Jump to content

Photo
- - - - -

Bought the Canon 1DC


  • Please log in to reply
100 replies to this topic

#61 EOSHD

EOSHD

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 3,730 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 07:33 PM

Uncompressed is actually cheaper and less hardware intensive than compression.

 

This is why the BMCC costs $3000.

 

14 bit 4K of the sensor to shitty MPEG and it costs us money!

 

If I were Canon I'd have done an SSD box in a battery grip style casing under the base of the camera and do the absolute minimum of processing on the sensor output.



#62 HurtinMinorKey

HurtinMinorKey

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 764 posts
  • LocationCambridge MA, USA

Posted 25 January 2013 - 08:18 PM

 

14 bit 4K of the sensor to shitty MPEG and it costs us money!

 

It's absolutely crazy.



#63 ScreensPro

ScreensPro

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 373 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 08:28 PM

14 bit 4K of the sensor to shitty MPEG and it costs us money!

 

Nowhere as much as dealing with raw, 4k, 14bit uncompressed files would.

 

Like it or not, the 1-DC is a crash cam for Hollywood. Even adding room for an SSD slot would add too much real estate.



#64 EOSHD

EOSHD

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 3,730 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 08:54 PM

2.5" drive is hardly too much real estate even for a crash cam. Look at the size of the Blackmagic HyperDeck Shuttle, it is tiny.

 

I think Canon felt that spec creep would eat into their margin on it.

 

The margin by the way is rather large.



#65 FilmMan

FilmMan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 808 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 09:47 PM

It's such a colossal waste. It's debayering 14-bit images off the sensor, then encoding to 8-bit JPEG and wrapping up in MJPEG.

 

So why not encode to 10-bit? Silly Canon...

 

Of course, these pull 16-bit off the sensor at medium-format size. Sexy... http://www.bhphotovi...at_Digital.html

 

As an aside, here's what 80 megapixels looks like, from the PhaseOne IQ180 medium format. Looking at stills always makes most video look like a bucket of dicks: http://upload.wikime...uelineMegaw.jpg

I wish they'd give 10 bit.  I emailed Canon and that's all a guy can do.     



#66 ScreensPro

ScreensPro

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 373 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 02:00 PM

Unfortunately, adding 10bit is not gonna happen on the current 1D-C (unless Canon get drunk and offer a Jim Jannard style circuit board replacement)

 

If the banding is too much to work with, i'd take it back to the store.

 

If you are loving the images though, i'm sure you will find ways to avoid banding or fix in post.



#67 ScreensPro

ScreensPro

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 373 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 02:02 PM

2.5" drive is hardly too much real estate even for a crash cam.

 

I agree, if the camera was built from the ground up. It could easily be done.

 

The 1D-C was clearly rushed to market, probably on request by Hollywood guys buying up the C500.



#68 FilmMan

FilmMan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 808 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:47 PM

Unfortunately, adding 10bit is not gonna happen on the current 1D-C (unless Canon get drunk and offer a Jim Jannard style circuit board replacement)

 

If the banding is too much to work with, i'd take it back to the store.

 

If you are loving the images though, i'm sure you will find ways to avoid banding or fix in post.

 

I've contacted Canon with the my issue.  If Canon wants a top product then improvements should be made imo. I have figured a way around for the most part. Here's what another guy has posted. 

http://www.hdslr.es/...hp?topic=1711.0

 

To be fair, the camera is quite amazing.  I like it.   I had a weird case of banding where from highlight to midtone a skin area had banding (lighting was good) - in my opinion, it was due to 8 bit. 

 

Don't get me wrong,  the camera image ranks with the big boys.  It is exciting to shoot with, even for a crappy shooter like me. Cheers.



#69 Germy1979

Germy1979

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 569 posts

Posted 29 January 2013 - 11:08 AM

I've contacted Canon with the my issue. If Canon wants a top product then improvements should be made imo. I have figured a way around for the most part. Here's what another guy has posted.
http://www.hdslr.es/...hp?topic=1711.0

To be fair, the camera is quite amazing. I like it. I had a weird case of banding where from highlight to midtone a skin area had banding (lighting was good) - in my opinion, it was due to 8 bit.

Don't get me wrong, the camera image ranks with the big boys. It is exciting to shoot with, even for a crappy shooter like me. Cheers.


