Originally Posted by Barry Goyette (Post 1933019)

It is a little troubling that Canon has introduced yet another camera in which the discussion has trailed off into debate about 1980's Aussie Enviro Pop. :-)

Just wanted to share my experiences with the C200 at Cinegear, some of which I've mentioned elsewhere.

The footage from "Dock to Dusk", (CH, I'm looking at you) projected on the giant screen at the Paramount theater was stellar in most respects, especially in shots that tested the cameras low light and high dynamic range capabilities. The footage was delicate, detailed and silky clean in the before dawn dock shots, and the underground fish delivery shot (an unplanned shot they grabbed on the spot). The HDR shots of the backlit fishermen as the sun began breaking through the fog were elegantly jaw dropping in their simplicity (the only fish they saw that day were the ones you see in the film, so they had one shot at getting that exposure and the way it rendered on screen was simply beautiful.) I think anyone experienced with the C300markII or C700 would be pleasantly unsurprised at what this camera can do. Seeing this presentation back to back with Varicam footage in the same theatre, I thought the C200 more than held its own. The quality that this camera is capable of, for the price it's being offered, is unprecedented.

Back at the booth, there were few surprises about the camera itself. The touch screen was responsive and you could orient the screen in almost any fashion imaginable--including vertically (as they've wired the monitor externally, most of the "joints" rotate 360º with no stops). You can remove the screen from the mount completely and it has 1/4 mount points on it so you can put it anywhere in your rig--assuming canon makes a longer cable (I think they already do). Otherwise it feels like a slightly smaller, denser C300MarkII, with a handle that now comes off without tools (sort of). The mic/monitor mount regains some of the fiddleyness of the XL series for those of you old enough to remember.

Talked to Tim Smith (Canon's Pro Market Manager) about Cinema Raw Light. He confirmed that they hope FCPx and Resolve will support Cinema Raw Light by the time they are shipping, and that the CRM files will drop "natively" into FCP, with background debayering similar to the current "optimization" process that FCP currently does with XF-AVC (he said they are working with Adobe, but that he was less sure about when they would implement it). Everyone seemed to put emphasis on Canon's raw software, which I've never used before, but seems like a well designed, professional interface. Got a chance to process some files in a prototype version of the new Cinema Raw Development program. Running on an iMac, the files were converting faster than real time. Export options are somewhat limited to ProRes 4444, Open EXR and a few other high end formats. I think Canon opening up that list to a few less data intensive formats would be a nice addition.

I understand that many folks are upset about the lack of standard codecs in the package. I do think canon sees this camera as a bit of a game changer in that they've packaged up RAW in a way that it can be used in a functionally similar way to their existing formats, using off the shelf cards and standard software to prep for editing in a way that doesn't seem foreign to the average user. Certainly the data wrangling requirements are going to be a step up from the existing camera (in 4k -- 410mbps vs 1000mbps), but we get a lot of flexibility in post with that, the ability of choosing gamma, color space, white balance, exposure, and tint after the fact is incredibly attractive.

I think this camera is about attracting that younger user that Red is starting to abandon as its cameras head into the stratosphere. I think it's about Canon grabbing those Ursa Mini customers by the collar and saying...take a look at what a real camera can do. Frankly, as an old guy who doesn't like to work that hard, I find this camera way more compelling than what Mitch and Panasonic showed off in the theatre an hour before Canon debuted the C200 and it's footage on the big screen. This is the first time RAW video has been made to seem less exotic and less painful to me. (I think Cinema Raw Light could be the next DPAF for Canon -- with this technology getting ported to almost any future system including DSLRs as it relies less on processor power and more on bandwidth).

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper (Post 1933059)

Is it me or does all the footage from all the new cameras basically look the same?

Originally Posted by Cliff Totten (Post 1933061)

So now I'm hearing that the C200 has crippled it's HDMI to output 8bit only AND they have blocked all LOG output over HDMI???

