Jump to content

LOL Canon... C200 Codec "Upgrade" details announced


EthanAlexander
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 8/28/2017 at 11:43 AM, mercer said:

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but...

 

Between this and the footage philip bloom and cinema5d shot (and more), I really don't see the appeal. Don't get me wrong: it looks good, highly detailed, but there's nothing I've seen that could justify the extra cost of media (both in recording and storage) and not having a second CFast slot to record to for a backup. 

Maybe it's the locations they're filming at. Or maybe it's just the talent behind the camera... I really just don't see why raw would benefit any of these shots over a solid, low compression 10 bit codec. 

Having said that, I'd gladly change my opinion if someone could post some footage that truly showed the latitude this afforded. I've seen plenty of ML raw vids that blew my mind but the C200 footage I've seen has been nothing short of underwhelming. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, EthanAlexander said:

Between this and the footage philip bloom and cinema5d shot (and more), I really don't see the appeal. Don't get me wrong: it looks good, highly detailed, but there's nothing I've seen that could justify the extra cost of media (both in recording and storage) and not having a second CFast slot to record to for a backup. 

Maybe it's the locations they're filming at. Or maybe it's just the talent behind the camera... I really just don't see why raw would benefit any of these shots over a solid, low compression 10 bit codec. 

Having said that, I'd gladly change my opinion if someone could post some footage that truly showed the latitude this afforded. I've seen plenty of ML raw vids that blew my mind but the C200 footage I've seen has been nothing short of underwhelming. 

To be brutally honest....Most camera reviewers and early adopters do a PISS poor job of filming good subject matter and showing off the strengths of the camera being evaluated.  They WASTE so much time blabbing about tech specs and and showing themselves on screen TALKING about features of the camera VS shooting something and SHOWING the features.  No one wants to watch 3 minutes of a talking head and 1 minute of sample clips.  Take for instance the C100...folks swear its merely a documentary camera.  Below are some test shots I took for a web series I'm working on with the C100MK2. Clog with light grade upscaled to 4k.  I'm betting the C200 looks even better.
 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Public opinion won't sway Canon. 
Look at the massively popular Magic Lantern, did that spur changes to the Canon DSLRs? Nope. 

The only thing ML did to Canon is change their firmware update policy to require the camera to be send authorized canon center to do the update... *cough* 5dmkiv

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Public opinion won't sway Canon. 
Look at the massively popular Magic Lantern, did that spur changes to the Canon DSLRs? Nope. 

The only thing that will sway them is our money. If people don't buy it that will have 1000x more impact than a petition.

But, you know this is going to sell well. *sigh*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

8bit 4:2:0 on the C200 is a shame, but I understood why it had to be crippled to protect the C300 II.

What I don't understand is why Canon feel they can fool people into believing their planned codec for 2018 is an 'upgrade'

Surely C200 users know the difference between H.264 8bit 4:2:0 in a MP4 wrapper and an MXF wrapper, with meta data.

I don't think you can really call that an upgraded coded. It is still H.264, 8bit, 4:2:0, isn't it!

So Canon initially had a chart where the mysterious new codec would record to CFast 2.0 cards... Then that all changed and it is only going to record to SD cards now.

I think Canon should come clean and tell C200 owners what the fuck just happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

8bit 4:2:0 on the C200 is a shame, but I understood why it had to be crippled to protect the C300 II.

What I don't understand is why Canon feel they can fool people into believing their planned codec for 2018 is an 'upgrade'

Surely C200 users know the difference between H.264 8bit 4:2:0 in a MP4 wrapper and an MXF wrapper, with meta data.

I don't think you can really call that an upgraded coded. It is still H.264, 8bit, 4:2:0, isn't it!

So Canon initially had a chart where the mysterious new codec would record to CFast 2.0 cards... Then that all changed and it is only going to record to SD cards now.

I think Canon should come clean and tell C200 owners what the fuck just happened.

For me it goes something like this... If Canon doesn't want the $7500 I was about to drop on this camera that's fine. I vote with my wallet. I'm hoping with GH5 with new codec will fill all the missing pieces. If not perhaps the EVA1... But honestly a second GH5 would be my preferred solution. When cameras are smaller and lighter, all the supporting hardware can also be smaller and lighter. That's a win, win to me ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm...I don't want to be a kill-joy for Canon haters and GH5 enthusiasts, but even the 8bit codec quality of the Canon C100 is not bad at all. It seems not much worse than the newer GH5 as seen here (very interesting blind test...):

...and now C-Log of the C100 vs V-Log of the GH5:

It seems, the "old" 8bit codec it's not bad at all...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Arikhan said:

It seems, the "old" 8bit codec it's not bad at all...

I don't have a problem with the codec itself, the problem I have is that Canon led (potential) buyers on. They teased a middle ground codec that isn't actually any better (just more metadata) and I find that unethical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This middle codec is a huge disappointment. Canon can pretend that this is an upgrade, but they don't fool anyone (maybe 1 out of 22!).

