C200: "The c200 in 420 8-bit probably looks as good as 422 10-bit"

F

Fahnon

Well-known member
Over on the Newsshooter article where Matthew Allard confirms with Canon that the new codec is bizarrely going to be on-paper identical to what we already have, Allard also responds in the comments that he believes the current MP4 recording is equal to the 422 10-bit recording you get out of most other cameras. What this says to me is that, unless you have a money reason to care (clients requiring 10-bit files), you shouldn't be concerned about quality when you record in MP4 on a C200 regardless of your prior experience shooting 420 8-bit. Here's the full comment, and a link to the article at the bottom:


"For most shooting scenarios as long as you are exposing properly and getting your white balance fairly correct in camera you probably won't notice any difference at all.

Numbers are just numbers, but unfortunately a lot of broadcasters and production houses require deliverables to be captured in a minimum standard. Whether 420 8-bit looks the same as a 422 10-bit becomes irrelevant if you are working for clients who won't except 420 8-bit deliverables.

I think the footage out of the c200 in 420 8-bit is perfectly fine and it probably looks as good as material recorded in 422 10-bit on a lot of other cameras."

http://www.newsshooter.com/2017/08/...in-2018-will-only-be-420-8-bit/#disqus_thread
 
Same apologies from Canon. Nobody says it is bad, but 4:2:2 10bit would be better, especially if you want to push it around a bit in post. We want options, not "good enough" in an $8,000 camera. The I-Phone has a 4:2:0 8bit codec. Not that I care because the C200 is not on my radar but I think this goes for all cameras.

Whatever Canon, we know you have to protect your high end line with something...
 
Bassman2003 said:
Same apologies from Canon. Nobody says it is bad, but 4:2:2 10bit would be better, especially if you want to push it around a bit in post. We want options, not "good enough" in an $8,000 camera. The I-Phone has a 4:2:0 8bit codec. Not that I care because the C200 is not on my radar but I think this goes for all cameras.

Whatever Canon, we know you have to protect your high end line with something...
Click to expand...

Huh? This wasn't said by Canon, but from someone who has reviewed the camera, and has been vocal about its flaws.

His point was not that the MP4 "isn't bad", it was that it is every bit as good as 10-bit 422 is on most other cameras.
 
Last edited:
Fahnon said:
His point was not that the MP4 isn't bad, it was that it is every bit as good as 10-bit 422 is on most other cameras.
Click to expand...

Um He doesn't say its 'Every bit as good' he says under certain circumstances and uses the word 'probably' and 'just fine'. These aren't equating words.

The situations where it does matter is when you want 10 bits. That is shooting log formats to get max DR and shooting fine colour gradations or walls or sky. That may or may not matter to some people but it is something important to others.
 
So...did we all forget that this camera shoots in 4:2:2 12 bit raw? Because, maybe I'm crazy, but last I checked this camera shot in 4:2:2 12 bit raw. Here is a crazy idea, shoot in raw and transcode it to whatever the hell you want! Trust me, I get it, we want a middle codec, but last I checked the iPhone didn't shoot 4k 60fps in raw with dpaf autofocus and xlr inputs.
 
FrameFarmMedia said:
Um He doesn't say its 'Every bit as good' he says under certain circumstances and uses the word 'probably' and 'just fine'. These aren't equating words.

The situations where it does matter is when you want 10 bits. That is shooting log formats to get max DR and shooting fine colour gradations or walls or sky. That may or may not matter to some people but it is something important to others.
Click to expand...

While it's certainly open to interpretation, when I read "I think the footage out of the c200 in 420 8-bit is perfectly fine and it probably looks as good as material recorded in 422 10-bit on a lot of other cameras.", I personally think that is very much equating and think saying "every bit as good" isn't exactly a stretch. He'd also said in his full review that he saw no banding on skies. I'd trust Allard, who made a very in-depth review of the camera to make that call, more so than folks who are going by the spec sheet instead of experience with this particular camera.

Again, if you have a money reason to need the 10 bits, than this is a moot point; but as someone who always wants the highest quality (and will be shooting RAW 90% of the time), I can tell you that I think if Canon has managed to get what has previously been considered 10-bit quality into 8-bits, that would be great and (being practical) more important than what it is on paper.

Speaking of which, I'm about to head out to grab some shots of exactly what you mention (skies and high DR specifically) in both MP4 and RAW back-to-back to see what the practical differences are in more detail on this particular camera, and will post original files for people to play with.
 
