C100: Be happy!

[Noa Put]

You really think canon would unlock 4k with a firmware update on the c100 :) Ain't going to happen, just look at what possibilities the canon 5d and dslr below that have thx to the magic lantern guys, did canon ever provide any of those improvements themselves? exactly...

[Nicholas de Kock]

I'm happy with my C100's, image quality is great, I don't need better low light it's pretty amazing as is & best of all is it's a no fuss camera. I don't want to waste my time rendering a 4K image to 1080P never mind tryong to solve the aliasing issues with downscaling like that. The GH4 looks like a worthy contender but I'm not sacrificing my comfort, I want focus zoom, dual slot recording & ND filter.

[Matt Davis]

Regarding this 'will Canon engage 4K in its Cx00 Cinema EOS line' debate, there's some interesting reading between the lines in this interview:

NAB 2014: NewsShooter Canon on Vimeo

The C100 has the 4K sensor, but it's not for 4K. It's magic is created by downsampling the 4K to a really good HD signal, comparable to a 3 chip camera and to most eyes, negating the issues of a Bayer Pattern sensor. To use it as a 4K camera would be to halve or even quarter its quality as then each pixel is either a red, a green or a blue site and we get that sort of image that doesn't quite have the detail and bite we'd expect.

The C100 was made for HD. It's running at the top end of its capabilities, there is no Magic Lantern to look forward to, there never will be. To do better than the C100, you'll have to wait for new hardware, and the Canon chap has that sort of look in the eye as he says 'Canon have been somewhat conservative' that says 'Hey, we're Canon, we care very much about the end user, we build for the longer term, we do amazing things and then take a back seat for a bit, knowing what we have will do.'

This is the antithesis of Black Magic. BM are screwing with the base DNA of cameras, they are absolutely fearless in trying out new designs, chuck them into the river and see what swims. It's exciting, it's breathtaking, but as a camera owner who relies on earning money by making nice images in a cost effective way, I find BM's concept of cost effective and 'product investment' doesn't quite fit mine.

Canon really shook things up with the XL1 and hit their stride with its necessary update the XL2. Sony tried to do the right thing with the FS100, and then hit their stride with the FS700 (PD150-170, DSR500-570). BM could do us a favour by doing some little refinements to their current line before deciding to go up a whole new path. What was wrong with the BMCC? Audio, control, image artifacts. How about fixing them first? Why make the Ursa and the studio camera whilst the BMPCC still had black-dot problems?

Canon are going to move at what appears to be a glacial pace, but they tend to 'pupate' now and again. Are they at the END of one product cycle, or at the BEGINNING of the next cycle? Apple, Sony and othe rmanufacturers have a 'tick, tock' cycle - a big leap forward, followed by a recapitulation and improvement, then another leap forward.

It appears Canon have a 'tick, tock, tack' cycle - I fear that we've had the 'tick', there will be a 'tock' next year which will be what we wanted in the first place, followed a little later by a 'tack' which is what we all dreamed about today, but didn't quite make it until its too late. Thinking along the lines of XL1, XL2, XLH1.

So, no movable AF green square with the C100. No improvement in the AVCHD codec. No split audio. No audio on 'last scene playback' - they did it all in hardware and it can't be changed.

[Nicholas de Kock]

Originally Posted by Matt Davis

So, no movable AF green square with the C100. No improvement in the AVCHD codec. No split audio. No audio on 'last scene playback' - they did it all in hardware and it can't be changed.

I actually think the audio is a non-issue. Splitting stereo to left & right in post takes no effort, I prefer one file actually & no audio playback on 'last scene playback' doesn't bother me either.

[Matt Davis]

But to be fair, the audio to two channels is all about having your safety Channel 2 at -18dB less than the main *at recording time*, so when your interviewee harrumphs, barks, laughs, coughs or whatever, you still have something half decent rather than an ugly splat. Yes, there's a limiter, but that's just a 'rubber sheet' rather than 'coping with the inevitable'.

