C200: Object Tracking & Face Detection on Vimeo

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

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.

Kata - filmet med Canon C200 on Vimeo

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...

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?)

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.

And that's probably due to the bandwidth the camera is processing for 60p. Isn't the C300 Mark II's Cine Raw output only 10-bit?

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?)

Raw data on a single little expensive CFast card ? OK, thats fine. Im not complaining about that option. Low bit rate, 8 bit 4k internal CODEC....uggg....OK, I'll accept that trick. Fine.

My thing is: Canon...stop playing games with your damn HDMI ports! Quit crippling your HDMI and at least allow ot to output all the video your cameras can do. I mean, crap,...recording log internally and converting it to rec709 over HDMI probably actually takes "more" camera processing to do this cripple. All I want is to record 10bit to ProRes on SSD media with a recorder in log. LIKE EVERY OTHER LOG 8BIT/10BIT CAMERA DOES IN THE WORLD. (Im yelling at Canon...not at anybody here on the forum)

Just pass the same gamma curve out of the HDMI that you send to the CODEC.

Wow....if all this turns out to be true, I think Canon has pulled off the industry record for the nastiest most blatant, "in our face" crippling tricks the industry has seen yet.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Here they are. (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1317916-REG/sandisk_sdsdxpk_128g_ancin_extremepro_uhs_ii_128gb.html)

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

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.

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.

I have not heard of a camera that blocks log output. 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. Once they release the manual and or camera, then it may matter but in the big picture, it won't matter if they did, because I doubt they will change it if your assertion is true, unless nobody is buying the C200 because of that. It's like you are working yourself up over a game of "what if". Same as 8-bit XF-AVC in 2018. We heard some gossip that really means nothing since it didn't come from Canon. If your supposition is true, I agree, that would be dumb of Canon. Just one more caveat on buying a C200.

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.

At 5:30 in this video, Alex from Canon talks about the HDMI not outputting LOG.

https://www.cinema5d.com/canon-c200-hands-on-interview/

Alex from Canon talks about the HDMI not outputting LOG.

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.

C200 / C300 MKII Comparisons 4K 10bit / 4K Raw 12bit on Vimeo

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.

I don't know who Alex is...although I believe he's introduced as being from canon. There were a lot of people working in that booth from the engineering side that weren't wearing booth shirts, even a couple of the reps were in their own clothing. Alex seemed pretty specific about the fact that Log wasn't included over the HDMI. My thought about that would be that canon sees that as a monitoring port -- and I haven't looked, but they were talking about a PQ signal...which probably means that is designed to go out to an HDR TV or monitor...thus no LOG. Just guessing.

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

As for "forcing a LUT" on the HDMI. The camera shoots what i believe they call a "cinema raw gamma" natively...so Clog gamma, Clog3 gamma, and any of the other "look" gammas in the would all largely be the same in terms of "forcing a LUT" as they are all numerical conversions from that larger space. This doesn't explain why "no log over HDMI". Again...Alex is the only source for this that I have seen. I wish this question had come up during the show. Tim Smith was pretty easy to corner, and he's the one who would have had the definitive answer.

I guess the end result would be, does the HDMI force rec709. (6-7stops of DR)

Equally as bad, why does it force 8bit 4k? This camera is too ecpensive to force 8bit rec709 over HDMI.

"If" this really is the case today, this is something Canon will surly change once people start buying the C200. The outcry from customers to allow proper external ProRes recordings and avoid the internal camera CODECs will be huge. People will be screaming to be let out of the "cage" that Canon has them stuck in. It wont take long.

IBC will happen in the fall, just as Panasonic's amazingly spec'd EVA1 hits the streets. I certainly expect Sony to answer the EVA1 with their own conparably spec'd model. This will leave the C200 high and dry if they dont open the damn'd thing up.

How far will we all go to get "Canon colors" straight out of a camera anyway. With 10bit, you cant post correct to get great colors from most modern cameras.

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

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.

The camera shoots what i believe they call a "cinema raw gamma" natively...so Clog gamma, Clog3 gamma, and any of the other "look" gammas in the would all largely be the same in terms of "forcing a LUT" as they are all numerical conversions from that larger space.

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).

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

Considering that Panasonic had a mockup at Cinegear and not an actual working camera, I wouldn't not be in the least surprised to not see the EVA1 hitting the streets until sometime Q1 2018.

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).

