Jump to content
DBounce

New Canon 1DX Mkii Footage

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
On 28/04/2016 at 6:45 PM, ajay said:

For those that consider the look of the 1DX Mark II not "film like", what about this clip?

 

I assumed correctly they shot this on L series.  and it looks like also the L series 'cine' versions.  It's not the camera that makes this feel the polar opposite of the look of No Country for Old Men.  It's the glass.  If they'd had cooke s4's on the front of the 1dxmk2 i imagine the image would look like a real movie.  The fact that they can be in just about the most filmic location I can imagine and it still feel like a dslr shoot is because of the lenses.  

Canon glass = photo journalist snapping a criminal after his day in court 

Cooke glass = Hollywood.

Shame Canon stick with their EF mount and stop people using real lenses.  If you want it to look filmic you need filmic glass.  An Alexa mini with an EF mount and L lenses looks just as non filmic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, richg101 said:

I assumed correctly they shot this on L series.  and it looks like also the L series 'cine' versions.  It's not the camera that makes this feel the polar opposite of the look of No Country for Old Men.  It's the glass.  If they'd had cooke s4's on the front of the 1dxmk2 i imagine the image would look like a real movie.  The fact that they can be in just about the most filmic location I can imagine and it still feel like a dslr shoot is because of the lenses.  

Canon glass = photo journalist snapping a criminal after his day in court 

Cooke glass = Hollywood.

Shame Canon stick with their EF mount and stop people using real lenses.  If you want it to look filmic you need filmic glass.  An Alexa mini with an EF mount and L lenses looks just as non filmic

In your opinion, which are filmic glass for use on Canon, and Sony?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, photographer-at-large said:

In your opinion, which are filmic glass for use on Canon, and Sony?

For sony, You could fit panavision lenses if you wanted to.  But in the real world with a very cheap e-mount to oct18 adaptor you can fit lomo copies of the old arri 35mm format lenses.  at £100-150 a pop the oct18 lenses are the cheapest way to get the look I consider 'cinema'.

for canon you are pigeon holed into using lenses that can be adaptoed to eos - so most 35mm motion picture lenses are not usable.  but IMO a set of old 1970's nikon adapted to eos are a good call.  or better, some leica summicron-r lenses.  The problem is that unless you're using the full sensor of the 1dxii (which you are not when shooting in modes where they take a full readout - full frame mode is mushy and lacking the image quality you get from the aps-c and aps-h modes), without having a full frame sensor area, you are then obliged to purchase an additional wider lens than you'd normally have to.  assuming a set of full frame lenses like a 35mm/2, 50mm/2 and 85mm/2 were in your budget they'd be great in full frame, but when in aps-h or aps-c modes you'll need to invest in a wider lens (25-28mm) whch will be more costly and likely not as good image image quality as a good 35mm/2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, richg101 said:

For sony, You could fit panavision lenses if you wanted to.  But in the real world with a very cheap e-mount to oct18 adaptor you can fit lomo copies of the old arri 35mm format lenses.  at £100-150 a pop the oct18 lenses are the cheapest way to get the look I consider 'cinema'.

for canon you are pigeon holed into using lenses that can be adaptoed to eos - so most 35mm motion picture lenses are not usable.  but IMO a set of old 1970's nikon adapted to eos are a good call.  or better, some leica summicron-r lenses.  The problem is that unless you're using the full sensor of the 1dxii (which you are not when shooting in modes where they take a full readout - full frame mode is mushy and lacking the image quality you get from the aps-c and aps-h modes), without having a full frame sensor area, you are then obliged to purchase an additional wider lens than you'd normally have to.  assuming a set of full frame lenses like a 35mm/2, 50mm/2 and 85mm/2 were in your budget they'd be great in full frame, but when in aps-h or aps-c modes you'll need to invest in a wider lens (25-28mm) whch will be more costly and likely not as good image image quality as a good 35mm/2.

Thank you very much.

You don't approve of Zeiss' offerings (Otus, Milvus, Loxia & Batis)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, photographer-at-large said:

Thank you very much.

You don't approve of Zeiss' offerings (Otus, Milvus, Loxia & Batis)?

actually of all the modern offerings the loxia are definitely my favourites.  If I had the cash I'd be all over them!  The problem with modern lenses is that they all seem to be over contrasty meaning they don;t render things like skintones quite as nicely as older lenses IMO.

TBH, it might be that correct use of diffusers and netting might make canon L series more appealing to my eye, but the fact remains is that the lenses have been used extensively in non cinematic environments to the point where they impart a non cinematic look.  It's like the opposite of panavision lenses.  if you take stills with a panavision c-series lens the still looks like a frame from a movie.  when you shoot a movie with an L series lens it's like a series of still images taken by a newspaper photographer.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

800mbps :dissapointed_relieved:

Sorry, I just feel that needed shouting! That's incredibly inefficient! MJPEG is not the smartest way to be encoding 4k. It must be becuase they're using passive cooling and the same ol' processor, but that's gonna hog your hard disks.

