C200: The Canon C200 Petition

[tenbit]

https://www.change.org/p/canon-c200-do-it-right

Canon's new C200 digital cinema camera has great potential, arguably more than the C700 given it's small size.
But it needs a solid, "high performance" codec in addition to Cinema Raw Light.
Rumor has it that Canon will, in early 2018, install the same, or similar, codec that's in the C300 Mark1- 8bit/422/50Mbps.
However, what is needed is a "high level codec" offering, at the very least, the same 10bit/ 422/ high bit rate, intraframe, codec that's in the C300 Mark2 - or a Prores equivalent.
We are not that interested in buying the C300Mark2, or the C700, but we are very interested in a C200 if it provides us the, long term, creative freedom we need and desire.
Please "sign" this petition and send a clear message to Canon USA's CEO, Mr. Joe Adachi, so he can pass our request to Canon Japan.

 

[AndreeOnline]

Rumor has it that Canon will, in early 2018, install the same, or similar, codec that's in the C300 Mark1- 8bit/422/50Mbps.

This is not correct. Canon has said they are developing a new version of the XF-AVC codec. They already have a 10bit, 422 intra frame flavour in the C300 mkII and an 8bit, 422 intra frame flavour in the XC10/15.

My guess is the C200 will get the 8bit, 422, 305Mbit/s* version from the XC10/15. Canon might need to adjust the codec slightly to be 100% stable (sustained recording) on SD-cards, I don't know. The XC10/15 records to CFast 2.

The reason Canon hasn't released it yet, is because the update for the C300 mkII isn't ready. OF COURSE they could have included it if they wanted to. It is a business decision on Canon's part.


*= this is the bitrate for UHD in the XC10. 4k DCI would be slightly higher.

 

[tenbit]

Yes, you may be right- but either way 8 bit is STILL 8 bit ! And of course, nothing worse than the dreaded 8 bit "banding" issues. Just did a shoot with the C300mkii, 12 bit/444..heavenly! Grading was just so nice I would never wish to return to an 8 bit camera. 10 bit/ 422 is a nice, and practical, alternative.

 

[AndreeOnline]

Yes, you may be right- but either way 8 bit is STILL 8 bit ! And of course, nothing worse than the dreaded 8 bit "banding" issues. Just did a shoot with the C300mkii, 12 bit/444..heavenly! Grading was just so nice I would never wish to return to an 8 bit camera. 10 bit/ 422 is a nice, and practical, alternative.

There should be no banding to worry about if you shoot Canon Log 3 to a modern, high bitrate 8bit 422 codec.

I totally hear what you're saying about 10bit, 422 intra being a goldie locks version. But Canon DOES have that camera: it's called the C300 mkII. It will get an update soon. Most likely with better fps and Raw Light.

You won't get better image quality from Canon than what the C200 already offers with its 12bit raw. Storage is pretty cheap and CFast cards are getting there.

What you're talking about is obviously not a bug or accidental omission, but rather intentional marketing from Canon.

 

[tenbit]

Hi, thank you for the feedback. However, I have been shooting for many years with a variety of 8 bit 422 cameras (I own the C300 mk1) and "banding" has been a consistent problem. I do recall speaking with the chief camera specialist at Canon USA , a highly respected SMPTE member, about this issue and he confirmed that the banding is a result of 8 bit quantization. I believe this is a known and, unfortunately, common problem. The issue also exists regardless of data rate, chroma sub-sampling, gamma/log curve, or codec. Regarding the C300mkii and any future updates, unfortunately Canon has confirmed that the required internal processing power simply doesn't exist and so the C300mkii is not capable of higher frame rates (ie 4K 60p). And, very reasonably, we would have seen higher frame rates by now if it were possible. I have been anticipating lower cost/ more affordable cfast cards, but with Lexar now out of the cfast game, unfortunately, I don't see that happening any time soon. But of course I understand and respect if you would rather not participate in the petition. Again, thank you for your feedback. Cheers

 

[DLD]

... My guess is the C200 will get the 8bit, 422, 305Mbit/s* version from the XC10/15. Canon might need to adjust the codec slightly to be 100% stable (sustained recording) on SD-cards, I don't know...

