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

DLD said:
Except a compressed codec.

But now we're going round and round and round and ...
Click to expand...
What again makes a mirrorless with medium sized chip, no xlr and no internal raw and ND better?
Your basically saying a Golf GTI is better than a dedicated race car, just because it offers more
Bang for the buck.
Well, you are right. Let's move on now.
 
Spartacus said:
....Your basically saying a Golf GTI is better than a dedicated race car, just because it offers more Bang for the buck...
Click to expand...
No. What I am saying is that a race car is not a daily driver. I am not saying a race car should be a daily driver either. But, given a negligible cost difference, if any, a camera should have several codecs and several compression ratios available to its users. To pull out the NX1 ace again, it had both a 80 Mbps H265 and a 40 Mbps H265. And it had it three years ago.

In any case, NX1 had left the station faster than a Formula 1 car.
 
The bigger, more interesting question is: When will Premiere natively support CRM files, and will the update to the c200 write the same metadata/file names to the SD proxies?

If that's the case, then raw could easily become the new production standard.
 
It's already been a production standard for the better half of a decade with RED cameras.

Post-houses will continue to like what they like, but if companies can provide their data in a user-friendly format that will play well with NLEs almost anything will be accepted these days if you like the camera enough, especially on an independent level.

Same with Blackmagic users...editing their RAW in Resolve is like cutting ProRes in FCPX/Premiere.
 
dave12781 said:
Last I looked, the GH5 didn't have raw. Has that changed?

The c200 is the most compact, ergonomic raw camera out there. In fact, dual pixel might make it the most advanced raw camera currently on the market. It also has better low light than the best current Red.

There is nothing about the c200 that is inferior to the GH5.
Click to expand...

The GH5 possibly has a higher resolution. The 2.0 firmware allow for "Open Gate" Anamorphic (4992 x 3744) shooting which is numerically superior to the 4K resolution of the C200. Of course that doesn't mean the compressed footage will deliver more lines of resolution and its also anamorphic but at least on paper the GH5 has a superior resolution.

However I think it's almost silly to compare the GH5 with the C200 since the cameras have almost completely different audiences. The GH5 raises the bar on what a hybrid stills camera can be, but no one will be shooting a Netflix series with it. The C200 has an internal RAW capability that Sony's F5/F55/F65 and Panasonic's Varicam cameras lack. It could be the first camera to bring raw recording to the masses and with it's DPAF it has the potential to change the face of independent film and possibly even episodic content. While Blackmagic and Red were there first with internal RAW, Blackmagic isn't mainstream, Red hasn't really penetrated the episodic space the way they have theatrical, and neither company has DPAF. The C200 could become the easy choice for lots of the smaller production companies creating some those 500 scripted TV shows we keep hearing about. I could see lots of producers being very happy about being able to shoot great 4K RAW with smaller crews and less lighting.

I think part of what is driving much of praise of the GH5 here is an appreciation of the different philosophies of Canon and Panasonic. Lot's of people apparently think it's great that Panasonic keeps adding significant new and unpromised features to their cameras. It's a trend I personally hope see in Panasonic's Cinema line and it makes me even more excited about the EVA1. It stands in stark contrast to what Canon is apparently planning for the C200 XFAVC update next year.

I think it's reasonable for people who are paying more than 10K to buy and kit a camera in 2018 to grumble when the manufacturer shaves 5Mbit off an internal HD codec just to make sure their customers can't use it for broadcast work. Especially when there is a great ready to use 50Mbit codec available that was first used in the Canon XF series in 2010 and is currently being used by the almost 6 year old C300. I doubt Canon wants potential purchasers reading here and elsewhere thinking that the C200 is inferior in any way to a camcorder released in 2010. Especially if that inferiority means it not be suitable for an occasional gig with the local cable news outlet who will almost certainly never use a RAW workflow.

These grumbles might help the C200 get the extra 5Mbit and if the update comes with a 50Mbit codec then it's time to celebrate. The grumblers have done other C200 owners a favor and likely increased the value of their cameras even if they didn't personally care if the internal HD codec was 45 Mbit or 50Mbit.

This new GH5 firmware has me considering buying a GH series cam for the first time. The GH5 on a monopod can go lots of places bigger cameras can't and the picture looks very good. However it will never be an A-cam for 99% of what I do. I long ago swore off stills cameras for video and with the exception of an occasional stolen shot I have no desire to go back that dark road.

Grumbles aside there is also good chance I will get a C200, but I am waiting to see how things shake out with the EVA1 and whatever Sony offers this fall. I am also waiting to see how what the options are in post with Cinema Raw Light and hoping it will get support in Final Cut X.
 
Episodic TV already has access to Raw recording with the Alexa but due to the added expense most still rely on ProRes. Same is true with most of the high-end Commercials.

Canon appears to be marketing the C200 primarily to the indie filmmaker, & (hopefully) saving the extra goodness for their next Tier release, which I imagine will have dual CFast slots, & a wider array of CODEC options.
 
Bern Caughey said:
Episodic TV already has access to Raw recording with the Alexa but due to the added expense most still rely on ProRes. Same is true with most of the high-end Commercials.

Canon appears to be marketing the C200 primarily to the indie filmmaker, & (hopefully) saving the extra goodness for their next Tier release, which I imagine will have dual CFast slots, & a wider array of CODEC options.
Click to expand...


That's true but the problem with ARRIRAW is that it's uncompressed and has very limited NLE support. Working with ARRIRAW footage is painful compared to the ProRes.

Cinema Raw Light is roughly the same data rata as ProRes 4444 XQ and if it gets great NLE support I could see it being used quite a bit. Both Final Cut Pro and Premiere Pro have good proxy workflows so I could see lots of people just ingesting the Cinema Raw Light footage, editing in proxy and only using the Cinema Raw Light for the beauty work. That would be my plan.

I agree about the higher end cameras. The C500 MK II can't come soon enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top