Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Andrew Reid

Canon C200 vs Panasonic GH5, a preview

143 posts in this topic

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras

Well I, for one, will be using the raw codec almost exclusively on this camera. Thus I am not really concerned about what you perceive as this camera's biggest weakness.

Jaime Valles likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if the gh5 beats the c200 then it will also beat...  Well every single camera out there. True holy grail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, spinkscapes said:

Well I, for one, will be using the raw codec almost exclusively on this camera. Thus I am not really concerned about what you perceive as this camera's biggest weakness.

How are you going to store a year's worth of the original footage? I am genuinely intrigued.

4 minutes ago, hmcindie said:

So if the gh5 beats the c200 then it will also beat...  Well every single camera out there. True holy grail.

It's debatable... Neither are full frame!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone explain me a 10 bit workflow (software and hardware) for the GH5 and raw workflow for the C200?

I have the suspicion that most of us are unable to work with any of those, but I would like to know hardware (e.g video cards, monitors)/software/costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

Can someone explain me a 10 bit workflow (software and hardware) for the GH5 and raw workflow for the C200?

I have the suspicion that most of us are unable to work with any of those, but I would like to know hardware (e.g video cards, monitors)/software/costs.

GH5 workflow as follows -

ALL-I 400Mbit (forthcoming), edit natively like FS7 10bit

IPB 150Mbit (current 10bit 4K codec), transcode to ProRes in EditReady

C200 workflow -

Convert the RAW using the supplied Canon software.

You cannot edit the RAW files yet, not even in Resolve 14.

Eno likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

canon has more DR and less noise, no metabones needed. I don't trust Paasonic skin tones at all. Canons 150mbit/s is perfectly good for me. Canon is so much better, that's really no contest.

Kisaha likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure Canon would get more latitude at 10bit with their MP4 150mbps mode but cLog was designed, or calibrated, to work with 8bit footage, as we all know vLog needs the 10bit container to get rid of the nasties. 

PannySVHS and Jaime Valles like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Andrew Reid Thank you Andrew, I believe that until the release of the camera (you don't have to edit something that doesn't exist yet!) all major NLE will support the codec (it is Canon we are talking about, not some brand!).

can anyone please provide the specific hardware that needed for 10 bit workflows (video cards, monitors, etc). Don't we need specific video cards (BM, Aja, Quadro at least) and specific monitors (that cost thousand of euros, I mean a lot of thousands, not just 1 thousands!)? What else do we need? Are the requirements same for raw?

@Andrew Reid I do not like the new voting system. First of all it is very antagonistic, why do we have to down vote? It will increase hostilities into the forum I guess, and I can not see easily who is up voting/down voting. I strongly prefer the older system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

How are you going to store a year's worth of the original footage? I am genuinely intrigued.

I would love to have a workflow that allowed me to rotate a few c-fast cards while off loading raw footage to a hard drive RAID.  From there:  work on said footage via proxies in an NLE, finalize my edit, color-grade those relevant raw files, and then media manage to save ONLY the final cut source footage.

Storing the remaining 30-60-90 minutes of RAW is demanding, but not too overwhelming, right?

However, my big RAW gripe, unless I'm grossly mis-informed and things have shifted in the past year or so, is that the typical RAW work flow seems to put a lot of file color processing before the actual editing. If so, I really can't work effectively that way.  I mean, I could, but not in a practical manner.  --Not with doc style shooting where I need to track just about every second that's shot.

Anyway, RAW is neat-o in theory, but seems to need a lot of people to make it viable for a heavy-lifting-fast-paced sort of production.  And, yes, many boutique biz'nesses in low end productions aren't going to mess with it often because of the extra work involved.

There's always gonna be folks that do wonderfully pretty things with RAW and then post them on vimeo for all of us to drool over how great it looks, but those folks are the outliers.  I mean, for instance, you're not going to see any of my low-end-real-estate videos shot on RAW, but those productions are what allows me to buy this stuff to begin with.

For my world, I can see the reasoning why comparing the 8-bit to the 8-bit is justified.  Not just for this particular scenario, but for all cameras.

