60p isn't slow motion either until it's played back at a different speed. You can watch 60p video all day long played back at 60 frames a second and it won't be slow motion.

True true true...

Looks like Zacuto have all their add ons already covered/tuned for the C100.


If Canon had put a proper EVF on the C100, instead of that ridiculously small .24" peephole, Zacuto wouldn't have needed to build anything.

If Canon had put a proper EVF on the C100, instead of that ridiculously small .24" peephole, Zacuto wouldn't have needed to build anything.

Very true!

Although I normally prefer a shoulder mount, I think the C100 is small enough to pull off this style of design, just a shame they deliberately crippled it with a small EVF and consumer codec when the far cheaper XF100 has 50Mbps 4:2:2.

Clearly they are protecting the C300 but makes you wonder what the difference in production cost is between a C100 and C300. It makes the C300 price hike seem very steep.

Very true!

Although I normally prefer a shoulder mount, I think the C100 is small enough to pull off this style of design, just a shame they deliberately crippled it with a small EVF and consumer codec when the far cheaper XF100 has 50Mbps 4:2:2.The EVF & screen look very like the ones on the XF100 & the EVF on that is pretty useless. In fact I just looked up the specifications & while they are identical in size 0.24" EVF & 3.5" screen the EVF on the C100 does have a higher resolution at 960x540 versus 640x480 on the XF100.

The EVF & screen look very like the ones on the XF100 & the EVF on that is pretty useless.

I agree, have an XF100 as a little C cam and although I like it, the EVF is one of the weakest aspects. Hopefully the C100's is significantly better.

In the Zacuto video they say that the EVF is not positioned properly so it will require a Z Finder viewing tube on the LCD.

Will shorty post before and after grading samples from the Demo video, and show how they delibrately crippled the C100 DR to make it look like a DSLR since their perceived market is DSLR upgrades.

Can you elaborate on this Dynamic Range issue?

In the Zacuto video they say that the EVF is not positioned properly so it will require a Z Finder viewing tube on the LCD.

Perhaps, but they are trying to shift their own products after all.

Will shorty post before and after grading samples from the Demo video, and show how they delibrately crippled the C100 DR to make it look like a DSLR since their perceived market is DSLR upgrades.

Yes, please do elaborate. The C100 manual shows exactly the same curves / DR range at each ISO setting as the C300 manual.

Just a quick update for those of us in the UK awaiting the C100.

I had an email from CVP yesterday that basically stated they still have no idea when Canon will ship the C100 to them (I have my pre-order with Creative Video Products).

I also see that CVP have dropped the pre-order VAT inclusive price by roughly £200 from what it was when the C100 was first announced.

What's the price in the UK? First price I"ve seen it listed here is 6700 euro. (vat incl)

CVP now have it at £4,799 including VAT at the moment (VAT is 20% here in the UK). I will get the VAT back on the price I will pay since mine is a VAT registered company - which softens the pain a little...

Currently, the Euro is worth £0.79.

That's about 700 euro cheaper then in Belgium, a pretty good deal.

Less than half the price of the C300!

and twice as good? :)

...and twice as expensive as the AF100.

...and twice as expensive as the AF100.Not here in the UK it's not. CVP who have the C100 priced at £4799 including tax have the AF101 at £3918 including tax.

I used to own an AF101 but sold it. I now own a C300 & if the C100 is as good as it looks to be then it is a far better camera than the AF101. The ergonomics on the AF101 were horrible whereas the C300 is lovely to use & it looks like the C100 could be even better on that front.

CVP now have it at £4,799 including VAT at the moment (VAT is 20% here in the UK). I will get the VAT back on the price I will pay since mine is a VAT registered company - which softens the pain a little...

Currently, the Euro is worth £0.79.

That's a great price Andy. This camera looks like a real bargain, and yet the whinging goes on. Sigh!

Can you elaborate on this Dynamic Range issue?


I am shooting in Munich and will post images when I get back next week, unless I can get them sent to me. The DR issue is in the grade of the sample video, the camera has much more DR than is shown in the demo video but the colorist crushed the DR to make it look like DSLR footage. But not sure about the source of the highlight blowouts. Canon is trying to move DSLR shooters to the C100 so perhaps they asked that this sample be graded so that it appealed to DSLR shooters. However, this camera is much better than that. I will show images, a very poor before grading image and the after grading equivalant and you can see the additional DR in the ungraded image.

I am shooting in Munich and will post images when I get back next week, .