Crevice said:
So...did we all forget that this camera shoots in 4:2:2 12 bit raw? Because, maybe I'm crazy, but last I checked this camera shot in 4:2:2 12 bit raw. Here is a crazy idea, shoot in raw and transcode it to whatever the hell you want! Trust me, I get it, we want a middle codec, but last I checked the iPhone didn't shoot 4k 60fps in raw with dpaf autofocus and xlr inputs.
Click to expand...

Mic Drop
 
Fahnon said:
While it's certainly open to interpretation, when I read "I think the footage out of the c200 in 420 8-bit is perfectly fine and it probably looks as good as material recorded in 422 10-bit on a lot of other cameras.", I personally think that is very much equating and think saying "every bit as good" isn't exactly a stretch. He'd also said in his full review that he saw no banding on skies. I'd trust Allard, who made a very in-depth review of the camera to make that call, more so than folks who are going by the spec sheet instead of experience with this particular camera.

Again, if you have a money reason to need the 10 bits, than this is a moot point; but as someone who always wants the highest quality (and will be shooting RAW 90% of the time), I can tell you that I think if Canon has managed to get what has previously been considered 10-bit quality into 8-bits, that would be great and (being practical) more important than what it is on paper.

Speaking of which, I'm about to head out to grab some shots of exactly what you mention (skies and high DR specifically) in both MP4 and RAW back-to-back to see what the practical differences are in more detail on this particular camera, and will post original files for people to play with.
Click to expand...

I'm highly skeptical that 'Canon has managed to get 10bit quality into 8 bits.'
Much more probable, it looks great, because in 99% of shootings 8bit looks
just fine as long as everything else is good. Lots and lots of great stuff has
been shot in 8bit, and there was a reason those codecs were used....because in
most situations you can't see any difference! It's usually in post, when you want
to push stuff around, that you reach the 8 bit limitations. I personally still
shoot 8 bit and have never had a complaint, I just 'paint' things close
to the way I want them, using the picture profile settings. That being
said, I'd want 10bit if I was buying now. Solution....if people need the intermediate
10bit codec they can go with FS7 or the EVA when it ships but they then lose
the ability to record raw internally. Still no perfect 'does everything we want'
camera......big surprise....
 
or shoot their 10-bit 4:2:2 1080 with a Blade? I will be interested to see the camera's 4K output recorded in 8-bit 4:2:2 with a Ninja Inferno, I suspect it will be more than adequate for pulling clean green screen keys, my main interest for it. I wish it had a non-RAW 10-bit option built-in, but it doesn't. So you deal with it or don't buy the camera.
 
IMO, what is happening with C200 - and whatever other cameras come out soon - is that the in-camera processing is far more powerful than the previous generation could afford. That means the ratio of the tossed-out to the kept-in data is much smaller and the 8bit is indeed looks as good as 10-bit ... from the previous generation cameras.

But it'd still be much more preferable to have 10-bit on the current and future generations.
 
All these questions are about a purpose of the C200.
It is about two main things: one is an upgrade of the C100 (420 8bit camera) to UHD50p, and the second is raw light (!).

Raw light is not as a classical raw - a sequence od picture files - it is more like a ProRes444 videofile, which has bitrate 1180Mbps for 4K 25p. Canon raw light has bitrate 1000Mbps.

I think that this light raw can be linked to the AVID MC directly with AMA (like another videofile), it is the main change in workfow. I also view some chance for upgrade C300 to UHD 50p (it is the main reason why the C200 hasn't a "ProRes422 or 444" - at Canon version of intra-codec - record option). Without raw it is clean upgrade of the C100, and there is no reason for 422 10bit broadcast codec. Raw is a game changer (also at price).
 
Last edited:
In perfect conditions and perfect exposure you can get a great image from a lot of 8bit 420 cameras. No question. A baked in look is fine for most users. We here on DVXuser tend to be a little more demanding and want to have more control over the image. 8bit is okay. 10bit is great, but 420 isn't very good to avoid banding in heavy gradient colors like the sky. You can't bring down overexposed shots as easily. You cant bring up darker parts of the image without the image breaking.

All codecs the camera manufactures create with their own secret sauce is different. It's true they are getting more from the basics these days. Probably for most users the C200 and it's codecs will be just fine, but if you are a pro and by pro I mean you get paid to produce video content then you could be playing with fire. Most of use don't deliver to broadcast or have to deal with Netfix standards but if the best shot of the project happens to have really bad banding well you know why.

