I kind of like the skin tones and color coming from the C200 over the Blackmagic cameras. They’re really close to Arri’s color science. Which I am in love with.
Yes, They really do look good indeed! Thank you for your comment. The c200 does look better when it comes to skintones over the bmpcc 6k. That is true!
So glad I found this video, have been looking for test footage to see the dynamic range for c200 on both mp4 and RAW (most people just address the RAW)-so thanks so much for this!
A real nice review and really well done.....do you think that if the 10 bit at say 422 codec would have made a real big massive difference if it was in this camera??
Black Steel Tv I think it would for sure. The MP4 is a great option but the 8bit color is a bit limiting. When you have the ability to shoot 422 in 10bit you would have a lot more to work with. But as the c300 is the main broadcast camera it is understandable that canon made the choice to simply not add it to the c200. Dispite the fact that a lot of us use the c200 for work that needs a mp4 codec instead of the massive RAW codec. The question is: Did Canon make the c200 for mp4 work or to produce a RAW Capable camera that could compete with the red raven, Blackmagic and sony fs7 (plus all the others)? Making the mp4 a bit of a nice extra but not their focus. The fact that you see the camera a lot, and being used for so much projects of all kinds, is prove of it’s succes I feel like. But a 10bit codec would have made this camera even better for sure.
@@PeterBaerveldt That's true...but you cant keep holding on to old camera's forever though...i dont think it would have halted sales on the C300 but it is an old camera now....and if the C200 had it the sales would go through the roof for sure....so maybe they made a mistake with a no middle ground codec....just my opinion.
Hi, great subject. I found out about your channel. Can we shoot 60 fps in raw? And can u tell the size of the file for 1 minute? Thanks for your answer
Thank you for your question! I shoot almost everything in ISO 800. with the 8-bit it's best to shoot in the cleanest ISO configuration as possible. There's not to much room for fixing anything with the 8-bit stuff. But if needed, I do use lower or higher ISO's. But try to avoid it when you can.
Hmm, I've never tested it. But when it comes to color -> 16bit Arri vs. 12bit Canon? There will be differences. Arri's color science Is amazing so I would say Arri will come out on top. Great question. Thanks for asking
I understand what you mean, As long as you shoot it right it's almost perfect straight out of camera. But when you're off it's garbage haha. So there's that :)
Sorry missed your reaction. My bad! There are little differences. I use HAVC because someone told me it's a bit better not because i know for sure. Let me make you this promise, I'll go out this week and shoot some MP4 and HAVC shots in order to see what the differences are and which is more processor friendly. It will be an interesting test to do.
Yes and no because 8bit comes short for true LOG shooting. The BT.709 setting is the perfect middle ground for me. Gives enough to work with and it has enough saturation and contrast to not fall apart when grading.
I kind of like the skin tones and color coming from the C200 over the Blackmagic cameras. They’re really close to Arri’s color science. Which I am in love with.
Yes, They really do look good indeed! Thank you for your comment. The c200 does look better when it comes to skintones over the bmpcc 6k. That is true!
Excellent video Peter. Honest, helpful and well laid out. Thank you!
Thank you for the kind words. Glad to help!
So glad I found this video, have been looking for test footage to see the dynamic range for c200 on both mp4 and RAW (most people just address the RAW)-so thanks so much for this!
Glad to help out mate!
I love your background. What do you call those things holding up the pictures? It looks very industrial.
Thanks the comparison! For interviews...can you shoot MP4 in 4K?
yes you can!
A real nice review and really well done.....do you think that if the 10 bit at say 422 codec would have made a real big massive difference if it was in this camera??
Black Steel Tv I think it would for sure. The MP4 is a great option but the 8bit color is a bit limiting. When you have the ability to shoot 422 in 10bit you would have a lot more to work with. But as the c300 is the main broadcast camera it is understandable that canon made the choice to simply not add it to the c200.
Dispite the fact that a lot of us use the c200 for work that needs a mp4 codec instead of the massive RAW codec. The question is: Did Canon make the c200 for mp4 work or to produce a RAW Capable camera that could compete with the red raven, Blackmagic and sony fs7 (plus all the others)? Making the mp4 a bit of a nice extra but not their focus.
The fact that you see the camera a lot, and being used for so much projects of all kinds, is prove of it’s succes I feel like. But a 10bit codec would have made this camera even better for sure.
@@PeterBaerveldt That's true...but you cant keep holding on to old camera's forever though...i dont think it would have halted sales on the C300 but it is an old camera now....and if the C200 had it the sales would go through the roof for sure....so maybe they made a mistake with a no middle ground codec....just my opinion.
@@BlackSteelBlackSteelPromotions if the C200 had 422 it would be the top selling sub 10K camera on the market... possibly sub 20K as well.
Black Steel Tv you can always use the atomos ninja for external 422 10 bit codec recording with the c200
Thanks!
You're welcome :) Glad to help out.
Hi, great subject. I found out about your channel. Can we shoot 60 fps in raw? And can u tell the size of the file for 1 minute? Thanks for your answer
I'll add this to the content list for future video's! Gonna make an update video on the C200 soon ;) So stay tuned for that :)
But RAW is in DCI 4K only correct? And MP4 is in UHD 4K?
yes that's correct!
whats your iso for the shots ? using the native 800 or 400 ?
Thank you for your question! I shoot almost everything in ISO 800. with the 8-bit it's best to shoot in the cleanest ISO configuration as possible. There's not to much room for fixing anything with the 8-bit stuff.
But if needed, I do use lower or higher ISO's. But try to avoid it when you can.
Is Raw Light 12bit comparable with ProRes4444 by Arri Alexa?
Hmm, I've never tested it. But when it comes to color -> 16bit Arri vs. 12bit Canon? There will be differences. Arri's color science Is amazing so I would say Arri will come out on top.
Great question. Thanks for asking
In terms of color, mp4 looks better.. my type
I understand what you mean, As long as you shoot it right it's almost perfect straight out of camera. But when you're off it's garbage haha. So there's that :)
Is there any difference between mp4 and havc? Thanks!
Sorry missed your reaction. My bad! There are little differences. I use HAVC because someone told me it's a bit better not because i know for sure.
Let me make you this promise, I'll go out this week and shoot some MP4 and HAVC shots in order to see what the differences are and which is more processor friendly.
It will be an interesting test to do.
Do you like the wide dr for mp4?
Yes and no because 8bit comes short for true LOG shooting. The BT.709 setting is the perfect middle ground for me. Gives enough to work with and it has enough saturation and contrast to not fall apart when grading.