sandro Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 It almost hurts my eyes watching the sharpenedd 1dx footage. Because it's sharpness not actual detail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lafilm Posted August 18, 2012 Author Share Posted August 18, 2012 Charlie orozoco - Thanks for going through all that work, but the fact is the issue is the You Tube/Vimeo compression. I see what you're seeing with your blow-ups and the door in the video, and if that were really there (and not a compression problem on the Internet) P. Bloom would have stated - correction; he would have BLASTED the camera in his blog. Just like he blasted the D4 and D800. Bloom PRAISED the 1-DX to no end in his new blog, and said the camera was amazing. He does not get paid by Canon. Cannot see why the man would hide the truth if there was an issue. He did not, because there is no issue. We'll see what the new Sony has to offer, but right now the 2 best DSLR's on the planet are the 1-DC (read Hurlbut's review and watch short film) and the 1-DX, which is the same camera minus 4K. Since Sony's product will be (no doubt) much cheaper, I'm hoping their new full frame is better then the Canon's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt2491 Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 It's in Philip Bloom's best interests to speak highly of Canon cameras. Germy1979 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernesto Mantaras Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 [quote name='lafilm' timestamp='1345260219' post='15944'] Charlie orozoco - Thanks for going through all that work, but the fact is the issue is the You Tube/Vimeo compression. I see what you're seeing with your blow-ups and the door in the video, and if that were really there (and not a compression problem on the Internet) P. Bloom would have stated - correction; he would have BLASTED the camera in his blog. Just like he blasted the D4 and D800. Bloom PRAISED the 1-DX to no end in his new blog, and said the camera was amazing. He does not get paid by Canon. Cannot see why the man would hide the truth if there was an issue. He did not, because there is no issue. We'll see what the new Sony has to offer, but right now the 2 best DSLR's on the planet are the 1-DC (read Hurlbut's review and watch short film) and the 1-DX, which is the same camera minus 4K. Since Sony's product will be (no doubt) much cheaper, I'm hoping their new full frame is better then the Canon's. [/quote] I hadn't been able to download the original .VID file that Philip uploaded to Vimeo before to confirm this, but I just managed to do so and although the image is better (and seems to have an organic grain that could be added in post) the problems present in the 1DX example I showed are still present. Like I thought, the online compression has nothing to do with this, or else the image of both cameras' footage would've been affected in the exact same way, and you see how good the C300 shots look. And what you mention is exactly what makes me so invested in sharing my opinion (which isn't so much an opinion as it is an argument when you see the images): Philip hasn't mentioned a thing about this and no viewer that comments the music video complains, they even praise at how good both cameras look. It makes me think you could literally feed them dust in a silver plate and they'd happily eat it thinking it's cocoa. There's no personal judgement, just obedience. Well, I might be exagerating there and being too passionate about this (it's not like I can't sleep over this, but I rarely have or take the time to write like this in forums and such). It's just that I don't want to believe Philip Bloom is making non conventional advertising for Canon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgharding Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 I just don't buy this whole "blame the distribution compression" excuse. Firstly, that's how media is bloody consumed, in a sense unless you're going to a cinema screen, it's all that matters. If the concatenation errors were so severe that footage looked awful online these cameras would be practically useless, it's a bad excuse. I've watched plenty of stuff shot on RED and Alexa in sub YouTube-quality compression and it doesn't display these issues. It's the 1Dx capture process, plain and simple. Sensor downsampling and processing are to blame. It's most likely they've tweaked about with the on board processing to create this 'unique' look for the 1Dx, but it doesn't look too great to me.Certainly not for the heaps of cash they want for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lafilm Posted August 18, 2012 Author Share Posted August 18, 2012 Sorry guys, I love you gearheads and good conversation, but I have to go with a guy who is obsessed with cameras, and gets paid to shoot them. ($ for a living). Phillip Bloom on the Canon 1DX: QUOTE - “What I didn’t expect was how much I actually preferred the 1DX’s image for this type of filming to the C300. It just seems…more filmic. Hard to put my finger on what it is…the look of the 1DX was so organic I was just blown away. The low light performance of the 1DX is also better than the Mk3, very close to the C300 standards…it also has extraordinary high dynamic range…the video of the 1DX is much better than the Mk3, it’s also better than the D800. It’s funny after being so uninterested in the 1DX, the results I got from it just show that you should never just read specs. There is so much more to a camera than specs and figures. On paper, this was the same as the Mk3 for video, but in use the 1DX really is that much better.†– End Quotes And no, I do not believe for one second that Canon UK or Canon USA, has sent Phillip Bloom a $ check for those statements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernesto Mantaras Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 But in this case this is not being a gearhead. I'm over stating stuff because I can't believe the indifference so many people have to something so evident and bad looking. This is purely based on what I saw when watching a music video: an image that hit me in the face because of its uncommon artifacts. I've shot short films and movies for 7 years, and I've drawn and painted my whole life. I live through images. I do VFX all the time. Animation. I have a trained eye. And I believe Philip does too, and he probably has far better equipment than I do. So how come he denies such an obvious shortcoming (I have to say that softness is a lot more filmic than jagged edges and pixelated details, really...)