is only $2,500 US less than their C300 Mark II. If Canon puts in the MXF 4:2:2 10-bit codec from the C300 Mark II into the C200 they risk harming sales of that camera.

From a consumer’s point of view it all appears to be a bit stupid, but the reality is Canon is a business, and like any business, they need to make money.

So I don't want to jinx things, but this may essentially be confirmation that the firmware update will be 10bit 422.

 

[DLD]

Matt misses the point that, by the time the "either 8 or 10-bit" codec is released, C300 MKII will be on its way out. And that would cannibalize the cannibalism.

 

[fhammond]

Matt misses the point that, by the time the "either 8 or 10-bit" codec is released, C300 MKII will be on its way out. And that would cannibalize the cannibalism.

Maybe. I thought the same thing (that 10 bit is likely early next year because Canon will have announced a replacement for the C300 Mark II). However, if Canon has a release cycle similar to that of the C300 to C300 Mark II, a C300 Mark II replacement won't be available until 2019.

 

[cpreston]

The 4K XF-AVC on both the C300II and XC15 is written to the C-Fast Card. We can be certain that the XF-AVC on the C200 will be written to the SD card. That will affect the options available for XF-AVC based on the heat flow, available cards to be tested for approved media, and the continuous write speed of the SD card writer. I think that attempting to determine what type of XF-AVC will be available based on trying to determine how Canon is trying to protect the C300 II sales is misguided. I don't think it matters to Canon since the gen lock, time code, color space options, and monitoring options mean the camera is intended for a different market. Also, the C300 II is old.

 

[NorBro]

The release cycles are getting shorter and shorter. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a time when there will be a new camera released every year (from each company).

 

[fhammond]

The 4K XF-AVC on both the C300II and XC15 is written to the C-Fast Card. We can be certain that the XF-AVC on the C200 will be written to the SD card.

Why? If Canon introduces higher quality XFAVC support, why wouldn't they record it on CFast?

The Newsshooter article even has a photo of a Canon slide deck that shows XFAVC support using CFast: We can be certain that the XF-AVC on the C200 will be written to the SD card:

 

[DLD]

Maybe...

And definitely so.

(OK, seriously, unlike the MKI-to-MKII trnsition, the jump from MKII to MKIII wouldn't have to be a big one and most of the hardware already exists in C200, so it's just combining the feature sets of C200 and 300 MKII ... now a C400/C500 MKII would probably have a feature set passed down from C700 but in a "standard" C-style body ... when that comes out is anyone's guess ... CR had some gossip on it recently, so NAB'18/Cinegear'18 is a possibility)

 

[cpreston]

Why? If Canon introduces higher quality XFAVC support, why wouldn't they record it on CFast?

The Newsshooter article even has a photo of a Canon slide deck that shows XFAVC support using CFast: We can be certain that the XF-AVC on the C200 will be written to the SD card:

View attachment 125862

Well, look at that. I was completely wrong. I had assumed that the RAW-Lite and C-Fast write pipeline was specialized and wouldn't allow any other formats onto the C-Fast card. In this case, sure why not have the standard XF-AVC support from the C300II? But again, I don't think Canon is that worried about protecting the C300 II based on whether the XF-AVC is 10 bit or 8 bit. Their photo division regularly has cameras released that appear to undermine higher end cameras based on one spec or another. The C300II and C200 are camera's intended for different markets with similar price points.

 

[puredrifting]

I can say that after having the C200 for a week and shooting a few hours of RAW, I am really looking forward to the XF-AVC implentation. Doing a documentary shoot this weekend where we are shooting far too much material for RAW (I only have two of the 256 GB CFast 2.0 cards) so I will be shooting it in the .MP4 in C-Log 3. It'd be nicer to be shooting it to XF-AVC at 300-400 MBps than the .MP4 at 150 Mbps but not the end of the world. FWIW, the .MP4 4k on the C200, if you nail exposure and white balance, looks very nice. I knew it would since even the 24Mbps AVCHD on my C100 looks superb if you shoot it well. But the XF-AVC signal would obviously be more robust.

 

[fhammond]

In this case, sure why not have the standard XF-AVC support from the C300II? But again, I don't think Canon is that worried about protecting the C300 II based on whether the XF-AVC is 10 bit or 8 bit.

Well, that's the mystery. It might truly be an engineering challenge. The cameras look to us to be very smilier - so it should be easy to take the 10 bit 4:2:2 to CFast support from the C300 Mark II to the C200 - but as consumers, we've really got no idea. For all we know, the processor or operating system architecture of the C200 might be different in some way that it makes it difficult to port features from one camera to another.

