C200: The new Canon C200 with 4K

Fishflavour said:
This is why i wish the C200 had 4k raw out of either SDI or HDMI, so i could bypass expensive cards, and just use an external recorder to record the raw files (or prores / DNxHD) to SSD's. Then edit straight from the SSD's.

Not practical for you run & gun guys, but if you're on a tripod or shoulder mount then the extra weight wouldn't be such a big deal. And 1TB ssd's are so cheap now :)
Click to expand...

Just use a CFast to SSD adapter like folks are using on the BM Ursa Mini's.
 
yoclay said:
Just use a CFast to SSD adapter like folks are using on the BM Ursa Mini's.
Click to expand...

Has anyone tested these yet? Will they work with the canon cameras? The C300mk2's use cfast, but i've never heard about anyone using adapters on them.

i know the c300's don't record raw internally, but even for long interviews the cfast cards must fill pretty quick. You can only get around 40 mins on a 128gb card.
 
I'm trying to love the footage, but I can't...I think I just love the idea of the camera more.

The review, shots, talent, production value are all great, but it's just such Canon video.

If one hasn't shot with other cameras it's just impossible to understand, but that's my opinion.
 
If one looks at the male dancer's jacket, it looks more saturated/richer off the BTS camera than in the C200 footage. I wonder if they were using Amira for the BTS.

In any case, some of their shots look better than others. Part of it is probably due to their flavor of grading. Once the model is out, others can give it a better go to match with ARRI/F65 colors.
 
NorBro said:
I'm trying to love the footage, but I can't...I think I just love the idea of the camera more.
Click to expand...
That's not love. Love means never having to say you're sorry to your clients for giving them sub-par video quality.






I agree that it does look very Canony, and I don't really mean that in a good way. I think a lot of people think all RAW is equal, but that's far from the case.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
... I agree that it does look very Canony, and I don't really mean that in a good way. I think a lot of people think all RAW is equal, but that's far from the case.
Click to expand...
There is a thread on the DVXCafe that quotes a big time DP that, as long as the camera parameters such as DR and the resolution are sufficient, one can dial any look out of Raw that he desires. To stake his claim, he matched Alexa with 35mm film and it was next to impossible to tell them apart. if that DP is correct, then the Canon footage exhibited above is only inferior to Alexa due to the mastery - or lack thereof - of its shooters and colorists (or time constraints that negatively effected the final output).
 
DLD said:
There is a thread on the DVXCafe that quotes a big time DP that, as long as the camera parameters such as DR and the resolution are sufficient, one can dial any look out of Raw that he desires. To stake his claim, he matched Alexa with 35mm film and it was next to impossible to tell them apart. if that DP is correct, then the Canon footage exhibited above is only inferior to Alexa due to the mastery - or lack thereof - of its shooters and colorists (or time constraints that negatively effected the final output).
Click to expand...
So basically if you're not a top DP (I'm not) with a top colorist (which I don't have), with the time and budget to match cameras (which I typically don't have), then use a better camera to make up for your lack of skill and budget.

Also, matching what I'm guessing was one shot doesn't say much. Then you're back to stupid Zacuto shootout methods of saying all cameras are equal (when they aren't) because with lots of color grading one camera's shot could be made to look like another camera's shot of the same thing. If one can't afford a better camera, perhaps it's better to not try to justify the lack of budget by implying all cameras are equal. The AJA Cion is a 4K RAW camera that was hated by most. I shot with a Red Scarlet MX, 4K RAW, and the image looked cruddy. Not saying it's impossible to get a good image from that camera, but I wasn't able to get a good image in my one shoot with it. Canon is a pretty rare A-camera choice for high end narrative films, and I don't think the C200 will have any effect on that. The C700 has possibilities, but I don't see people using it, and I'm not a fan of it. I haven't personally tried it out, though.
 
Last edited:
NorBro said:
I'm trying to love the footage, but I can't...I think I just love the idea of the camera more.

The review, shots, talent, production value are all great, but it's just such Canon video.

If one hasn't shot with other cameras it's just impossible to understand, but that's my opinion.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I have shot with the F55, FS7, various REDs, Amira, Varicam, etc. I'm not seeing the "bad Canon" look you are, most of the shots, to me, especially the dance studio girl, look pretty nice. The graded scenic night stuff looked good. The male dancer footage I liked the least but it still looked okay to me.

To me, the C series cameras have always looked good, better than the FS7, l personally like the look better than most of the REDs, but to me, the Arris win the prize for best looking and if I were between the C300 MKII and the Varicam LT, I prefer the LT. I don't think the C200 looks better than especially the higher end cameras but it looks better than anything else under $10k.

I can't wait to compare the C200 to the EVA 1
 
Last edited:
"Bad Canon...go to your room!"

I didn't say it was bad, haha; just looks like the typical Canon video images.

Honestly, there is no other way to put it. You can mix in some 5D Mark IV C-Log footage and it would match perfectly.

I guess I'm being a little hard on it because I want the C200 to look amazing and different than the other Canon cameras.
 
Yeah, neither of us were saying it looked bad, just that it looked like typical Canon, which is good, but not great. I actually would expect the C200 to look like typical Canon at the price point it is at. The C700 on the other hand surprised/disappointed me because it looked like typical Canon, but at a $60,000 price point (when shooting RAW), and at that price point, I really expected something better.
 
Eric, I've always seen you as the "Canon guy" in my head, lol.

I know you've shot on other cameras and currently interested in an ARRI, but if you're not feeling the C200 image, there's a problem...haha.
 