The Sony codecs are really good on the a7 camera's but the same applies. If the color info isn't as vast it will break and banding will appear even without grading.

Transcoding to a online format is also going to give you problems when 8bit 420 is your acquisition format. You have less right from the start.

As far as shooting everything in Canon RAW light and transcoding? I'm not sure I like this idea all that much. It's expensive to have enough CFast cards. Storage for the originals and time it takes to do the transcodes. Maybe a Proxie workflow would be a better option. Either way when a camera has a lot of work arounds associated to it I tend to not like it as an option. We have so many good choices now I just don't feel Canon color is worth it anymore. YMMV
 
Last edited:
Erik Naso said:
As far as shooting everything in Canon RAW light and transcoding? I'm not sure I like this idea all that much.
Click to expand...

4K/UHD ProRes444 25p is the same as Canon raw light, both have the same bitrate. The question isn't if "we need shooting everything in Canon RAW"... The question is: who needs 4K/UHD 25p or 50p at RGB444 in intra-frame codec with good bitrate? Broadcast doesn't need this. C200 is not for "daily broadcast", it is a good tool for cinema school, low advertising, etc. 4K/UHD at 10-12bit 444 is also advantage against URSA mini & company. Others can wait for C400 (C300 with UHD 50p).
 
Last edited:
Fahnon said:
Huh? This wasn't said by Canon, but from someone who has reviewed the camera, and has been vocal about its flaws.

His point was not that the MP4 "isn't bad", it was that it is every bit as good as 10-bit 422 is on most other cameras.
Click to expand...

I was speaking a little too broadly but it seems to be the same story from Canon and then down to the reviewers. Just gets repetitive.

I would agree with Eric's point of view. Saying the camera has RAW shooting does mean RAW is the only codec you will use. If it had a 10bit codec you might find it more useful than RAW and definitely more affordable. How long are we going to defend 8bit 4:2:0 codecs when the only reason they are there is to differentiate product lines? Cheap memory cards are as fast as hard drives. I do not get bent out of shape when the camera cost is lower but $8,000? Yes, I know it has RAW. All the more reason that it can handle 10bits in a baked in codec. Whatever. I get worked up when Canon gets brought up!
 
Erik Naso said:
In perfect conditions and perfect exposure you can get a great image from a lot of 8bit 420 cameras. No question. A baked in look is fine for most users. We here on DVXuser tend to be a little more demanding and want to have more control over the image. 8bit is okay. 10bit is great, but 420 isn't very good to avoid banding in heavy gradient colors like the sky. You can't bring down overexposed shots as easily. You cant bring up darker parts of the image without the image breaking...
Click to expand...
Well, you know ... you got a bit of a platform now at Newsshooter and on your YouTube channel. Make some noise about it. If a Canon/Nikon rep wants to respond, by all means, give them a chance to do so. The Change.org petition for 10-bit - follow the related thread - is a little silly, IMO, but it has the same ideas in mind. The Japanese companies simply have to stop self-crippling their own cameras to such ridiculous levels. That's all there's to it.
 
DLD said:
The Japanese companies simply have to stop self-crippling their own cameras to such ridiculous levels. That's all there's to it.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's a problem of Japan #apple
Does anyone here really think limiting the C200 codec to 8bit 4:2:0 is an oversight and not a meticulously planned part of a diverse business strategy...?
It's not about making everybody happy, but about making an attractive enough product to appeal to a certain target group.
I understand the reflex of demanding more, but does anybody buy a VW Golf and starts a petition to make it an Audi RS8, just because the company "has the tech anyways"?
 
Good points. I think we all know Canon is a cost/benefit approach company. The issue is how one defines the class of camera. Is the C200 a Volkswagen or something higher? I would say if it has RAW video capability it is a little higher and deserves more than a consumer/prosumer codec. Canon has been proud of the C-line from day one with a price premium. As Eric pointed out in his post, this premium is wearing a bit thin.
 
Bassman2003 said:
Good points. I think we all know Canon is a cost/benefit approach company. The issue is how one defines the class of camera. Is the C200 a Volkswagen or something higher? I would say if it has RAW video capability it is a little higher and deserves more than a consumer/prosumer codec. Canon has been proud of the C-line from day one with a price premium. As Eric pointed out in his post, this premium is wearing a bit thin.
Click to expand...
To stay within the automotive analogy: The C200 is a Volkswagon Golf R. 300bhp but it still ain't a Porsche.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top