The V60 rated SD cards are 480 Mbps sustainable by specification, so Canon could deliver 405, had they wanted to. Or be allowed to. But it looks like a combination of a cartel type agreement on top of a need to protect own higher end camera model (C300 MKII, which should be getting replaced shortly by MKIII, as noted).

Oh and the petition is based on the incorrect understanding of the long released specs. So, booooo....

 

[tenbit]

Hi, thanks for your reply. You wrote: "the petition is based on the incorrect understanding of the long released specs" . I was not aware of Canon releasing such specs, can you kindly elaborate. Thanks.

 

[puredrifting]

I know from internal meetings and conversations I have had in the past with Canon that your petition will be in vain. They know what we want and need and they are giving you what they give you in the C200 as far as codecs. It is definitely a marketing plan. If you want responsiveness from the manufacturer, you should be buying the EVA 1. Panasonic actually does listen directly to consumers and implements many requests straight into their products quickly. Canon doesn't, other than over a period of years, gathering feedback from focus groups. Not saying Canon doesn't give a crap what their customers want, saying that the pipeline and way those requests are implemented is much slower and more deliberate.

 

[dp90068]

What you're talking about is obviously not a bug or accidental omission, but rather intentional marketing from Canon.

Correct. Canon's marketing team, unlike [any] other manufacturer I can think of intentionally hobbles their products to manipulate users. This practice frustrates us all. Panasonic on the other hand provides a well thought out set of codecs with the EVA-1 even though the camera is untested at this time. That said Canon has a winning formula, Panasonic does not [re: sales volume, with the exception of the GH5] even though Panasonic have a few great cameras.

8 bit vs 10 bit XVAC... the only petition Canon will respond to are sales numbers. If we agree the C200 is easily capable of 10 bit XVAC they can easily provide a firmware update in response to competitive pressures. This is actually genius if you think about it. No hardware fix necessary. Just another card to throw down only if necessary. Otherwise Canon will stick with a policy that mandates current broadcast spec cameras be sold above $10k.

We're all winners here, competitive pressure is incredible. Panasonic announces a vapor-like EVA-1 [apologies, Mitch] and the C200 comes out early. And steals Panasonic's thunder. They were not happy campers at Cinegear.

 

[cane141]

https://www.change.org/p/canon-c200-do-it-right

Canon's new C200 digital cinema camera has great potential, arguably more than the C700 given it's small size.
But it needs a solid, "high performance" codec in addition to Cinema Raw Light.
Rumor has it that Canon will, in early 2018, install the same, or similar, codec that's in the C300 Mark1- 8bit/422/50Mbps.
However, what is needed is a "high level codec" offering, at the very least, the same 10bit/ 422/ high bit rate, intraframe, codec that's in the C300 Mark2 - or a Prores equivalent.
We are not that interested in buying the C300Mark2, or the C700, but we are very interested in a C200 if it provides us the, long term, creative freedom we need and desire.
Please "sign" this petition and send a clear message to Canon USA's CEO, Mr. Joe Adachi, so he can pass our request to Canon Japan.

While you're at it, why don't send a petition to RED asking for the Raven to have 8K and built in ND's with an FS7 style shoulder grip and all flavors of Prores for under $5K because we are simply not interested in paying more and deserve it...

I'd like to have some of what you're smoking!

 

[AndreeOnline]

Correct. Canon's marketing team, unlike [any] other manufacturer I can think of intentionally hobbles their products to manipulate users. This practice frustrates us all.

To tell you the truth, the only thing that frustrates me in these discussions are:

Volvo makes the luxury SUV XC90. You can buy it with a few different engine options and a WHOLE LOT of various add-ons. A larger engine and more add-ons cost more. Very few people are confused by this.

If you go to Burger King and buy a menu with burger, fries and a soft drink you pay X. Very few people get confused when asked for more money for that additional burger. Or even extra cheese, bacon or whatnot.

