FS7: Would You Buy A Canon C200

No. But this camera isnt aimed at me, so my opinion counts for little in the scheme of things. Id say there are a number of people that are ok with an 8 bit 4k workflow or those that want uncompressed all raw. Im in neither camp. Sometimes need raw, sometimes need 4k 10 bit. Im curious to see how the 8bit 422 will perform once added. IME you cant get away with the same things you could in 1080. But for those working purely in 1080 world, 4k 8bit put through a 10bit 1080 worlkflow should find it will nicely. 4:2:0 8 bit is another story, especially long gop. If I go back many years, i preferred the Canon xh a1 to the hvx200 and it worked great for me, thats if you discount the fact I had to rent an HVX every week so I gave up and got an HPX500.

I suspect in the "working world", the C200 may fall behind the C300 in that market. Just my thoughts based on my past experiences.
 
Panasonic just unveiled their new camera fs5 sized Super35, dual Native ISO, 4K 10bit 422 recording to SD cards V-Log, 120fps in 4K and 240 in 2K Varicam Color under 8K.
Thats how you do it when you want to win over customers. Canon can shove it. And its goodbye Sony in Fall.
 
Nirv said:
Out of interest, how is ProRes old, out dated and inefficient? Compared to what?
Click to expand...

Well compared to XAVC for a start.. yes its pretty long in the tooth wouldn't you say.. its data heavy compared to XAVC for the same quality.. was it not originally designed to used as a post codec only..?
 
Donny 123 said:
Well compared to XAVC for a start.. yes its pretty long in the tooth wouldn't you say.. its data heavy compared to XAVC for the same quality.. was it not originally designed to used as a post codec only..?
Click to expand...
I beg to differ, XAVC is just plain old H.264 wrapped in a new package.

Now H.264 and ProRes are pretty much based on the same technology, after all it is all DCT based.

So in all there is not much of a difference between them and roughly speaking with the same bitrates and inter/intra options you get similar results.
 
Cary Knoop said:
I beg to differ, XAVC is just plain old H.264 wrapped in a new package.

Now H.264 and ProRes are pretty much based on the same technology, after all it is all DCT based.

So in all there is not much of a difference between them and roughly speaking with the same bitrates and inter/intra options you get similar results.
Click to expand...

Yes but it uses more data.. its not very efficient .. Im not saying its rubbish and it has been an industry standard for a long time.. but now its seems chicken and egg time.. ..
And personally I wouldn't buy a camera that only recorded an old, data heavy codec.. if I had a 6 month shoot that insisted on it.. I would first say transcode it yourself.. or I would buy the prores board .. but a camera recording only prores.. I wouldn't.. new stuff is coming along..
 
Last edited:
Donny 123 said:
Yes but it uses more data.. its not very efficient .. Im not saying its rubbish and it has been an industry standard for a long time.. but now its seems chicken and egg time.. ..
And personally I wouldn't buy a camera that only recorded an old, data heavy codec.. if I had a 6 month shoot that insisted on it.. I would first say transcode it yourself.. or I would buy the prores board .. but a camera recording only prores.. I wouldn't.. new stuff is coming along..
Click to expand...

The problem is Donny patent hoarders hold very key patents on compression schemes which has effectively dried up progress on codecs. It's almost impossible to skirt preexisting patents to develop a new codec without paying one or many huge license fees.

I'm not sure what your beef is with ProRes, it's very similar to Avid's DNxHD (or whatever they call it now) it isn't inefficient it just makes different choices to H264 style codecs. It's also a high quality codec especially the 4444 version and it is incredibly popular in post production in not just the Mac world. On the Mac ProRes is incredibly well optimised and the APIs are very well multithreaded so it's easy to edit.

H265 is the new kid on the block but I don't know how well that edits and whether it's a dog on the timeline. It certainly offers 2x better quality than H264 at the same bitrate but if it's like treacle on the timeline I'd rather go with ProRes if I were a jobbing producer. I care less about files sizes than I used to given the cost of SSDs now.

XAVC is genius and difficult to argue against in the vast majority of situations.
 
Been thinking about this..

I would buy a C200.. to replace my black magic micro

would it also replace my FS7 - that is a long way from known and also reliant on a sensible mid level codec that may or may not appear.
 
Now that the C200 has been out for a while and taking into account the original topic...has anyone bought the C200 and did it replace another camera? If so, what?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top