Whatever Gary. I'm sure all your assumptions (and your guarantee) are correct. FWIW, Alex's instagram, Facebook and Canon's website list him as a Pro Market Specialist.

No camera "shoots" in log. Log is a transform that is performed to the raw signal after debayering. Canon Raw light isn't shot in Clog2. It can be converted to Clog2, or Clog or Clog 3 with Canons Raw Development application, and most likely with it's plug-ins for Avid, FCPX, etc. In terms of processing, Canon converting the internal RAW signal to a log gamma versus one of the Rec.709 looks (or PQ if that done over HDMI) should be largely the same.

I love this new term "forcing the LUT" -- kinda like when the media started calling white Blue Collar voters "non-college educated whites". We used to call it Broadcast ready or rec.709 compliant.

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

That's good enough for me then. I didn't look at all of his social media and wasn't able to find him on Canon's site.

No camera "shoots" in log.

And I never said that.

Log is a transform that is performed to the raw signal after debayering.

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

Canon Raw light isn't shot in Clog2. It can be converted to Clog2, or Clog or Clog 3 with Canons Raw Development application.

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 was originally mistaken that Clog3 wasn't part of that, but I was incorrect, as it is. You have to have your gamma curve to output Clog2 or Clog3, otherwise the camera will not output a raw signal. I guarantee you the same is true for the C200 as well (only with Clog3).

Though it's odd that they are advertising 15-stops when Clog3 is not going to get you that.

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


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).




From the Canon supplied brief I linked to earlier in this thread:

“Once a Canon RAW Movie is recorded, it then needs to be unpacked in one of two ways. The first and more traditional route would be utilizing an updated version of Canon’s RAW Development Software. At its core, this software allows for the unpacking, modification, and debayering of Cinema RAW Light files. Modification is the key phrase here, as we have the opportunity to modify the parameters by which our footage is debayered. EOS C200 captures its RAW information in a proprietary RAW Gamut and RAW Gamma. This data needs to be taken from their RAW spaces, and conformed into one of the many gamma curves or color spaces to begin the post production process.

“The footage from the EOS C200 can be conformed into a wide range of spaces, from Cinema Gamut down to BT.709, and from Canon Log 2 to Wide DR. The choice is yours and dependent on the amount of post production resources you’re planning to allocate. However, if you are shooting in the RAW format presumably you’re going to want to take full advantage of the information captured utilizing a combination of Canon Log 2 and Cinema Gamut. This Canon Log 2 and Cinema Gamut combination is the most ideal starting point for an HDR workflow, providing the full 15 stop dynamic range the sensor has to offer, as well as the widest range of encoded colors.”

So the C200 Cinema Raw Lite workflow is a bit different than the original. It also illustrates my point about log gamma being part of the debayering process.

Glad I could help you with that. :-)

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. They are part of the same process but the gamma conversion happens at the end, after extraction, and amplification of the RGB components, and prior to compression. That's all I was saying, and regardless, no matter whether it's during, before of after, I would assume that conversion to any of the camera's available gamma's would be the same. In fact, converting from linear components to a linear gamma like Rec.709, should be easier.

But I won't guarantee anything. :-)

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.

Oh really?

While the C300 Mark II is recording either 4K or UHD on-board via the XF-AVC codec, it
simultaneously delivers an uncompressed 10-bit Log encoded RAW version of that selected
format via the 3G SDI output terminal labeled REC OUT. It also delivers the same signal on the
MON 3G SDI output terminal. That 4K RAW signal is prepared in an identical manner to the
RAW output of the EOS C500 camera. The four separate high-bit depth R, Gr, Gb, B 4:4:4:4
video components are read out in parallel from the image sensor at a high bit-depth and are
mapped to the 10-bit Canon Log2 OETF prior to multiplexing into the serial 3G SDI RAW output.

From here (http://downloads.canon.com/cinemaeos/whitepaper-extended-recording-eosc300markii.pdf). So what's coming out of the 3G SDI-RAW output connection is already mapped to Clog2. Before debayering.

Perhaps this "Raw gamma" from the C200 is merely Clog2 without being called that, and part of the process of making the C200 not compete with the C300 Mark II is to ensure that you don't get the full Clog2 raw signal without being forced to convert it to Clog1/3 in Raw Development.

From Sebastian Wober of Cinema 5D's hands on review and test of the C200...

"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."

https://www.cinema5d.com/canon-c200-review-camera-impressive-raw-footage/

"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."

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

Ha. I reached out to Alex Sax and he just got back to me a few minutes ago, and explained the confusion.

