Kino

This so-called "source" is a member on a fredmiranda.com forum who posted his own chart to the forum with the following caveat: "Note: all the RAWs (except for the 1DX2) come from Imaging Resource ISO series (the 1DX2 have been received from another source which I won't disclose; please do not ask me for these RAWs)." This is not a like a publication by DPreview with transparent examples for everyone to see. Moreover, I wouldn't put too much value in that chart until I could see the 1DX II examples for myself. DPreview's test of the 1DX II is fairly damning and is there for everyone to see. Another test with examples showed that the 1DX II and 1DX are actually identical in performance: Just like DPreview, he provides concrete examples to prove his point: the 1DX II offers no improvements on DR or noise performance. I also believe they are identical for reasons I stated above in that the 1DX II is starting out with a signal-to-noise disadvantage with its smaller photosites that it has to overcome through more advanced sensor tech and processing (Digic 6+).

Where are you getting these DR numbers for the 1DX II and why would you assume that the 1DC has a "weaker sensor"? In fact, most of the tests we have seen show equal performance, if not an edge for the older sensor as in the DPreview article already cited on this forum: http://***URL removed***/news/8090146652/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii-studio-tests After all, the 1DX/1DC sensor has larger photosites than the second generation (6.95 vs. 6.65 microns) and can theoretically achieve a greater signal-to-noise ratio. Perhaps processing advancements and the gapless micro-lens sensor technology can make up for the smaller photosites of the 1DX II so as to even out the noise performance between the cameras, but it is doubtful that it could be much better. From what I have seen, the 1DX II video footage performs exactly the same as the 1DC in neutral no matter what you do with those superficial picture profile settings, which means that it has 9 stops of DR and a lot of crushed blacks and nearly-clipped highlights: The 1DC on the other hand will give you a very different look with better DR, smoother roll-off, and much lower contrast, not to mention the wider and richer color gamut that goes with C-Log when grading the footage in post:

No need to argue with me about the virtues of the C300 II, as it is one of my dream cameras. I just wish the price were about $5-6K lower so that I could justify such a purchase. At $10K, it would be very much worth it. Now the only "inaccurate narrative" is found in Canon's claims about the C300 II's 15-stop DR, which would place it beyond the Alexa! Cinema5d's Xyla test of the C300 II shows only 12 stops of DR. The FS7 was also found to have lower DR than Sony's claims of 14 stops: https://***URL not allowed***/canon-c300-mark-ii-review-dynamic-range/ With the C300 II's internal 10 bit and external 12 bit RAW output, however, you should be able to recover much more of its highlights and shadows than the 1DC, so perhaps we could say that the C300 is a 14-stop camera with RAW recovery. There is no debating that at 2X the price ($16K) it is a better cinema camera than the 1DC and that it produces stunning results. Just because the 1DC can reach similar DR numbers as the FS7, C300 and C500 in a latitude test does not mean they are equal in other ways as I have stated. The same could be said for the A7SII DR, which comes in at just below 12 stops, but which has the worst codec of the bunch: https://***URL not allowed***/ultimate-sony-a7s-ii-vs-a7s-test-difference/

That's not a very good test as the 1DC in that comparison was shot with a different framing that placed more sunlight into the background relative to the other cameras. They should all have the same framing. Despite this problem, you can see that the overexposure of the building looks equal on the 1DC and C500 frame grabs. Now the "cinema cameras" I was thinking of are those in the 1DC's general price range such as the FS7 and C300. But, in any case, different tests will produce different results, especially when we have no idea what the exact settings were on each camera. Here is an actual side-by-side video that shows a very good performance for the 1DC in terms of its DR when compared to cinema cameras including the C500: It's also important to note that the C500 has an expanded DR in HD 12 Bit RGB 4:4:4 relative to what it achieves in 4K 10 bit RAW, where its latitude is reduced. In the HD mode, it is a very impressive camera indeed. In 4K, however, the C500 has a reduced DR of around 12 stops, which is roughly equivalent to the FS7 and the C300 II: https://***URL not allowed***/canon-c300-mark-ii-review-dynamic-range/ The 1DC itself was measured at 12.5 stops by Hurlbut, who has tested both the C500 and the 1DC very extensively: http://www.thehurlblog.com/film-education-online-the-next-gen-in-digital-film-capture-canons-4k-1dc/ His exposure and latitude tests for the 1DC and C500 are available on his channel. Here are just a few examples: In both overexposure tests, you can see that the C500 and the 1DC will go about 3 stops over before they clip in a way that is unrecoverable, unlike the Alexa which can go much further. Based on Hurlbut's tests, I would say that the 1DC indeed "rivals" the C500 when it comes to DR but not in any other way as a proper cinema camera.

As Ebrahim explained so well in his post, C-Log has access to the RAW image data coming off the sensor before it has gone through JPEG encoding. This is why C-Log on the 1DC is capable of recovering highlights while retaining shadow detail simultaneously: It’s an astounding performance here that rivals or exceeds the DR of many cinema cameras including Canon’s own C500. No amount of tinkering with the 1DX II picture profile settings and “cinestyles” can actually affect the recorded gamma curve like C-Log so as to capture this kind of DR.