I cannot and will not believe this. Who does that to a camera? There is no other camera on Planet Earth that shoots LOG and does NOT output that over HDMI and the C200 is NOT the first to do so!!

No way,...can somebody PLEASE confirm that the HDMI out has "NOT" been crippled to 8 bit and that LOG "IS" output over HDMI??

This has to be fake news put out by Canon haters.

CT

Originally Posted by Barry Goyette (Post 1933081)

and that the rumor spread by news shooter regarding 8 bit xf-avc is at least temporarily false...(see post production brief above).

Originally Posted by Gary Huff (Post 1933082)

So what, exactly is temporarily false?

Originally Posted by Cliff Totten (Post 1933093)

I'm sure there are plenty of people that are fine with 15min raw data files on small and really expensive CFast cards.

Originally Posted by Cliff Totten (Post 1933093)

Not everybody cares about 10bit HDMI or log, or grading or dynamic range. I'm sure there are plenty of people that are fine with 15min raw data files on small and really expensive CFast cards.

....do the pros that buy the C200's actually care about these things? Because the C200 deliberately makes it very very hard to get 10bit bit video for color grading. They only give you one crazy way.

Just cant believe it...

Originally Posted by Barry Goyette (Post 1933110)

For that, we get 12bit video for grading. Do the Pro's care about these things? This pro does. I'll take 12bit over 10 bit any day, and my current C300II only does that in HD/2k. To do it in 4k, in a camera that is half the price I paid for the C300II, is...priceless.

Originally Posted by Barry Goyette (Post 1933110)

I don't know about you, but my workflow involves ingesting XF-AVC files into Final Cut Pro, which "optimizes" (in the background) those files into whatever flavor of ProRes I prefer for editing. Canon's "crazy" method involves you ingesting the CRM file into FCPX, which then optimizes that file into ProRes (in the background).

We don't know the details yet, but several people from Canon have told me that the goal is to make RAW as simple as any other file.

For that, we get 12bit video for grading. Do the Pro's care about these things? This pro does. I'll take 12bit over 10 bit any day, and my current C300II only does that in HD/2k. To do it in 4k, in a camera that is half the price I paid for the C300II, is...priceless.

I certainly get your desire for a better recording option, although personally, I prefer the internal options. To be strapped down to a recorder for handheld, stripped down work isn't my cup of tea, and a recorder capable of recording 4kp60 in 444 isn't cheap, nor is the media. -- so investing in Cfast (or a DIT) isn't exactly the end of the world. Doing it in 422 is more economical (and this camera will do 10 bit in HD over SDI) but still costs and weighs something. I bought into the "cinema eos" system because of the card based workflow that was compact, and familiar to me as a photographer. This camera extends that legacy into the RAW workflow. As others have said, there was a time when RAW for stills was considered onerous and even professionals often chose 'jpeg' because it was easier to use. Today that paradigm has completely shifted. Canon Raw Light is a step away from your dirty old 10-bit codec. :-)

Again, you can see by the inclusion of only 1 Cfast slot (the main deficiency of this Cam IMHO), that this camera is really a 4kp60 version of the C100 (an 8bit camera). It's priced accordingly. The addition of RAW internal is really a bonus. If you want a 10 bit camera, either wait to see if the other shoe drops in 2018, or buy a C300II, or wait for the C300III. (interesting, considering the naming, we may be looking at a C400 instead?)

Originally Posted by Gary Huff (Post 1933108)

SDXC cards with enough bandwidth needed to record Intraframe compressed 4K are $100 cheaper than CFast cards. Red MiniMags are $500 more.

In my opinion, not "really" expensive.

Originally Posted by Cliff Totten (Post 1933119)

Is the C200 the only log capable camera on Earth to ever actually block log out of its HDMI? Who else does that?

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett (Post 1933126)

What are those new SDXC cards called Gary, are those UHS II or III or ? Are they out yet?