On the test cameras they had, the HDMI was locked to Rec.709, which is why he said what he said. He apologized for the inaccuracy.

Canon C200 Interview at Cine Gear Expo 2017
Canon C200 Camera Interview, Cine Gear 2017 - YouTube

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

With our Internet brain trust here, I think we can figure out anything about these cameras. It just takes digging, cross referencing for consensus and like good old journalism teaching instructs us, always be skeptical of early reports on anything, especially anything that seems illogical or controversial, because more often then not, early reports are wrong.

Thank God Sebastian's review C200 firmware had log out. So it looks like maybe Canon has been testing different HDMI output options with different firmware? Interesting...I would speculate that Canon has been debating how much external recording that they want to allow on the C200.

Let's also hope that Canon doesn't lock down the HDMI output to 8bit only. I STRONGLY believe that C20 buyers be allowed to record 4k 10bit CLog outside this camera for this price. If they allow that, it will compensate for the C200's weak internal h.264 CODEC that it has and make if far more usable. This will also make it a bit more competitive against Panasonic's EXTREMELY feature stacked EVA1.

Crossing my fingers!

Let's also hope that Canon doesn't lock down the HDMI output to 8bit only.

It will be 8-bit only. What other cameras do you know about that allow 8-bit internal recording while also outputting 10-bit externally? That's not how Canon does things.

lol,....I guess you have a point!

Well,...the $2000 GH5 has no problem outputting 10bit. The Sony FS5 records 10bit HD and 8bit 4k....but!,...at least it outputs 12bit raw sensor data to allow external 10bit conversion to ProRes. The Panasonic EVA1 has everything, 10bit internal 400Mbp/s, 5.7K raw output, dual ISO...plus the kitchen sink for "under $8000"!!!!!

I guess you are right. This C200 will be an 8bit camera for anything longer than 15min recordings. It was on my radar for a December purchase but I see no reason not to swing over to the EVA1 instead. IBC will likely bring Sony's new competition out too. I strongly suspect that Sony will work hard to compete with the EVA1. (Something Canon seems to be NOT willing to do)

It's going to be extremely hard to say "no" to the EVA 1. They have thoroughly overloaded the damn thing up with soooo many features. How in the hell can anybody say "nah,...it's not worth it". Haha...it's RIDICULOUSLY over-packed with features..


CT

Well,...the $2000 GH5 has no problem outputting 10bit.

When it records 10-bit internally. You can't record 4Kp60 internally if you're recording out to an Atomos Shogun/Ninja Inferno.

The Sony FS5 records 10bit HD and 8bit 4k

Because it records 10-bit HD and 8-bit 4K internally.

....but!,...at least it outputs 12bit raw sensor data to allow external 10bit conversion to ProRes.

Which is what the C200 does as well, only internally to a CFast card.

The Panasonic EVA1 has everything, 10bit internal 400Mbp/s, 5.7K raw output, dual ISO...plus the kitchen sink for "under $8000"!!!!!

$7999. Plus, you know that camera at Cine Gear was just a mockup, right? While the specs look good, it could be 1st Quarter 2018 before anyone gets their hands on it.

It's going to be extremely hard to say "no" to the EVA 1. They have thoroughly overloaded the damn thing up with soooo many features. How in the hell can anybody say "nah,...it's not worth it". Haha...it's RIDICULOUSLY over-packed with features..

At this point I don't see how it doesn't undercut the Varicam LT (besides a 2K 12-bit 444 mode that it has like the C300 Mark II), so I would wait with baited breath. Just the fact it uses bone fide Vlog and not Vlog L made me do a spit take.

It's going to be extremely hard to say "no" to the EVA 1. They have thoroughly overloaded the damn thing up with soooo many features. How in the hell can anybody say "nah,...it's not worth it". Haha...it's RIDICULOUSLY over-packed with features..


CT

I just ordered the C200. But I am also buying an EVA1 and and will live with both for a month of shooting. Loser gets sold, winner stays on. They both have features that I really want. Wish there was a camera that had the best of both.

There just might be one or two people interested in your conclusion, Dan!

Typical Canon "mushy" soft sensor readout. When will Canon finally catch up to everybody's else's oversampling techniques?

BINGO! You hit the nail right on the head.

I'm becoming a big fan of oversampling these days. A 1:1 readout from an RGGB Bayer pattern sensor is the rock bottom MINIMUM way to create a "4k" image. Hell, your green channel, the HIGHEST resolution channel you have, is literally only 1/2 4k resolution.

