C200: NAB 2018 | C200 — What if?

puredrifting said:
I personally doubt Canon will issue a 10-bit 4:2:2 codec for the C200. It would be nice but pretty unprecedented if they did.
Click to expand...

They did eventually give in and issue a 24p mode firmware for the 5d Mark II. It was almost ten years ago now, but there is at least SOME precedent for change. *If you recall the 5D2 originally was 30p only. When they added 24p, it sold off the shelves for a bit.
 
davekratz said:
They did eventually give in and issue a 24p mode firmware for the 5d Mark II. It was almost ten years ago now, but there is at least SOME precedent for change. *If you recall the 5D2 originally was 30p only. When they added 24p, it sold off the shelves for a bit.
Click to expand...

They also gave clean HDMI out on the 5D3. There’s definitely hope.
 
So everyone saw the Zacuto shootout right? Tim Smith from Canon talked about 10 bit twice, basically he said “it should be in there” and “people need to hound us for it”. Basically everyone needs to keep shouting about it.
 
aygie said:
So everyone saw the Zacuto shootout right? Tim Smith from Canon talked about 10 bit twice, basically he said “it should be in there” and “people need to hound us for it”. Basically everyone needs to keep shouting about it.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm remembering this wrong, but didn't Canon say themselves last year that "when" the promised 10 bit update was to come that it wouldn't increase the quality at all? It almost sounds like they heard themselves say that out loud and realized it would be a worthless endeavor and gave up on it?

Before I bought mine, not having a 10bit in-between codec was a huge point of tension for me for a couple of months, but after buying two of them and switching to a proxy workflow I can't imagine doing anything else. You get the ultimate quality and easy & smooth editing files. I'm hooked on the quality - hard drive space be darned!
 
I do remember something like that but I think that message was relayed via one of those news sites (don't remember which one and may be wrong).

But I'm not sure any company would say that about their own product in those words, haha.

There are still many whom argue you cannot see any visual difference (unless it's a side-by-side analyzation) between 8-bit vs. 10-bit, and the latter is only useful in post-production, but who knows anymore. There is that one C200 video some of us posted here which shows 8-bit vs. 10-bit vs. RAW and there is a pretty clear difference in it...at least RAW vs. the 8-bit.

But on the other hand, some cameras shoot really nice 4K 8-bit IMO where it's not as apparent.
 
Maybe by "it wouldn't increase the quality at all" they meant to say:

"There is only 8-bit 4:2:0 signal path to the internal SD recorder and there is no point in recording that into 10-bit (4:2:2).
10-bit HD (and 4:2:2) SDI and HDMI signal output configuration is just a feature of down-scaler."

I remember people claiming that HDMI output on HV20 was better for green screen then internal recording.
But when service manual surfaced, there was clear that 4:2:0 output from DIGIC DVII was sent to HDMI which was configured to output signal as 4:2:2.
It was uncompressed, but still at 4:2:0 colour resolution.
 
All academic at this point if you've checked out the new video in the other thread. We are getting 4:2:0 8-bit XF-AVC.
 
deltoidjohn said:
As someone said above: lens selection. For people who can't afford cinema zooms, FF lenses offer better options, quality and construction than their APS-C photography counterparts (Canon L-series, for example). There's still not an great alternative to a 24-70 f2.8 or even 24-105 f4. Feel free to name a single APS-c lens in the 17-70mm range at f/2.8, with usable manual focus and construction quality that will last more than a week in the field, and which doesn't cost more than an average car. Yes, cinema lenses exist for a reason and they are obviously a perfect match for s35, but the reality is those lenses are out of reach for 95% of owners of Cx00s.
Click to expand...

Canon's 24-105mm f4 has many flaws, such as its T stop not being constant through the zoom.

And plenty of mid range f2.8 (or f4) zooms exist for APS-C / DX as well.

And you can use FF35 lenses on APS-C too, often all it means is just adding an extra wide angle lens to your collection (such as the excellent Tokina 11-20mm f2.8!). It is as simple as that!
 
IronFilm said:
Canon's 24-105mm f4 has many flaws, such as its T stop not being constant through the zoom.

And plenty of mid range f2.8 (or f4) zooms exist for APS-C / DX as well.

And you can use FF35 lenses on APS-C too, often all it means is just adding an extra wide angle lens to your collection (such as the excellent Tokina 11-20mm f2.8!). It is as simple as that!
Click to expand...

There is a reason why people use the 24-105 despite its flaws. Non of the 2.8 zooms cover that range. If the situation is predictable and one has the time to change lenses, then I go for 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 IS II lens.

It is important to use the equipment according to their strengths. And the strength of C200 is the internal Raw files (and DPAF and low cost). Obviously one has to compromise somewhere. So one has to bear the cost of CFast and hard drives.
 
IronFilm said:
Canon's 24-105mm f4 has many flaws, such as its T stop not being constant through the zoom.

And plenty of mid range f2.8 (or f4) zooms exist for APS-C / DX as well.

And you can use FF35 lenses on APS-C too, often all it means is just adding an extra wide angle lens to your collection (such as the excellent Tokina 11-20mm f2.8!). It is as simple as that!
Click to expand...

All the lenses at this level have their flaws for motion work. That is precisely the point. The fact is that the current photo lenses designed for full frame cameras are generally better quality and offer better coverage options than their APS-C counterparts.

You're nitpicking in order to avoid acknowledging my point: Lens selection is a legitimate reason to want a FF camera. I am not saying full frame is better, I am merely providing a genuine response to the earlier comment that equated to "There is no reason to want FF over s35."

Now, as you're pointing out the minutiae, so will I: The UWA lens you suggested is neither (equivalently) as fast, nor does it offer the same zoom range, as the 16-35 2.8 (and this is wide angles we're talking about, so even 1-2mm can make a big difference).

The point stands and until there is something like a 17-70 f/2.8, then FF photo lens options are a legitimate reason to want a FF cinema camera.
 
It would be interesting to compare a C200 RAW shootout between S35 lenses and FF still lenses. Get on that deltoldjohn! ;-)
If I had any of the cooler FF lenses, I would do it myself. I do have the 24 2.8, 28 1.8, 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 primes, it might make an interesting test between those and the 18-135 STM IS and the 17-55 2.8 IS at the same focal lengths and exposure?
Ideal would be two C200s and the same side by side rig Zacuto used.
 
puredrifting said:
It would be interesting to compare a C200 RAW shootout between S35 lenses and FF still lenses. Get on that deltoldjohn! ;-)
If I had any of the cooler FF lenses, I would do it myself. I do have the 24 2.8, 28 1.8, 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 primes, it might make an interesting test between those and the 18-135 STM IS and the 17-55 2.8 IS at the same focal lengths and exposure?
Ideal would be two C200s and the same side by side rig Zacuto used.
Click to expand...

I'll do the test just as soon as Canon release a 10-bit update and make me pull the trigger!

It would be interesting because there is always the argument of "APS-C uses only the sharpest, central part of the lens", to which the counter-argument is usually "An APS-C sensor is essentially magnifying the all the flaws of the glass"

I wonder if there is a way to apply lens correction to the C200 RAW in post, the same way you can for stills using Lightroom & metadata, in order to make sure you're always getting the best out of your lenses.

However my previous post was more around usability than pure IQ - I'd much rather use a 24-105 on FF, than be limited by a 17-55 on s35. That won't be true for everyone!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top