C200: The new Canon C200 with 4K

Apropos of something - was reading an article on Jalopnik about the classic early 90's twin turbo Supra engine. The writer describes something like this, "the Japanese companies winked at each other and Toyota claimed 280 HP. In reality, once it reached the US shores, it was 320".

The Japanese companies were colluding but, in this instance, to under-spec something.
 
I have not seen a good explanation of MP4 vs AVCHD vs MXF. The C100 was AVCHD only. The mkII added MP4 at a slightly higher bitrate (similar to the bitrate and files of the DSLR's) and slo mo options were only available in certain modes. The XC15 shoots mp4 and MXF. The C300II does proxy in what I am assuming is the same AVCHD file as the C100. My gut feeling says that the mp4 files are not actually better than the AVCHD files for grading despite having a higher bit rate.
 
puredrifting said:
Yes, see above, I was schooled. I have the C100 MKI, but the C100 MKII does up the data rate when shooting 60p. Makes sense, I just didn't know.
Click to expand...

Oh sorry about the redundancy.

I have a question. Since I haven't shot any news, or broadcasts, is the issue 8 bit 420 or, the required broadcast data rate of 50 mbps, that is the issue between making the C200 an ideal camera for both uses? I understand the difference in grading 8 bit vs 10 bit, but is there a clear difference once aired on TV? I remember reading that the 50 mbps was to allow more free for the manipulation of the video. Don't know if it translates into a better video for the masses to ingest.
 
Michael Thames said:
Oh sorry about the redundancy.

I have a question. Since I haven't shot any news, or broadcasts, is the issue 8 bit 420 or, the required broadcast data rate of 50 mbps, that is the issue between making the C200 an ideal camera for both uses? I understand the difference in grading 8 bit vs 10 bit, but is there a clear difference once aired on TV? I remember reading that the 50 mbps was to allow more free for the manipulation of the video. Don't know if it translates into a better video for the masses to ingest.
Click to expand...

A lot of politics are involved. Video delivery specs for broadcast are theoretically intended to provide a level of technical standards broadcasters know will hold up to the generations of degradation, and multiple levels of compression and recompression that your signal goes through from the time is leaves your camera's media to the time the end consumer views it. In reality, delivery standards have also served as a gatekeeper that prevents producers and content providers from using economical, lower end equipment, it used to be a way of weeding out the "serious professionals" from the "artists who are technically challenged or budget challenged". As low cost cameras have become better with more advanced specifications and as broadcasters, in the era of YouTube and web video regularly broadcast really bad quality video as a means of necessity because we are living in a video obsessed era, tech specs have somewhat become not as important as they used to be. The real differentiator these days is commissioned programming versus projects that are produced, completed and then bought by broadcasters and OTTs. If you are commissioned by PBS, a network, an OTT like Netflix, to produce content for them, you MUST adhere to their tech specs. These can include codec, raster size, picture bit depth, audio sampling rate and bit depth, etc. OTOH, if you produce a series shot strictly on Go Pros, which meet not a single one of these specs, broadcasters and OTTs will gladly purchase your program, IF they like it and want to air it. As we all know, content is king, that is why half of the video clips you see aired on the news are really horrific quality cell phone video or dashcam video. None of that content comes even close to meeting broadcast delivery specs as far as origination, but bad video is better than no video at all.

As far as the specifics of your question, delivery specs are fluid and change rapidly just as the cameras and media we buy change rapidly. In the 1080 era that we are just leaving as we head into the 4K era, the generally regarded spec for 1080 deliverables are something along the lines of, "1080p 59.94 10-bit 4:2:2 with a minimum data rate of 50Mbps", but of course, there are variations of this spec. So in theory, this leaves out 8-bit 4:2:0 or cameras that record the signal smaller than 50Mbps. But these specs depend on the broadcaster or OTT. Netflix requires UHD for all commissioned content, but I shot 1080 for their world premiere promotional package for "The Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life" with Lauren Graham for them last year with a waiver. The content I shot for them was for web only usage, not "broadcast" on Netflix as content, it was used on their social media pages and YouTube. So basically what I am saying is that there are "the rules" aka video delivery specs, then there is reality. Reality is, delivery specs are a fluid and political concept, not nearly as cut and dried as many producers and production companies would lead you to believe. Also, few people shooting with medium to lower end cameras are commissioned by networks and OTTs, most of the content that they commission is going to be shot on higher end cameras where these specs are not as much of a concern, they are the norm. As indie filmmakers, you can really use whatever camera you want or can afford, IF your content is compelling, someone will buy it and run it. Of course, if you shoot it all on a 5D MKII, you are still going to have a deliverable master that conforms to their tech specs even though your origination content did not meet their acquisition specs.
 
Both AVCHD and MP4 are higher at 60p on the C100/II (28 and 35 Mbps I think). That's if you're shooting 60p as your project timebase. I believe if you shoot over-crank 60p the bitrate can go even higher, though I don't often do this as it disables dual-slot recording, and probably mutes the audio recording.
 
I actually had to do a short test with my FS7 to see what the different resolution and frame rates does to the image when it comes to detail and by the look of it the C200 was much softer in higher fps compared to UHD and FHD and normal fps. There were much less loss of detail on the FS7 in 100fps and no loss up to 60fps.

So by the look of it and shooting MP4 on the C200 it isn't that robust to grading in general and detail in higher fps is lost to a certain degree. But I still think slow motion will be workable and look nice albeit with loss of details.
 
Slow-motion (HFRs) has never been Canon's forte. They are seriously the worst at it, ha.

Interested in seeing how EVA1's 2K/240p holds up.
 
This may be another semi-off-topic post but, for those who must shoot a lot of footage and yet stay on a budget, GH5 connected to an external recorder like Inferno should be given a consideration. One gets "some" auto focus and specs that would be accepted as "broadcast quality" with 4K, 10-bit ProRes, etc. The GH5 YouTube reviews have ranged from mildly positive to glowingly glorious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top