? It can be better in every other aspect, but this single one, considering this is an HD camera intended for film production, is a really bad one. And this is the main point: don't repeat someone's words as if they were the most qualifed truth, the undeniable opinion on what's good just because of his experience. Judge for yourself. Do you like the image that camera produces? Do you believe it's worth its price? That's great. But do it because you think it's so, not because a celebrity cinematographer says it is. I saw what comes out of the camera and think it's not up to par with what he's claims, if even for one single aspect of the image. I'm not afraid to question Philip for being experienced. I trust my experience, my work and my sensitivity. Germy1979 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt2491 Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 [quote name='lafilm' timestamp='1345326133' post='16005'] Sorry guys, I love you gearheads and good conversation, but I have to go with a guy who is obsessed with cameras, and gets paid to shoot them. ($ for a living).[/quote] I think many of us on this site could also be classified as "guys obsessed with cameras, and get paid to shoot them (for a living)..." Philip Bloom is not the only cat making a living being videographer. He's just among the better known, thanks to his well published site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germy1979 Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 [quote name='charlie_orozco' timestamp='1345327668' post='16006'] But in this case this is not being a gearhead. I'm over stating stuff because I can't believe the indifference so many people have to something so evident and bad looking. This is purely based on what I saw when watching a music video: an image that hit me in the face because of its uncommon artifacts. I've shot short films and movies for 7 years, and I've drawn and painted my whole life. I live through images. I do VFX all the time. Animation. I have a trained eye. And I believe Philip does too, and he probably has far better equipment than I do. So how come he denies such an obvious shortcoming (I have to say that softness is a lot more filmic than jagged edges and pixelated details, really...)? It can be better in every other aspect, but this single one, considering this is an HD camera intended for film production, is a really bad one. And this is the main point: don't repeat someone's words as if they were the most qualifed truth, the undeniable opinion on what's good just because of his experience. Judge for yourself. Do you like the image that camera produces? Do you believe it's worth its price? That's great. But do it because you think it's so, not because a celebrity cinematographer says it is. I saw what comes out of the camera and think it's not up to par with what he's claims, if even for one single aspect of the image. I'm not afraid to question Philip for being experienced. I trust my experience, my work and my sensitivity. [/quote] Amen. I spent 2 years researching cameras and pixel peeping when i was putting my budget together. It got to the point where i was reorganizing my budget plan for a different camera all the time, and finally I figured the only way i could make a film was with an Alexa. What a waste of money that would've been... $3000 a day for a rental package. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lafilm Posted August 19, 2012 Author Share Posted August 19, 2012 [font=Times New Roman","serif][size=3]I'm not a follower by any means. I do tons of research. I do not just take anyones word for something. However, Bloom has proven himself (much like Vincent Laforet) I do trust Bloom. I met him several times (as well as Laforet) in Vegas (NAB) and he is a genuinely likable guy with a passion for gear. I do not think Bloom would deliberately lie to anyone about cameras. [/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman","serif][size=3]As far as my own eyes go, I downloaded the original file from Bloom's video (as well as James Miller's videos) and it (they) looks fantastic to me. Much much better than any other DSLR footage I have ever seen. Art is subjective, right? I love full frame and trying to decide to purchase the 1DX or the new Sony…or...rent the Canon 1 DC 4 K in a few months. I also love the DSLR form factor. I shoot in places where it is either illegal or would cost enormous amounts of cash to get permits. Plus it’s amazing tech for the size and I don't need a large crew.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman","serif][size=3]Germy1979 -[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman","serif][size=3]I do like the footage from the Alexa but out of my price range. What camera did you end up with?[/size][/font] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germy1979 Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 [quote name='lafilm' timestamp='1345352072' post='16019'] [font=Times New Roman","serif][size=3]I'm not a follower by any means. I do tons of research. I do not just take anyones word for something. However, Bloom has proven himself (much like Vincent Laforet) I do trust Bloom. I met him several times (as well as Laforet) in Vegas (NAB) and he is a genuinely likable guy with a passion for gear. I do not think Bloom would deliberately lie to anyone about cameras. [/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman","serif][size=3]As far as my own eyes go, I downloaded the original file from Bloom's video (as well as James Miller's videos) and it (they) looks fantastic to me. Much much better than any other DSLR footage I have ever seen. Art is subjective, right? I love full frame and trying to decide to purchase the 1DX or the new Sony…or...rent the Canon 1 DC 4 K in a few months. I also love the DSLR form factor. I shoot in places where it is either illegal or would cost enormous amounts of cash to get permits. Plus it’s amazing tech for the size and I don't need a large crew.