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

DLD said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't know about the GH5. Even though it says "10bit" I just don't think it's on par with other 10bit cameras like the FS7, or C300 Mk2.

I feel like the GH5 is like the BMW 3 Series of 10bit cameras, Sure it has the BMW badge, but it's just barely a BMW and it certainly can't compare to the BMW 7 Series (FS7, C300 Mk2) of 10bit cameras.

The C200 is like the Honda Accord of cameras, no it's not a BMW, but it's also is not trying to be, what it is a super reliable, well though out, reasonably good looking, workhorse of a camera that will get you from point A to B every day.

I would take the C200's 8-Bit over the GH5's 10-bit any day.
 
Tim Nitsch said:
I don't know about the GH5. Even though it says "10bit" I just don't think it's on par with other 10bit cameras like the FS7, or C300 Mk2.

I feel like the GH5 is like the BMW 3 Series of 10bit cameras, Sure it has the BMW badge, but it's just barely a BMW and it certainly can't compare to the BMW 7 Series (FS7, C300 Mk2) of 10bit cameras.

The C200 is like the Honda Accord of cameras, no it's not a BMW, but it's also is not trying to be, what it is a super reliable, well though out, reasonably good looking, workhorse of a camera that will get you from point A to B every day.

I would take the C200's 8-Bit over the GH5's 10-bit any day.
Click to expand...

Agreed. People who buy cameras from spec sheets are deluding themselves as to what they are getting or what they think they are getting. I never buy cameras without getting at least a little hands-on time or renting them. I bought the C200 without renting it, but I had played with prototypes a few times at least before I bought it.
 
Tim Nitsch said:
Even though it says "10bit" I just don't think it's on par with other 10bit cameras like the FS7, or C300 Mk2.
Click to expand...

Of course. It's a $2,000 camera that comes with a $2,000 camera sensor. The EVA1 would be the better camera to compare with the FS7 or C300 Mk2.
 
puredrifting said:
People who buy cameras from spec sheets are deluding themselves as to what they are getting or what they think they are getting.
Click to expand...

The irony is that's what the C200 kind of reminds me of. The RAW sounds great on paper, but is it really in practice?

You hear the constant comparison to RED or Blackmagic as an alternative "RAW" shooting camera, but nah, no way...at least not yet IMO.
 
TheDingo said:
Of course. It's a $2,000 camera that comes with a $2,000 camera sensor. The EVA1 would be the better camera to compare with the FS7 or C300 Mk2.
Click to expand...

But that's what I'm saying, people keep saying referencing the two camera like the GH5 is going to look better than the C200 by the simple fact that it's 10bit vs 8bit. But there's way more to it. I'd be willing bet that the C200's 8bit 4:2:0 would look better then the GH5's 10bit 4:2:2. Because I think Canons 8Bit is better than people think, and the GH5 10bit is worse then people think.
 
NorBro said:
The irony is that's what the C200 kind of reminds me of. The RAW sounds great on paper, but is it really in practice?

You hear the constant comparison to RED or Blackmagic as an alternative "RAW" shooting camera, but nah, no way...at least not yet IMO.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for a video or white sheet that explains how RAW Lite works. We all know that it isn't a RAW sensor reading, so what is it?
 
Probably just a 12 bit version of xavc...... There's a quite noticeable difference between 8 and 10, but is there that much between 10 and 12?

Imagine getting an upgrade for 10 bit 4:2:2 and realising that it's easier to work with that RAW Lite and no noticeable loss of quality. Branding branding branding.
 
cpreston said:
I'm still waiting for a video or white sheet that explains how RAW Lite works. We all know that it isn't a RAW sensor reading, so what is it?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure...but I saw someone once say on this forum that all RAW isn't created equal and it's something I definitely agree with. Similar to how some here are discussing 8-bit vs. 10-bit from certain cameras. I've never had a problem with Canon's 8-bit 4:2:2 myself - and I think it's super solid - but I just know all cameras so well and have spent way too much money on this stuff over the years, and paper specs simply do not mean anything to me anymore and never will. I wish I was smart enough to realize it earlier! ha

Some cameras in this world are very good, but look like crap on paper and completely inferior for 2017 standards. So just because it's shooting RAW doesn't mean it's going to be like other RAW cameras.

This one shoots RAW too, lol: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1298596-REG/dji_cp_zm_000496_zenmuse_x5s.html

And on the other hand, nickel-and-dime gems like the Pocket (even once selling for $500 briefly) shoots RAW for $999 as well, but it provides serious quality even for the aged HD sensor.

I do agree with how many shooters are deluded by paper specs (even though the above assessment wasn't towards the C200), and currently I am questioning the implementation of the C200's RAW and would like to understand more.

One really needs access to that RAW data in Resolve (and other NLEs)...I just don't get it.
 
Agreed. Canon will come forward with a white paper on Cinema RAW Light, they have to if they want it to be taken seriously.
 
Tim Nitsch said:
I don't know about the GH5. Even though it says "10bit" I just don't think it's on par with other 10bit cameras like the FS7, or C300 Mk2...
Click to expand...
10-bit V-Log out to an external recorder (Atomos or CD) in ProRes HQ looks really good, IMO. It's not going to have the dynamic range of C200 in Raw Light (12 vs. ~ 14) but it's of more than acceptable quality for the interviews/corporate/BTS. More importantly, the combo can be had for around $3,000.


