Michael Steiner

No no, you got it all wrong. This video is kept in log by purpose so Mr. Trump can for once have natural looking skin tones too. Several highly skilled colorists worked very hard for a very long time to come up with this solution...

I'd assume yes. But you have the "real" Canon C-Log on the EOS R anyway...

This is what a Screenshot of your Grab with the lut BT709_CanonLog-toBT709_WidDR_33_FN_Ver.1.1 looks like in FCPX. Not great, but neither blown out. And it's just a screen grab from a screen grab... So I assume the lut should look better on the original video. You find it in the official lut-package from the C200 support page (i assume it's the same in other cameras support pages?): folder path: 3dlut -> 33grid-3dlut -> full-to-narrow-range That specific lut is attached... I tried a 2020-to-709 lut too and it gives the blown out highlights. So maybe your premiere project thinks your original media is in 2020 color space if this happens with a 709to709 lut? I'm not too familiar with the Adobe suite so can't help you with how to possibly fix that... BT709_CanonLog-to-BT709_WideDR_33_FN_Ver.1.1.cube

Maybe you took the Canon Log2-LUT by mistake? For Canon Log1 or Log3 I normally use the Log to WideDR LUTs, either: - BT709_CanonLog-to-BT709_WideDR_33_FF_Ver.1.1.cube or - BT709_CanonLog3-to-BT709_WideDR_33_FF_Ver.1.1.cube If one of those blows your Highlights maybe it's a setting in Premiere (wrong Colorspace or something like that) that causes you issues...?

@Mokara tell me again it's not the resolution. or... please don't. agree to disagree or whatever. @EthanAlexander Thank you Mr. Alexander for perfectly summarizing my point!

But look at the difference between the Pocket and the EOS R. Is that all corrected by the Cam? Or in post? I cant remember seeing that much CA on my older Cameras (but they were HD only). These days I find the 11-16 almost unusable when shooting against a light source...

So what is wrong with the Tokina 11-16 on the EOS R? That CA is terrible. Just like mine on my M50. I thought it must have been damaged somehow without noticing. But now seeing you have similar results with your EOS R while the Pocket looks fine, I wonder if this could be camera related...

It shouldn‘t be so difficult to understand this: I am talking about the SIZE of the crop all the time. Scroll back and read again. And my point still stands: the SIZE of the crop IS determined by the sensors total resolution. What you are doing is talking about WHY there is a crop at all. Maybe we can at least agree that we aren‘t talking about the same thing?

Ah ok, didn't know that. I thought that when you have to reprocess the sensor data in any way you couldn't store it in raw anymore... Thanks.

What oversampling? We are talking about the dam crop on the eos r and 1dx2. do you even read what i write or just stop after half a sentence?

I'm very proud of myself. But it has to be a crop for raw recording right? isn't 4k raw on a 24-28mp sensor only doable through sensor cropping?

Are we talking about the same cameras? eos r and eos 1dx2? The math is easy: for eos r: 36 / 6720 * 3840 = 20.6 -> 36 / 20.6 = 1.75 for eos 1dx: 36 / 5472 * 4096 = 27 -> 36 / 27 = 1.33

The size of the crop with this cameras is determined by the sensors resolution. 8mp crop from 20mp sensor is a smaller crop than 8mp crop from 30mp sensor. That‘s just mathematics...

Hey, thanks for pointing to that french article. Interestingly they not only write of cropless recording but also of a 24mp sensor instead of 28mp. Either the Canon rep in france was more happy to talk than others or they mixed rumours with facts. Anyway, let‘s hope you are right and Canon managed to overcome the limitations forcing them to crop.

From my understanding the crop on this cameras is determined by the sensors total resolution.. That's why there's a 1.8 crop on the 31mp EOS R and a 1.3 crop on the 20mp 1DX II. Isn't it? So if the rumors are true that the 1DX III will have a 28mp sensor and Videos are still recorded from a 4K "cut out" of that sensor, the crop will be bigger than on the 1DX II... But only if there still is no full sensor read out of course...

