Of course it is! I have one on pre order.

But the Fs700, as an entry level camera at 6k, is a lot of a camera! On the C100 mk2, if Canon decide to allow 4k via a firmware update, it will be most definitly on an external recorder via HDMI, since the SD card slot won't cut it.

The proper SDXC card slot WILL cut it. (Panasonic has proven that 4K 100mbps records fine to SDXC)

8bit 4:2:0 UHD at 100mbps would be fine for a C100mk2 firmware update. (I dont imagine that Canon would allow the C100mk2 to have more 4k specs than that.)

CT

In theory a 90MB read 95MB write SDXC card can handle up to 720kbps so Long GOP UHD I think would be quite conceivable. Maybe that's what we will see on the 2015 UHD upgrade that's supposed to be coming for Sony's X70 which runs dual SD card slots.

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

On one of the pictures posted on DSLR Newshooter it looks like Canon put a second Menu Joystick on the bottom left-hand corner of the C100 MkII's LCD. A very useful addition if true!

Can anyone confirm this? I can also see the relocated Menu & Cancel buttons - and what looks like an LCD On/Off button on that panel too. The Viewfinder appears to have an On/Off button too.

http://www.newsshooter.com/2014/10/22/canon-announce-c100-mark-ii-with-better-evf-3-5-oled-rear-screen-60fps-slomo-and-face-detect-dual-pixel-cmos-af/

yes, you have a joystick on the new OLED...as well as a menu, cancel, and display (assignable) buttons. Here's a link to the brochure:
http://www.usa.canon.com/CUSA/assets/app/pdf/brochures/D179_Product_Page_102114.pdf

Jim Martin
EVSonline

Thanks Jim, had not seen that brochure link before - answers a lot of (my) questions (for now)... until the inevitable C100 versus C100 MkII "image quality comparison" type videos appear ;-)

As far as the CODEC? Sony's XAVC is not really a "codec" from Sony. The higher h.264 profiles have existed for years and years. Sony just pulled the specification they liked from the same H.264 book that everybody else has access to. They simply wrap it the way they want and give it a logo. Canon could easily do the same with h.264 and call it their own name. (They could just make a single file structure in a common .mp4 container?)


That's incorrect. XAVC is based on h.264, but it's quite different from what we normally think of as h.264. For one thing, it has higher picture quality at a given bit rate than h.264, but for another it's more friendly to editing and color grading. It's more different than just a new wrapper + brand.

No, it's actually true.....

XAVC IS fully H.264 compliant. The CODEC itself (h.264) is pulled strait from the MPEG H.264 white papers.

It may be wrapped in Sony's way with their directory structure but the codec itself is pure h.264 that was developed several years ago by the Motion Picture Experts Group.

AVCHD was also "pure" H.264 and 100% H.264 complaint. (different profiles and tool sets chosen from H.264 and bitrates for XAVC)

It's ALL taken from the MPEG H.264 "bible" and doesn't drift outside of it.

CT

In other words, you're claiming that "compliant" means "identical" which is not true. It's not just a different directory structure with a Sony wrapper, or else it would share ALL of the same downsides, and it wouldn't be possible to get higher picture quality for the same bit rate as standard h.264, yet it does precisely that. It's still not ProRes, but that doesn't make it identical to AVCHD.

That's incorrect. XAVC is based on h.264, but it's quite different from what we normally think of as h.264. For one thing, it has higher picture quality at a given bit rate than h.264, but for another it's more friendly to editing and color grading. It's more different than just a new wrapper + brand.
Rakesh - you can't talk of "H264" as a single entity, in which respect XAVC is as much "H264" as other of the other forms H264 may take. Think of H264 as a family - not as an entity.

More technically, something like "H264" will only describe how a compliant signal may be DECODED. The spec doesn't specify the coding process. As this is why two different coders, producing H264 signals which are nominally identical and of the same resolution, bitrate etc may give differing quality for the same signal.

Hence, different coders may take advantage of a range of "tricks" to raise quality for no bitrate increase - but there is nothing laid down as to how many they need to use, or exactly how they do it - just that the end result may be decoded by an H264 decoder. This is especially true in the consumer world - defining a camera as recording AVC-HD at a given bitrate does not uniquely define the quality of the recording. (And that's before even thinking about front end differences!)

In the case of XAVC, it's level 5.2 H264, which means it can take advantage of the highest level of "trick" in that codec at the moment. But it's not just "based" on H264 - it IS H264. It's a subset, true, but that's also true of AVC-HD etc.

That's incorrect. XAVC is based on h.264, but it's quite different from what we normally think of as h.264. For one thing, it has higher picture quality at a given bit rate than h.264, but for another it's more friendly to editing and color grading. It's more different than just a new wrapper + brand.

I've been shooting with XAVC for nearly a year now I completely agree with these comments. It's a very robust codec and will really stand up to some abuse in post. It's not what one would expect from h264, which is generally considered best for delivery, as opposed to acquisition/editing.

AVCD for 29.97p 8bit 4:2:0 is set at 24mbps and uses a HIGH 4.0 H.264 profile.

XAVC for 29.97p 8bit 4:2:0 is set at 50mbps and uses a HIGH 5.1 H.264 profile.

So yes. XAVC will be WAY more durable in post than AVCHD.

Off the top of my head, I don't remember if they both use the CABC tool set for entropy or not.

But the bottom line encoding and decoding are two different things. But if Sony encoded XAVC in a way that was outside of the MPEG h.264 bible...than nothing would be able to play the files. Vegas, media player, VLC...whatever player you have that supports h.264 and MPEG libraries would not work.

Again...XAVC is fully compliant STANDARD H.264 and nothing "new" to H.264 that was developed so many years ago.

(SONY builds awesome encoder chips for VBR though. AND I believe they have some encoding patents too.)

AVCD for 29.97p 8bit 4:2:0 is set at 24mbps and uses a HIGH 4.0 H.264 profile.

XAVC for 29.97p 8bit 4:2:0 is set at 50mbps and uses a HIGH 5.1 H.264 profile.

It should be important to note that H.264 acts on a logarithmic curve (not linear) when it comes to how much you gain from increasing the bit rate. The higher you

So you will see a very noticeable increase in quality when double the bit rate from 12mbps to 24mbps. But when you double the bit rate from 24mbps to 50mbps, you won't see the same amount of quality increase.

That being said, from everything I've heard about XAVC it is an excellent coded. Just don't expect it to be twice as good as AVCHD (unless Sony really did some crazy magic).

AVCD for 29.97p 8bit 4:2:0 is set at 24mbps and uses a HIGH 4.0 H.264 profile.

XAVC for 29.97p 8bit 4:2:0 is set at 50mbps and uses a HIGH 5.1 H.264 profile.

So yes. XAVC will be WAY more durable in post than AVCHD.


I've been shooting 4K at 60p, 4:2:2 10 bit, 600 Mbps. It rocks.

What camera, Mark?

I've been shooting 4K at 60p, 4:2:2 10 bit, 600 Mbps. It rocks.

I bet it does rock! I'm jealous and have "CODEC envy".

Cant wait to get my hands on that FS7.

Just spotted this video - not sure if it's been posted before on this thread.

Newsshooter at PhotoPlus Expo 2014: First look at Canon C100 Mark II on Vimeo

What camera, Mark?

PXW-Z100. The sensor is the limitation on this camera (noisey, Neat Video will fix it, but still...), the codec is great.

New C100 MkII video - in French and Japanese. Shows, amongst other things, the face tracking feature plus LCD, EVF positions etc.

EOS C100 Mark II?????????????? - YouTube