Jump to content

C200 - some thoughts


hmcindie
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Super Members

Im not really on board this lust for a middle codec. And I never really got it either. On a bmpcc I shoot raw or proxy. Lightest or the best. No in between or half ass.

Imagine talking to a client. 

"So Mr Penisburg, do you want the best of the best? Or do you want to prioritize time and money? Or do you want something kinda expensive and I guess decent quality that won't take that long but not exactly fast either?"

The C100 is still good enough for anything I ever get involved with (TV, webb, jumbotrons). So I could definitely live without some "mellanmjölk" codec :)

Remember how we used to joke about Canon actually making a great camera and forums still finding flaws. You know how many cameras today have everything we asked for two years ago and we promised that would be "it". All happy. But we then turn every single rock in search of something to be unhappy about. 

I of course expected it to happen when I posted the first thread about the c200. But I didn't in my wildest dreams expect it to be such weird and odd request as a "middle" codec. I was literally speechless :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The need for a middle 10 bit codec is true. There are clients that ask for a relatively fast turn around and 10 bit files. Canon Raw is good for video clips or specific small-ish projects, and the lighter codec good for most, but there is a valid need in the market for 10 bit files - latest TV shows I worked for were shot in GH5 for that specific reason. That is why Panasonic has sold a lot of cameras in the industry. Cheapest 10 bit camera around.

I am not sure if GH5 created that need, or the need for more robust workflows created the GH5, but the lack of that middle codec is making me NOT to buy a C200. I would rather prefere that "middle" codec than RAW, to be honest, or a much cheaper C100mkIII with the touch screen and touch AF and the basic codecs, and some kind of slow mo, that would be my workhorse for the next decade. 

Canon C100mkII is one of my favorite cameras ever made, I did so many things with it, but it is getting old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the bottom codec is an 8-bit codec that admittedly looks great, but by it's very nature is going to struggle under heavy creative grading, and the top codec is a RAW workflow that is gorgeous, but slow and cumbersome, then yes, you need a middle codec for robust 10-bit goodness, when speed and creative flexibility are both of the essence.

I happen to take mellanmjölk with my cereal too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quality wize, the 10 bit issue is more a spec concern then a real one. The 8 bit is extremely good to be 8 bit. You get a slightly sharper image with the RAW Light and of course you can drag the colour wheels all a round and it would not fall apart in RAW and 15 stops of DR. 

You can now edit with colour grading and e.g. stabilisation in full 4k on both Resolve and FCPX with no hiccups on an iMac Pro. On FCPX, if you create proxies from the master files, the edit is completely smooth (e.g. laptop). You read speed for files with USB-3 400-500MBs (CFAST), so speed is not really a issue. Of course you have to live with files sizes which are more or less the same as ProRes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Members

If I need to grade so much that Canon 8-bit clog doesn't hold up, then I need raw. 10bit mid codec wouldn't save me.

In my experience 8-bit from Canon can be pushed alot and looks gorgeous. 

I totally respect that people want a mid codec. Im not judging. Im just saying that for me personally it would never ever be needed and Im glad Canon did what they did. Hopefully they will do the same in more cameras so if I end up buying it one day, I won't have to pay extra for some prores license.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is from Newshooter. Review of the C200.

"The Cinema RAW Light files can only be recorded in 4KDCI and not in UHD, 2KDCI or HD resolutions. A 128GB CFast2.0 card which costs around $350 US will only allow you to record 15 minutes of material. If you want to do extended takes or record all of your material in RAW then you are going to need a lot of CFast2.0 cards– that’s going to cost you a significant amount of money. You also need to take into account the data storage you will need and how long it will take to process and deal with the RAW files."

Two problems I see.

First:

There is Only one CFast slot. That means every 15 minutes, or if you can afford a 256gb one, every half hour you HAVE to stop and change a card. They needed 2 CFast slots on it.

Second:

The BBC has their minimum requirement of 50Mbps for content with them. The lower Codec is 35 Mbps (1920 x 1080).