With Redcode raw at 50fps 10:1 it's about 800mbps at an estimate or so but you get 16-bit raw, not 8-bit baked-in.

Then again the media are like 5 times the price. LOL. and I suppose it's not fair to compare to Redcode since no-one else has made such a codec. but it makes you think.

7 minutes ago, richg101 said:

actually of all the modern offerings the loxia are definitely my favourites.  If I had the cash I'd be all over them!  The problem with modern lenses is that they all seem to be over contrasty meaning they don;t render things like skintones quite as nicely as older lenses IMO.

TBH, it might be that correct use of diffusers and netting might make canon L series more appealing to my eye, but the fact remains is that the lenses have been used extensively in non cinematic environments to the point where they impart a non cinematic look.  It's like the opposite of panavision lenses.  if you take stills with a panavision c-series lens the still looks like a frame from a movie.  when you shoot a movie with an L series lens it's like a series of still images taken by a newspaper photographer.  

 

there's a quality about cinema glass that's hard to pin down. I think it's the old adage of the last 10% of the work being 90% of the result, or something equally business cheese speak.

I feel a lot of it simply has to do with the sheers surface area of the glass too, same with microphones, a large diaphragm sound just can't physically emulate a small-diaphragm sound because of what physically happens with the latter. It seems you can't really ape the look of a massive lens with a small one, because it ain't drinking the same amount of light.

I feel I may have gone a bit hippy ther, but perhaps you get me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, richg101 said:

actually of all the modern offerings the loxia are definitely my favourites.  If I had the cash I'd be all over them!  The problem with modern lenses is that they all seem to be over contrasty meaning they don;t render things like skintones quite as nicely as older lenses IMO.

TBH, it might be that correct use of diffusers and netting might make canon L series more appealing to my eye, but the fact remains is that the lenses have been used extensively in non cinematic environments to the point where they impart a non cinematic look.  It's like the opposite of panavision lenses.  if you take stills with a panavision c-series lens the still looks like a frame from a movie.  when you shoot a movie with an L series lens it's like a series of still images taken by a newspaper photographer.  

 

Thank you again richg101.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's Reid's new video: 

 

 

It's funny, though, because prior to DSLRs all we wanted was HD video with interchangeable lenses. Now we want 10-bit 4k at 120fps in the same package. I'm not complaining, I want it, too. It's just that the lower end of the market will always have the leftovers from the higher end. Kinefinity TERRA for the win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Raafi Rivero said:

Here's Reid's new video: 

 

 

It's funny, though, because prior to DSLRs all we wanted was HD video with interchangeable lenses. Now we want 10-bit 4k at 120fps in the same package. I'm not complaining, I want it, too. It's just that the lower end of the market will always have the leftovers from the higher end. Kinefinity TERRA for the win.

LOL! Straight in there with latest meme! Nice one! It's the new Hitler Downfall!

I love that it's an argument about Krautrock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2016 at 3:24 PM, richg101 said:

 $20k budget to pay for the edit/post for a promo video for the nex5n and the results would be just as awe inspiring. 

 

20k budget to pay for edit/post? What the hell are you talking about? What in that video screamed a 20k post budget? It probably cost somewhere around 3 grands and that mostly just went to the editor who also did the grade.

I had the nex5n. It's image quality is on the same level as a canon 7d. Which was funny because people screamed at the time how much more "advanced" the 5n was. It wasn't.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, jgharding said:

800mbps :dissapointed_relieved:

Sorry, I just feel that needed shouting! That's incredibly inefficient! MJPEG is not the smartest way to be encoding 4k. It must be becuase they're using passive cooling and the same ol' processor, but that's gonna hog your hard disks.

It has a couple of great advantages.

+It's all-i (no motion artifacts)

+Computationally easier on the CPU (though it will take a toll on harddrive speed, especially if doing 4k60p)

+Well supported.

Another all-i codec would've been much more difficult to obtain and manufacture (how many DSLR's shoot ALL-i? The 1Dc but that's it). And I would definitely take this MJPEG codec than the 4k h264 codecs Sony uses. I have used four Sony cams with 4k h264 (A7sII, A7rII, RX10ii and the a6300) and they all have more compression artifacts than the MJPEG on the 1Dc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hmcindie said:

 

20k budget to pay for edit/post? What the hell are you talking about? What in that video screamed a 20k post budget? It probably cost somewhere around 3 grands and that mostly just went to the editor who also did the grade.

I had the nex5n. It's image quality is on the same level as a canon 7d. Which was funny because people screamed at the time how much more "advanced" the 5n was. It wasn't.