Folks,....let that sink in. The highest resolution channel is literally nowhere near 4k resolution. Even worse, the red and blue channels are only 1/4 4k resolution!! THIS SUCKS!

When Sony does a 6k image scan, they are reading out a green channel that is 100% full raster 4k. And, they are supplementing that image with a 1/2 4k resolution red and blue channels.It's still not a full raster RGB image but at teh very least, a 6k oversample will deliver 1 full raster green channel as the foundation of your image for de-Bayering.

This is why the EVA-1 (5.7k readout) will likely EASILY display much more detail than the C200.

We'll see but the EVA-1 has all the numbers on it's side.

CT

I've been on some forums where a few have argued tirelessly that a 10 bit 4:2:2 codec is unnecessary when you have RAW internal as a feature of this camera. Boy, I'd love to live in their World where jobs are simply divided between those demanding a crappy but low bitrate of 100mbps for 25p or those wanting a higher quality where RAW is an easy answer.

I personally think Canon's inclusion of RAW recording to be very innovative and ground breaking, but despair that it comes at the cost of a robust 10 bit 4:2:2 codec internal for jobs where RAW and 8 bit low bitrate are not the obvious choices. It maybe this omission will be addressed in future updates and I'm patient enough to sit and see if Canon either fix this or if the EVA1 delivers on some of its features.

I think if you're one of those people who feel the C200 is a great choice of camera, go for it. If you're somewhat conflicted, then hold off and wait until next year when both the C200 and the EVA1 have had a chance to show what each are capable of.

Imaybe this omission will be addressed in future updates and I'm patient enough to sit and see if Canon either fix this or if the EVA1 delivers on some of its features.

It will be fixed with a C300 Mark II/C400, whatever they call the next iteration of that camera. There is no reason to ever give you 10-bit 4:2:2 in the C200, it would immediately kill the C300 Mark II, and that's not good business.

There is no reason to ever give you 10-bit 4:2:2 in the C200, it would immediately kill the C300 Mark II, and that's not good business.

Oh I think there's plenty of reasons to give us 10 bit 4:2:2 in the C200 - happy customers, a superior product that has a wider range of codes to support a variety of shooting needs, better competition with similar priced cameras - e.g the FS7 and EVA1. Alas the one good reason for not delivering such a product - the demands of a Business that has a higher priced model that need protecting takes precedence.

Oh I think there's plenty of reasons to give us 10 bit 4:2:2 in the C200 - happy customers, a superior product that has a wider range of codes to support a variety of shooting needs, better competition with similar priced cameras

All of those are true. All of those would immediately kill demand for their higher-priced model. That's not good business.

All of those are true. All of those would immediately kill demand for their higher-priced model. That's not good business.

It says something of their higher priced models that they have to remove 10 bit 4:2:2 from the C200, a feature available in the FS7 and EVA1 in order to protect sales of such models.

My Panasonic GX80, G80 and GH4 whilst limited by their form factor are at least consistent in their codecs - delivering 4K at 100mbps throughout, despite variations in price. Canon in comparison, is all over the place - their 4K codec available on the XC-10 differs from the 5d Mark IV, which differs from the C200, which differs from the C300. I confess I prefer Panasonic's way of nobbling their cameras, by removing features, whilst keeping a consistent codec throughout.

I confess I prefer Panasonic's way of nobbling their cameras, by removing features, whilst keeping a consistent codec throughout.

I believe it's because Panasonic has nothing to lose. Varicam is starting to gain traction, helped by it being an approved Netflix camera, but no where near how often I see an Alexa Mini, Epic-W. I know one person here in Austin that has an LT model. And the EVA1 is serious going to undercut that lower-priced model (to the Varicam 35) because you lose almost nothing with it other than 12-bit 444 in 2k/1080. In exchange you get everything else, including full Vlog (not Vlog L) and the ability to shoot to cheaper SD cards vs P2 Express ($500 vs $1150 for 256GB). That's quite a nice tradeoff in terms of price. I love my 12-bit 444 mode on my C300 II, but if that's the only difference, it's not worth it.

When companies cripple lower cameras to protect higher models, they must assume that a higher "was" about to get sold but was "stolen" by the cheaper model. This is really just a guess on the company's part. There is no way to really know how much higher model money was lost to a cheaper model with great specs.

Camera companies "asume" cheaper customers "would have" paid more to get the higher model of the lower one was just crippled a bit more.

