C100: Hoping the next C100 mkIII isn't 4k

[tobyhoffman]

There are so many variables that go into this.

Limiting a camera to 2k is a deal breaker for people looking to produce material for some broadcasters going forward. Limited for stock footage producers. And Netflix famously already demands 4k.

I'm looking at the 2k option as a super tool for de facto image quality. Flexible with lots of tools for film makers and wannabes. Great learning tool in terms of post production. Great workflow being 2k anyone can throw the clips into Resolve and get grading—easy on the computer. Everything a film maker, documentary shooter and web producer needs.

Sounds bloody good to me! I'd buy this hands down, most clients I work for deliver to web and 2k would be more than enough.

 

[AndreeOnline]

I feel like the primary market for the C100 has been people shooting events and low end corporate who like the low depth of field look. For us, one of the main benefits is the heavily compressed codec. Our clients don't want large file sizes and have no intention of doing heavy grading. Therefore, a maxed out 2K camera wouldn't be worth the upgrade. We could, however, sell heavily compressed 4K and slo mo as somebody else mentioned.

Delivering to corporate clients myself, I totally get this. And the users you mention here are the ones I alluded to when I said I was going to be in the minority (although, for some reason the 2k version is still ahead in the poll).

The 2k camera I describe would partly replace one user base with another. The line of cameras ARE called Cinema EOS, not Corporate EOS, after all.... =)

General NOTE: by the way… this isn't a question of great 4k vs great 2k of course. But rather 8bit, Long GOP 4k vs great 2k. I just wanted to come clean and say that I DO like resolution. RED's 8k Helium files are really impressive. Download a few frames and check them out.

 

[coutard]

Just spent some time turning the following thought over in my head: I actually don't want the C100 mkIII to be 4k.

But the idea is not because I want it to be a lesser camera, to the contrary I want it to be more—all that it can be—for a specific user group.

The next C100 will not be a 4k monster with the dynamic range of an Alexa, RED's flexible codec and Canon's functionality features or Sony's pricing. There, I said it.

There's a fair expectation the next C100 will be 4k. If they just take the current body add the XC-10/C300mkII codec of 305-410Mbps XFAVC 4k 8bit recording, they would have a good camera that could prove popular. It would most likely not be 10bit and it wouldn't have the production features of the C300mkII like color spaces and so on. Hopefully it would get the C300mkII AF assist features.

Personally, I've been thinking the last few days about a "maxed out" 2k camera with a single goal: deliver the richest possible 2k image with production tools to go with it. I think I'm in the minority here, but I'm offer you a poll to kick some life into this forum about what really matters in a camera =)

The two options have been given some consideration, including realistic expectations based on experience and corporate thinking. PLEASE don't fall into the trap of "if I could just add this or that". In case of doubt between the alternatives reduce it to: "best in class, fat, high bit depth HD with PRO tools" vs "balanced, 8bit intra frame 4k work horse with prosumer tools".

My '2k option' is loaded with features on purpose. Capping the camera at 2k would allow Canon to go all in while still protecting the C300 line (and above).

The poll is character limited. In terms of fps I'm thinking 60p for the 2k option and 30p for the 4k option (with 60p1080 in there as well for that one). Only discussing the "full quality fps modes here". both cameras might include 100fps-ish binned/skipped modes.

Ive always considered that the 2K 4:4:4 12bits was THE great thing about the c300mkII . Way more colour info to grade than 4K 422

But out I doubt they would implement this on c100's series.

Me, I was indeed expecting 4K on the next c100, but not to use 4K, but because that would mean internal 422 (even 10bits?) HD, which already is on the little xc10...

 

[Macaholic]

They can give the C100 MKIII 2K/HD in 12 bit 444 because the C500 can already do it. And add some form of 4K (probably not raw out).
[...]
We know the existing C500 can record to CF cards so no need to go to CFast.

The C500 only records 1920x1080 8 Bit to the CF cards, its the same as the C300 MK I. All the C500 gives you is a way to bypass the internal compression and processing to get 4K RAW or 2K 12 Bit RGB out the pipes on the side.

So the hardware inside alone actually isn't capable of doing any of that advanced processing. Unlike the new dual processors in the C300 Mark II...

 

[Erik Naso]

I would take better pixels over more of them. Alexa did it this way and nobody complained about a 2K camera shooting for the big screen.

 

[SiSS]

I'm on the "better 1080 camera" side too.

Funny nobody has metioned this yet, ME200S-SH is coming soon. I bet it's in IBC. And already sharing tech with C100mkII, 5K price point.
https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...tails/cameras/multi-purpose-cameras/me200s-sh
http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/08/...-360-degree-rig-using-five-me200s-sh-cameras/
Canon also likes to show it with the new 18-80mm too.

I've been waiting to see material out of it, but I think it will also have a effect on C100 mk III.

