C300: Will Canon ever give us 4K XF-AVC in 12-bit?
- Thread starter Lkorver
- Start date
Ha, knew there had to be a good reason. I haven't pixel peeped the difference between the raw and xf-avc 4k, so is the gap in quality analogous to the gap in bit-rate?
NorBro
Major Contributor
That's tough to answer broadly as I think it really depends on the cameras/sensors you'd be interested in comparing.
For example: Regardless of the bitrate, I would not choose a C300 Mark II's XF-AVC over a C200's CRL, but I would definitely 99% of the time use the C300 Mark III's XF-AVC over its CRL.
[Keep in mind CRL also drops to 10-bit at 60p.]
Overall, and in general, does a higher bitrate always = much better visual quality? I don't think so. At some point, you just can't see the difference anymore, IMO.
And we also see a lot of beautiful work on YouTube that was captured on 8-bit or 10-bit Long GOP 150/200 mbps cameras.
For example: Regardless of the bitrate, I would not choose a C300 Mark II's XF-AVC over a C200's CRL, but I would definitely 99% of the time use the C300 Mark III's XF-AVC over its CRL.
[Keep in mind CRL also drops to 10-bit at 60p.]
Overall, and in general, does a higher bitrate always = much better visual quality? I don't think so. At some point, you just can't see the difference anymore, IMO.
And we also see a lot of beautiful work on YouTube that was captured on 8-bit or 10-bit Long GOP 150/200 mbps cameras.
There's 12-bit H265 but
A) Canon doesn't update their codecs retroactively
and
B) it isn't currently offering 12-bit 265 in any of their cameras (R5 has 10-bit) anyway.
Maybe, if there's an 8K "pro" camera on the horizon, it will have 12-bit H265 but it seems an in-between codec. If you want 12-bit, you might as well go CRL.
A) Canon doesn't update their codecs retroactively
and
B) it isn't currently offering 12-bit 265 in any of their cameras (R5 has 10-bit) anyway.
Maybe, if there's an 8K "pro" camera on the horizon, it will have 12-bit H265 but it seems an in-between codec. If you want 12-bit, you might as well go CRL.
Could you elaborate on reasons for choosing XF-avc or Raw on c300mk3?
chris f
Veteran
No, definitely not twice as good. I’d say it’s like a 8% increase in quality with a file size that is almost 2.5 bigger, but with the drawback of having grainier footage because there’s no noise reduction happening in CRL.
To my eye the raw footage seems to have richer colors and is sharper (but that could be because of the grain), but by the time you get to final export and the end user is watching the compressed delivery any difference is going to be minute in my opinion. So the image quality is better, but personally I would only use CRL in a very limited case by case basis (like filming in the highest frame rates or shooting a commercial that I know is going into my reel)
NorBro
Major Contributor
Sure, but there is no complex reasoning, at least not for me.
[Just a long-winded, unnecessary explanation, lol.]
I would choose XF-AVC simply because the C300 Mark III is a modern camera and is one of Canon's best, if not the best. (More expensive means nothing anymore.)
___
Bear with me...
With Canon's first 4K offerings, which were extremely pricey like the 1DC and the C500, you had only one choice of a 4K format (MJPEG or external recording, Canon RAW or Half-RAW). Then they released the C300 Mark II, which is probably the most overrated camera in the history of cameras as far as resolution goes. This was an amazing HD camera but not 4K, IMO.
So then we jump to 2017 and Canon's first great 4K camera was made, the C200. Now this one was interesting because you could now clearly see some resolution differences, and a major IQ disparity between the 8-bit XF-AVC and the 12-bit/10-bit CRL. This was a prime example of Canon in full control of their processing and end-result. (Amazing to see back then and I don't know if there is another system out there that can showcase it as well as this one.)
___
Continuing on...and sorry for the camera history lesson but I want to share context about IQ and choices; we really for a long time could not have high-quality from anyone without paying a lot of money for it (before BM came along).
And now that the industry is so messed up - and everyone is building pretty great cameras for less money every year - we are finally starting to see what companies can do, and more importantly what they are WILLING to do!
And that is making better cameras with better motion pictures with their non-RAW formats.
___
So back to your question; I personally do not see any benefit in choosing CRL when the XF-AVC from this particular new camera is of such high-quality (especially when not engaging in exceedingly technical post-production). I have the same thoughts about choosing the 4K HQ over the 8K RAW in the R5.
The thought-process is similar to why 10-bit ProRes on ARRIs has been good enough for so many years for hundreds of thousands with endless amounts of money. A lot of those people could have shot ARRIRAW - and many did - but most didn't need to because ARRI built a superior camera with great dynamic range and excellent oversampling that had a pure 2K IQ from the higher-resolution sensor.
