Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

BBC freelance cameraman tests Super 35mm 1080p on the Canon 1D C

44 posts in this topic

Posted

Try reading what I posted..... Firstly we are talking solely about resolution here.... Secondly, i'm talking about the R1-M , eg, not the MX, which is a 4.5k file... as i'm sure you are aware.

 Bamm.. wrong. This camera is soft at 4K and to my eyes doesn't mach the resolution of RED M. We could argue about that, but I'm not the only one saying that...

 

I was talking about the image as a whole, sorry you are right... But my statment keeps as it is.

 

And I really hate that skin tones. Plastic...

 

well, you get what you pay... $12.000. NOT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Red vs Canon.. Uh oh, things are about to get rocky isnt it..

 

My 2 cents:

1. Needs better then 8-bit for this price range.

2. Andrew make a good point:

 

If a better codec wasn't possible with the 1D X image processors then why don't they add a 10bit 4-4-4 HD-SDI port and use an external recording solution?

 

:/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Red vs Canon.. Uh oh, things are about to get rocky isnt it..

 

My 2 cents:

1. Needs better then 8-bit for this price range.

2. Andrew make a good point:

 

 

:/

 

No it won't...

 

this is an amazing camera... just overpriced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's a jailbroken Canon dslr. I look at the specs, and this one has the least amount of intentional blockades in the whole line up. Legal threats if anybody tampered with the 1DX. Etc. I like that it's a low light bad ass. I like Canon's version of an 8 bit colorspace, and the form factor is great & I'd definitely not turn one down if it was realistically priced for those specs. At the end of the day though, more shit will be talked about this camera than a janitor at a truckstop because we can all plainly see that it's just the least hindered one of the bunch... For the price of a car. Hell.. They discontinued the 5D2.. (Which was probably the greatest accident ever) - it was $1500. Now they've jumped it up to the same price as the newer faster 6D?!... Capitalizing on it like Mr. Crabs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

No one was talking about 8bit, compressed or anything else.... The conversation was about resolution.

 

The 4K on the 1-DC is far better than the 1080p on the 550D in terms of stated resolution versus actual resolution. The 550D is spitting out about 60% of the quoted resolution, whereas the 1D-C looks to be spitting out about 80% of the quoted resolution.

 

Well it looks soft as shit to me. It looks to resolve virtually the same in 1080p S35 mode as it does in 4K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The 1D C's 4K resolution has 2160 lines vertically, the BMCC has 1350.

 

Subjectively without having done a chart test I'd put the 1D C at around 1500 lines and the BMCC at 1200.

 

That's not a huge difference.

 

Upscale 1200 to 1500 and they will look similar.

 

4K on the 1D C is not true 4K.

 

They look like soft-ish 8MP JPEG images, which is what they are. They sharpen up nicely, but they don't grade as well as raw. All pretty obvious really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yep, the BMCC resolves more, mainly down to it's lack of an optical low pass filter... The trade off is moire/aliasing.

 

My intial point is though... and you seem to agree, it is roughly resolving around 70%-75% of the sensor... which is fairly standard for a CMOS sensor. Remove the optical low pass filter and you'd probably get that extra 5%-10% like the BMCC (though raw will help get the most resolution).

 

The 550D is clearly not resolving anywhere close to 70%-75% though. Which was my initial and only point :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[attachment=399:Original vs 1080.jpg]

I reckon I can see the difference. Here's a  blown up version of a 100% crop of the original image and a 200% crop of a reduced "1080" of the same image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's obviously resolving way more than the 1080p crop mode.

 

I'm sticking with my initial opinion.... 3.2K about the same as the RED-1M

 

I worked with a hell of alot of R1-M footage.... resolution wise, it looks very much the same. Maybe after post work, you could squeeze a little more out of the raw but "out of the box", looks about the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm not convinced it is 3.2k in reality or Red standard 4K. What about that screen grab of Brighton pier? How do you explain the closeness of the resolution. The super 35mm is a slight crop which explains part of it, but they look awfully close considering one is 1080p and one is 4K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Which image?.... or are you comparing 4K downscaled to 1080p, then zoomed in 2X, like it shows on the video?

 

Of course, downscaling 4K to 1080p will only look a little better than really good 1080p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That wasn't the case if Philip's labelling was anything to go by.

 

He put "100% crop" on the 4K screen grab.

 

No mention of downscaling to 1080p.

 

Maybe it is not clear and maybe that is what he did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yea, hard to tell what he meant.

 

All the 4K video and still samples look great though. Clearly far superior to even the best 1080p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You'd be surprised how far you can push 1080p though.

 

Go to the cinema for starters... Last thing on my mind there is 'wish it were sharper'

 

I also saw 1080p Blu Ray upscaled to 4K and it looked like... 4k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I also saw 1080p Blu Ray upscaled to 4K and it looked like... 4k.

 

Blu Ray upscaled to 4K?  on what 4K display?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Good review. More helpful than Philip Bloom's rather nebulous sample vids plus self engrandizing diatribe ;)


Not to be a bitch,--- it's not bad form to use technical teminology so in the spirit of brotherhood, the correct term for the quoted sentence is not 'engine', it's algorithm .

RE: MJPEG  ..."It is based on the same compression engine as JPEG for stills."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Good review. 

 

Review? You can actually do a review without touching the cam or shooting with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I feel like the Brighton pier samples were probably very degraded by the rainy weather conditions.  Seems like it would be hard to get sharp detailed images shooting through perhaps fog and rain.  So, don't think it is a very good example to compare resolution differences..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites