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

Eric Coughlin said:
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
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the one I have. So far, works great even though EgoDisk recommends not using it, they say it can corrupt the files. But for location use with a laptop, it's the only Thunderbolt 1/2 compatible reader I could find. The new Sonnet dual Thunderbolt 3 reader looks like the one to buy, IF your laptop supports Thunderbolt 3 (mine is old and doesn't). There is an Apple adapter that adapts Thunderbolt 3 to Thunderbolt 1 and 2 but it doesn't pass bus power, which is how the readers are powered so that's no good. Now I have to solve the issue of my laptop only has one Thunderbolt 1 port and none of the bus powered Thunderbolt SSDs has loop through. So I will probably have to buy one of those Other World Computing Thunderbolt hubs, which adds expense and size to the whole thing. Then again, I don't think our clients are going to spring very often for shooting Cinema RAW Light so for my own stuff, I can wait until I get back to the edit bay to download the cards so maybe having a laptop that can handle downloading RAW is moot point?

I am also buying CFast cards with the hope that come February 2018, Apple will grace us with a usable XF-AVC codec so in that case, I would still be shooting to the CFast cards so I will need to either spend the money for a new laptop or buy a Thunderbolt hub for my current laptop. I wish the prices on the 2TB SSDs would come down, the new Samsung T5 looks amazing but it's $800.00 and it's only USB 3.1 protocol via a USB C connector so that does me no good since my laptop also lacks USB 3.1. Damn new protocols, they never stop, just keep introducing new ones that outdate everything before it, making you buy new computers, cables, drives. When Apple introduced Thunderbolt, they laid out the roadmap for the protocol, it looked good. Then they came out with Thunderbolt 2, same connector, so good backwards compatibility. Now Thunderbolt 3 trashes all of that, they HAD to change the stupid connector, why? All of the new RAIDs, single SSDs, card readers are Thunderbolt 3/USB-C. Frustrating since a nice new loaded MBP costs a small fortune. Okay, enough of my bitching.
 
Hi puredrifting ! can yon confirm that the Lexar Workflow CR2 Thunderbolt 2 CFast 2.0 Reader is bus powered and will work with older MacBook Pros with Thunderbolt 2/1?
I have a 2015 MB Pro with Thunderbolt 2 and am looking for an offload solution for CFast 2 cards for an upcoming job thanks !


puredrifting said:
Yes, that's the one I have. So far, works great even though EgoDisk recommends not using it, they say it can corrupt the files. But for location use with a laptop, it's the only Thunderbolt 1/2 compatible reader I could find. The new Sonnet dual Thunderbolt 3 reader looks like the one to buy, IF your laptop supports Thunderbolt 3 (mine is old and doesn't). There is an Apple adapter that adapts Thunderbolt 3 to Thunderbolt 1 and 2 but it doesn't pass bus power, which is how the readers are powered so that's no good. Now I have to solve the issue of my laptop only has one Thunderbolt 1 port and none of the bus powered Thunderbolt SSDs has loop through. So I will probably have to buy one of those Other World Computing Thunderbolt hubs, which adds expense and size to the whole thing. Then again, I don't think our clients are going to spring very often for shooting Cinema RAW Light so for my own stuff, I can wait until I get back to the edit bay to download the cards so maybe having a laptop that can handle downloading RAW is moot point?

I am also buying CFast cards with the hope that come February 2018, Apple will grace us with a usable XF-AVC codec so in that case, I would still be shooting to the CFast cards so I will need to either spend the money for a new laptop or buy a Thunderbolt hub for my current laptop. I wish the prices on the 2TB SSDs would come down, the new Samsung T5 looks amazing but it's $800.00 and it's only USB 3.1 protocol via a USB C connector so that does me no good since my laptop also lacks USB 3.1. Damn new protocols, they never stop, just keep introducing new ones that outdate everything before it, making you buy new computers, cables, drives. When Apple introduced Thunderbolt, they laid out the roadmap for the protocol, it looked good. Then they came out with Thunderbolt 2, same connector, so good backwards compatibility. Now Thunderbolt 3 trashes all of that, they HAD to change the stupid connector, why? All of the new RAIDs, single SSDs, card readers are Thunderbolt 3/USB-C. Frustrating since a nice new loaded MBP costs a small fortune. Okay, enough of my bitching.
Click to expand...
 