Panasonic adding V-log to the GH4 (or Sony adding a paid RAW upgrade to the FS5's SDI output) is a poor comparison. Panasonic in particular has nothing else to protect from the Micro 4/3 GH4, while Sony is offering a feature that they had already promised at launch and which is available on other FS cameras like the cheaper FS700. C-Log is exclusive to Canon's Cinema EOS line and their XC10 camcorder, which doesn't compete against the cinema line. Based on that reason, you will never see it on the 1DX II and you will be waiting a lot longer than those who are waiting for the 1DC II. Anyway, your 1DX II is already a great camera, especially for lighting conditions that don't require C-Log such as nighttime or overcast days. It also has many of the qualities of the 1DC's amazing image for a fraction of that camera's original price. I just feel that history is about to repeat itself on the 1DX and 1DC releases.

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 as "Most Likely," I would say -5! This is not a Cinema EOS camera or a camcorder like the XC10, so there is absolutely no chance. C-Log, Super 35mm mode, and the recording time limit (to avoid EU taxes) have been withheld from the 1DX II in order to protect the separate 1DC line and to keep the retail price competitive with Nikon's D5 ($6500). These are not the kinds of things you just add in firmware. The 1DC itself did have a few firmware upgrades (25P, Audio Line In, cinema lens support), but those were all features consistent with other Cinema EOS cameras and were minor in comparison. Well, of course, there will be a "paid firmware upgrade" to the 1DX II, but it will come with a new body attached in the form of the 1DC II and it will retail for several thousand more. I would expect some kind of announcement on the 1DC II after the Rio Olympics, when the initial 1DX II sales begin to taper off. What must sting really bad from last time is that early 1DX adopters were blindsided by the 1DC announcement just one month after the 1DX's release in 2012. I feel like Canon will prolong the 1DC II announcement just a little longer this time, if for no other reason than the 1DC model that is already sitting on the shelves.

No worries. My point is simply that HTP doesn't really do anything you couldn't do with changing the exposure up or down. In all of these cases of HTP, picture profiles and Technicolor Cinestyle, you are not gaining any DR. You are just moving the scale around like a slide ruler through the 1DC exposure range. Only C-Log is able to access the high dynamic range of the sensor and actually expand the standard range by 3-4 stops in order to extract its full potential.

Ebrahim, I agree with everything in your post, except for the part on HTP (Highlight Tone Priority). In the comparisons I have seen, very little DR is gained in this mode relative to C-Log. I encourage everyone to download Andree’s original 1.8 GB 1DC 4K file on Vimeo, since it is incredibly informative on the issue of C-Log vs. HTP: Without C-Log, there is definitely a loss of a few stops of DR in the highlights and shadows. Yes, it's possible to bring down the exposure to compensate, but too much is lost in terms of shadow detail and color saturation. Look at how the green and yellow foliage loses its color in the -1 EV HTP footage of the sunset. In the shots of the clock tower, Canon C-Log captures every detail of the sky as well as the shadows (the uploaded frame grabs are not doing it justice, but it is there in the original). Without C-Log, you have to choose which one to salvage. But that's not the end of the story. C-Log is capturing even more detail in midtones, highlights and shadows, no matter what you do with your neutral footage. It's actually quite amazing the difference it makes (and Andree’s is not the only footage I've seen that demonstrates such a stark contrast between neutral and Log).

Currently, I have a BMPC-4K for my own projects and I don't want anything more to do with these massive CinemaDNG files or the rig that I had to assemble to carry the V-Lock battery (the internal battery lasts about 30 minutes). Its rear screen is also completely useless outdoors and the "black sun" issue has ruined many of my shots that cannot be fixed in Resolve. With its limited DR, I have to shoot this camera 12 Bit RAW instead of ProRes in order to recover highlights and shadows and that means that 1 minute of footage takes up 12 gigabytes! It's also very difficult to edit on Resolve unless you have two GPUs. The 1DC would alleviate many of these problems and allow me to take my camera places where my current setup is impractical. I would also be able to use my slider and Steadicam and carry all this equipment to remote locations in the forest, for example, where I have gone in the past with smaller cameras. Add to that the weather-sealed body and my L glass collection and it's a perfect combination. If I keep to the Raven preorder or switch to a Scarlet-W, I would retain the RAW quality while easing up on the processing requirements for post. Both the 1DC and the Raven/Scarlet-W would offer a significant improvement in DR. And this is not even to mention the IR pollution on the BMD sensors . . .

