Kino

From their quality control, it does look like it. Does the "Big Mac sensor meal" come with a side of magenta?

BMD outsources more than most of the companies I listed as manufacturing their own sensors: Sony, Canon and Panasonic. I never mentioned ARRI, and what I claimed about Blackmagic I backed up with a link to the Fairchild sensor at the heart of the Ursa Mini 4.6k. RED also does not use off-the-shelf sensors or "modified" sensors like the Fairchild. They design their own, which is then manufactured exclusively for them. There is a huge difference. I have no need to guess about BMD's manufacturing, when I already received two cameras from them with dust and particles behind the sensor protector glass. Perhaps next time you are in their factory you can mention this problem since I know others have seen it as well. Maybe they will listen to you considering your close relationship with the company . . .

Oh really? So BMD manufactures their own sensors and circuits and does not source them, as in the case of the 4.6k sensor from Fairchild imaging? http://www.fairchildimaging.com/catalog/focal-plane-arrays/scmos/ltn4625a As for the black hole fix in Resolve, it does not work on partially obstructed light sources or when you have a shot of the sun through leaves, for example. Moving objects and scattered highlights (the sun reflecting off water) are also difficult or impossible to fix using this tool. Otherwise, when the sun is clear of the horizon, it can really save a shot (it's still not a perfect solution, however). We should also note that the Ursa Mini 4k has solved the problem and no longer has the black sun that afflicts our BMPC-4K cameras.

Be careful what you wish for as it may come true. Canon recorded a loss for the last quarter. As one of the largest Japanese conglomerates, they wouldn't even be selling cameras if it weren't for the lenses they sell alongside them (and the fact that their imaging technology and sensors are utilized in several of their divisions). If the losses continue, however, Canon will simply get out of the camera business and focus on printers and everything else.

BMD's problem has always been quality control. Sadly, they seem to have only gotten worse with the Ursa Mini 4K and 4.6K. They don't learn from their past mistakes in rushing cameras out before they are ready. I think it has something to do with the fact that they source parts and do not manufacture their own circuits and sensors as with RED and the electronics conglomerates (Sony, Panasonic, Canon). They are a small camera operation (setting aside their post-production business, which is much older and more established) and offer niche budget products to indie filmmakers and videographers. I'm sure they will continue to focus on this market as opposed to producing cameras for larger productions, which require extensive service arrangements and logistical support. I shoot with the BMPC-4K and I had a 4.6K on preorder last year. Once I learned about all the problems, I cancelled it just before they shipped it to me. Currently, it's just too much of a risk. Perhaps when they have figured out all the problems, I can be confident in ordering one again. As for the price/performance, there is nothing even close . . .

The C300 II is not a "flop" but a victim of Canon's own success with the C100 line and C300 I, which are the most popular doc cameras in the world. The 1DC may be phased out, in which case its place will be filled by another C camera, perhaps the C100 III, or "C200," with 4K. However, I still believe that Canon intends to release a 1DC II and that it will be very similar to the 1DX II with only a slight premium on the price and features. I don't believe that 10 bit is possible in the weather-sealed body, since it would necessitate the introduction of fans. It would also raise the cost significantly and require them to redesign the 1D body from its newest version. They would also need a new codec other than MJPEG, which would undermine the "hybird" nature of the camera that is advertised as motion stills. The only other option would be to redesign MJPEG using a newer spec such as JPEG-9, which allows for 10-bit and 12-bit processing: http://www.infai.org/jpeg/ In this case, the camera will cost way more than a 1DX II because the R&D would go through the roof. I don't see Canon pursuing this more ambitious option and I expect them to stick to their conservative ways and their incremental product advancement with any 1DC II release.

By releasing the 1DX II, Canon has already demonstrated that it can bring this technology to market at less than half the cost of the original camera. A 1DC II is not going to cost $12K, or anywhere near the price of a C300 II. It will be a premium version of the 1DX II with a price tag of around $7-8k and it will add C-Log and a few other exclusive cinema features. It will also not cost Canon anything much on the R&D front. I've been certain about the 1DC II as soon as I heard about the 1DX II (especially with the lack of the cinema features from the 1DC). One follows the other, just like last time.

He, he! I'm thinking more about $8,000, or the price point just evacuated by the 1DC.

This all but confirms that the 1DC II will be announced by the end of the year to ship in 2017.

It has nothing to do with the 5D IV, which will come in at a much lower price. Rather, it keeps the 1DC competitive with the 1DX II and makes room for a 1DC II announcement perhaps later this year.

The Raven has only the fixed Standard OLPF. There are no other options. I don't have too much of a problem with the skin tones in the above video as it fits the aesthetics of advertising. No doubt, the Raven sensor is capable of more natural skin tones: What did impress me with the Allure video as opposed to the Raven footage that was posted previously was how clean the footage was in comparison. There is no noise and the ISO is kept well within the Dragon's range.