 

it's an official promotion from Canon.  20K on that promo was a low estimate.  It probably cost canon more than 5k just for the travel, acomodation and insurance.  It may only look like 3k's worth of budget to you, but you;re obviously not aware of all the other costs associated with working on projects where the brand are going back and fourth with umpteen different creative directors and marketing people, asking for adjustments to edit and grade.  The post house probably charged £10k extra just charging for extra work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, richg101 said:

it's an official promotion from Canon.  20K on that promo was a low estimate.  It probably cost canon more than 5k just for the travel, acomodation and insurance.  It may only look like 3k's worth of budget to you, but you;re obviously not aware of all the other costs associated with working on projects where the brand are going back and fourth with umpteen different creative directors and marketing people, asking for adjustments to edit and grade.  The post house probably charged £10k extra just charging for extra work

So what is the point? Are you staying that this means the 1DX Mkii did not capture the footage? None of this diminishes what the camera can do. The promo video for the Blackmagic Ursa Mini is just as flashy... Perhaps more so. From what I can see with a weather-sealed body and tough build, plus 4k @60fps and great low ISO this camera should be a great tool on any production. Granted, your production might be less elaborate, but that's not the fault of the camera. Also, all the scenes were captured with Canon photo lenses. It certainly performs better that most other hybrid cameras I have seen. And is far more versatile than the current crop of cinema cameras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi
On 01/05/2016 at 11:17 AM, gelaxstudio said:

Now you should see the point,the 800Mbps 8bit Mjpeg is even bigger than the 14bit raw with full DR,so it is a poor codec,why not wait untill ML hack it?

 

YOU"RE comparing 4k DCI to 1080p 16:9. the 1dxii has a bitrate of 500mbps shooting 4k, if it used the same codec in 1080p it would be about 120mbps, compared to 600mbps on the 5D3raw. So it's not the perfect compression but it does reduce file size enormously compared to if it shot 4K 14bit raw, which the media\heat wouldn't even be close to handle. 

The MJPEG 4K of the 1dx is not small filex, but they're incredibly high qualiry with very little compression artefacts and very thick colour information and detail, i'd choose these larger files to gwt this quality over a 100mbps h.264 4k files which is what the competetion lies around. The high bit rate and 4:2:2 and image quality advantage is 100% worth it. If one can't handle it , he can transcode to any smaller codec as the only solution or get a camera with a lower bitrate at 4k, like the gh4 or nx1  or a7s. Canon's official rrsponce on why not use the common 100mbps h.264 is ''it doesn't meet the quality standards set for the 1DxII and 1DC''. 

I really believe that if one can't produce cinema-like results with a 1dxii or 1dc or say fs7 f5 c300 c100 they're doing something wrong because these cameras have standard s35 film image size, no aliasing/moire artrfacts, very thick and pleasing colours, higher resolution than most film, same and higher detail, fine organic grain structure, interchangeable lenses, I mean it's all there. No weird colours, no clipping DR, no over sharpening, no aliasing/moire, no small sensor , no telltale signs of digital aquisition. The only technical image quality part they haven't met film in, is rolling shutter with panning. 
All in all these cameras can make filmic features in the hands of directors/cinematographers (1dc/xii/fs7/f5/c100/c300/BMPCC/BM 4K, and allthe s35 cameras without criplling issues in their image like a fixed lens, digital aliasing/moire/compression blotching/bad colours/bad noise with colours/very low resolution. No 24p, no lens mount, smaller image than s35, etc. And there are tins of all quality lenses available for the EF mount from high optical performabce to vintage softish looks and everything in between. I don't agree at all one must shoot on a PL mount lens to get an authentic cinematic image. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hmcindie said:

It has a couple of great advantages.

+It's all-i (no motion artifacts)

+Computationally easier on the CPU (though it will take a toll on harddrive speed, especially if doing 4k60p)

+Well supported.

Another all-i codec would've been much more difficult to obtain and manufacture (how many DSLR's shoot ALL-i? The 1Dc but that's it). And I would definitely take this MJPEG codec than the 4k h264 codecs Sony uses. I have used four Sony cams with 4k h264 (A7sII, A7rII, RX10ii and the a6300) and they all have more compression artifacts than the MJPEG on the 1Dc.

Hey

Actually ALL-I can also be encoded by using H264

BTW,those HUGE video files come from 1DXII requires a lot of harddrives for  storage ,A lot!

And do you know how fast common mechanical hard disk can read? 

Their average value only 100MB ,so as the buffer will slow everything down

Unlike sony cams with 4K high bitrate output, 1DXII users have no choice but using that inefficient codec,plus no 4K monitoring

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But then everyone and his dog wants ProRes 422 HQ / DNxHR and those files aren't exactly small either when recording 4k.

The system doesn't use SSD so you will just need some "in the field" backup solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...