Looking forward Philip. Is the EVF as bad as you expected? I had the AF100 before and found that EVG too small and low-res already. I wonder how the C100's compares.

I do not have the camera yet, just found some images.

CVP says that "The body weighs just 1020g (410g lighter than the EOS C300)." That is a very significant decrease in weight. Almost the same light weight as the FS100, just a little lighter. Only 160g more than the 5d MKiii. They are trying to move the DSLR crowd to a dedicated video cam replacement.

Looking forward Philip. Is the EVF as bad as you expected? I had the AF100 before and found that EVG too small and low-res already. I wonder how the C100's compares.At first I thought that they were using the small & rather poor EVF from the XF105. However the XF105 specs state size 0.24" but only 260K dots which is awful while the C100 the specifications state size 0.24" 1.55M dots (960x540) which isn't so bad at all. A small EVF but high resolution

Canon U.S.A. : Professional Imaging Products : XF105 (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professional_cameras/hd_video_cameras/xf105#Specifications)
Canon U.S.A. : Professional Imaging Products : EOS C100 (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professional_cameras/cinema_eos_cameras/eos_c100#Specifications)

C300 EVF is pretty good & is twice as big at 0.52" but has the same 1.55M dots 960x540 resolution so maybe the C100 EVF won't be so bad after all.
Canon EOS C300 - Cinema EOS Cameras - Canon UK (http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Digital_Cinema/Cinema_EOS_Cameras/EOS_C300/)

We had a C100 on Tuesday here at Filmtools.......
Canon Cinema EOS C100 at Filmtools - YouTube

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Jim -

Great stuff, thanks for posting.

A question: does the LCD also angle downward (for shooting from below the camera and looking UP?). You mentioned the opposite, which is nice, but does it also angle down?

Any chance you are allowed to comment on the image results yet :) ?

As you tilt it up from the closed position, it's on so you would see it from looking from below. Did not record anything (we had it for 30mins) but I'm not worried in the least bit on how good the footage will be.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

We had a C100 on Tuesday here at Filmtools.......
Canon Cinema EOS C100 at Filmtools - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbsH4xCoUCM)

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Jim, it's great to see you genuinely excited when you talk about new products that you're offering. Very refreshing compared to the canned pitches from most resellers.

Did you get a feel for how the EVF performs in those 30 mins by any chance?

-Dave

I am impressed with how much smaller the C100 appears than the C300. I love the DSLR form factor & TBH the C300 is just that bit too big & heavy in comparison to a 5D3. IThe C100 is supposed to be 15% smaller but when I see it being handled it looks smaller. It looks like it has the same C300 detachable handle as a point of comparison. Jim, does it feel a lot lighter?

Thanks Jim. Good info about the LCD being on as you open it out allowing some "from below" observation - in case I ever put on our K12 Jib, for example - although I'd probably rig up the remote monitor for that. Its a shame that LCD has limited positioning (for example, a side of camera view will need it to be in a near vertical position, I believe) - not ideal but I'll take what I can get.

About the only thing I didn't like (apart from the fixed VF and a few other things we all now know about) was the "available at the end of November" bit. Looks like that may be a month later than those of us with pre-orders around the world had hoped for (from the initial Canon announcement).

I do hope Canon is not continuing a recent trend in products becoming available later (sometimes much later) than they had initially indicated.

Mind you, I'd rather they got all the tooling and assembly things right first time. After all, one of the reasons I've chosen the C100 is because of a reputation for really good build quality, reliability and excellent image potential - I agree that its a very special sensor in there - and I just LOVE the ergonomics and small form factor of the C100. So I'll just sit and wait - and its not as if other "much desired" cameras announced this year by other manufacturers haven't suffered delays too!

Anytime before Christmas would be good!

I'm envious. This camera is going to be superb. I doubt many people will notice the difference between this and its pricier siblings even in AVCHD mode.

Also, stripped down, it will still look like a DSLR to many people, and thus be great for shooting without drawing attention to oneself.

Looks great but unless you put a recorder on it the difference will be easy to see compared to the C300. I own a C300 and will most likely buy a C100 as a B-Cam or jobs where AVCHD is not a problem. But together the C100 will need the Nano to match codec.

Testing the C300 yesterday I felt like I was cheating. Such a small camera putting out an amazing picture. Where I was testing people thought it was a still camera and would not believe me. Canon has a winner here.