But somehow... with cameras... there is this pretty loud clique of users that seem to think that as soon as a manufacturer has proven that they CAN build something, then it should immediately be crammed into a product sold at the lowest price that manufacturer has ever sold a product in that category.

I can honestly say that I don't get the frustration. Surely, the mechanics of modern business are easy enough to understand?

If someone can break this "I'm entitled"-argument down in a way that makes sense – please go ahead and do so!

 

[DLD]

I know from internal meetings and conversations I have had in the past with Canon ...

... that C300 MKII will be sold at $9,999 by the summer of 2017. Come on, take a bow. We were all making fun of you, teasing you mercilessly, giving you wedgies and making you recite pledges to dubious causes ... but you were right all along.

We're all winners here, competitive pressure is incredible...

But the Japanese cartel responds to it like a cartel would. You don't get everything in one camera even when the lower end/consumer pieces have it. Or Sony would have had a full frame pro style camera based on A7SII that was a champion low light performer (and beat the crap out of Varicam LT on price) and a mid-tier pro camera based on A6500 with top notch auto focus and beat the crap out of C300 MKII. And so on and so forth. But Sony still has FS7 and a six year old Cine Alta F5/55/65 line. And Canon releases a $2,000 camera without 4K. That's the photo-video industry and that's how it works.

PS. Andree, on cameras, there's a difference between extra hardware, a tangible physical product such as a double patty on a Whopper, and a software/firmware part of the camera. As with the GH4/5, a lot of people wouldn't mind paying more for Log. It's not having an option to buy it is what pisses the potential owners off.

 

[AndreeOnline]

PS. Andree, on cameras, there's a difference between extra hardware, a tangible physical product such as a double patty on a Whopper, and a software/firmware part of the camera. As with the GH4/5, a lot of people wouldn't mind paying more for Log. It's not having an option to buy it is what pisses the potential owners off.

OK. I don't agree. What's the difference?

Companies often offer customers to buy higher specced products at higher prices. I get a feeling most users don't want to pay more. They want the best features in their entry model product for free.

Products aren't priced based on physical size or weight. Services aren't tangible and yet they can be very expensive to acquire.

 

[Razz16mm]

OK. I don't agree. What's the difference?

Companies often offer customers to buy higher specced products at higher prices. I get a feeling most users don't want to pay more. They want the best features in their entry model product for free.

Products aren't priced based on physical size or weight. Services aren't tangible and yet they can be very expensive to acquire.

As a commited raw shooter, I think you guys are looking a gift horse in the mouth here.

If you are in to shooting log profiles for post grading, raw light is going to give you much more latitude to play in than any video codec at twice the data rate. Your grading choices are more limited by your choice of export codec than the raw file.

If you follow any semblance of professional workflows for offloading and backing up your footage, then a raw workflow is not much more cumbersome than video. You can do a one light transcode to your DI codec of choice from a lut as part of that process. Raw is the most space efficient method of storing high quality image data. Any master quality DI codec will take two to three times the disk space of your raw original.

If you shoot video for fast turn with minimal to no grading desired. Then shoot a properly exposed and white balanced non log profile. 4:2:2 8-bit broadcast grade codecs should not show any significant banding unless you are expanding log compressed data. 4:2:0 color space and long gop compression contribute a lot more to banding issues than you might think.

In the market context of this camera, a 10 bit codec would be an inferior redundancy.

 

[DLD]

OK. I don't agree. What's the difference? ...

Well, cartelization is illegal in the US and most of the EU - it is legal in Japan - so, if someone decided to raise a legal stink about it, they'd have a good cause and good case in this instance.

But it is more damaging to the companies themselves because, as an example, C200 customers expect to have a high quality internal 10-bit codec since a much cheaper Panasonic GH5 has it. Many of them choose a third party solution - such an external recorder - to alleviate some shortcoming while they learn to live with others. More importantly, manufacturers leave poor impression and a sour taste and that hurts them in the long run a lot more than an extra model in their lineup.