I thought you were joking but it‘s true. No 30p in UHD on the M200 but indeed 24p and (at least on european model) 25p. Crazy

While this is true for every sensor that does not oversample, so far I have never experienced much aliasing in the C200 image and I'd assume there's no sharpening at all done in camera. At least the XF-AVC files are in no way sharper than the RAW files, quite contrary... But anyway, I don't deny the oversampled HD of the C100 looks great and that this principle is valid for higher resolutions too. But regardless of that, for me the C200 still has a nice image straight out of camera ?

from the cinema5d-video it seems at least 25p will also be possible just not 30p and higher (but it's 8bit not 12bit)...

I so hope this camera will come out as good as it sounds. In the Cinema5D-Interview the Sigma-CEO said they still plan a 2019 release. And since Mr. Smith said they're interested in our feedback: please please please don't wait to long to implement a Log-format for those shoots where the mov-format is sufficient. And please don't limit recordings to 30min. (if the battery even holds that long in this little beast).

Hey ghostwind While I don't agree with your statement that the C200 doesn't do 4k very well at all (opinions vary and that's ok), I sincerely hope you'll enjoy shooting with the C100. It's a fine little Cine-Camera and been my workhorse for years. Have never regretted the investment. And it seems you have weighted your pros and cons carefully. Happy shooting!

Hey Ghostwind A bit late to the discussion but I owned a C100 Mark 1 for five years and replaced it with a C200 about a year ago. From my POV some additional factors worth considering: - If you spend several thousand bucks on a Camera for professional use in 2019 I'd consider 4k mandatory. If you plan to use this Camera for several years to come, not having 4k will eventually become a disadvantage. And it brings benefits for HD delivery too. If 4k slows you down in post now you'll soon need better hardware and/or software anyway. - I get the impression Audio is a crucial factor for what you do. It is so much better in the C200. Once you have a Microphone and Audio-Reciever on your C100 it gets front-heavy because the XLRs are on the handle. C200 also has 4 channel recording so you can have lower leveled backup tracks of your XLR-feeds in case audio clips for some reason. Having audio controls on the back and not on the handle is a big advantage in fast shooting scenarios too. - The C200s touch to focus can be very helpful for documentary work, I'd assume for sports too but have no experience in that field. Compared to the C100 the monitor is way more flexible and can be mounted to different points. For longer handheld shoots I found the position of the C100-monitor annoying and too close to your chest. It forces you to hold the camera further away which makes it heavier. - RAW might be a hassle now but I'd expect it to only get easier and less expensive to handle in the years to come. Having the possibility to record RAW might give your camera a longer lifespan. No doubt the C200 will also have a better resell value in the years to come so from my POV is a better professional investment in 2019. - Are you sure you want to rely on an external recorder for all of your shoots? From my experience they are pain in the ass to work with on one man shoots. It takes longer to rig the camera up and they somehow constantly need to be repositioned. Plus you need more batteries, cables, cards... - In general I find the C200 is more thought-out and easier to use in uncontrolled shooting scenarios that require fast reactions. Just some additional food for thought... Cheers

I think if you choose the second latest xml-version there should be no compatibility issues. I’d assume the option to export in older xml-versions is there for that scenario you have to manage now. I hope it works out well..

You could just export the whole library as xml but might have to choose the xml-version 1.7 instead of 1.8 (or 1.6 instead of 1.7) in the export window. I dont know why you‘d need to edit anything in textedit. Or am I missing something?

- Battery Life - ND-Filters - 4 Channel Audio-Recording - 3 Audio-Inputs - DPAF - Service-Centers all around the World - (maybe) Reliability Of course this does not affect every user the same way, but for some – like me – this things matter...

I tended to be benevolent to Canon because I still think they have great lenses and IQ, great Cinema-Cameras and great Customer Services. But this release is just very disappointing for anybody that isn't solely interested in stills... And the lack of 24p for me isn't even the major letdown. I find the 30 minute recording cap and the lack of C-Log (or any other Picture Profile for filmmakers) even more frustrating. For what I need, Canon doesn't even have an alternative that earns them more money. Maybe I'm an exception, but I have lots of EF-S glass and no intention to go Fullframe anytime soon. I'd love to replace my M50 as a B-Cam to the C200 with something that has better battery life, doesn't have the need to press stopp and start every 30 minutes and doesn't turn an 18mm lens into a 50mm lens when shooting UHD. I was sure the 90D would be that replacement, but they messed it. Disappointing, just very disappointing...