I can understand why you bought it man.. To me, & i said this in another thread, it's the dslr with the least amount of hands on it. I don't know why the only camera in the lineup to come off more than 255 values of gradation, especially at $12,000 friggin dollars, is just a $25,000 C300 waiting on another $5k+ to give you what an F3 can in that regard for much less. I personally think Canon are lucky they have customers at all at this point with the options out there now & people are wondering just exactly where they stand out? I like the charm of this camera...not sure if that's even what i want to say, but i like the form factor. They can charge what they want, but $12k is a hell of a lot even for a Hollywood producer to justify for a "crash cam" when 5D2's are intercutting with Alexa's just fine for that. I'm not saying this is a bad camera at all because i'd love to have one. I hate to hear about banding on a $12,000 camera when you probably work your ass off and that's a HUGE ordeal to pull the trigger on a purchase like that.. That's most of us. That's the boat that started all of this for Canon though, & they need to start giving a damn about why the 5D2 was such a massive hit. We could afford it.

#70 EOSHD

EOSHD

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 3,730 posts

Posted 29 January 2013 - 05:59 PM

Canon's Cinema EOS line is a perfect judgement. It is 'good enough' for commercially churned out work. Their sensors are pretty good, versatile in low light. Raw and the rest, the commercial industries just see it as a hassle. Raw is more for artists and big budget features.

 

If you look at Hollywood you won't see many C300s. They'll have Alexa, F65 or Epic Dragon for their main camera and maybe a 1D C as a POV or crash cam like Hulbut does. $12k even for a crash cam is cheap for these guys and I am sure they will rent not buy.

 

The Cinema EOS stuff is mostly designed to be rented which would explain somewhat the high purchase price.

 

Where Canon is a complete mess at the moment is with guys like us. Indie filmmakers and consumers. They really have come up short with the mass market DSLRs.



#71 Germy1979

Germy1979

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 569 posts

Posted 29 January 2013 - 06:58 PM

Canon's Cinema EOS line is a perfect judgement. It is 'good enough' for commercially churned out work. Their sensors are pretty good, versatile in low light. Raw and the rest, the commercial industries just see it as a hassle. Raw is more for artists and big budget features.

If you look at Hollywood you won't see many C300s. They'll have Alexa, F65 or Epic Dragon for their main camera and maybe a 1D C as a POV or crash cam like Hulbut does. $12k even for a crash cam is cheap for these guys and I am sure they will rent not buy.

The Cinema EOS stuff is mostly designed to be rented which would explain somewhat the high purchase price.

Where Canon is a complete mess at the moment is with guys like us. Indie filmmakers and consumers. They really have come up short with the mass market DSLRs.


When i think "crash-cam", I think "camera about to get fubar'd." Lol. Even for blank check writers over there, I'd assume that's rough. But they blow shit up for millions so, hey whatever. Go ahead, shove that $12k camera in a car and throw it off a cliff, fuckit... Go Bears. lol. For all the celebrity endorsements to evoke Canon's position amongst the professional work force now though, you're right... Alexa in one hand, Canon "C" in the other. Come on.. Even if they "can" hang, which I'm sure they could pull off a production in the right hands... Nobody's asking for an EOS to helm a production right now, because they're gonna have to earn that comfort that's synonymous with the usual suspects like a Red or an Arri. Guys like Hurlbut are lucky enough to get that kind of freedom with a Mark 2, but that is rare-as-hell and most of the time it's not even an option from what i understand. Even then, it's kind of disheartening to see a 2 foot, $60k Panavision lens hanging off the front of one, lol. Because we're excited about the use of something we can afford in a mass production... Annnnd we're back in the friendzone now.

#72 EOSHD

EOSHD

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 3,730 posts

Posted 29 January 2013 - 07:02 PM

The crash-cams don't always get destroyed, they're in protective boxes. When your budget is $100m, $12k x 10 for some cameras that make difference between getting the shot and not is a pittance. Why risk putting an operator in a dangerous position?

 

Again I have no problems with Cinema EOS at the high end, it is the consumer video end they need to sort out.



#73 ScreensPro

ScreensPro

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 373 posts

Posted 29 January 2013 - 07:13 PM

Where Canon is a complete mess at the moment is with guys like us. Indie filmmakers and consumers. They really have come up short with the mass market DSLRs.