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman","serif][size=3]Germy1979 -[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman","serif][size=3]I do like the footage from the Alexa but out of my price range. What camera did you end up with?[/size][/font] [/quote] Well, since 2012 was the year all the new guys came out... At the time, the GH2 was on sale if you found it, and i snagged one for around $650 new. I bought an LCD, 3 Nikkor AIS manuals (24 f2.8, 50 f1.8, 85 f2) - a shoulder rig with a follow focus/ matte box, 2 Sandisk Extreme Pros 64/95's, a fader hd variable nd, 3 adapters, an Opteka Steadivid Pro, and a Davison tripod with a fluid head. All of this for less than one day's rental of an Alexa. The Alexa's awesome... But so are Ferraris. Lol. I don't make a living as a DP yet, so opportunities to shoot are spontaneous sometimes. It's hard to call a rental house and snag an Alexa on the fly unless the price is right... In my case it was wrong:). I get great results with my Gh2. I have everything else i need to get me going in case the Gh3, A99, or the BMD just have to be had:). And i wasn't out a lot of money for the Gh2. Plus, it's a great camera and it'll make some kids dream come true on Christmas morning when I sell it:) Wish this technology was around when I was making my army movies, lol. #VHS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lafilm Posted August 20, 2012 Author Share Posted August 20, 2012 Haha!...great post, Germy1979! Can't say I blame you. Sounds like you got a hell of a lot for the buck! I'm with you, 35 years ago the GH2 would have made my Christmas morning for sure :) Imagine the kids 35 years from today! There's a hell of a lot of things wrong with this world today, but technology is not one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germy1979 Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 No sir it is not! Lol.. In TEN years our kids will be saying, "4k?... Were you guys Amish?!". 18k sensors with 76 stops of dynamic range. 2,000 fps. full frame. On an I phone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted August 21, 2012 Administrators Share Posted August 21, 2012 I still don't think the difference between the 1D X and 5D 3, after post work applied to both, is large enough to warrant spending £5200. For a start the D800 is £2400, the 1D X is £5200, over double the price. That is a pricey moire fix. Aliasing still there. As for C300, I definitely prefer the fine noise, codec and resolution on that over the 1D X but I'd buy the 1D X instead because the C300's price is just bonkers. Watched Philip's video and it is a lovely piece of work. The close up shots look great, plenty of detail. But the true test was some of the forest and field wide angle shots, and there it is not that much different to the 5D 3 sharpened in post. Dynamic range did seem better, but again not massively so. One thing I did notice that even from the compressed Vimeo download .vid file there was less of that horrible mosquito noise when you bring up the lows in post, so I think the 1D X grades better than the 5D 3. To sell my FS100 and 5D 3 for 1x 1D X? Hmm. No peaking, no articulated monitor, no XLR, but great stills. I wouldn't do it but I can see some who would be happy doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lafilm Posted August 22, 2012 Author Share Posted August 22, 2012 I hear ya Gerymy 1979! Hahaha.. Andrew, I agree with a lot of what your saying except I find the 1DX to be sharper to me then what you feel. And the image looks different, maybe its this big screen Im watching it on. I guess it really is that "X" factor. I just feel it looks more "cinematic", if I can use that word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iFranky Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 Aloha, sometimes we forget that these cams are firstly made for photography and video came on top later as a kind of "feature". That there is still a huge imbalance we can see here http://gizmodo.com/5936270/the-canon-1dx-makes-one-hell-of-a-5k-movie-camera Nevertheless it seems that Nikon and Canon finally presented "usable" cams this year. I never understood why a Mark II hadn't had a headphone jack from the beginning. Isn't that something absolutely necessary??? The price difference is in my opinion not only the video quality but also for stills - beside the fact that with a 1D X you can shoot outside wherever & whenever & at nearly all weather conditions without any fear. This one is build for sport and journalism. A Mark III seems to be more a "backup" I think. But can I ask you a question, beside all this video thing: do you think the Mark III will be "sharper" and with more "dynamic range" when using same lense and settings than the 1D X? I am not an crop fan so I shoot nearly exactly that what I want to shoot - and not later at PS or LR. Has anyone some experiences to this point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lafilm Posted August 23, 2012 Author Share Posted August 23, 2012 iFranky - The 1DX is FAR sharper then the 5D3 out of the box (closer when you post, but still not as sharp in my opinion). As far as DR, the 1DX blows the 5D3 out of the water in any situtation. If the new Sony next month does not up this game, then its the 1DX as winner for quite awhile - unless you wanna spring $15,000 for the 4K 1DC. That will be the ultimate DSLR (to quote Hurlbut). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iFranky Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 @lafilm Thx for the feedback. Are you talking about the photo or video quality? And beside that the big question: why ? 22MP are larger than 18. How about dynamic range etc.? Will become a bit technical, yes, but really like to understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germy1979 Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Lower megapixels gather more light on the sensor because they can be bigger. High-Def images in motion (1920 x 1080p) - are roughly only about 3 megapixels. For example, a full-frame sensor with 10 megapixels would have more dynamic range than an 18 megapixel sensor. The photosites are bigger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Per Lichtman Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Germy1979 makes a good point, but the # is slightly off. A 1920x1080 frame is about 2MP, not 3MP. Just multiply 1920x1080 to find the exact #. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.