Eric Coughlin
Veteran
According to what? Last I heard the C300 Mark I is still considered a professional and well used camera for doc style work.
C200: What stops the C200 from being a near perfect camera?
- Thread starter Fishflavour
- Start date
rob norton
Veteran
So is its ability to let shooters work extremely quickly! Autofocus as a requirement is coming. On smaller productions, directors will see it in action, fall in love, and won't be able to go back. I'm not talking about actors moving around the place hitting different marks, but even if the autofocus can keep up with a 2m slider/dolly push in or let you have an unmanned b-camera for an interview then many other elements of IQ won't have as much weight.
Other than "protecting the c300 ii", it's probably pretty clever from canon having 8 bit OR raw. People will think it's easy enough to shoot raw when faced with 8 bit. If they're willing to put up with the raw post workflow, they're then very likely to pay way more attention to post correction'/grading. So canon should have some fantastic footage to push around.
Fishflavour
Member
"So canon should have some fantastic footage to push around." - when is the official release date, footage is hard to find atm, seems canon is keeping things pretty tight.
Most probably because it isn't implemented in any edit software yet I imagine? Canon Raw Light software also needs to be launched I guess, I haven't read how beta testers are handling post, this interests me more as we will really see how it works.
RED R3D's work fine in FCXP for me and goes straight in from the card to the timeline no problems, I'd hope that Canon Raw Light would do the same eventually
Not entirely true, I've never had a production house ask me about bit rate unless it's for green screen projects or similar and even then they would just go Red or BM RAW, in fact I find a lot of producers looking for quicker data transfer and asking if possible to go XAVC L or 50mps on certain projects lately as higher bit rates just not needed most of the time, especially for web projects.
The BBC have embraced the C300 across the board in all it's 8 bit glory and thats not likely to change anytime soon, I hate to say it but 8 bit is good enough for most clients and even broadcast, it's all about content and we really have reached a plateau in image quality where todays audiences are far more forgiving.
Anybody on this forum will pixel peep and scrutinize and 8bit vs 10bit image as thats what we do, day in day out, we'll notice the banding in the sky to the moire on a suit but the audience really doesn't care too much apart from us camera owners who see every flaw.
10 bit and 4K SHOULD be a requirement for delivery in 2017 as it's 2017! and really wtf! but I disagree it's a minimum requirement, thats all subjective to which project, I've seen many documentaries and short from content still shot on 5D's and less winning awards and it's questionable what is labeled a "professional camera" these days.
The A7SII certainly seems to be a dark workhorse for a lot of agencies and houses in 2016/17, I've seen fashion promos being shot on A7SII's with nice cine glass and broadcast and aired no problems.
Liam Hall
Veteran
Certainly, my clients and many broadcasters stipulate 10 bit 422 as a minimum spec for an A camera. The C300 mkI was great in 2011, (I had one), but the specs are dated now. I think, we as buyers should demand more from manufacturers and not put up with them intentionally crippling their cameras to maintain false market segmentation.
That's like buying a car because it has a nice sound system and ignoring the fact the engine has a limiter that turns your Ferrari into a Fiat.
Not really. It's pretty clear Canon have impaired the C200 to protect C300. It's a shame because it would have been a great camera with a decent 10 bit codec. I'd be shooting nearly 9x as much data using a RAW workflow with the C200 than with my FS7. Not sure my clients would welcome that.
Liam Hall
Veteran
I concede, maybe I should have written, 10 bit 'SHOULD' be a requirement for a professional camera. Certainly, for me it is a minimum requirement and many broadcasters, Netflix for example, would agree:
https://backlothelp.netflix.com/hc/...duction-and-Post-Production-Requirements-v2-1
I've seen that Netflix list also, as posted by many on the BM/FS7 FB groups etc all relishing the fact that the Alexa got left out due to the limit of 4K UHD only.
It's all a load of bollox really, having spoken to Arri at BSC they’re not too concerned as a lot of Netflix original stuff is shot on Alexa then picked up for distribution.
There are loads of doc's shot on 2K and HD still being picked up today but I understand where Netflix are going with that list, in trying to up the distribution standards for the future, it's just not going to be as crippling as all the FB camera groups are implying.