Now RED has a "resolution matters" approach which works in unison with their own very powerful and high-quality RAW codec, but their cameras also have always been purely focused on IQ, and have been operating like super-computers that could most likely provide high-quality in all kinds of formats. (Check out random RED ProRes clips...the camera knows how to create a nice image, even in 2K.)
Same with Blackmagic. The 10-bit ProRes is very good (some have 12-bit).
___
Today, RAW has developed a reputation everywhere for having the best possible quality, but what exactly is RAW? We have no idea what's happening inside of these different cameras.
Have you ever watched any "RAW" from some of these photography systems that output it?
Not too impressive to say the least besides maybe one or two that shoot in a specific format like CinemaDNG.
___
On a side note, check out this video if you have time/are interested...I am actually in the middle of watching it and it has a similar delivery to what I'm saying above about variations in IQ and maybe the expectations we sometimes have (even though that's not addressed directly but just my own thought).
In the video below, a few minor simple changes in resolutions and compressions are completely changing the quality when they really shouldn't be. This is one reason why cameras are so frustrating because some function optimally only in certain settings while others will have very little visible IQ differences between settings.
In the C300 Mark III's case, I feel it has very little IQ differences (under normal video production circumstances) between its CRL and its 400+ Mbps 10-bit XF-AVC.
Last edited:
NorBro
Major Contributor
It's mostly an opinion but TY, haha.
In short, many more cameras have become much better than they used to be...and pretty quickly over these last 2 years.
We are seeing greater improvements to the overall IQ (resolution - DR - colors), and even 4K 8-bit 4:2:0 is no longer a slouch in many of them.
Or at least not an immediate mental write off as it used to be because of the better and higher resolution sensors that are being used to create it.
In short, many more cameras have become much better than they used to be...and pretty quickly over these last 2 years.
We are seeing greater improvements to the overall IQ (resolution - DR - colors), and even 4K 8-bit 4:2:0 is no longer a slouch in many of them.
Or at least not an immediate mental write off as it used to be because of the better and higher resolution sensors that are being used to create it.
I’m going to be a touch contrarian here as I do think there’s quite a noticeable gap between CRL and XAVC on the C300mkIII.
To my eyes it’s very easy to spot when A/B ing footage. The CRL files are sharper and resolve more detail - textures in skin / hair are robust - the XAVC is s little mushy by comparison.
Now this is in the editor on a 4k monitor, once it’s been compressed and delivered you’ll lose a lot of that (as Chris alludes to). But there’s definitely a difference.
For me, the 405Mbps XAVC intra is the codec I don’t bother with, hard to differentiate it from the Long GOP 160Mbps XFAVC.
So I shoot RAW where best picture quality is warranted, or drop to the 160Mbps codec (which I do end up shooting for the majority of paid corporate work).
I bought a C70 as b cam (love it!) but would happily pay a couple of grand more for the same camera with CRL.
digitalinnovations
Well-known member
I've got to say, for the most part, I agree with you here - even more so with wishing the C70 had a CRL option. Now I don't have experience with the codecs on the C70 or C300 MkIII but I do have a pair of C500 MkII's and that is what I am basing my opinion off of.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I observe the same thing on my C200. The 160Mbps XF-AVC looks fine but the CRL has so much more detail and can be pushed really hard and it holds together.
Shout out to the 2K 10-bit 422 in the C70. Small files sizes, easy to edit, exact same color fidelity, and I can't really tell a difference from the 4K (unless I blow up the 4k 300% and the 2K 600% to focus on fine detail) https://youtu.be/vvcgInQva7A
chris f
Veteran
This is a very good point. In my testing so far I’ve had to zoom in two or 300% and then squint my eyes as hard as I can to maybe tell the difference between the AVC codecs.
cpreston
Veteran
I still use the C300MKII's, but I really, really wish Canon had added the longGOP 4K to them. It is such I waste of space to shoot 405 mbps just so you can have the 4K. Unfortunately, Canon dumped the 12bit 444 2K from the MKII's. None of my clients ever wanted it, but that 12bit 2K was some quality footage.
Ben_Ericson
Well-known member
It is much easier to see the difference on something like a landscape shot. Here are some quick tests I did. The 4K shots are usable even at 200 percent on a 4K timeline. The 1080 really falls apart when you punch in.
Tests were shot at F8 on a 35mm Leica R. - https://vimeo.com/502791238/8a4e733770
Last edited:
Yeah there's definitely a difference. It's just very hard to tell the way I usually shoot and edit.