tillhavis said:
Hi puredrifting ! can yon confirm that the Lexar Workflow CR2 Thunderbolt 2 CFast 2.0 Reader is bus powered and will work with older MacBook Pros with Thunderbolt 2/1?
I have a 2015 MB Pro with Thunderbolt 2 and am looking for an offload solution for CFast 2 cards for an upcoming job thanks !
Click to expand...

I have been using that reader with my iMac and MBP for over a year without any issues. My MBP is a late 2013 with Thunderbolt 1 & my iMac is Thunderbolt 2.

I have Sandisk Cfast cards.
 
tillhavis said:
Hi puredrifting ! can yon confirm that the Lexar Workflow CR2 Thunderbolt 2 CFast 2.0 Reader is bus powered and will work with older MacBook Pros with Thunderbolt 2/1?
I have a 2015 MB Pro with Thunderbolt 2 and am looking for an offload solution for CFast 2 cards for an upcoming job thanks !
Click to expand...

Yes and Yes.
 
fhammond said:
It seems like the title of this thread is definitely accurate:
http://www.newsshooter.com/2017/08/24/new-codec-coming-to-the-c200-in-2018-will-only-be-420-8-bit/

Personally I'm fine with this as the raw workflow is proving to be easier than I'd thought it would be. I also think it's still likely that we'll see a 10 bit 4:2:2 update for the C200 after the c300 Mark II's replacement is shipping.
Click to expand...

I am vey disappointed with this, why not at least make it 8bit 4:2:2 ? IMO this is another mis-step from Canon.
All Cinema cameras released in 2017-2018 should have 4:2:2 recording.
It's like Canon are handing sales (once again) to the EVA-1, not that I'm complaining about this.
If the C200 allowed 8bit 4:2:2 then it would be a middle ground offering to users.
You could still use the camera for quick turn around broadcast situations without having to transcode Raw files to Pro Res.
Keep the 10bit 4:2:2 plus Full/Lite Raw for the C300III but make it broadcast quality !
 
Nothing has changed for me: When someone needs to deliver broadcast-ready at certain specs, the C300 series is the right choice.
As someone who get's to decide about how I acquire the pictures as long as the turn out visually satisfactory, I will use 4:2:0 whenever I feel it suffices.
For anything else I will keep collecting CFast cards, starting with 1GB in cards, so I have 2 hours to start with - plenty for most more demanding projects.
 
fhammond said:
It seems like the title of this thread is definitely accurate:
http://www.newsshooter.com/2017/08/24/new-codec-coming-to-the-c200-in-2018-will-only-be-420-8-bit/

Personally I'm fine with this as the raw workflow is proving to be easier than I'd thought it would be. I also think it's still likely that we'll see a 10 bit 4:2:2 update for the C200 after the c300 Mark II's replacement is shipping.
Click to expand...

Wow, I was expecting 8-bit but 150 Mbps? Why bother? Unless that firmware update offers other features or hopefully bug fixes, I probably won't even download it, our clients would rather have an easily viewable .MP4. Very disappointing and from a strategic standpoint, how much sense does it make that you can buy a $2,500.00 Canon with a codec that will have more than double the data rate? Just makes no sense.
 
dave12781 said:
The C200 has the best internal codec released in 2017, and it's likely to still be in use in 5-10 years.
Click to expand...

Not if you are shooting 3-5 hours of footage per day for multiple days. Then the Cinema RAW Light is a hindrance more than a positive thing. Until everyone has small portable RAIDs they take on shoots with their laptops or the prices on large Thunderbolt/USB 3.1 SSD drives fall a lot. You really cannot deal with Cinema RAW Light without large, fast drives. I ran some tests and a single 256GB card, using slower USB 2.0 drives, took almost three hours to download while the same card downloaded to an SSD took 10:34.