The other option is that Canon is trying to ween us off XFAVC and move to Canon Raw Light. It makes sense to me: I've found that the 8 bit 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 (HD) footage is really nice straight out of the C200. If I don't want to do any grading, I'm really happy with what the camera already does. If I want to do more work in post, I don't know why I *wouldn't'* use raw. Thanks to EgoDisk, it's a lot cheaper than I'd thought and so far, the workflow has been really smooth and has delivered great results - better than I've been able to get out of any non-raw workflow. Other than sports photographers, who have to deal with huge volume and super-quick turnaround, almost all professional still photographers use raw. Maybe Canon believes that's the future and that it doesn't made sense to invest in higher quality XFAVC support for new cameras.

 

[puredrifting]

...Maybe Canon believes that's the future and that it doesn't made sense to invest in higher quality XFAVC support for new cameras.

Interesting theory, you may be right. It could be a whole corporate strategy for the Cinema lineup. The difficult part is when you shoot for clients and try to educate them not only about the great parts of shooting Cinema RAW Light, but also to the realities of how long it takes to download 6-8 256 GB CFast 2.0 cards and how much drive space that is going to take up on their end. And that's just to get RAW into their hands, then they have to convert it (until FCPX, Premiere integrate Cinema RAW Light ingest), which basically doubles the space. It's going to be a hard sell for our clients.

 

[cpreston]

Interesting theory, you may be right. It could be a whole corporate strategy for the Cinema lineup. The difficult part is when you shoot for clients and try to educate them not only about the great parts of shooting Cinema RAW Light, but also to the realities of how long it takes to download 6-8 256 GB CFast 2.0 cards and how much drive space that is going to take up on their end. And that's just to get RAW into their hands, then they have to convert it (until FCPX, Premiere integrate Cinema RAW Light ingest), which basically doubles the space. It's going to be a hard sell for our clients.

This is why the C200 doesn't make sense for me in regards to my normal client work. Of course most of my clients want low bit rate 1080p still, which is why my C100 gets more work than my C300.

 

[puredrifting]

This is why the C200 doesn't make sense for me in regards to my normal client work. Of course most of my clients want low bit rate 1080p still, which is why my C100 gets more work than my C300.

I'm definitely NOT selling my Ninja Blade for that very reason. A lot of our clients want 10-bit 1080 Prores HQ for green screen stuff. And I shoot a lot of it.

 

[fhammond]

Interesting theory, you may be right. It could be a whole corporate strategy for the Cinema lineup. The difficult part is when you shoot for clients and try to educate them not only about the great parts of shooting Cinema RAW Light, but also to the realities of how long it takes to download 6-8 256 GB CFast 2.0 cards and how much drive space that is going to take up on their end. And that's just to get RAW into their hands, then they have to convert it (until FCPX, Premiere integrate Cinema RAW Light ingest), which basically doubles the space. It's going to be a hard sell for our clients.

Got it. That makes a lot of sense. Given what you're saying - and how I assume your situation is pretty common - it seems that Canon will either have to add decent XFAVC support to the C200 or acknowledge that the C200 isn't addressing your segment of the market. I think the former will happen.

 

[puredrifting]

Got it. That makes a lot of sense. Given what you're saying - and how I assume your situation is pretty common - it seems that Canon will either have to add decent XFAVC support to the C200 or acknowledge that the C200 isn't addressing your segment of the market. I think the former will happen.

With the Blade I am pretty much covered now. I can shoot low bit rate .MP4 for web clients, Prores HQ in 1080 10-bit 4:2:2 and Cinema RAW Light. The only sticking point will be if a client needs/wants 4K Prores, then I'll have to buy or rent a Shogun Inferno. I would much rather ditch the Atomos recorders and record some good XF-AVC in camera but we shall see if that comes to fruition next Winter.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

Interesting theory, you may be right. It could be a whole corporate strategy for the Cinema lineup. The difficult part is when you shoot for clients and try to educate them not only about the great parts of shooting Cinema RAW Light, but also to the realities of how long it takes to download 6-8 256 GB CFast 2.0 cards and how much drive space that is going to take up on their end. And that's just to get RAW into their hands, then they have to convert it (until FCPX, Premiere integrate Cinema RAW Light ingest), which basically doubles the space. It's going to be a hard sell for our clients.

With the Thunderbolt Cfast reader copying to a solid state drive, copying over 256 GB is actually quite fast. I was on a shoot where the producer had that setup and he was copying 128 GB cards in a couple or few minutes, I'd guess, though I didn't time it. He made quick backups too. Not that one can expect every producer to show up with that setup.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1186726-REG/lexar_lrwcr2tbna_pro_workflow_cr2_cfast.html