It's an absolute industry standard procedure, it's particularly relevant to the C100 shooter who will probably not be blessed with a soundie, and it's just a silly thing NOT to do. It's as if we're seeing a retrograde step in camera design.

As for 'last file playback' - sod it all, I got a Ninja! (and a little speaker set). The number of times I get asked to play back the take, zip around the different takes... Sheesh, if only we had Shot Duration on the Ninja, I'd be a very happy bunny. That's the last little irritant.

[John Steele]

Is the C100 sensor not supposed to be the same as the 300 and 500 and the 500 gets 4K from it?

John.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Matt Davis

But to be fair, the audio to two channels is all about having your safety Channel 2 at -18dB less than the main *at recording time*, so when your interviewee harrumphs, barks, laughs, coughs or whatever, you still have something half decent rather than an ugly splat. Yes, there's a limiter, but that's just a 'rubber sheet' rather than 'coping with the inevitable'.

Not even the XF305 does this though. It's been a Canon thing, as both Sony and Panasonic have had it. I'm not aware of any Canon, fixed lens or no, that has this feature.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by John Steele

Is the C100 sensor not supposed to be the same as the 300 and 500 and the 500 gets 4K from it?

The C500 basically bypasses the Digic DV III processing chip entirely to output 4K. Meaning you get a non-debayered C-Log only 4K image.

[Darren Levine]

i've lobbied canon to stagger the resolution offerings, since you just have 4k, 1080, and 1080

give the c300 3k, and the c100 2.5k

would be great, but can the hardware even handle it is the more important question, but more important yet is whether canon would even want to

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Darren Levine

give the c300 3k, and the c100 2.5.

This will never happen. First, both the C100 and the C300 use the Digic DV III processing chip to process the video (like how the Panasonic Venus engine processes the video in the GH3/4). This chip was found in the older XF series camcorders and is limited to 1080 and the typical framerates of 720p60, 1080p24, 1080p30, and 1080i60 (which is also why you won't see 1080p60 in the C100).

To get 3K out of the C300, you will have to bypass the Digic DV III chipset and send a raw 3K signal out of the SDI port. Considering the C300 only has HD-SDI coming out of it, that would mean a compressed, non-compatible stream like the FS700 has. This is why the C500 removes the grip and adds 2 3G-SDI ports (for a compatible 4K raw stream). Even then it requires a recorder that can translate the Canon Raw signal.

The C100 will also not get 2.5k for that exact same reason. It would require a hardware upgrade on both cameras to replace the Digic DV III chipset (and I don't know if a Digic DV IV chipset even exists, probably next year I would imagine) and it doesn't even have SDI out, only HDMI, thus further removing itself from a compatible standard.

The only possible thing that could be added to the C100 is 720p60, a standard supported by AVCHD, Digic DV III and the HDMI port. Everything else is wishful thinking that doesn't take into account how these cameras take the photons hitting the sensor and turn it into a digital image.

So even if Canon wanted to give us this, it would be a folly of a business decision to even try given the logistics involved and the price they would have to charge.

[Noa Put]

I thought this thread was about being happy with what the c100 does provide, not about what one would like it could provide :)

[Alex Payne]

Originally Posted by Matt Davis

The C100 has the 4K sensor, but it's not for 4K. It's magic is created by downsampling the 4K to a really good HD signal, comparable to a 3 chip camera and to most eyes, negating the issues of a Bayer Pattern sensor. To use it as a 4K camera would be to halve or even quarter its quality as then each pixel is either a red, a green or a blue site and we get that sort of image that doesn't quite have the detail and bite we'd expect.

What's interesting about this is, and I don't know about you guys, but I so often hear producers demand a 4k camera, without knowing at all whether it's right for the project or even how good the final image will look, and refuse to budge.