As to the Burger King analogy, it's as if the seller decided not to have his customer have it any way he want it. That's an unprofessional attitude to hold.

 

[AndreeOnline]

Well, cartelization is illegal in the US and most of the EU - it is legal in Japan - so, if someone decided to raise a legal stink about it, they'd have a good cause and good case in this instance.

But it is more damaging to the companies themselves because, as an example, C200 customers expect to have a high quality internal 10-bit codec since a much cheaper Panasonic GH5 has it. Many of them choose a third party solution - such an external recorder - to alleviate some shortcoming while they learn to live with others. More importantly, manufacturers leave poor impression and a sour taste and that hurts them in the long run a lot more than an extra model in their lineup.

=D

As to the Burger King analogy, it's as if the seller decided not to have his customer have it any way he want it. That's an unprofessional attitude to hold.

Nah, your example here, relating to this story, is more like a customer going to BK asking for a ribeye between the buns. I am 100% sure that Canon will let you buy a C300 mkII if that is the feature set you want. As a customer you need to pick from options up for sale. You can't just say "But, I WANT..." …unless you are one of my 6-8 year old daughters. They still try to pull tricks like that. But they will grow out of it.

What you are thinking about is RED. Jim Jannard has had the following statement in his signature since the beginning: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone with a bad attitude."

 

[puredrifting]

... that C300 MKII will be sold at $9,999 by the summer of 2017. Come on, take a bow. We were all making fun of you, teasing you mercilessly, giving you wedgies and making you recite pledges to dubious causes ... but you were right all along.

At least they weren't Atomic ;-) the cameras may change, but the company and its mindset remain the same.

 

[AndreeOnline]

As a commited raw shooter, I think you guys are looking a gift horse in the mouth here.

…

In the market context of this camera, a 10 bit codec would be an inferior redundancy.

I kind of feel you are directing this at me when you quote me like that... but I am pro the raw codec.

Your conclusion at the bottom is off, though. It's easy to understand that it would be a great addition to this camera if you could trade some IQ for longer recording times. It's a simple trade-off. But the jump from 12bit raw to 8bit 420 is huge.

I completely agree with you that instead of feeling robbed of that option, I choose to feel happy about the 12bit raw – which really was a surprise.

 

[puredrifting]

Well, cartelization is illegal in the US and most of the EU - it is legal in Japan - so, if someone decided to raise a legal stink about it, they'd have a good cause and good case in this instance.

But it is more damaging to the companies themselves because, as an example, C200 customers expect to have a high quality internal 10-bit codec since a much cheaper Panasonic GH5 has it. Many of them choose a third party solution - such an external recorder - to alleviate some shortcoming while they learn to live with others. More importantly, manufacturers leave poor impression and a sour taste and that hurts them in the long run a lot more than an extra model in their lineup.

As to the Burger King analogy, it's as if the seller decided not to have his customer have it any way he want it. That's an unprofessional attitude to hold.

I learned all about this when I produced a Drifting documentary in 2004. American race fans were mortified that in the Japanese form of sanctioned drifting, called D1, the judges are often employed by the same corporations sponsoring the cars/teams/drivers. If you don't know the sport, Drifting is scored very much like figure skating, it's not racing, it's scored on a performance. Totally subjective. And the big sponsored cars and drivers almost always win at D1 events. No underdogs, no upstarts. Few upsets.

I am not sure if the Americanized version of drifting is still scored in the same manner but American car people who had not learned the finer points of drifting were pissed off at the judges decisions most of the time when we had Japanese judges for the events over here. Ethics and morals are quite different in Japan. I totally buy into DLDs "Cartel" assertions. Makes total sense if you have dealt with the Japanese in depth.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

The best part is when you spend lots of money to get your 10 bit camera, you avoid all that banding, marvel in your edit suite how clean and unbandy your footage looks, you're so cool, life is good. Then you upload it to Vimeo and Youtube and the upload has the same banding your 8 bit camera had.