Ebrahim, It's interesting to me that you are trying to decide between the 1DC and the 1DX II. I just don't think they can be compared at all. In my case, I am trying to decide among the Raven, Scarlet-W, 1DC, FS7 and UM 4.6k (cancelled my order on that one before it shipped!). I currently have a deposit on the Raven, but I'm not sure if I will upgrade to Scarlet-W or switch to the 1DC. Those are the 1DC's "peers" in terms of image quality as far as I can tell from comparing camera files from all of them. And even if I end up with a Scarlet-W, I can tell you that the 1DC stands up to Dragon 5K footage in every way but the color palette. I would say that the 1DX II and 1DC actually resolve more detail than the Raven at 4.5K, owing to the aggressive OLPF or anti-aliasing filter that RED employs on these cameras. At 5K, the Scarlet-W draws even in resolving power, and, with the RAW "pseudo-16 bit" color palette, it's a much more attractive investment for me. But, still, I am continuously drawn back to the 1DC because of its amazing image quality, its portability/weight and its weather sealing. It's a very tough decision.

It actually does not matter what 8-bit color space (709 or 601) the 1DC camera uses. What really matters is that we are talking about 8 bit Log (1DC) vs. 8 bit Linear (1DX II). That makes a world of difference in dynamic range and color grading. It's C-Log that allows the 1DC to achieve 12.5 stops of DR, which would be on par with the FS7 and C300 II: https://***URL not allowed***/canon-c300-mark-ii-review-dynamic-range/. That amount of DR is incredible for almost any camera, let alone an 8 Bit DSLR: http://www.thehurlblog.com/film-education-online-the-next-gen-in-digital-film-capture-canons-4k-1dc/ In the above article on the 1DC, Hurlbut also has this to say about the 1DC color space when grading the C-Log footage in post: "The contrast ratio feels more like a hill than a cliff. Skin tones are absolutely beautiful. Vitality abounds with the Canon’s sensor and color space. I could care less that it is 8 BIT color. I am getting it very close, and Dave Cole, our colorist at Technicolor, had a huge range to deal with. Canon’s 8 BIT feels like 12 BIT with its color space and reproduction."

The only Canon rep I know of who made the claim that the “1DX II replaces the 1DC” was Roger Machin of Canon South Africa in this interview with a SA YouTuber: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRXc6_OIswc I remember this because I was the first to post about it on DVXuser, where I made the wrong conclusions at the time. In reality, it’s a completely off-the-cuff remark and I wouldn’t read too much into that considering several other Canon sources have since confirmed that these are indeed two separate camera lines. For example Wasim Ahmad, who is USA Canon’s main spokesman for the 1DX II, made it very clear that Canon views the 1DC and 1DX as separate product lines that will continue simultaneously: "This is the first 1D series camera that can do 4K aside from the 1DC, which is technically a cinema camera, but in the 1DX line this can do 4K . . ." https://vimeo.com/165931499

Thanks very much for your kind words. Our debate on this topic was spread out over several threads, but it's not too difficult to find. Some of the members who post here also post there so you will find at least some overlap.

I understand. I was trying to be as fair as I can to the 1DX II. I completely agree with you about the look of the 1DC. The 1DC image in C-Log will have a much softer roll-off so you will never get that high DR look with the 1DX II, which basically goes off a cliff at both ends. You are adding two stops to the highlights and two in the shadows. Moreover, you are also getting more detail and more color fidelity in the shadows. People seem to forget that C-Log also provides many advantages when color grading. The 1DC is simply in another league when it comes to producing footage that can be cut easily with high-end cinema cameras and that is why it costs $2,000 USD more. If you demand that type of cinematic image quality, you already have your answer.

We’ve been discussing this very topic on DVXuser for several weeks, but I’m not here to bore you with all the details and footage comparisons involved in our lengthy debate. Suffice it to say that both cameras offer astounding color reproduction, noise performance, and resolving power. Log or no Log, these are both great cameras with the 1DX II improving in three key areas: rolling shutter, 4K60P, and DPAF. Although C-Log would have been an unlikely but welcome addition to the 1DX II, it’s a very capable camera in the right conditions and in the right hands. Naturally, without C-Log it has more contrast and less DR (3-4 stops) but it also has a very filmic image owing to the MJPEG codec and 4:2:2 subsampling it shares with the 1DC. Just think of the two cameras as two different kinds of film stock suited for different kinds of grades or looks. We should also not forget that filmmakers like Abraham Joffe have shot beautiful footage on the 1DC without using C-Log: https://vimeo.com/85900123 In fact, Joffe has stated that he prefers shooting the 1DC using the picture profile settings and not C-Log: http://www.untitledfilms.com.au/2013/11/shoot-edit-deliver-4k-now/ You can check out all his 1DC films including the National Geographic TV series, Tales By Light, to get an idea of what is possible outside of C-Log: https://vimeo.com/79268261 https://vimeo.com/128699210 I’m not suggesting that I agree with Joffe on C-Log, but it’s a different perspective from my own and I find that Joffe’s approach is very compelling considering the results it has produced on the 1DC. Moreover, instead of choosing between these two cameras, I would be tempted to hold off and wait at least 4-5 months for any upcoming 1DC II announcement. That will combine the best of both worlds. After all, Canon has good reason to withhold key cinema features such as C-Log and Super 35mm mode from the 1DX II and we shall soon know what they have in mind . . .