Kisaha likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use ursa mini 4.6k for a couple of months now and 99 percent i shot raw 3:1 and 4:1. I use Cfast to sata breakout cable and record straight to couple of 500GB samsung 850evo SSDs without ANY problem. I dont understand crying about 15min on 128GB card - it is the same like on UM46K - 60min on 500GB. I have 4 SSDs, when i record in 2,4:1 aspect it gives 80min (25fps) /500GB so 320 minutes on four. SSDs are cheap. I also work straight from SSDs in resolve which is very convinient, no data copying. Adding 4 SSDs more and you have 10 hours worth of cards, should be plenty for a day shoot. For storing i can render very nice ProRes HQ BMDfilm version out of raw easily and fast. I only wonder if there will be possibility to open CFast door (to put Cfast breakout cable) in the C200 and still have camera working (5d swithces off when card doors are opened - which of course would be very bad).

Everybody are waiting for GH5 400mbit codec - wait a minute, couple months ago people cried about 500mbit mjpeg codec from canon. It was sooooo ineficient, so hard to store etc. And now 400mbit is holy grail...

myJTP likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This comparison will be mute once Canon add the XF-AVC codec, which will likely be 10-bit. The idea of comparing the C200 to a hybrid DSLR is a bit silly. Where are the XLRs, Timecode, SDI outputs etc, on the GH5? I think this person put across the differences of working with a dedicated video camera vs a DSLR hybrid best. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DBounce said:

The idea of comparing the C200 to a hybrid DSLR is a bit silly. Where are the XLRs, Timecode, SDI outputs etc, on the GH5? I think this person put across the differences of working with a dedicated video camera vs a DSLR hybrid best.

Nobody complains when we compare the FS5 to an A7R II. People need to know what extra they are getting for their money.

Sure the market is a bit different and form factor different but there's overlap... You can't tell me not a single pro is using an A7R II or GH5, can you?

By that same token, not every pro videography or wedding guy is using the SDI on their C200, whose biggest selling point to many people is the lack of need to rig extras onto it like external recorders and monitors via SDI. Not every pro is using timecode to sync footage between 5 other cameras on a shoot and not every C200 user will even be using the XLRs, some will strip it down to the bare bones and put it on a gimbal, with sound done like it has always been done in the film days - a separate job for another man.

So shut up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@fuzzynormal you can process the color from the outset, but you don't have to. For CDNGs, once you bring the Raw files into Resolve, the only real necessity is to turn them into ProRes, unless you only use Resolve from ingest to export. 

It's probably smart to also fix your WB, if needed, before rendering as ProRes.

 Then open the ProRes files in your NLE, edit and color as you like. If you want more latitude you can send the project back to Resolve for color and then send it back to your NLE for delivery.

I usually just use the ProRes files in my NLE for edit, color and delivery and never go back to Resolve.

Some people use different Log profiles. For the 5D3 I use an app called MLRawViewer or a newer one called Footage that I can turn the MLV files directly into ProRes files as C-Log, sLog, Log C, etc. I highly doubt they are the exact curves but Log to Rec709 LUTS work well with them. It's a fairly simple process but it is time consuming. There are other processes that make ML even faster (MLVFS) With BlackMagic you can just ingest, edit, color, title, deliver using the native CDNGs.

With the C200, it seems like it will be possible to edit natively but either way it will be a lot simpler with the proxy workflow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canon raw lite is not Cinema DNG though.

At the moment you have no choice but to turn it into some form of LOG before grading the compressed files instead of the RAW.

So it is not really RAW, just a fiddly way of getting 10bit ProRes out of the camera.

Saskamodie Jones likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kisaha said:

@Andrew Reid I do not like the new voting system. First of all it is very antagonistic, why do we have to down vote? It will increase hostilities into the forum I guess, and I can not see easily who is up voting/down voting. I strongly prefer the older system.

@Kisaha, @Andrew Reid, I second that. Doesn´t feel like good vibes!

DBounce and Kisaha like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Canon raw lite is not Cinema DNG though.

At the moment you have no choice but to turn it into some form of LOG before grading the compressed files instead of the RAW.

So it is not really RAW, just a fiddly way of getting 10bit ProRes out of the camera.

Compressed Raw is still Raw. 12bit 24fps is still 12bit 24fps even if transcoded to ProRes 4444.

And I was just addressing his previous post about Raw workflow in general. Since CDNG is more known at this point, I used that as an example. 

Btw @Andrew Reid have you had a chance to test the 3K Raw from the 5D3? If so, thoughts?

Sorry for OT. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0