Jump to content

Kino

Members
  • Content Count

    167
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kino

  1. 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
  2. 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://www.dpreview.com/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
  3. 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://www.cinema5d.com/canon-c300-mark-ii-review-dynamic-range/ With the C300 II's i
  4. 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 actu
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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 camera
  8. 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.
  9. 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 th
  10. 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 unle
  11. 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
  12. 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://www.cinema5d.com/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-captu
  13. 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 th
  14. 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.
  15. 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
  16. 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
×
×
  • Create New...