It would be great just to have the capability, knowing that it may not be important at all but at least it gets my foot in the door. Then on these jobs, either I can say "Hey, you want to ignore my advice and shoot 4k, that's your prerogative and I still get my paycheck" OR if the producer's more reasonable, it gets me the job and I can THEN say "By the way, the thing about 4k is you really probably don't need or want it. I can totally do it, but here's why we shouldn't"

The easy answer seems to be, if they want a 4k camera rent a 4k camera... but again, and I don't know about you guys, I'm seeing more and more producers hiring owner/operators, without wanting to rent. And I can't really justify owning all those cameras. I really like the c100, but even having the option, even if it's not the best option, seems like it would go a long way.

IF it's possible. Which no one is really sure if it is. I won't cry if it isn't, and I'm well aware there's almost no chance it'll ever happen anyway, but it makes for interesting discussion.

[Gary Huff]

I tell people that my C100 is a 4K camera, you just don't get 4K out of it. It does the hard work in post of downrezzing to 1080 for you up front.

All of my work with the Red Epic has been for 1080 master.

[Kevin McRoberts]

I've used the C100 and like it well enough, and agree there's no reason for anyone to poo-poo it due to the newer cameras that emerge every year... it's simply a good camera. But let's look at the new offerings and how they might compare in real-world use:

First, URSA and CION, etc... no, not really in the same league for a multitude of reasons. I'll skip them.

More intriguing are the A7S and GH4. Both have a greater range of available lenses via adapters (plus SpeedBoosters if that's your fancy). GH4 can't easily utilize EF lenses yet, but Nikons and others are no problem. Both can actually use 3rd party adapters like HolyManta and Vizilex to effectively integrate ND filters, but using those sacrifices auto lens functionality. Both can be considered as having detatchable, well-integrated XLR solutions available - just like the C100, which includes it in the cost. Both have significantly better EVFs and screens than the C100. Both offer 1080p60 (or p96 on the GH4) and higher bitrate internal recording. A7S offers the option of full-frame or S35 sensor aesthetic; GH4 offers the slightly easier-focusing m43 depth as well as an integrated teleconversion crop mode (and also 'S35' aesthetic if SpeedBooster is used). A7S/XLR or GH4/YAGH with something like a PowerBase70 battery would offer equal-or-better battery life at a roughly equivalent weight to the C100. And of course the GH4 and A7S can also shoot really nice stills. They're less-featured in some ways, but greatly featured in many others.

So even supposing you don't even approach the 4K modes on either 'hybrid' camera model, just assessing them as 1080p cameras, you can really and truly get much of same capability, PLUS some, in a smaller packable size for less money now. You can add 4K shooting later (or right off the bat, internally, with GH4). If the question really comes down to ergonomics, I can have a really darned nifty side handle custom-designed for ~$1500.

More is now available for less. That's just the way stuff goes.

None of this takes away from the C100... it's a dandy camera and will be working well into the latter half of this decade. Proof-of-concept, I'm still soldiering on with a surprisingly not dead AF100, which still gets and executes plenty of work. We AF100 users have had plenty of experience in apology and self-affirmation of our cameras as newer and better tools have emerged and supplanted it as the top camera trend of the year. But all the cameras still work.

Take a load off... yeah, there are better cameras than your C100 now at the same or less price. It happens. None of it really affects your capabilities one damned bit. Keep using it in total confidence.

[Alex Payne]

It's no secret that many lower-priced cameras can achieve nearly the same functionality as the c100, but one of the assets for the c100 is that it's all already there. Can you take another camera and MAKE it work like the c100? Sure. Or you can just use the c100.

It's simply a case of right tool for the job. For their specific work, some may well prefer to take their dslr or what have you and rig it up, install magic lantern, get some adapters, add accessories and get something similar to the c100. I'm not downplaying that at all, I can imagine MANY instances where that's definitely the best way to get the job done. That's fine if that route works best for them. For many others, it's nice to just have the camera, pick it up and go and it's already got everything we need.