C200: HDR in RAW only?

Doug_EX

Doug_EX

Well-known member
Hi,

Can the C200 produce HDR (14-15 stops) images in mp4 too? Or is it only possible in RAW?
Coming from a C100, I want my next camera to have more DR without the need to shoot in RAW.
That's why I'm hesitating between the C200 and the EVA1. THe UMP would also be a good choice but it's not sensitive enough for my needs.

Thanks!
 
I believe the only way to get max dynamic range is through C-log 2, an the only way to get C-log 2 on the C200 is to shoot raw and process it as C-log 2 in Canon's raw development software.
 
Doug_EX said:
Hi,

Can the C200 produce HDR (14-15 stops) images in mp4 too? Or is it only possible in RAW?
Coming from a C100, I want my next camera to have more DR without the need to shoot in RAW.
That's why I'm hesitating between the C200 and the EVA1. THe UMP would also be a good choice but it's not sensitive enough for my needs.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Canon rates the C200 having 13 stops with .MP4 and 15 stops using C-Log 2 with Cinema RAW Light. Personally, real world, I rate each about a stop less, more like 12-ish stops using WDR/709 and 13-14-ish stops when using C-Log 2, both of which are still pretty good. There are a lot more factors than this too when choosing between the C200 and EVA 1, I strongly suggest you beg, borrow or rent both before buying one or the other. Think about focusing, ergonomics and weight, color science, and overall budget to get a working camera package. For me, I found out after crunching the numbers, for the way I need to shoot, the EVA 1 would have been significantly more expensive once batteries and shooting media, EVF were added up. V60 and V90 cards for the EVA 1 to shoot the top data rates cost more than CFAST 2.0 VPG-130 cards right now too. I love a lot of things about the EVA 1 better than the C200, but overall, for me, the C200 value equation made more sense. YMMV.
 
This might help explain: https://youtu.be/5rHY_oMT0Qo

You will be able to squish some additional dynamic range into a rec709 product in the sense that you can compress the highlights and shadows into an 8 bit file. You can compress a few more stops if you shoot RAW/clog2 as demonstrated in the videos (seeing the 'HI' in the shadows and highlights. none of this has much to do with delivering an HDR product

If you want to deliver an HDR file, you cant use MP4 and you cant use REC709. You need to use BT2020 (or DCIP3, or some other standard that supports 10 or 12 but HDR). So, if you want to deliver something to be shown on a UHD screen with 1000nits and the contrast range to actually display HDR (manufacturers use words like HDR10 or Dolby Vision) you need a 10 or 12 bit path through production and post.
 
Thanks guys!

Yes I know that there is more difference between the C200 and the EVA1. If Canon would've put a midrange codec in their C200 (that could do around 14 stop of DR) I would go for the C200 all the way.
I think the C300II would be perfect for me but it's just too expensive and I can't really justify the cost. I know, there is no perfect camera! :)
 
Doug_EX said:
Thanks guys!

Yes I know that there is more difference between the C200 and the EVA1. If Canon would've put a midrange codec in their C200 (that could do around 14 stop of DR) I would go for the C200 all the way.
I think the C300II would be perfect for me but it's just too expensive and I can't really justify the cost. I know, there is no perfect camera! :)
Click to expand...

Just get a blender and throw in the EVA 1, C200 and C300 MKII and the frappe that you pour out would be pretty close. All of the good stuff is there, it's just distributed between three cameras!
 
I just bought a c200, it should get here tomorrow. I yo-yoed between the two cameras, here are my thoughts:

- AF is the single biggest reason for making the purchase. For product shots, I'm hoping to keep everything tack sharp while moving the camera then do speed ramping in post. These days, shots that come into (then quickly out of) focus seem sloppy to me. Also, an unmanned second camera for interviews is hugely appealing. I don't think the AF being "handy" is a good enough reason to buy the camera. In the situations I described, I'll actually be getting shots I can't get with the EVA.

- Image quality. This is less important to me. I'm not shooting the Revenant, I'm going to use this little box to make money. Mp4 has been completely fine by my standards for the way I'm using the c200, which is shooting either for a fast turnaround or to hand footage to people who want to edit the video but don't want to grade LOG images.

- On a semi-side note, B+H c200 specs state "standard" ND as 2, 4, 6 stops and "expanded" as 2, 4, 6, 8, 10. I'm assuming the expanded filters behave the same as the standard ones? Anyway, EVA's 6 stops could be problematic for some.