I shot a documentary in Brazil in the Spring, we had a full time DIT on set with us and at the end of the shooting day, he would take all of the camera files. We were shooting Prores HQ on the A camera, but also lots of Go Pro and lots of gimbal using H264, we typically shot 3-5 hours of interviews per day, then would go out on separate b-roll shoots into the evening all around Rio and back them up after the days shooting. As it was, the poor DIT was up half the night downloading all of the data, making reports, making a copy of the back up for the producers to take back to LA, etc. If I would have been handing him 1.5 to 2.5 TB of Cinema RAW Light Data per day (this was a two week shoot), think about the increased hours it would have taken him to do his job and think about ending up with possibly 50-60 TBs of data at the end of two weeks, plus the producers having to take that back home, giving it to their editor and the editor having to convert all of those CRM files to Prores 4444, double the hard drive space needed not to mention the days and days it would take to render that all out.

Cinema RAW Light is a great format but not practical, today, for long form documentaries or events for most people. Even if you can afford all of the CFast 2.0 cards, can you or your clients afford all of the drive space, time to download, time for render outs to comvert it to Prores, doubling your storage and editing space if you want to keep a copy of the proignal CRM files? Great for commercials, short pieces, anything where you are shooting an hour but not multiple days/weeks of multiple hours days. Even the Canon XC-15 codec implemented into the C200 in February would have been very good for this sort of work. I could have lived with the 8-bit, but not 4:2:0 at the same low data rate as the .MP4
 
puredrifting said:
Not if you are shooting 3-5 hours of footage per day for multiple days. Then the Cinema RAW Light is a hindrance more than a positive thing. Until everyone has small portable RAIDs they take on shoots with their laptops or the prices on large Thunderbolt/USB 3.1 SSD drives fall a lot. You really cannot deal with Cinema RAW Light without large, fast drives. I ran some tests and a single 256GB card, using slower USB 2.0 drives, took almost three hours to download while the same card downloaded to an SSD took 10:34. {snip}
Click to expand...

...which is why Canon has the C300 Mark II, right?

I think the expectations about the C200 are unrealistic. It's a brand new camera that's kind of the odd man out right now in Canon's lineup. I think we'll see a C100 Mark III that looks very much like the C200 but without raw and with ok XFAVC support (8 bit 4:2:2 perhaps). On the other end, we'll see a C300 Mark III that'll be like the current model in it's great XFAVC support but with internal raw and some of the other nice C200 features.

Would I like better XFAVC support in the C200? Sure. Do I think it would make sense for Canon? Heck no. They want a lineup with multiple cameras and I think most customers want the same thing. (Look at the C100 Mark I: it's an awesome deal.) But unless they are going to refresh the whole product line at the same time, there are times there's going to be an odd gap in their lineup, which is what we're seeing now.

Personally, I think the C200 is fantastic. If they hadn't released it, I would likely have purchased a Red Raven for more than twice the price and Canon would probably have lost me permanently as a customer. If I was doing the type of work described above, the C300 Mark II would still be a good choice. The FS7 II would be a consideration too but I still prefer Canon's color.

Anyway, my $0.02 worth.
 
Maybe the limitations of current file sizes would restrict production processes and force people to think outside of the box to develop entertaining content.

I remember being a kid and seeing a 1GB internal hard drive for the first time - it cost $4,000!
 
fhammond said:
...which is why Canon has the C300 Mark II, right?

I think the expectations about the C200 are unrealistic.
Click to expand...