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett (Post 1933127)

What's your source that verified this is fact? I can't find it.

Originally Posted by Cliff Totten (Post 1933129)

Did I say this is a "fact"? As a matter of fact, I phrased this as a "question" and not a statement at all. I even ended the questions with question marks.

"Is the C200 the only log capable camera on Earth to ever actually block log out of its HDMI? Who else does that?"

My question still stands. Does anybody know or heard of any log capable camera that blocks it's log gamma output over it's HDMI port? I know of none myself. Even Sony little, tiny cheap consumer RX cameras output SLOG over their micro HDMI ports.

It seems that Canon wants to lock you inside the camera and block your attempts at leaving their internal limitations with a high quality ProRes recording.....dirty-style.

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett (Post 1933130)

But that's my point, if we don't know that your assertion is a fact, quoted by Canon, it means nothing, it doesn't mean Canon wants to "lock you inside the camera" until we know that's how the camera's HDMI output performs.

Originally Posted by Barry Goyette (Post 1933132)

Alex from Canon talks about the HDMI not outputting LOG.

Originally Posted by Gary Huff (Post 1933135)

I heard there were "filmmakers" there helping at the Canon booth to field questions. I don't know if "Alex from Canon" is an actual Canon rep or one of those "filmmakers". He could have misspoke and meant Raw, not Log.

In order for there not to be a Log signal coming out of HDMI, Canon would have to be forcing a LUT on it on the outbound signal, for both Clog and Clog3. Frankly, it makes no sense for them to force that on a Clog1 or 3 signal.

Originally Posted by Barry Goyette (Post 1933146)

Edit: Alex Sax is a Pro Market Specialist for Canon USA.

Originally Posted by Cliff Totten (Post 1933151)

IBC will happen in the fall, just as Panasonic's amazingly spec'd EVA1 hits the streets.

Originally Posted by Gary Huff (Post 1933152)

Alex Sax is a Pro Market Rep for Canon (according to his Twitter profile), not a Specialist. The Specialist are the actual reps, all the ones I know have that title. A Rep could be just a person who shows up for random events who doesn't actually work for Canon specifically except as a freelance marketing person. I guarantee you he misspoke and meant raw.



That's really stretching the idea.The camera probably shoots Clog2 in the Cine Raw Lite format only because that's the only way the camera gets rated at 15 stops. Clog1 is around 12 and Clog3 is 13.5-ish. I assume that Clog2 is what gamma curve is applied to the raw signal. However, comparing the Clog1/3 gamma curve tweaks to forcing a LUT is really missing the point. It's all done at the point of signal origination (which is why buying a profile pack for any camera that does not ship with a native Log curve is flushing your money down the toilet).

Originally Posted by Barry Goyette (Post 1933155)

FWIW, Alex's instagram, Facebook and Canon's website list him as a Pro Market Specialist.

Originally Posted by Gary Huff (Post 1933152)

The camera probably shoots Clog2 in the Cine Raw Lite format....

Originally Posted by Gary Huff (Post 1933159)

And I never said that.

No, Log is a part of the gamma curved applied during the debayer process.

No, Canon Raw is in Clog2. You cannot output raw of the C300 Mark II unless you have Clog2 as the setting. It won't let you otherwise...../ /.....I guarantee you the same is true for the C200 as well (only with Clog3).

Originally Posted by Barry Goyette (Post 1933169)

Based on the workflows Canon published for the C300 mark II. The conversion to log gamma occurs at the end of the image processing chain, after debayering and conversion to 14 bit linear components.

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett (Post 1933185)

"There is HDMI and SDI out and, contrary to some rumours out there, I can confirm that both of them output your Canon Log signal. You can also apply LUTs to individual outputs."

Originally Posted by Gary Huff (Post 1933187)

Thanks for the detective work, Dan. It made no sense to me at all that it wouldn't be possible.