I saw some examples of RED Raven footage posted above, but I think this video is a much better demonstration of the camera's potential: For $5-10K, it doesn't get much better than this in terms of image quality. If you are shooting events or docs, however, I'm sure a Canon or Sony would be a better choice.

Rep vs. Specialist is just semantic nonsense. Wasim Ahmad has indeed been Canon's main rep when it comes to the 1DX II release. He has been its main spokesman at every major video/photo event since before the release, including NAB 2016. Roger Machin is just a regional Canon rep and nothing more. You can choose to believe whoever you want. The reality is that the 1DX II does not have any prospect for a "firmware upgrade" that adds C-Log or any of the other exclusive 1DC cinema features. I have no idea how much a hypothetical 1DC II will cost, but, if it improves on the original, it will be worth every penny in my opinion. As it is, the 1DC is a magnificent camera with image quality unmatched by anything out there in the DSLR world. A 1DC II will be a dream camera for many.

The Roger Machin reference to the 1DX II "replacing" the 1DC is something we have discussed on here before. It's just an off-the-cuff remark by a Canon regional rep for SA and not Canon's official position. Canon's main rep on the 1DX II, Wasim Ahmad, has stated the exact opposite with regard to the 1DC and 1DX II as "separate lines." Given that the C500 and 1DC are both massively discounted from their original prices, I suspect those two models are going to be replaced by newer models in the near future. If Canon does announce a 1DC II, it will come after the 1DX II sales have been mostly exhausted. I'm sure it will be nearly identical to the 1DX II, but will add a few features from the 1DC that are intentionally missing. I would bet far more on a 1DC II with C-Log than the idea of the 1DX II getting C-log out of nowhere. Canon just doesn't work like that. We all know that C-Log is exclusive to the Cinema EOS line and camcorders like the XC10 (which is under the same cinema/video division).

Congrats on your 1DC. It's an awesome camera that is often overlooked. As for those two films, I believe only Knock Knock was shot on the 1DC. It doesn't matter though. The 1DC has produced spectacular imagery in many high-end productions for film and TV. Best of all, no one suspects that you have a 4K cinema camera in your little tourist camera bag!

Hurlbut on shooting in C-Log on the 1DC: "Canon Log was one of the most exciting functions of the 1DC. At 400 ISO, it will give you a dynamic range of 12.5 stops. The log looks unbelievable. You can expose it easily, not like Cinestyle or other flat files. No h.264 codec here. This records to motion jpegs, and the WOW factor goes up when you see how the slight compression to the cards makes it look just like film. This compression, that I have embraced and love, softens the highlights, skin and rounds the 4K capture. 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." http://www.thehurlblog.com/film-education-online-the-next-gen-in-digital-film-capture-canons-4k-1dc/ Hurlbut also got only 9 stops shooting without C-log on the 1DC, so a difference of over 3 stops. Of course, you could argue that MJPEG plays a significant part in the 1DC's overall image quality, but it is the combination of MJPEG (4:2:2) and C-Log that facilitates the enhanced color grading possibilities in post. Moreover, the color space doesn't have to be any different for you to notice the greater flexibility in color grading that log provides over neutral.

It's much easier to get a smooth highlight roll-off from C-Log and the color gamut has a broader range to work with in post. This was already noted by a Technicolor colorist when grading Hurlbut's 1DC footage a few years ago. All the same, the above test shows that the 1DX II is not lacking in overall dynamic range. It has tremendous capability and incredibly clean shadows. I think if you already have a 1DC, you can look past the 1DX II. But if you are new to the 1D series cameras, the 1DX II offers good value among Canon's 4K options.

Yes, I remember commenting on that thread in favor of your 1DC results: It was a very useful test. One thing I would like to have seen is shadow comparisons between the 1DC in C-Log and the 1DX II. I believe the ones you provided were 1DC Neutral vs. 1DX II, whereas the highlight test looked at 1DC C-Log vs. 1DX II Neutral. C-Log is not always the best for clean shadows on the 1DC. What I'm seeing in pretty much all the 1DX II footage is much cleaner shadows than the 1DC in C-Log. The highlight roll-off might be more difficult to match, but the overall DR is very similar as portrayed in Cinema5d's Xyla test, where the DR is derived from Imatest software. The Roemer video above speaks for itself. It's an amazing performance for the 1DX II or any DSLR for that matter. A lowlight, portable and weather-sealed camera with 4K 60p and DPAF (and great rolling shutter performance) would be a nice complement to what I already have.

Here is a really impressive demonstration of shadow recovery on the 1DX II (video and blog by Jon Roemer): I can start to see how Cinema5d got similar overall DR numbers in its testing of the 1DC and 1DX II. If you expose for the highlights, you have a lot to work with in the shadows and midtones before hitting visible noise levels.

