C200: Some good C200 footage appearing now!

Eric Coughlin said:
So basically, in order to get the absolute best quality out of your C200, shoot with the absolutely impressive MP4s and don't shoot with the RAW lite which is disappointing and falls apart quite quickly.


You can't really shoot a baked in look with RAW lite, can you? Of course you can with MP4. It'd be interesting to imagine that compressed RAW, which must be graded, but may not grade well, could actually result in lower quality than compressed MP4, which, being able to bake in a look, can look good without grading, and thus possibly result in better quality. I doubt that's the case, but it would be ironic if it was.
Click to expand...

what???

now you start to offend me??

what you wrote is total non-sense...you may want to re-read...

I'm comparing RAW from other cameras vs the C200 RAW

THEN

other MP4s from other cameras at a similar (low) bitrate vs the C200 MP4s, no?

do you all think 12bit lossy compressed RAW (CANON C200) to be the same as 16bit linear lossless RAW (SONY F55/F65/VENICE) or 16bit lossy wavelet compressed RAW (RED DSMC1/DSMC2)?

REALLY ? ? ? ? ?

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

unbelievable...you're in denial...
 
dia3olik said:
mmm I just wanted to help, I'll surely don't have to post an example to something so obvious and without an exact A/B comparison done with the same scene...

Actually "thicker" is the perfect word to describe it, TRY IT YOURSELF, apply LUTs, start to grade, and the C200 image FALLS APART quite quickly for being a RAW file, that's a fact.
Click to expand...

You are correct that you don't HAVE to do anything. But on the internet, no one takes anybody's word for anything. If you found something that you want to share—then share it. No drama needed.

I've graded many .r3d files in Resolve and I've played with the few .crm files I could find too. I found both file types very satisfying and had no issues. I am honestly curious about any weakness you find.

There are probably 50 ways to destroy footage with various LUTs—I'm not saying that is what you are doing—so from that perspective it's always interesting to follow someone's technique to see if the culprit lies there.

Depending on your gamma starting point of each file, there could be a huge difference in how the image responds to input. But when I graded the Canon Raw Light files I had no issues massaging the footage to where I wanted it to go.

If you want to stick to your guns and not say anything specific or show us what you mean, it's probably better to tone down the language. Just a notch. It's totally fine to prefer a certain format or look, but if you want to claim that stuff 'breaks' then it's probably nice to show us somehow.
 
dia3olik said:
hahahah you completely missed my point Gary, read better what I wrote

Guys stop dreaming and start downloading the footage and playing around, then we'll talk. It's VERY noticeable.

IT'S NOT SUBJECTIVE AND IT'S NOT A SUBTLE DIFFERENCE, so it's easy to feel by EVERYONE who ACTUALLY TRY BOTH in Resolve.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing the links to the RAW footage but I don't it provides much support for your statements about the quality of Cinema Raw Light. It's difficult to compare carefully selected and heavily produced RED marketing footage with test footage shared on a C200 Facebook group. If RED's sample footage didn't look and grade better something would likely be very wrong. It would still be helpful for you show us where you thought the C200 footage fell apart.

My questions were not intended as a personal attack; I was genuinely trying to understand how you came to your conclusion. You may be right about the C200 footage but when you make a blanket statements about a format being inferior it's reasonable to expect to be asked to explain very specifically how you drew your conclusions.

While I have high hopes for the C200 and I have been encouraged by early reports I am also not trying to defend the camera. Your post got my attention because the C200 is one of several cameras that I am considering purchasing. I think one of the strengths the C200 has over it's competitors from Sony and Panasonic is internal RAW recording and I was surprised to read your report.

Like many I have many questions about Cinema Raw Light and hopefully Canon will release a white paper to provide some much needed clarity. I plan to rent a C200 later this month to do some RAW tests but I will have a colorist buddy of mine grade it to make we have an accurate appraisal of what the camera can do.

dia3olik said:
do you all think 12bit lossy compressed RAW (CANON C200) to be the same as 16bit linear lossless RAW (SONY F55/F65/VENICE) or 16bit lossy wavelet compressed RAW (RED DSMC1/DSMC2)?

.
Click to expand...

I am a big fan of Sony's linear RAW but as a point of clarity it isn't uncompressed; it's compressed at 1:3.6 ratio as the sony doc below indicates.

Cinema Raw Light is somewhat unproven but I am not worried about it being 12 bit since many believe 12 bit log is comparable to a 16 bit linear file. While it is uncompressed, ARRIRAW is also 12 bit log encoded. More importantly the compressed ProRes 4444 XQ that the vast majority of Alexa productions use is also 12 bit log encoded.

https://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/assets/files/show/highend/pdf/F55_Workflow.pdf

https://www.arri.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=127&p=266
 
Last edited:
dia3olik said:
...do you all think 12bit lossy compressed RAW (CANON C200) to be the same as 16bit linear lossless RAW (SONY F55/F65/VENICE) or 16bit lossy wavelet compressed RAW (RED DSMC1/DSMC2)?
Click to expand...