True. I can get by without a good XF-AVC internal codec, I knew going in that there was a good chance Canon would not deliver one. If the C300 MKII didn't have the horrible dual cable, clamshell monitor mess, I probably would have bought one over the C200. Although Cinema RAW Light is fun for shorter for shooting. And I do like the lower center of gravity, shorter design. Overall, the C200 is a very good camera but so far, I find the bugs I am dealing with frustrating although Canon should be able to issue a simple firmware fix for those, if they are in fact, bugs that everyone's camera has. In the other thread, I have had a hard time getting other C200 owners to actually try these functions out to see if they are really bugs or if they are just issues on my camera. One is with the 18-80 lens and not a lot of people have the 18-80 and the C200 on hand yet. And the other potential bug, you need an external monitor or recorder to test it out, apparently not a lot of C200 owners have those?
 
fhammond said:
It seems like the title of this thread is definitely accurate:
http://www.newsshooter.com/2017/08/24/new-codec-coming-to-the-c200-in-2018-will-only-be-420-8-bit/

Personally I'm fine with this as the raw workflow is proving to be easier than I'd thought it would be. I also think it's still likely that we'll see a 10 bit 4:2:2 update for the C200 after the c300 Mark II's replacement is shipping.
Click to expand...

So... you'd buy the C200 because maybe in the future it will have a proper codec.. just after it's obsolete because Sony, Pana and BMD pull even futher ahead.
 
Well let's hope CFast card prices keep dropping in price. But big picture: CFast is a lot cheaper than RED minimags, we don't need to buy or rent a VTR, no film lab fees, and perhaps the high price of media will help return a little discipline to sets. :-)

But seriously, for me and my interview-heavy corp and doc work, the lack of a nice 10-bit XF-AVC codec move the C200 off my list of cameras to buy for now. Bummer until CFast prices drop.

OTOH, the C300mkII is a bit bigger, but makes nice pictures and works well. Just Monday, a friend received two C300mkIIs for his corporate video department (they do really nice work).

Oh well. Canon's loss --might-- be Panasonic's gain.
 
Last edited:
legrevedotcom said:
So... you'd buy the C200 because maybe in the future it will have a proper codec.. just after it's obsolete because Sony, Pana and BMD pull even futher ahead.
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying exactly the opposite: I bought the C200 because I'm completely satisfied with the codecs it shipped with - raw and mp4 - and if Canon never added XFAVC, I would not care. Sony, Panasonic and BMD don't currently have a camera that meets my requirements; Canon does now and I didn't want to wait for something else.
 
Jim Feeley said:
Well let's hope CFast card prices keep dropping in price. But big picture: CFast is a lot cheaper than RED minimags, we don't need to buy or rent a VTR, no film lab fees, and perhaps the high price of media will help return a little discipline to sets. :-)

But seriously, for me and my interview-heavy corp and doc work, the lack of a nice 10-bit XF-AVC codec move the C200 off my list of cameras to buy for now. Bummer until CFast prices drop.

OTOH, the C300mkII is a big bigger, but makes nice pictures and works well. Just Monday, a friend received two C300mkIIs for his corporate video department (they do really nice work).

Oh well. Canon's loss --might-- be Panasonic's gain.
Click to expand...

I agree. The C300 Mark II is solid and, based on the release dates of it and previously the original C300, it's probably not getting replaced any time soon.

It will be interesting to see how Canon responses to the EVA1. If raw really takes off, they won't have to: the C200 will be preferable. Alternatively, the C100 Mark II replacement might be competitive with the EVA1. If it's like the C200 but a few thousand dollars cheaper and with decent XFAVC support, the EVA1 would be a tough sell. Personally, I think there will still be a gap for a while: many people won't want to deal with raw and the C100 Mark II replacement's codec support won't be as good as the EVA1. Panasonic doesn't have a camera like the C300 Mark II - the Varicam LT is way more expensive - so they can afford for the EVA1 to have better non-raw codecs, as it's not threatening a higher end camera. Canon doesn't have that choice: the C200 is already better in several ways than the C300 Mark II. Anyway, it's a great time to be a camera buyer.
 
puredrifting said:
Cinema RAW Light is a great format but not practical, today, for long form documentaries or events for most people... Great for commercials, short pieces, anything where you are shooting an hour but not multiple days/weeks of multiple hours days.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top