Its a big roll of the dice for camera companies to predict "lost" sales of more expensive models. But I do think Panasonic is being extraordinary agressive with cost to feature ratio today. They are not fearing canabolism as much a Sony and Canon are right now.

I think Panasonic will be handsomely rewarded with good profit numbers next year because if this.

If every company put the same features in their $7k cameras that they did in their $35k cameras, they wouldn't sell any $35k cameras, and they probably their $7k cameras wouldn't have half the features they have now because no one would be innovating.

The same company that makes the the 2.4 million euro Bugatti also makes the $20k Volkswagen Golf. I gotta tell you, VW has no Idea how many sales they are missing by not putting 16 cylinders and 1500hp into their econoboxes. They are leaving money on the table. Totally. :-)

I would venture to guess that this company survives more on its "Volkswagon" brand more than it does on its "Bugatti" brand. I would guess that its real bread and butter is its global "Volkswagon" brand and "Bugatti" is just there for show or status or to "suppliment" the "Volkswagon" brand.

Its really hard to say. Panasonic is going to sell a TON of EVA-1's....I mean ALOT of them. EVA-1's could sell a 20 to 1 ratio over the Varicam LT ( next higher model). Hell, it could be a 50 to 1 ratio for all we know. With profit margins being what they are, Panasonic could rake in MUCH more money on the EVA-1 side than it could ever hope for on the Varicam LT side.

The whole point is to make the biggest money possible. Sometimes canabolizing yourself can give you better profits than if you tried too hard to protect yourself.

I dont believe there is any reliable way to know if your EVA-1 sold like crazy....if that actually "hurt" Varicam LT sales. And....even if it did partially hurt the Varicam LT you might easily make up for that loss on huge EVA-1 sales.

Im pretty sure Panny would gladly accept very high profits if that was the end result no matter which model gave it to them.

Do Bugatti buyers say; "I love the Bugatti but I think I'll go with the Volkswagon because they turbochared and added nice leather seats in the VW this year"

:-) Cliff..

Canon has decided where the divisions are between their product lines pretty successfully for a lot of years...I just don't understand why you are so worried for them. Is it because panasonic is just going to steal all their business because they showed off a little hollow plastic box (filled with sand to make it "feel right") and announced a few highlight specifications? I've been around this game a very long time and I've seen panasonic do this exact thing on many occasions...it's their thing...the empty prototype. I've seen them show the same dummy two NAB's in a row...This Eva that you're all sweaty about isn't even a camera.

The week that Canon showed off the C300 mark II for the first time, RED announced their Raven. Promising to deliver it within weeks of the announcement. (not sure how they did on that promise, but I do know that Jarred Land has said that camera was the biggest mistake RED ever made, because it fundamentally changed the price point for their customer). I was sitting next to Tim Smith from Canon that day, and he was a little amused by the whole thing. "Laughing all the way to the bank" he chuckled. "I'm going to sell a hell of a lot of lenses because of what RED did today, (Raven is EF only) and I make way more profit on each of those lenses than they're going to make off that camera." I'll be willing to bet he said the same thing after Mitch's announcement at CineGear.

Here's the thing...before Sony killed it's middle tier with the FS7, there was a price point around $15-20k for these cameras. That tier is going away...because the upstarts and now the adults are going to start fighting for the $7-10k customer. The problem is this...do you really think there is 5-7k more cost to build a C300II or an F5 or and F55 than there is a C200 or an fS7-5? There is probably about $500 difference and maybe less. That difference in price is all profit, which means these companies are all heading towards a "lose money on every camera, make it up in volume" business model, just to maintain market share.

Except for the ones that make and sell a lot of lenses. Those guys want a lot of cameras on the streets. I'm curious to know if you know which of the top two lens manufacturers have a professional video division.

Something tells me Canon hopes Panasonic sells a million EVA-1's.

There’s one thing that I haven’t understood : When do you shot RAW you must select a LOG profile? The CRM files (RAW Light files) without C-LOG are fully colorized or they have a flat look?

When do you shot RAW you must select a LOG profile? The CRM files (RAW Light files) without C-LOG are fully colorized or they have a flat look?

All the CRM files will have Clog3 as the look on them, nothing else will be available.

All the CRM files will have Clog3 as the look on them, nothing else will be available. So it's not clear for me if you can select also C-Log2, because you're saying if I've understood clearly that C-Log 3 is baked into CRM files.