lafilm Posted July 26, 2012 Author Share Posted July 26, 2012 I can't argue with that statement. However, $6,500 doesn't seem to be bad if thats your fave form factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted July 26, 2012 Administrators Share Posted July 26, 2012 [quote name='lafilm' timestamp='1343019784' post='14337'] [color=#0066cc]3rd test: Even more so. 1DX is bext full frame DSLR.[/color] [u][color=#0066cc][media]http://vimeo.com/46186716[/media][/color][/u] [/quote] Lovely shots by James but I really did have to squint to see the difference. Considering the 1D X is nearly double the price of the already rather pricey 5D Mark III, for that 1% difference in video quality you really have to be one of those people to whom $6500 is 'tiny' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lafilm Posted August 15, 2012 Author Share Posted August 15, 2012 Andrew, For some reason (lighting maybe) this video of the Canon 1 DX (and review) seems a HUGE step up from the 5D3. Let me know your opinion. Btw, I agree with you 100%, when its done correctly, you really can't touch the unique full-frame look. Will be interesting to compare the new Sony to this. [media]http://vimeo.com/47426015[/media] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernesto Mantaras Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 Am I the only one noticing the bad aliasing and kinda "shot this at 720p then uprezzed without using a lanczos filter" look that the 1DX shots have? I commented about that in the YouTube version of that same music video Philip Bloom shot and he minimized my comment by saying "[color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.699219)]i do hope you are not judging anything from a youtube compression...". I'm aware of compression artifacts, softness and all that, but beyond the compression (which affects both cameras' footage in the same way) crisp detail can be seen in the C300 shots while the 1DX's look quite bad to me. [/background][/size][/font][/color] [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-arQaoIC5g"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-arQaoIC5g[/url] I feel like I'm being the crazy person here, but what was quite noticeable in the first video of this topic when compared to the 5D3 is terribly evident when intercut between C300 footage: the 1DX shots are jagged and aliased, and it seems as though there is much less detail and it's been blown up without any kind of blur to end up looking pixelated. I have a 23" LG monitor @ 1920x1080 and it's too evident. Now, I'm not bothered by this in a personal way, but I don't understand how nobody else brings this up and specially Philip's denial (well, I don't mean to be rude, but that's what it seems). I first thought it could be a postproduction issue, but now I see it's just that the camera shoots like that (which is unacceptable for such an expensive camera, methinks). This problem is the most noticeable in the shot at 1:23 in the door of the motor home in the back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgharding Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 Jesus. For the price difference the image difference is absolutely bugger all! I mean look at it... In what situation is an end user -- who neither knows or cares what you shot on -- going to notice such a [i]tiny[/i] difference? The overall image feel is pretty much the same... You could easily post produce the difference between these cams to a negligible level even for most perverted pixel peepers (PPPs). Unless you want the cam for stills or have money to burn, I don't think 1Dx is worth it at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted August 16, 2012 Administrators Share Posted August 16, 2012 Haha totally right Julian. We're talking about a price difference of $3000 for no extra video features and a microscopic technical difference in the anti-aliasing filter used resulting in a 1% (5% at best) difference in the image. The whole thing is bonkers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lafilm Posted August 16, 2012 Author Share Posted August 16, 2012 I appreciate all opinions here, but I guess I'm on an island. I find easy much much sharper than the 5D3 out of the box. Doing extra post is a pain in the ass. If the 5d3 had this image to begin with, everybody would have been estatic. And, its not just that, the image this camera produces is just 'different' then the 5D3. Its hard to put it in words. It looks different to me, much different, and I'm not talking about being 10 - 15% sharper. The image is just more pleasing to the eye. More filmic. I admire Andrew and what he's done for the DSLR community but I'm in agreement with James Miller and P Bloom on the 1-DX. Its a much better camera for video than the 5D3. That being said, I'm hoping that Andrew is right about the new Sony. Will wait 2 more months to purchase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted August 16, 2012 Administrators Share Posted August 16, 2012 They both had extra post sharpening done to them - didn't they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurtinMinorKey Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Looks to me like the 1d-X does a better job with color than the 5d3, but my opinion is based on a painfully small sample size. What did you guys think of this? http://vimeo.com/40379197 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lafilm Posted August 17, 2012 Author Share Posted August 17, 2012 Andrew, Bloom's new music video was not sharpened in post. Re-watching again (Apple 27 inch) I'm thinking now it must be the much better high dynamic range the 1-DX has. Has to be. Again, just hard to put in words, but I'm gonna go with that. If the new Sony can top it on the DR it has a winner - and a new buyer. HurtinMinorKey - Yes, the color is very different (subjective, but obviously very different between the 5D3 and 1 DX) between the two cameras. Tyler talked about it in his blog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernesto Mantaras Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 This is what I'm trying to say. NOTE: THIS IMAGE HAS BEEN COMPRESSED BY THE FORUM. PLEASE CLICK THE LINK TO SEE THE ORIGINAL. [url="https://sites.google.com/site/ojosacuososmedia/_/rsrc/1345169242388/imagenes/1DX%20vs%20C300_Grid.png"]https://sites.google...s C300_Grid.png[/url] [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/17754/502da48f81691_1DXvsC300_Grid.png[/img] NOTE: THIS IMAGE HAS BEEN COMPRESSED BY THE FORUM. PLEASE CLICK THE LINK TO SEE THE ORIGINAL. [url="https://sites.google.com/site/ojosacuososmedia/_/rsrc/1345169242388/imagenes/1DX%20vs%20C300_Grid.png"]https://sites.google...s C300_Grid.png[/url] I can't believe that nobody wonders about the blockiness of the 1DX video (as more detailed as it