 

The 5DIII is fine for any low budget/indie filmmaker. The fact that you folks lust after 4K, raw, 10bit, 15 stops DR etc is not Canon's fault or Canon's problem.

 

A filmmaker can easily tell his story with a 5DIII... and i would choose it hands down over any of the other DSLRs, bar the 1D-X and 1D-C

 

D800... aliasing/moire hell.

D4 - as above, but softer.

GH2... Shitty highlights and DR. Shitty low light.

GH3... Not readily available.

Sony's DSLRs.... None of them have a look that is nicer than Canon's.



#74 ScreensPro

ScreensPro

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 373 posts

Posted 29 January 2013 - 07:18 PM

btw - I sold my Canon and my only camera currently is a GH2 and a go-pro3.

 

As much as i might sound like one, i am not a Canon fanboy and couldn't care less who makes the camera i shoot with. My only issue is with people thinking that Canon have short changed them.... They have offered you usable options from $500 to $30,000.

 

If your budget is under $3k.... then expect to make sacrifices (BMCC included).



#75 Germy1979

Germy1979

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 569 posts

Posted 29 January 2013 - 07:21 PM

So this is a tad off topic.. Anybody ever think the 5D2 had a better look to the image than the new lineup? Sans the moire and whatnot, just seems like it had something to its color this new lineup doesn't. Maybe somebody can explain it to me because I haven't been impressed by much of anything i've seen from the replacements.

#76 Germy1979

Germy1979

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 569 posts

Posted 29 January 2013 - 07:47 PM

btw - I sold my Canon and my only camera currently is a GH2 and a go-pro3.

As much as i might sound like one, i am not a Canon fanboy and couldn't care less who makes the camera i shoot with. My only issue is with people thinking that Canon have short changed them.... They have offered you usable options from $500 to $30,000.

If your budget is under $3k.... then expect to make sacrifices (BMCC included).


I think we're all pissed because we "do" like Canon.. it's like a shitty relationship. Lol. Competition is showing us that the possibility to attain more for less or equivalent $$ doesn't help matters either. Out of all the 8 bit dslr's out there, I think Canon nailed it with the 5D2 and still do image wise. That's personal taste though. They are cashing the hell in on them still as well. Some sites have 5D2's for the same price and some more than a 6D right now.

#77 FilmMan

FilmMan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 808 posts

Posted 29 January 2013 - 07:54 PM

So this is a tad off topic.. Anybody ever think the 5D2 had a better look to the image than the new lineup? Sans the moire and whatnot, just seems like it had something to its color this new lineup doesn't. Maybe somebody can explain it to me because I haven't been impressed by much of anything i've seen from the replacements.

Yep  (except the 1DC) - but the price is the negative.   



#78 Bruno

Bruno

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 706 posts

Posted 29 January 2013 - 08:16 PM

The crash-cams don't always get destroyed, they're in protective boxes. When your budget is $100m, $12k x 10 for some cameras that make difference between getting the shot and not is a pittance. Why risk putting an operator in a dangerous position?

 

Exactly, and on top of that, they don't buy them, they usually rent, so they'd only pay full price for the ones they end up destroying, if it does come to that. From now on, I doubt any DP on a high budget movie will use a 5D if they can get a 1DC shooting 4K.



#79 Bioskop.Inc

Bioskop.Inc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 563 posts
  • LocationBristol, UK

Posted 29 January 2013 - 08:21 PM

So this is a tad off topic.. Anybody ever think the 5D2 had a better look to the image than the new lineup? Sans the moire and whatnot, just seems like it had something to its color this new lineup doesn't. Maybe somebody can explain it to me because I haven't been impressed by much of anything i've seen from the replacements.

I'm so tempted to buy a 5D2 (£1150+ Mosaic Filter £250), as you said every time i see 5D2 footage it looks nice - new stuff, not so much.

Prices should come down more, but i suspect that as stocks dwindle they'll keep them the same.

Maybe 7D2 or 70D might provide something?



#80 Bruno

Bruno

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 706 posts

Posted 29 January 2013 - 08:34 PM

Every time i see 5D2 footage it looks nice - new stuff, not so much.

 

It could be down to the people shooting with it. I haven't made any tests myself, but apart from the price, I don't see a single reason why the 5D2 would be a better choice than a 5D3, especially now that the clean HDMI out update is coming...






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users