Well, you know that RED produces 12bit data in a 16-bit container, right? So then, what you're saying is kind of like:

dia3olik said:
...do you all think 12bit lossy compressed RAW (CANON C200) to be the same as 12-bit lossy compressed RAW (RED?)
Click to expand...

In this light, it all doesn't seem totally unreasonable. In both cases, all image processing will be done in 32-bit floating point, making the container bit depth irrelevant.

I had missed the post I'm quoting now when I wrote my previous response. Admittedly, your language here might be colored from toes being stepped on, but it does reveal a more locked-in perspective than I assumed initially.
 
Please stop all that camera recording quality nonsense.

RAW and log and uncompressed and etc. cannot make up for poor preparations and execution of production.
Those weren't made to enable fixes in post, they were made to enhance and give artistic choice to already good material.

Also, they are full of compromises and paradoxes, as it always is when you try to cram something bigger then into smaller container.

There is no camera 'look', there is either bad lighting, bad translation of sensor capacity to numbers or bad ingest in post.

If you want red apple to be red apple at certain brightness, there is so many steps that can go wrong if you don't know what are you doing.

PS. Sony have reputation for having 'bad colour science'. That's what happens when you leave possibility to their users to be 'colour scientists'.
Canon doesn't leave this kind of freedom (and possibility for error) to their users and urban myth of 'good colour science' is born.
Save yourselves some time and money and hire a video engineer to paint your picture if you still think that cameras have 'looks'.
 
POLLINATE - Canon C200 - 4k 10 bit raw 60fps Slow Motion

POLLINATE - Canon C200 - 4k 10 bit raw 60fps Slow Motion


 
I didn't want to comment the footage and still won't.

What poked me to the eye was big 4k title, but uploaded as HD to YT.
So you can really see the difference in quality of 4k 10 bit raw 60 fps slow motion.

I could easily upload uprezed 4:4:4 SD footage to make the point.
 
laverdir said:
I didn't want to comment the footage and still won't.

What poked me to the eye was big 4k title, but uploaded as HD to YT.
So you can really see the difference in quality of 4k 10 bit raw 60 fps slow motion.

I could easily upload uprezed 4:4:4 SD footage to make the point.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that too. YouTube is free, it is mystifying why so many shoot and edit 4K and upload to only 1080 or even 720/480? It doesn't cost anymore to upload to 4K, does it? Must be the ADD out there, people are too busy to upload 4K, that would take an extra 10 minutes over 1080?
 
mosesm said:
New RAW footage:

Click to expand...

Wow that's some of the best footage I've seen yet. I ran his explanation of his post process through a translator (my German is a bit rusty having never spoken it), and he said "I interpreted the video in DaVinci as Clog3 and exported as Pro 422 and cut in Final Cut. Since I have not yet the studio version of DaVinci, unfortunately "only" UHD was possible and no real Cinema 4k, so you can not see here the full potential of the C200"

I'm not sure why some are saying you can't compare this camera to a RED...
 
Warning! Warning!
It appears that a lot of people suffer from heart racing, cold sweats and mood change after reading my posts.
Also, a lot of them accidentally tapped the unhelpful arrow after reading it.
This post is one of that kind of posts.
Warning! Warning!

All relevant footage you will ever need can be found here:

https://vimeo.com/geoffboyle

and stills here (in pro and amateur flavors):

http://www.cinematography.net/EXR-EVALS.html

http://cinematography.net/CE-2017 STILLS.html

You can even predict how will the new camera from concurrent manufacturer behave.

Manny here have focused on bit-depth and bandwidth numbers, forgetting what's the king of post-production workflow: metadata.
High-end cameras and lenses have that option for ages, it would be liberating to see that in this price range.

C200 here have the chance to swipe the floor with _____________ (put the name of your favorite C200 concurrent camera here), since they produce both the lenses and the body.
However, knowing how good Canon departments communicate between themselves and the fact that Canon children suffer from eternal perdition, I doubt that C200 will take advantage of that.

I still haven't seen the RAW light whitepapers, but if every frame contains lens information, that alone, with great focus assist (even AF), could be the two biggest advantages of C200 over the competition.
 
Last edited:
It would have made my day if that most recent example footage was 24p. It looks good, but why can't anyone show something of this caliber in 24p? Everything I'm seeing is 60p. Is anyone shooting non-slowmo these days? I just need to see some raw lite footage with skin tones at 24p from a capable shooter to get a decent sense of motion.
 
yophoto91 said:
It would have made my day if that most recent example footage was 24p. It looks good, but why can't anyone show something of this caliber in 24p? Everything I'm seeing is 60p. Is anyone shooting non-slowmo these days? I just need to see some raw lite footage with skin tones at 24p from a capable shooter to get a decent sense of motion.
Click to expand...

The worst is when it's 60P not slowed down. I don't understand those people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top