Jim Martin told me that he films at the LA Farmer's Market food court area, great food there and love it,, and is never stopped when he uses a stripped C300 but is stopped the minute he adds the XLR rig, so people do mistake this for a DSLR and sleath filming should be easy.

Actually, when I had a tripod, the guards were on me immediately...when it was just the camera with the LCD, no problem. I agree that without LCD, even more stealthy......

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Looks great but unless you put a recorder on it the difference will be easy to see compared to the C300. I own a C300 and will most likely buy a C100 as a B-Cam or jobs where AVCHD is not a problem. But together the C100 will need the Nano to match codec.

Testing the C300 yesterday I felt like I was cheating. Such a small camera putting out an amazing picture. Where I was testing people thought it was a still camera and would not believe me. Canon has a winner here.

I dunno Paul, it can be very difficult to tell the difference most of the time. I read an FS700 article the other day and the writer couldn't tell the difference between the AVCHD output and the external recordings. Of course if you want to do a lot of grading or green screen that's another thing, but i'd be surprised if most people will be able to tell these cameras apart. We saw the same thing with the hpx 170 and 150 camera's which always looked identical to me.

One of the big pluses of this camera for me would be cheap recording format, but of course you can always stick a box on the back if someone insists on 50mb/s. It'll be interesting to see someone who owns both cameras doing a comparison. Perhaps yourself?

I dunno Paul, it can be very difficult to tell the difference most of the time. I read an FS700 article the other day and the writer couldn't tell the difference between the AVCHD output and the external recordings. Of course if you want to do a lot of grading or green screen that's another thing, .........
In terms of the first generation material, then yes, it may be hard to tell the difference.

But apart from grading/green screen (as you mention) there are other things which can show issues with AVC-HD.

Firstly is processing power required for post work - codecs like XDCAM422 are more computer friendly than AVC-HD.

Secondly are the implications of cascading codecs in a production or broadcast chain. There have been lots of tests which show a "falling off a cliff" effect as images get successively decoded/recoded. For a few generations there doesn't appear much degradation - then suddenly quality goes rapidly downhill.

If you know the entire production chain - such as you are producing the final Blu-Ray etc - then this may not be an issue. If the final product is acceptable - fine. But if the work is being passed on to someone else (such as a broadcaster for final compression for transmission) it's wisest not to take the risk - use a codec that's better than AVC-HD. Even if the edited master seems OK, the final compresion could be the one that sends it off the cliff.

"such as a broadcaster for final compression for transmission) it's wisest not to take the risk - use a codec that's better than AVC-HD."

David, which codec(s) would you suggest?
Thanks.

L

Some people,such as Andrew Reid, suggest converting AVCHD to ProRes prior to grading to stop secondary losses, and that then AVCHD acquisition works in long delivery chains. What do you think?

If you HAVE to work with AVCHD. I would re encode it to an I frame codec straight away.

I've just spent a week in Da Vinci grading a show that was shot Sony FS700. They used an KiPro Mini recording ProRes422 but there was also a lot of offspeed stuff (200fps etc) which of course ends up AVCHD.

I was able to push the ProRes422 MUCH further than the AVCHD even once I had re encoded it into ProRes as well. I managed to break the slowmo footage codec as soon as I started to dive into the mids and blacks.

Straight out of the box, the AVCHD & ProRes did look nearly identical. I checked.

The HDMI connector is the only thing putting me off the C100.. There's no way i'd be using it without a recorder of some kind.

In terms of the first generation material, then yes, it may be hard to tell the difference.

But apart from grading/green screen (as you mention) there are other things which can show issues with AVC-HD.

Firstly is processing power required for post work - codecs like XDCAM422 are more computer friendly than AVC-HD.

Secondly are the implications of cascading codecs in a production or broadcast chain. There have been lots of tests which show a "falling off a cliff" effect as images get successively decoded/recoded. For a few generations there doesn't appear much degradation - then suddenly quality goes rapidly downhill.

If you know the entire production chain - such as you are producing the final Blu-Ray etc - then this may not be an issue. If the final product is acceptable - fine. But if the work is being passed on to someone else (such as a broadcaster for final compression for transmission) it's wisest not to take the risk - use a codec that's better than AVC-HD. Even if the edited master seems OK, the final compresion could be the one that sends it off the cliff.

Yes i'm well aware of all of the above David. My point is, that at this price range there will be lots of interest in this camera from people who are not going to broadcast (or heavy grading) and the camera's inbuilt recorder will be fine. Those who want more can stick a box on the back. A win win for everyone.

