C200: The new Canon C200 with 4K

AndreeOnline said:
... 4k ProRes at 12bit and 25fps is 1.2Gbit/s. Raw Light is around 1.5Gbit right? ...
Click to expand...
1 Gbps or 512 GB/hr.

cpreston said:
The XC10/15 also records it's 4K to a CFAST card. I am assuming that Canon is attempting to get it's higher bitrate codec onto the SD cards.
Click to expand...
The 305 and the 400 will work on the V60 cards, which are beginning to trickle out. The 150 will work on the V30 cards too.

Raw Light needs CFast 2.0 and a well built 2.0 at that.

laverdir said:
It cooled off because almost everything is known, those who want to buy it have their minds set and are just waiting for August...
Click to expand...
I think, from what Terry said, it's late August/early September for the pre-order crowd.

And it seems to be a pretty large crowd. To borrow an old Steven Wright line, someone may be scalping the low numbers.
 
DLD said:
1 Gbps or 512 GB/hr.

Raw Light needs CFast 2.0 and a well built 2.0 at that.
Click to expand...

1Gbps is only 125MB/s. That's not overly fast for CFast 2.0. Pretty much any decent CF2.0 card should handle that without issue.
 
jbregar said:
1Gbps is only 125MB/s. That's not overly fast for CFast 2.0. Pretty much any decent CF2.0 card should handle that without issue.
Click to expand...
It depends on the buffer size. For example, Delkin 2.0 can't handle URSA's uncompressed or compressed Raw or even ProRes HQ. I posted YouTube links earlier in this thread.

But some inexpensive cards (EgoDisk) seem to test out as well as a name brand like SanDisk.
 
jbregar said:
1Gbps is only 125MB/s. That's not overly fast for CFast 2.0. Pretty much any decent CF2.0 card should handle that without issue.
Click to expand...

We'll see. It's pushing the limit for current cards. The current SanDisk Extreme Pro is rated for VPG-130 or a minimum write speed of 130MB/S. I assume that will be approved. The Lexar 3600 might get approved. Otherwise, most other cards already seem to have trouble with ProRes on the Black Magic cameras.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
Just shot a two hour 4K interview a few days ago. Two CFast recording, proxy SD card recording, and 4K RAW going out to an Atomos recorder (which was recording 4K ProRes). I didn't notice fan noise.
Click to expand...

Thanks Eric, I greatly appreciate your contribution and your insights are really invaluable.

Just to keep the stove going, how about dust / weather sealing?

Would you be comfortable taking it to high humidity or dusty places? Not real desert, you get sand there everywhere - even in lenses, or jungle, but some sets are quite close to the real thing.

C200 killed any hope for 1D C MII and sometimes I wouldn't mind that level of protection as seen on 1D series.
 
DLD said:
It depends on the buffer size. For example, Delkin 2.0 can't handle URSA's uncompressed or compressed Raw or even ProRes HQ. I posted YouTube links earlier in this thread.

But some inexpensive cards (EgoDisk) seem to test out as well as a name brand like SanDisk.
Click to expand...

Those Delkins have some issues though. The CheesyCam video showing how long it takes to format one is crazy (spoiler: it takes like a minute and a half to format vs. seconds with a Transcend).

I'll be interested to see how a Transcend CFX600 does. The specs say it should be fine, it would be nice if we could rely on that. :(
 
For some reason, I can't help feeling that the raw footage I've seen so far on YT etc looked kinda... videoey? Is it just the subject being shot or what is it? Damn I long for that one perfect camera....
 
legrevedotcom said:
For some reason, I can't help feeling that the raw footage I've seen so far on YT etc looked kinda... videoey? Is it just the subject being shot or what is it? Damn I long for that one perfect camera....
Click to expand...

Do you have links? I've seen some cloakroom media and cinema5d stuff but that's it.

Thanks
 
(Note: this is my first post here, so please let me know if I've effed up the formatting or something)

Has anyone else noticed a fair amount of color fringing around clipped highlights in some of the footage being posted?