On paper you can't even shoot a Documentary with this camera and satisfy the BBC. So if you are a run and gun guy, Doc shooter, a Interview person you are either stopping every damn 15 minutes, or shooting in a Codec that you can't use at a broadcast standard. That is the Damn problem with no Middle Codec.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C’mon, if the media is too expensive, then this camera is definitely not right for your production. But if you’re making a serious short film, with a budget, then another grand for Cfast 2 cards shouldn’t be a concern... I mean seriously... who is going to spend $7500 for a camera that shoots 4K Raw up to 60p and then complain about the cost of the media and want to shoot 8bit?!?!

But the real hilarious part of this argument is that the people complaining about the cost of media to shoot Raw 4K on the C200 are fine shelling out comparable costs for the V90 cards to shoot h.264 on the GH5.

If you want a serious camera, you have to pay serious money and if you don’t, then there are plenty of amazing options in the sub $3000 consumer category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YOU HAVE TO STOP EVERY 15 MINUTES Glenn. What the hell good is that for the average shooter that will buy this camera?? Hollywood is Not going to buy this camera. They buy Arri's.

Come up with a better Codec or put 2 damn CFast slots in the damn thing that switch .

And don't give me there was not enough room for another slot. CFast card and CF card are just about same o same o. Plenty of Canon cameras with 2 CF slots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course that varies among industries and uses, but the point I made was that - some - TV stations here ask for 10 bit delivery, it isn't about what I like, or what I prefer to do. Even for a short film you need someone to upload the footage somewhere, so you need another person at least on set, and somewhere to set shop, which isn't the most convenient when you shoot externals on a low budget short. We are going to shoot one in spring time, and we maybe use the C200.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@webrunner5 So what, get a bigger card and stop every half hour. Or multiple cards and stop to change a card. I don’t think production ends for the day for a card change.

And yes if you are shooting a run and gun documentary, it’s probably not the right camera and probably wasn’t designed for you. Get a C300ii or a C100ii or an EVA1 or shoot in the 8bit variant... or buy the C200B and buy an external SDI recorder to capture downscaled 2K from the Raw at 10bit.

But sorry, I don’t think BBC standards should be a concern for 99% of the shooters on this forum.

I mean, if you want to drive on the Autobahn, then don’t buy a Ford Fiesta.

Or in converse, if you want great gas mileage, don’t buy a Lamborghini. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You act like everyone here lives in Ohio LoL. I bet half the people on here are from oversee's. Lot in England. BBC does make a shit to them.

It still doesn't matter. This is 2017, 2018, 10 bit is IT. If they were ballsy enough to put Raw in this thing whey the hell not a 10 bit 1080p, why? You know the processor is robust enough. Grading 8 bit stuff doesn't cut it on a 7 thousand dollar camera in 2018.

If they even had a 8 bit 50Mbps middle codec it would work. They would sell the shit out of them. God damn, Canon is just stupid as hell on some stuff. They ought to just go out of business. They do the least they can get by with as of late, not the best they can do. The 5D mk IV, 6D mk II is a great example of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

I guess you can hang a external Recorder off of it. But Why do you Have to do that in this day and age? Canon is just being Canon on this thing, admit it. I hope like hell they surprise us, maybe they will think like Panny for once.

It’s not “Canon being Canon,” it every manufacturer being every manufacturer. It’s the same reasons the GH5s doesn’t have IBIS, they’ve just decided to protect a lower model than a higher model. Business is business and every corporation in the world does the same exact things.

The beauty is we have choices. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh come on you don't really believe that is the reason for no IBIS on it. Read the articles. DP's didn't Want IBIS, they listened, not to protect the GH5.

GH5 is a flop anyways, Jon is the only one that even bought one, and only for HDR. :astonished:

Glenn you are just a Canon lover admit it. Warts and all. :grin:

Here you are shooting a 5D mk III for Raw that Canon could have given you when it first came out.

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...