Edit:
- Cinema Lock
- Super 35mm CMOS
- Total Pixels Approx. 9.84 (4206 x 2340)
- Effective Pixels Approx. 8.29M (3840 x 2160)
- Resolution 1920 x 1080
- 3G/HD-SDI x2, YCbCr422 10bits (effective bits: 8)
- HDMI RGB444, YCbCr422, YCbCr444 (effective bits: 8 for each format)
- ProRes out with external recorder
- C100 mark II sensor for good and bad
- Canon Log
- Dual Pixel AF
- ND and IR-filters

Better Specs list:
http://www.canon-europe.com/for_hom...-purpose-cameras/me200s-sh/specification.aspx

 

[control4userguy]

...Funny nobody has "metioned" this yet, ME200S-SH...

More C100/II-like engineering/pricing? I think I know why... Again, Canon vs. Sony. That and the Sony are also highly specialized products.

 

[tobyhoffman]

I'm on the "better 1080 camera" side too.

Funny nobody has metioned this yet, ME200S-SH is coming soon. I bet it's in IBC. And already sharing tech with C100mkII, 5K price point.
https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...tails/cameras/multi-purpose-cameras/me200s-sh
http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/08/...-360-degree-rig-using-five-me200s-sh-cameras/
Canon also likes to show it with the new 18-80mm too.

I've been waiting to see material out of it, but I think it will also have a effect on C100 mk III.

Edit:
- Cinema Lock
- Super 35mm CMOS
- Total Pixels Approx. 9.84 (4206 x 2340)
- Effective Pixels Approx. 8.29M (3840 x 2160)
- Resolution 1920 x 1080
- 3G/HD-SDI x2, YCbCr422 10bits (effective bits: 8)
- HDMI RGB444, YCbCr422, YCbCr444 (effective bits: 8 for each format)
- ProRes out with external recorder
- C100 mark II sensor for good and bad
- Canon Log
- Dual Pixel AF
- ND and IR-filters

Better Specs list:
http://www.canon-europe.com/for_hom...-purpose-cameras/me200s-sh/specification.aspx

Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is this camera and what are the benefits over using a C100 other than low light and smaller form factor? I just went onto canon's website and they're selling it as a wedding/news cam. I understand it's small but I really don't see the benefit.

ProRes out with an external recorder and only shoots in 1080? Why would anybody buy this over a C100? Canon just release whacko cameras sometimes..

 

[tobyhoffman]

To add, I'm not spending an extra $5k to shoot in low light. Why not just add that to the cinema EOS range??

 

[control4userguy]

It's all about market penetration. Get the Canon name out in the world, make it recognizable, make it a daily sight, make it accessible to all walks. Speaking of lo-light, check the spec on the Sony counterpart.

 

[DLD]

I would take better pixels over more of them. Alexa did it this way and nobody complained about a 2K camera shooting for the big screen.

When Alexa did it, there was scarcely a 4K camera around and no 4K TV sets or monitors, making it the state of the art camera. Now, at the IFA, Apple is introducing another 5K monitor and 4K TV's are ubiquitous at any electronics store. Media costs have fallen off a truck also, so larger files are no longer a problem for a pro production.

Plus, there are various compressed Raw codecs that squeeze the files down even further. The OTA broadcast will be the last to adopt 4K due to being under the aegis of the federal agencies but 4K streaming and discs are becoming fairly ubiquitous as well. At this point, 1080p is a step back.

PS. ARRI is expected to introduce an "affordable" 4K model soon enough.

 

[ReelWorksMedia]

I voted solid 2K. Been wanting that from Canon for years.

 

[jthabel]

I would take this mythical "super" 2K C100 camera any day.

I could debate the realities of and necessities of 4K endlessly. I understand there are workflow benefits (though if those are outweighed by additional workflow demands, I can't say for sure). And if you NEED to acquire or deliver 4K for some reason (like you're employer or client demands it), then ok, that's fair.

But please. 2K is good enough, at least for me, and it always will be.

My reasoning--just my own belief--goes like this. My gold standard for image quality is cinematic projection, as in going to a movie theater and watching a feature film. And since the digital intermediate became part of the workflow for feature film production, the vast majority of films we have all watched in the cinema have been finished at a 2K resolution. And most of the films in that time that have been shot digitally, were captured at 2K. Even all these new 4K blurays? Most of them are made from 2K masters: http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/ultra-hd-not-always-4k/

I keep asking this, and no one will ever answer: If 2K is good enough for The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, The Avengers, and Game of Thrones, why in the world is it not good enough for me?

Amen to all this. 2K is also a much easier pill to swallow from a post-production/storage standpoint as well.

 

[puredrifting]

How about 2.7k? I actually use that format on my Go Pros periodically. In side by side tests though, it looked slightly softer to me than 1080 out of my Go Pros. But gives some flexibility in reframing, which clients dig. If I had the Go Pro Blacks, I would shoot 4k but the Silver's 2.7k is still useful.