8bit 4:2:0 is too little, and raw is too much for most (and me).

It is good to have both, but I would be mostly interested on a better middle one, something broadcast quality, that even the JVC LS300 has.

The real winner here is Sony, FS5 is starting to showing its age, and A7 series is getting old as well, and most players have shown their cards already (GH5/EVA-5DmkIV/C200)

2018 can be the decisive year for Sony, with a couple of right moves I can see a lot of people turn to Sony for a full kit (A7sIII/FS5III, hopefully an a7000).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kisaha said:

The real winner here is Sony, FS5 is starting to showing its age, and A7 series is getting old as well, and most players have shown their cards already (GH5/EVA-5DmkIV/C200)

2018 can be the decisive year for Sony, with a couple of right moves I can see a lot of people turn to Sony for a full kit (A7sIII/FS5III, hopefully an a7000).

This year is definitely the year of Panasonic for sure, will be interested to see what Sony do for next year.

I already give Sony a go (spend nearly $20,000 on Sony gears in the last 2 years) and wont be coming back, will be sticking to Panasonic and Canon in foreseeable future, I definitely prefer user ability and experience which Sony is really not there yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Exactly, they said "middle" codec between 8bit 4:2:0 low bitrate H.264 and 10bit RAW.

Then they went back on it, but are still calling it a middle codec and an upgrade.

It's deceitful practice.

And where's @Mattias Burling chiming in about how Canon always delivers what they promise? Or works as advertised. But what if they'r using deceptive advert? Canon sucks. Canon canoned. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎8‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 4:33 AM, Oliver Daniel said:

Canon are very frustrating. Their feature choices between models are so trivial. So intricately, and purposefully strategised to the point of almost complete bafflement. 

The 1DX II doesn't have C-Log. The 5D IV does. 

The C300II has 10 bit 422, and crippled high frame rates. The C200 has RAW, has 4k60p and non-cropped 120fps. But doesn't have a 10bit codec. 

The XC10 has 422. The C200 doesn't. The C300 MK I does, which is 6 years old. 

You could go on forever. 

Canon should just combine the C200 and C300 II together and sell that. Now that would be a blockbuster! But they won't. 

At the end of the day, it is just cameras, with specs and buttons and other stuff. We're actually lucky to have so many options in order to tell good stories. 

But still.... ;) 

 

As I said before, it is determined by the encoder in the processor. The C200 has a new processor, which is different from that in the XC10. The encoder in it is probably optimized for consumer shooting, and is intended to be used in consumer P&S/DSLR models using the Digic 8 family. The processor in the XC10 is the earlier model which is in the Digic 7 family. As we all know, the thermal envelope for that encoder was such that it could not be used in DSLRs and P&S cameras for 4K. That is why DSLRs such as the 5D4 used MJPEG to do 4K in software. The Digic 8 family has been created to address a problem, namely the market share being lost to competition who can delivery 4K video in their products.

For some peculiar reason, Canon don't like losing market share in the consumer camera market to other manufacturers because of the lack of 4K video. I know, weird isn't it, but there it is. So they needed an encoder that was optimized and scaled back enough so that 4K could fit within the thermal envelope of a DSLR/P&S camera since the Digic 7 family can't do it without a fan. That will probably go into the Digic 8. A scaled down encoder that generates less heat, something that is achieved by cutting back on the codec specs. The Digic DV6 (which belongs to the same family as the Digic 8, and has the same encoder) has other goodies as well however. As the next gen DV processor it is also set up to produce RAW video, which the DV5 is not. So, because the C200 is intended to be a camera for shooting RAW, it gets the DV6 rather than the DV5. With the DV6 comes that consumer encoder built into the hardware as part of the new generation logic. So, if you are not shooting RAW, that is what you get. If you want a middle codec, then get the C300M2. But, from Canon's point of view, if you are buying a camera to shoot RAW, you probably don't give a rats ass about any codec the camera may or may not have. If you needed one of those codecs, well, there is a different camera that is more suited for your use. So, for them, the compromise was reasonable.

You can't do both in one camera, because the TWO PROCESSORS ARE SET UP DIFFERENTLY AND DO DIFFERENT THINGS. 

It is not some plot, Canon are not out to screw their customers. They are making compromises constrained by the technology available to them to deliver usable equipment for a variety of applications and customers. They can't do everything in one product, so they do parts of it in some products and other parts on other products. That is it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Members
6 hours ago, Jonesy Jones said:

And where's @Mattias Burling chiming in about how Canon always delivers what they promise? Or works as advertised. But what if they'r using deceptive advert? Canon sucks. Canon canoned. 

Sorry but I couldn't give two shits and a popsicle about this camera or all the whining about it. 

Imo all camera brands sucks about equal. Sony definitely sucks more equally than others though. Leica alot less.

But otherwise they are all just as bad. Or good depending on how much of a cynical ass one is :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...