.

The HDMI connector is the only thing putting me off the C100.. There's no way i'd be using it without a recorder of some kind.

At least it is a locking HDMI system.

The Canon XA10 uses the same sensor as the XF100 but instead of the 50Mbps MXF format it uses 24Mbps AVCHD. However MXF is basically MPEG2 whereas AVCHD is MPEG4 which is 2-4x more efficient in compressing an image for video. Therefore the video straight off the memory card for the XA10 & the XF100 is indistinguishable & I suspect that it will be the same with C100 & C300. MPEG2 is much easier to edit on older computers but recent systems don't have a problem with editing native AVCHD files in Premiere or FCP X (probably Edius & Vegas too but I don't use either of those).

Here is a five minute hands on review of the C100. Canon C100 Preview on Vimeo (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://vimeo.com/50685266&ct=ga&cad=CAcQAhgBIAEoATABOABAlLyxgwVIAVgAYgVlbi1JTg&cd=hhboNafV0xs&usg=AFQjCNEWSjsf3iI8ZfvuRsWQZU6sgZbKTQ)

It is in French. My French is rusty, but the only new information I got from the video is concern about using the EVF while wearing a hat. The reviewer uses many words of praise but it seems that he hasn't used the camera, only held it.

However MXF is basically MPEG2 whereas AVCHD is MPEG4 which is 2-4x more efficient in compressing an image for video.
The normal rule of thumb quoted is that MPEG4 can be *UP TO* 2x more efficient than MPEG2 - I've never heard it claimed that it can ever be anything like 4x as efficient?

And all that can really said is that "it is more efficient". How much depends on a number of factors, and not least are the individual coder (some don't give much improvement over MPEG2 at all) and the actual bitrates used.

In general, the lower the bitrate, the higher the improvement factor. So compared to 50Mbs MPEG2, using MPEG4 doesn't offer much benefit (certainly nowhere near 2x). Talk about the bitrates used for broadcast transmission (19Mbs MPEG2 or less) and the use of MPEG4 with very expensive encoders pays real dividends and it's here that you may indeed get improvements of 2x, maybe even a bit more.

It's worth thinking how it achieves these improvements, which are (put simply) along the lines that it uses extra tricks to try to mask the imperfections that would be seen with simple MPEG2 - such as varying the block size. The point is that the better the MPEG2 encode is, the less there is to try to disguise, so the less point to the MPEG4 tricks.

Some people,such as Andrew Reid, suggest converting AVCHD to ProRes prior to grading to stop secondary losses, and that then AVCHD acquisition works in long delivery chains. What do you think?
I think it will help, but is not as good as recording to XDCAM422, AVC-Intra 100 or ProRes or whatever from the start.

Following on from above, AVC-HD (and MPEG4) improve on MPEG2 coding by using tricks to help mask the flaws. One consequence of that is that the basic flaws are still there, and can still have a bad effect on subsequent codecs in the chain - even if the MPEG4 does a good job at the first generation.

Transcoding at an early stage will certainly improve the situation compared to working with AVC-HD all through grading etc, but far better to use a better codec at acquisition.

That is not to say AVC-HD is "bad". It's not, and I fully agree with what Dom says above - "My point is, that at this price range there will be lots of interest in this camera from people who are not going to broadcast (or heavy grading) and the camera's inbuilt recorder will be fine."

Expect 24Mbs to give you better than HDV quality, and full raster, at a lower bitrate. Don't expect it to be as good as XDCAM 35Mbs, and certainly not XDCAM422. Horses for courses.

As always David, excellent insightful comments to the technical discussion we like having on here.

Thank you.

Good points David, and once again it proves you do get what you pay for in camera and codec. XDCAM 50Mb/s 422 is fantastic.

It's worth thinking of why AVC-HD was developed in the first place - as a way of recording video on to consumer memory cards with limited speeds and capacities.

It's main implementation is at slower than 24Mbs speeds in consumer gear, the 24Mbs mode was intended to bridge the gap between the consumer and true pro solid state.

But ironically, the first products were barely released before it was proven that ordinary SD cards could record 35Mbs XDCAM via adaptors in the EX. And current SD cards are far better performance than a couple of years ago. The moment that was demonstrated, the real question to ask was what was the point of AVC-HD at 24Mbs?