Don't get me wrong though, I'm sucker for image quality and I'll shoot on the highest bit rate whenever I can, I'll also be the one with a bag full of C-fast cards trying to shoot b-roll in raw on the C200 for sure as it personally satisfies my game as a DP, the client and the editor can go figure how to deal with raw files in post
rogar-BigGrin(DBG)
cpreston
Veteran
Based on my experience, 10 bit is a requirement if you feel the need to shoot in log and/or pull a key of some sort. In those cases, RAW Lite is going to serve you better anyway. I really think Canon was trying to serve a specific market with the C200- videographers who want low bit rate 4K for minimal color correction web delivery and RAW for graphics work. For the most part, that covers all of my work. This is the camera Canon would have made if they surveyed me about my needs. I guess you could call it crippling because it doesn't have the features of the C300 II, but the C300 II seems like it is targeted more at the commercial market. It seems like people are judging these cameras more on specs than on whether it fits their needs. If your needs include high frame rate 10 bit 422 and RAW than the C700 is available and can cover most of your needs.
I saw in one video review the Canon rep mentioning that the 8bit was for capturing proxy files as a quick turnaround for the raw files. This makes total sense for offline editing, same workflow with early Red cameras.
He also mentioned that the 8bit MP4 codec can also be used for those quick turnaround jobs as a bonus if needed but essentially this is a raw camera with internal recording.
If you want more options then yes, the C300 MKII has the 10bit and further up the C700 has more but the C200 pretty much does what it says in the C line up, to me it sits alongside the C300 MKII for those DP/videographers/owner ops who want to go raw on certain projects and it fills that gap nicely.
Years ago, I wanted a RED Epic but instead opted for the cheaper Scarlet and it worked fine at the time but these days I feel the pace is quicker and I love the low light sensitivity of the Canon, the built in ND's and loads of battery power in a small package, having raw in built is the cherry on the top.
Last edited:
Liam Hall
Veteran
Currently, I shoot log on Sony and RAW or Log on RED and yes, for log, 10 bit is a must. I call it 'crippling' because clearly the camera is capable of recording 10bit internally.
Liam Hall
Veteran
GH5 is a DSLR, I thought we were discussing professional video cameras.
My point was more about 10bit in any camera these days and even if it were the minimum requirement or a "must" it can still be a s*%t image regardless of the higher bit rate.
We are meant to be discussing C200 being the perfect cam or not but you are somewhat right, I feel the GH5 built up with a rig and sufficient inputs brushes or blurs the bottom end of the pro video market with 4K 10bit 60p internal but the EVA1 is probably the camera that goes up against the C200 in this regard.
Liam Hall
Veteran
Ah, Ok. Well, of course 10 bit can look ****, and obviously it's only one part of the equation. The FS7 is capable of creating wonderful images if you know where the secret sauce is, but if you don't you can really screw things up - all in 10 bit too.
And the FS5. Each has something to offer, none tick all the boxes.
What sort of problems are you seeing with the GH5 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 image ?
ozmorphasis
Well-known member
The GH5 does not do 4K 10bit 60p internal.
No problems as such, It's more of an aesthetic for me personally, I've used it on a couple of shoots and it just lacks something, it's got all the mod cons with stabilization and 4K 10bit etc but at best i'd use it for it's small factor on a restricted travel shoot but to be honest I prefer the image of the A7sII if we are talking DSLR.
Some cameras just have a certain aesthetic, it's why I like the C300 MKII over the FS7... the FS7 has everything you need in a one neat package and is totally capable of producing a commercial image but after 2 years in the field I sold it and went for the C300 MKII as I fell in love with the image and I prefer the Canon OS over the Sony, just my preference.
We'll see how Panasonic does with the EVA1 but so far I've not warmed to Panasonic cameras that much since the DVX100 back in 2004, I'm sure EVA1 will be good just not a fan of the GH5
Yep you're right it's HD 10 bit: https://www.cinema5d.com/firmware-v1-1-panasonic-gh5-enables-10-bit-422-fullhd-video/
Neither does the C300 Mk2.