 
Tim Nitsch said:
But that's what I'm saying, people keep saying referencing the two camera like the GH5 is going to look better than the C200 by the simple fact that it's 10bit vs 8bit. But there's way more to it. I'd be willing bet that the C200's 8bit 4:2:0 would look better then the GH5's 10bit 4:2:2. Because I think Canons 8Bit is better than people think, and the GH5 10bit is worse then people think.
Click to expand...

The main reason I would reference the GH5 in a discussion about the C200 is that the $2,000 GH5 can include a 10bit 4:2:2 codec where the $8,000 C200 can not? Cameras make the image, the codec decides how well the image is recorded. Throw away or keep information. That's all it is. The C200 users do not need to throw away information to keep file sizes small like a consumer camera, so it is kind of a tragedy that such a nice camera is limited by its codec.
 
DLD said:
10-bit V-Log out to an external recorder (Atomos or CD) in ProRes HQ looks really good, IMO. It's not going to have the dynamic range of C200 in Raw Light (12 vs. ~ 14) but it's of more than acceptable quality for the interviews/corporate/BTS. More importantly, the combo can be had for around $3,000.


Click to expand...

Is it just me or those colors, not impressive. Very sharp, video looking and pastel colors, especially in the skin tones. Not terrible but not great either. Maybe it's just the grading but I have yet to see any footage from the GH5 yet that blows me away. Definitely acceptable for a $2k camera but objectively not great. To be fair, I have not yet seen any footage from the C200 that blows me away either, my own included. So far, I have shot C-Log 3 and WDR in .MP4 but no real client projects with the Cinema RAW Light. I shot some daylight, backlit exteriors last week for a fundraising video that had two beautiful women but minimal crew and we didn't have anything but the sun and a Flexfill. Looks nice but not great. Yet. Shot interviews on the beach weekend before last, same deal, available light with some light cloud cover, they look pretty good but not extraordinary. I may have to just put together some tests to try to shoot something really beautifully lit and composed with the RAW. I also need to mess with all of the CP slots that are open and develop my own CPs, the camera really only has three settings as far as "look". I am not that talented of a colorist either.
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
Is it just me or those colors, not impressive. Very sharp, video looking and pastel colors, especially in the skin tones. Not terrible but not great either. Maybe it's just the grading but I have yet to see any footage from the GH5 yet that blows me away. Definitely acceptable for $2k camera but objectively not great. To be fair, I have not yet seen any footage from the C200 that blows me away either, my own included. So far, I have shot C-Log 3 and WDR in .MP4 but no real client projects with the Cinema RAW Light. I shot some daylight, backlit exteriors last week for a fundraising video that had two beautiful women but minimal crew and we didn't have anything but the sun and a Flexfill. Looks nice but not great. Yet. Shot interviews on the beach weekend before last, same deal, available light with some light cloud cover, they look pretty good but not extraordinary. I may have to just put together some tests to try to shoot something really beautifully lit and composed with the RAW. I also need to mess with all of the CP slots that are open and develop my own CPs, the camera really only has three settings as far as "look". I am not that talented of a colorist either.
Click to expand...

It's not just you. It looks like very nice, sharp professional video.
 
cpreston said:
I'm still waiting for a video or white sheet that explains how RAW Lite works. We all know that it isn't a RAW sensor reading, so what is it?
Click to expand...

I was assuming it's like Blackmagic's lossy RAW compression. Can someone bring me up to speed on the reasons behind all the skepticism?
 
In terms of colors, there's been a lot of LUT's that have been offered by the "major" companies like Film Convert and private individuals from Luke Neumann to Paul Leeming (on the DVX's own GH forum) to the site that shall go unmentioned. The Lumix Indonesia colors look fine to me but, then again, I am not comparing it to Alexa side by side. My recommendation of GH5+external recorder to a poster was made due to the budget and workflow considerations. In which case, I think it passes muster.
 
combatentropy said:
I was assuming it's like Blackmagic's lossy RAW compression. Can someone bring me up to speed on the reasons behind all the skepticism?
Click to expand...

My skepticism isn't so much about the actual codec being a lie. I'm sure that it is a nice, robust codec. But it isn't RAW. Canon could probably just as easily have called it XF-AVC with 4K 12 bit 444, but it doesn't get people quite as excited as calling it "RAW Lite". Or not. I don't know. That's why I'm interested to see what the RAW Lite actually is.
 
combatentropy said:
I was assuming it's like Blackmagic's lossy RAW compression. Can someone bring me up to speed on the reasons behind all the skepticism?
Click to expand...

Blackmagics produce Adobe's open file format CinemaDNG sequences. It's the only format I know of where you're provided hundreds/thousands of stills. You can take any one and open it in a photo editing software and edit it like a RAW file from a stills camera. And of course certain software recognizes each folder as one video file and you're able to edit the RAW data like with R3Ds (but with different options).

Cinema RAW Light reminds of Motion JPEG. Maybe the C200 is bursting out individual frames and putting them all together in one file, but you don't have access to those various image settings.

As mentioned, I don't doubt it's a high-quality option either, but would like straightforward access to the data.

But maybe that's where "Light" comes in...kind of RAW, kind of not.

A light version, a semi-version, of RAW recording if you will.
 
puredrifting said:
Is it just me or those colors, not impressive. Very sharp, video looking and pastel colors, especially in the skin tones. Not terrible but not great either.
Click to expand...

I've seen better GH5 footage. I am wondering if this video was shot with V-Log because the highlights seem a lot more washed out than I've seen with really good V-LOG L footage.

Usually when footage blows me away it's almost always because of the subject being shot and not the camera itself. ( i.e. you could shoot the same subject with a GoPro and get impressive footage from it )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top