It wasn't as high quality as XDCAM 35Mbs, it was far more difficult to process - the only real advantage was a bitrate saving for a given quality. But it's only about 30% less than XDCAM 35Mbs - for lower quality and more difficulty of processing. Personally, I'd rather just get a couple of extra cards, and accept the somewhat higher file sizes. At least at SDHC card prices per GB - it may be different if you were talking about SxS or P2.

If pro solid state video meant SxS/P2 costs, AVC-HD meant consumer media costs, you can can see the point to AVC-HD. But it's not the case, and that's emphasised with the Canon cameras that record XDCAM422 to Compact Flash.

Yes, all the above is academic to an extent. As users we can only use what manufacturers will make. But do bear in mind that at the end of the day it's down to marketing. An XDCAM422 coder shouldn't cost any more to put into a camera than an AVC-HD, and neither should there be issues of power etc - and nowadays either is perfectly happy with consumer grade solid state. All that holds true not just for Canon and the C100 but for Sony and Panasonic as well.

I suspect the bulk of the cost of a camera is in the R&D and inital design costs, which obviously have to be recouped - and hence the cost of something like the C300. In that case, a lot of the same costs apply for the C100, so we should be pretty grateful that we do seem to be getting most of the C300 good points at much lower cost. But at the risk of sounding churlish, I'm also only too well aware that the C100 could be so much better, at probably no extra production cost, with the XDCAM422 codec - it's marketing that's kept it out, not real costs.

The Canon XA10 uses the same sensor as the XF100 but instead of the 50Mbps MXF format it uses 24Mbps AVCHD. However MXF is basically MPEG2 whereas AVCHD is MPEG4 which is 2-4x more efficient in compressing an image for video. Therefore the video straight off the memory card for the XA10 & the XF100 is indistinguishable.

That is not true. The XF100 is compression wise considerably better than the FS700 which uses the AVCHD codec at 24mbps. The FS700 will have blocking and mushing in any moderate movement. The XF100 will not. You may not notice these in mids of action but I saw enough while I was editing the FS700 material to come to this conclusion.

The XF100 codec is excellent.

Also some odd suggestions here. Why do people do many generational transcodes? I always keep the material as original files, right through to the end. If send to grading, we will make a .dpx sequence. I don't see any need or wisdom in transcoding to prores (unless you are mac guy) or sending material to grading as another newly encoded prores or avchd file. That's just degrading the material further.

Mikko I agree to stay in Native Codec. Also I agree the XF100 is a great codec since Canon worked out a deal with Sony to use XDCAM422 50Mb/s on their XF100/300, C300. Just shows you how good that codec is. I have used it for years and it stands up, there is a reason it is used by so many broadcast companies.

That is not true. The XF100 is compression wise considerably better than the FS700 which uses the AVCHD codec at 24mbps. The FS700 will have blocking and mushing in any moderate movement. The XF100 will not.
Which backs up well comments about the relative efficiencies of MPEG4 and MPEG2. It may be about 2x at much lower bitrates - it's not anything like at these sort of rates. If it was true, then 24Mbs AVC-HD should be comparable to XDCAM422 at 50Mbs - as Mikko and others have found, it's not, and that's only on first generation comparisons.

And that is NOT to say AVC-HD is "bad". It's good - but not a true professional codec.
Also some odd suggestions here. Why do people do many generational transcodes? I always keep the material as original files, right through to the end. If send to grading, ..........
Unfortunately, not doing that is not an option for some users, especially in such as broadcast. And some codecs are suitable for some purposes, others better for other uses. Long-GOP may be optimum for acquisition and such as satellite links, I-frame only may be better for video servers for example.

Just imagine a broadcast scenario where material is shot, sent FTP to a local studio, recorded, edited and mixed, then sent by satellite to the transmitter and finally compressed for transmission. That's likely to be 5 steps of compression/recompression at least and it would be easy enough to see occasions when it could be more.

It would be great to remain uncompressed throughout - but that's obviously impracticable. The problem is to devise guidelines that are viable, without compromising quality too much. It's far easier if your production route is short and defined (say shoot, edit, and make Blu-Ray) than in an example such as above.

Add in to all this the way aliasing can also act to screw up codecs within the chain, and you start to see why such as broadcasters have to try to set rules. "It looks OK" to the eye on the first generation just is not adequate.

I suspect that the majority of us on this forum will never be producing anything for broadcast & are generally shooting & editing for the Web or DVD/Blu-ray disc in which case AVCHD may well be good enough for our purposes just as HDV was good enough for our purposes & before that DV & before that VHS were also good enough.