I'm still a Canon guy and like Dan (puredrifting) I'd choose a Canon over a Sony, Blackmagic, and Red. Varicam may have a slightly better image than Canon, but I prefer the ergonomics and feature-set of Canon. I was never a fan of the C700. Arri beats Canon easily for image quality so when comparing the C300 image doesn't seem all that great, but it's still good enough for a lot of work, and better to me than the competition in its price point and body size/ergonomics.
 
Ok, I get it, yes, the C200 does look like Canon. But, overall, while the Canon image isn't the ultimate, it's the best in it's cost class at least for the C200 and 300 MKII. I would have been surprised if it did look different, that would have been an even bigger departure for Canon than the Internal Cinema RAW Light was. Overall, there seem to be few complaints about the Canon color science and look from most people. I'd really like to see a VERY experienced colorist and grading expert get a hold of some C200 Cinema RAW Light to see what can really be done with it. I think in the video, the DP, Daniel, did the coloring and grade and it doesn't look bad but I'd love to see someone process and grade it who is a colorist for a living.

Eric, I am going to have to agree with you on the C700. It's been shipping half a year and it seems to be gaining zero traction in features or episodic. I keep picking up my Ameican Cinematographer magazine or my Local 600 magazine and expecting to see something at least medium profile shooting with it but so far, nobody seems to be. It's pretty much all about Arri and RED at the high ends of production. I don't even think the Varicam has made serious inroads into high end production as a whole, although there has been some beautiful, high profile work shot with it. But as you go down the production listings in the Local 600 magazine, it's seems to be 70% Arri, 20% RED and the rest are a few mavericks shooting film, Varicam, C300 MKII, Sony F55 and F65, etc. I think the Varicam looks beautiful but today, if I was DPing an episodic or a ten million dollar feature, I am not sure if I would choose the C700 or even a Varicam, simply because I like what Arri gives me so much. Like you, I see the magic to the image that the others seem to just lack. Unless it was mandated to be native 4K or above, then I would move to Varicam 35, then secondly RED. I am not a big fan of RED but the end image can look really good and the cameras are a known workflow and don't look bad. Especially if the subject matter was modern. I'd never shoot RED for anything period looking.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
So basically if you're not a top DP (I'm not) with a top colorist (which I don't have), with the time and budget to match cameras (which I typically don't have), then use a better camera to make up for your lack of skill and budget...
Click to expand...
That is one way or looking at it. The other is to say, "In 2018, every pro camera is a Raw enabled camera, so I might as well figure out how to grade to the look or find the LUT's that can match ARRI's".
 
DLD said:
That is one way or looking at it. The other is to say, "In 2018, every pro camera is a Raw enabled camera, so I might as well figure out how to grade to the look or find the LUT's that can match ARRI's".
Click to expand...

Good observation DLD. I personally think that Canon has totally surprised everyone (other than BMD) by introducing RAW internal at this price point. It makes Sony making you buy an expensive, large and clunky RAW adapter and recorder for thousands of dollars laughable. As much as I am looking forward to the EVA 1, I am sure that Mitch might have uttered a few choice epithets when he first saw the C200 specs with the words "internal RAW" ;-) It's not that everyone needs to be shooting RAW on the lower to medium end of the market, it's that Canon has now made that an opption at least, even if you buy a C200 and never shoot anything but .MP4s you could shoot RAW by simply purchasing a CFast card.

I just wrote an article exactly about this, how the reason many in our industry are clueless about budgeting for their gear is because people rarely buy cameras for features they truly need, they buy cameras because of an emotional fantasy about what they dream themselves shooting. These emotions get in the way of making sound, rational financial decisions about cameras. This is why we see people buying cameras they can barely afford, then skimping on most or all of the support to make that camera function in a professional enivironment. This is why we occasionally see RED Weapons sitting atop Manfrotto $500.00 tripods. At least at $7,500.00, the C200 is a fiscally obtainable dream for most pros, even if they end up only shooting .MP4s or Prores on an external recorder instead of Cinema RAW Light.
 
Last edited:
I agree you can probably get pretty much anywhere with the colour when grading the raw. There's got to be a lot of info to push about, which will be amazing to access without exposing artifacts which you can find in the XF-AVC when you go digging around.

I might get flamed for this, but I have to say that the motion looks a bit videoish in the Cloakroom review... the movement kind of lacks the 'heft' that an Arri or Red have that make them feel cinematic to me. I've felt the same about the C300 mk1 & mk2 sadly, despite them being great cameras overall. The C series are so close to being little cinema machines, but for me this keeps them pigeonholed mostly in the realm of broadcast/content.

I feel like the high data rates of the raw lite might not be worth it if the footage lacks that feeling for me... anyone feel the same?
 
Sorry folks. Have to disagree here.
the advantage of RAW is that it can go pretty much anywhere in a grade.
It is quite possible to take footage from this camera and make it look every bit as good as anything coming off the Alexa or RED.

The reality is that it has probably more to do with glass and production values at this point.
This is where the mount becomes an issue too.
I am quite sure if you put a Cooke prime on this camera at T2, people would not be responding "meh, looks like a Canon image".
Further, most of those images are shot with a lot of depth of field - not traditionally what we think of cinema images.
So guess what ? With the added depth of field and not very sophisticated lighting or production values, it looks like video !
 
Last edited:
I've never seen a Canon look every bit as good as an ARRI or RED with a similar feel/look, but I would like to. There are some C200 RAW files available for download. If you have the time and/or interest, would you like to take a shot and show us? (Seriously asking.)

I agree that production values are a big part of the overall process, but if it was that easy to make these middle-end cameras look like the higher-end cameras, you'd see more productions doing it.

At the end of the day, IMO, it's about the sensor and the image the camera provides. You can't grade a sensor (and all of the magical processing and what not).

P.S. You can't use the CFast/SSD adapter that the BM cameras use because the door needs to be closed to record.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top