may be compared to the 5D3). Nobody brings it up, I've even read people praising how good the 1DX and the C300 cut together. I don't mean to bash Philip Bloom's work. I've been following him for years and I like the images he captured for this video. I'm just talking about the 1DX acquisition: it's terrible for a 6,500 dollar camera! Colors and dynamic range aside, it looks like old HDV! This goes beyond it being equal to a lowered priced camera, I think this kind of quality is unacceptable in those terms. And I know I'm analyzing compressed footage, but if that blockiness of the 1DX shots was added by the compression, why isn't it present in the C300 footage from the very same video? And I see that pixelated image in all of the other test footage shown here (it's less evident in the ships footage, though). Just to add to my point I added snapshots from a compressed video I have uploaded in YouTube (conditions for every shot shown here are completely different, but just look at how each camera captures the images). It's not relevant by itself, just a personal test, but here's the link if you want to check it. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GPd3cXxCcI[/media] Please, am I all alone in this? jgharding 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted August 17, 2012 Administrators Share Posted August 17, 2012 It all looks more blurred vertically than horizontally, I agree for $6500 the 1D X is not on my list to buy for video. jgharding 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernesto Mantaras Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 [quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1345170752' post='15853'] It all looks more blurred vertically than horizontally, I agree for $6500 the 1D X is not on my list to buy for video. [/quote] Yes, something like that. Perhaps it's kind of stretched vertically, similar to what bad de-interlacing could look like (in fact, it reminds me of an old Digital8 handycam I had many years ago...). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgharding Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 At the mention of old HDV, I was thinking about HDV cams earlier, and how some models were so damn good despite the compression. The resolving power of the RX100 compact is awesome, that little thing is getting on for the sharpness we used to have with small-chip cameras like EX1 and EX3 (back when 1080p was REALLY 1080p ;) ). It's a shame the larger sensor models aren't back up to that standard unless you wanna buy a RED or Alexa. Even watching some footage from Z1 I took over 5 years ago, it's really damn sharp and nice. Hopefully the Alpha hack will extend to the little RX100 and we can have 25p and high bit-rates too, but even for now between a sharp stabilised compact and an EOS with Magic Lantern 2.3 (550D, 600D, 5D MKii) I don't see the need to drop $6000! I can't say it looks that "unique" to me. I have come round to feeling that 135 photographic full frame is nicer looking in general than APSC though. It only took me two years to be convinced... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmcindie Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 How can anyone say that the HDV-cam Sony Z1 was sharp? It was horrible. Way oversharpened and compression artifacts everywhere. There is only one HDV cam that almost looked kinda good and that was the Canon HV20 in cinemode. A friend of mine shot a full feature film with the HV20 and a 35mm adapter that got a film print and a run in the cinemas here in Finland. Sharpness was not even close to a 7d. Did anyone in the audience care? Nope. HDV was always horrible, especially now. The 5d mark II blew all of those out of the water. We filmed a documentary that we begun using the Sony V1 hdv-cam and a Canon 7d. The V1 had to be dropped when we saw the footage. The 7d just blew it out. No contest. Anyone praising old hdv cams with small sensors and at the same time bashing DSLR's is really inexperienced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgharding Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 Well the fact that I shot it five years ago tells I've been doing it a while! OK, yes the codecs back then were really really crap. And I'm pushing it a bit with the Z1, which was a bit rancid, I'm just being misty eyed ;) HV20 Cinemode was like the similar mode on Z1: it threw away half the lines in order to de-interlace and give a progressive feel, so you lost a lot of resolution. I still used to use it though. I think it was called PsF or Progressive Segmented Frame. Glad to see the back of that! I was more talking about the slightly later progressive models: you could use external recorders with EX3 and DOF adapter and get a real 1080 picture (if my memory serves, I'm struggling to track down some files to test it) all the SLRs fall short of that right level of resolution now... The RX100 reminds me of the level of sharpness from those methods, except its tiny and convenient, plus has some nice shallow DOF available. Amazing! Of course I'd never be bothered with that kit nowadays, but Mr Edwards did for Monsters and it worked out pretty well! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 [quote name='lafilm' timestamp='1343019784' post='14337'] [color=#0066cc]3rd test: Even more so. 1DX is bext full frame DSLR.[/color] [u][color=#0066cc][media]http://vimeo.com/46186716[/media][/color][/u] [/quote] I think the 1DX footage is too much sharpened. There are a lot of sharpening artefacts. Look at the wooden poles around 18 sec. There is a distinct white line around them and even the background (which is out of focus) looks oversharpened. In this case I prefer the 5D3 with less artefacts.. but I guess it's a question of post production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted August 17, 2012 Administrators Share Posted August 17, 2012 [url="http://gizmodo.com/5935344/canon-dslr-video-compared-1dx-vs-5d-mark-iii-vs-t4i"]http://gizmodo.com/5...mark-iii-vs-t4i[/url] On this Gizmodo test, towards the end I think the 5D3 sharpened in post actually looks preferable to the 1DX sharpened or not sharpened. So if you haven't got that spare $3500 kicking around, just drag the good old sharpen filter to your timeline :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 Agreed.. but the sharpened 1D X footage also looks over sharpened. Should be possible to sharpen it a bit less I suppose? Anyway, I don't see the point in the 1D X as video cam either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted August 17, 2012 Administrators Share Posted August 17, 2012 Exactly. The sharpened 1D X looks too electronic. The unsharpened 1D X looks the same as the 5D3 sharpened. Keep that $3000 in your pocket. Seriously. 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.