If your most important criterion is the most dynamic range without shooting raw then the decision has already been made for you. Buy an EVA with a zacuto z-finder!
 
rob norton said:
- On a semi-side note, B+H c200 specs state "standard" ND as 2, 4, 6 stops and "expanded" as 2, 4, 6, 8, 10. I'm assuming the expanded filters behave the same as the standard ones?
Click to expand...

It's the same as the C300 MKII - when in expanded mode the last 2 NDs require refocusing, so I assume that's why they don't turn them on by default.

When expanded mode is on then it's no different than using the first 3, you can cycle up or down through all 5 settings, but a refocus warning will show when you switch to the last 2.

Living in Australia I've used the last 2 settings a number of times on bright sunny days. Definitely worth having the option to go there when needed.
 
Doug_EX said:
Thanks guys!

Yes I know that there is more difference between the C200 and the EVA1. If Canon would've put a midrange codec in their C200 (that could do around 14 stop of DR) I would go for the C200 all the way.
I think the C300II would be perfect for me but it's just too expensive and I can't really justify the cost. I know, there is no perfect camera! :)
Click to expand...

Is it possible if you can't justify the expense of a 10-bit camera that you might not actually need a 10-bit camera? No offense intended. Just an honest question. In my experience the difference between a 10-bit and a 8-bit camera is usually somewhere between minimal and nonexistent.
 
drummondb said:
Is it possible if you can't justify the expense of a 10-bit camera that you might not actually need a 10-bit camera? No offense intended. Just an honest question. In my experience the difference between a 10-bit and a 8-bit camera is usually somewhere between minimal and nonexistent.
Click to expand...
Not offended at all, and it's indeed a good question. The thing is I can't justify (for now) the purchase of a C300 II, but I can justify the purchase of a EVA1 (which has 10 bit). Also, I intend to keep my next camera for at least 3 years (hopefully more) so this next camera will have to meet my needs for at least that amount of time. For my own small productions 8 bit is enough, but more and more I am being hired (as a owner/operator) on other productions that have more strict requirements. And who knows what my requirements will be in 2 years.
I have to say that more DR is more important for me than having a 10bit camera. That's why I was asking the amount of DR the C200 has when recording in mp4.
 
Doug, the 8-bit .MP4 on the C200 is surprisingly good and usable. Not as sharp or as much detail as the Cinema RAW Light but decent. After all, I shot a feature documentary that will be playing at SXSW in a couple of days on the C300 and C100, both 8-bit cameras and the DCP looked really good on the big screen when I saw it, plenty of detail, no banding, etc. Between the EVA 1 and the C200, I was on the same page as Rob. I am shooting a documentary that will require me to shoot hours and hours on the deck of a rolling boat, shooting subjects moving past from 10-100' away on the open ocean. Trying to track them with eseetially manual focus is a joke, it's just too difficult, I tried with the C100/300 as the DPAF in the center screen wouldn't cut it either. So for me, the C200, for my style of crazy run & gun documentary shooting seemed to make more sense.

If I was making narrative films, I think the Panasonic would be more appealing when using an AC, FFs, etc. To me, it's more a cinema camera, while the C200 is easier to nail focus with when you have no AC, time or help. Hope this helps you reach your decision, based upon your shooting situations and style. I really dig the EVA 1, if I had the money, I would own both.
 
Matt Turner said:
It's the same as the C300 MKII - when in expanded mode the last 2 NDs require refocusing, so I assume that's why they don't turn them on by default.

When expanded mode is on then it's no different than using the first 3, you can cycle up or down through all 5 settings, but a refocus warning will show when you switch to the last 2.

Living in Australia I've used the last 2 settings a number of times on bright sunny days. Definitely worth having the option to go there when needed.
Click to expand...

Thanks Matt. That seems a little short sighted by Panasonic? It would be frustrating having to add ND to a camera that already has internal filters, just not enough. It's more increasing the chances of forgetting them that I dislike.
 
rob norton said:
Thanks Matt. That seems a little short sighted by Panasonic? It would be frustrating having to add ND to a camera that already has internal filters, just not enough. It's more increasing the chances of forgetting them that I dislike.
Click to expand...

I use the extended NDs on the C200 on most shoots since we've been shooting an outdoor documentary. The absence of them on the EVA 1 was one more strike against it when I bought the C200 but was considering the EVA 1. Manual NDs are a PITA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top