It's most apparent on Cloakroom Media's stuff. Take, for example, this shot:

http://i.imgur.com/s4BHBQC.jpg

In the clipped highlight above her head, there's a blue fringe. Here's an insert:

http://i.imgur.com/KwDHPey.jpg

On the left is the C200 footage; on the right is from the C300. Notice how the C200 footage exhibits some nasty color fringing while the C300 footage is relatively clean.

Another comparison can be seen here:

http://i.imgur.com/UUJ7JRO.jpg

Left is C300, right is C200. The C200 footage exhibits the same strange highlight rolloff with heavy color fringing.

Might be related, might be not, but the Canon-produced promo for the camera also exhibits some nasty purple fringing on the blown-out ceiling lights:

http://i.imgur.com/U41EYhE.jpg

And closer:

http://i.imgur.com/uN6wBzR.jpg

So far this is the only part of any of the tech demos of this camera that's given me anything resembling pause. Anyone have any thoughts as to what might be the cause of this artifacting?
 
True enough - all speculation at this point. The only one that really made me go "ruh roh" was the first example, which reminds me more of the highlight rolloff weirdness in my GH4 than chromatic aberration. The Cinema5D tests show none of this, I should note; even the stuff with the trees in the foreground and the sky blown out. The camera looks better there than in any other tests I've seen.
 
DevanAGScott said:
Has anyone else noticed a fair amount of color fringing around clipped highlights in some of the footage being posted?
Click to expand...


The purple CA is from the lens. The Cloakroom Media is probably due to the debayering and sharpening of the footage. Also, why would you compare sharpness with a wide aperture lens. That test was annoying.

I really think that trying to get an idea of the C200 RAW capabilities from footage being posted is a waste of time until someone releases multiple sources of RAW footage and Canon releases its software. I can't see how the Canon C200 will look worse than the C300 II since they are using the same sensor. It might take work on the C200 to get them to match if Canon doesn't release a LUT and NR algorithm that directly matches the C300 II, but I can't imagine that Canon would screw up the RAW lite in a way that would make it worse than the in camera processing on the C300 II.
 
DevanAGScott said:
Has anyone else noticed a fair amount of color fringing around clipped highlights in some of the footage being posted?
Click to expand...

Yes, it stands out for me too.

And I'm not sure the answer is as simple as "that's chromatic aberration". In many of the clips you point to, that may very well be the originating cause, as it looks similar and shows up in the same places.

I'm hoping Canon can tune the color science, similar to what RED has done recently, to suppress some of that in time for release. RED has made huge strides in their latest color science update to handle stuff like out of gamut spikes in color saturation. When you look at their before/after images, the 'before' ones look similar to what the C200 shows here. Hopefully, this is just one of those "new baby" issues that you get when releasing something new – like RawLight. Like they say: work in progress.

Apart from that, I often find it a good idea to desaturate the very top highlights in post for smooth results.
 
rob norton said:
Do you have links? I've seen some cloakroom media and cinema5d stuff but that's it.

Thanks
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the same I saw... I thought Cinema5D's nature shots were very docu videoey :S I mean... maybe it's just the grade, or the subject, but it's holding me back. Even the 5D raw could look more "cinematic" if that's not a bold arrogant word to use...

And then there's this from the c300 II... it's not miles away, but it looks better.
https://vimeo.com/170291490
 
legrevedotcom said:
I thought Cinema5D's nature shots were very docu videoey… Even the 5D raw could look more "cinematic"
Click to expand...

This has all to do with what I call 'light distribution'. End effect will partly depend on how you light, or how you let natural light fall. Because even for an "available light shooter", even if you don't bring light yourself, you are still responsible for 'lighting' the shot.

Another big part of the equation is your camera picture profile. But since the C200 has access to Canon Log 1 through 3, it won't be an issue here. There are several examples of cinematic looking Canon Log (1) images, and both Log 2 and 3 extend your options.

And then, of course, there is grading. The colorist's (be it the shooter or not) sensibility will determine the final outcome. I'm sure you could take properly shot ARRI Alexa footage and turn it into something home video looking.

There is nothing about the C200 that would shoehorn it into producing video looking images. Quite the opposite.
 
'cinematic'?

Well, we'll have to wait for C200 MarkII, it will have Automatic Scene Lighting with (optional) mind reader.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top