The Blackmagic 4K sensor has a global shutter and a resulting motion cadence that is very filmic in my opinion. It's a very unique quality to have in such a cheap camera, as it cost me $2500 brand new (and comes with a full version of Resolve, which is a $1000 added value). My unit also has no FPN that I've noticed after shooting ISO 800 in pitch black, but I'm aware that others have had nasty FPN problems. Regardless of the presence or absence of FPN, it is not a low-light camera as the ISO range and sensitivity are lower than any DSLR. Now Version 2 of the 4K sensor in the UM 4K has solved the black sun problem, but quality control and FPN issues persist. BMD has the worst quality control of any camera manufacturer as is well established by now (their post-production products on the other hand are much better). As for dynamic range, all I can say is that the Cinema DNG files are a goldmine of highlight and shadow recovery like you wouldn't believe. Whatever DR you start with, I would say you could get another 2-3 stops by grading the BMPC-4K's RAW files in Resolve. I don't shoot with the GH4 or V-Log so I'm not sure how it would compare really. You would have to put them side-by-side in Resolve to get a good idea of the usable DR. Finally, the lack of an anti-aliasing filter on the BMD cameras is a double edged sword: on the one hand, it means greater resolving power; on the other, you will get some aliasing and moiré (which is pretty minimal in my experience). RED by contrast employs very aggressive AA in their OLPFs that leads to a loss of fine detail, but gives the image a softer and more filmic appearance straight out of the camera. When I compare footage from Raven and Scarlet-W with BMPC-4K files, I see more resolution in the BMPC-4K than the Raven at 4.5K. The Scarlet-W is much better than the Raven since it shoots at 5K, yet still very close to the BMPC-4K. Of course, this is to say nothing of Raven's superior color science, its built-in IR filtration, its modularity and portability, its more efficient R3D codec, and its ability to shoot 4K in higher frame rates than the Ursa Mini cameras. If you have the money, by all means forget BMD and go with RED.

From what many have suggested here, you can see that the C100 is an ideal documentary and event video camera, but it's not really in the same class as the RAW cinema cameras from Blackmagic. I shoot with the BMPC-4K and am always amazed by what I can get out of the Cinema DNG RAW files in post. It's pretty incredible the DR and colors that you have to work with in Resolve. As for the UM 4.6k, I would wait until they have solved all the problems. By that point, the Terra 5K footage should be out so you can decide between those two cinema cameras if that is the road you want to go down. Personally, I cancelled my UM 4.6k order before it shipped since the footage that I was seeing had a few problems, including the motion cadence, color science, highlight clipping (the roll-off is not very smooth), and the absence of the global shutter that was promised. I also feel like I dodged a bullet, since we have reports of dealers going through 3-4 cameras to find a good one without any issues. At the moment, I don't believe they are even shipping the UM 4.6k as they wait to fix the camera. Now having listed a few things I don't like about some of the UM 4.6k footage I have seen out there, there is no doubt that it can produce astounding or breathtaking results: This would go on my list as some of the most beautiful and "filmic" imagery I have seen from any digital video camera all year.

Exactly. The cheapest I've seen it is around $8-9K: https://www.lensauthority.com/products/canon-eos-c500-ef-camcorder?gclid=CJHT3o37qs0CFdgXgQod_FYDAQ If you really want a C500, it's best to buy it new for $10K and get the warranty and the Cinema EOS services. There are too many things that can go wrong with a high-end cinema camera. It's a huge investment that you will need to count on over the years.

1DX II colors and skin tones "straight out of the camera": Good example of smooth and creamy roll-off here. Those picture style settings have a significant affect on color and DR. The number of looks you can achieve with the 1DX II are endless.

To be honest, the more footage I see from the 1DX II, the more I think it doesn't really need C-Log at all. There are a lot of excellent picture styles and post-processing looks out there already for every kind of filmic grade that you may want. Here are just a few examples that impressed me: Moreover, the 1DX II footage is some of the cleanest I have ever seen from a 4K camera, let alone anything that Canon has produced in its Cinema EOS line: On 4K image alone, it is a threat to the C100 II (no 4K), C300 II (overpriced), C500 (no internal 4K), UM 4.6k (would not have one for free), FS7 (XAVC-I is highly compressed at 240 Mbps), and even the Raven (too much noise) that I have ordered, all of which I would pass on to buy this camera. When I need XLRs, I attach a separate audio preamp/recorder with a line into the camera. It's really not a problem and generally better than what you get from in-camera XLRs on a dedicated video camera. I would have to do the same thing with the Raven, for example, as the XLR module costs an extra $3K.

I'm very interested in your results with Marvels Cine Picture Style on the 1DX II specifically. Do you have any samples that you can post that demonstrate enhanced DR performance or roll-off relative to the standard or neutral profiles? All the Marvels samples online are with other Canon cameras. Also, I believe C-Log has access to RAW sensor data before the point at which picture profiles are ever involved. I guess only the Canon engineers know for sure. One thing we do know is that if the $6,000 1DX II had C-Log it would seriously threaten the entire Cinema EOS line. It may be that they have no plans for a 1DC II, such that their main objective here is simply to protect the overpriced C300 II and whatever 4K C200/C100 III they plan to release.