Why the downer on the 1D C?

[Graemsay]

There doesn't seem to be a lot of love for the Eos 1D C round here. I think that people are being a bit harsh on it.

Dodgy Codec

The camera uses a Motion JPEG codec, which sucks according to the learned opinion round here because it's not RAW. I don't think that it's that bad.

Firstly, it's a non-proprietary format. This means no dependence on a certain set of tools. And it also means that it's possible to hack the image with homebrew software.

Secondly, the JPEG runs at 500 Mb/sec. The maximum bit rate of the Scarlet is 440 Mb/sec. Less compression means better image quality, all things being equal due to fewer compression artefacts. (I don't know if the RED Code RAW format is more efficient than JPEG 2000, but both use Wavelet algorithms, so I'd expect them to be in the same ballpark.)

And lastly, the EOS 1D C has the same C-Log functionality as the C300 according to some of the reports I've seen. That'll overcome some of the shortcomings of not being a RAW sort of file.

Bit Depth

The Canon outputs an 8-bit image, which obviously sucks...

Well, maybe not. There's a post at DVInfo that the EBU reckoned 8-bits is enough for acquisition in most cases. More bits are definitely better for post production, but it's easy enough to up convert at that stage.

The EBU's argument is that the limiting factor in image quality is noise. The more compression you've got, the more artefacts you introduce. A 10-bit frame is going to be at least 125% of the size of an 8-bit frame, and a 12-bit frame will be at least 150%. (I say at least because computer data is normally packed into bytes, so the 36 bits for the three RGB channels for a 12-bit image would go into 40 bits, or 167% of the size of the 24 bits of an 8-bit image.)

So a 12-bit per channel image will need more compression to get down to size. That 440 Mb/s data rate of Scarlet is actually closer to 260 Mb/s for an 8-bit image, so equivalent to half that of the 1D C.

Cost

In 2004, the Batman fan film Grayson spent about $15K on 16 mm film and processing. The 1D C is likely to cost around $12K when it tips up according to speculation.

So for the cost of the film for a short not that long ago, you can buy a camera that's superior to what was at the cutting edge of digital cinematography back then.

It's cheaper than the RED Scarlet, and probably on a par with what the FS700 will be when the 4K upgrade is added. For what they're offering it's not too bad, though not the bargain that the Black Magic camera is.

Downsides

OK, it's not all perfect.

4K is only available in 24 fps, but Canon have made noises about adding support for 25 fps for the PAL market. I reckon it'll turn up in a firmware update.

It lacks a few of the bells and whistles of other cameras. There aren't any XLR sockets. No internal ND filters. And it's going to need a bunch of parts to make it work as a film camera.

But I still rather like it, and, if I can be contentious, I reckon it'll give the best image quality of any camera below $20K.

[Nuno Dias]

Very good post Greamsay!

But you have to realize that most people here are not professional shooters and being students or amateurs in the field, most feel that the most you can get the better, like Raw capture and 16bit files, all for under 3k...

I also think this camera along with the C500, C300 and the Scarlet are the best and most affordable digital film cameras on the market. Affordable in terms of a production, not a single 'home' user. Cameras like the BM are mass market cameras, not professional capable cameras, but only people that get paid to shoot and work collectively on with film crew will actually understand this...

Shane Hurlbut being overly excited, made some very silly comments when talking about this camera, but I understand his enthusiasm, as this camera's image is actually quite astonishing.

[hgf4]

Tough to get excited about it when there's a game changer like the Blackmagic camera.

[hgf4]

For what they're offering it's not too bad, though not the bargain that the Black Magic camera is.

That's an understatement! But yeah, if people prefer it and have the money for it more power to them.

[Nuno Dias]

Tough to get excited about it when there's a game changer like the Blackmagic camera.

Its certainly a game changer for beginners, I for one, as much as I love its specs, find unable to get excited about it. Everyone raves about its 12bit file, but no one knows at how many Mb/s it compresses those 12bits! For all I know, its so compressed that its as good as an 8 bit file on a H264 codec!

Also its tiny sensor its anything but good. Among many other things, you can't use it on a professional shoot, like how is the entire cast and crew going to stop and wait for the camera assistant to download all the media to a computer for example...?! Its ridiculous.

The 1DC and BM are totally different cameras. One aimed at the general public, the other aimed at professionals. Is that simple.

[Kholi]

Its certainly a game changer for beginners, I for one, as much as I love its specs, find unable to get excited about it. Everyone raves about its 12bit file, but no one knows at how many Mb/s it compresses those 12bits! For all I know, its so compressed that its as good as an 8 bit file on a H264 codec!

Also its tiny sensor its anything but good. You can't use it on a professional shoot, how is everyone going to stop and wait for the camera assistant to download all the media for example...??

The 1DC and BM are totally different cameras. One aimed at the general public, the other aimed at professionals. Is that simple.

How is removing a drive from the camera and downloading media from the SSD drive (BMD) any different from removing a drive from the camera downloading media from an SSD drive (Scarlet, Epic).

Seriously. WHAT are you talking about?

[Nuno Dias]

How is removing a drive from the camera and downloading media from the SSD drive (BMD) any different from removing a drive from the camera downloading media from an SSD drive (Scarlet, Epic).

Seriously. WHAT are you talking about?

Kholi this thread is about the 1DC, if you want to talk about the BM go to its own thread. Don't like the 1DC? Fine, now move on.

[Cory Braun]

Also its tiny sensor its anything but good. Among many other things, you can't use it on a professional shoot, like how is the entire cast and crew going to stop and wait for the camera assistant to download all the media to a computer for example...?! Its ridiculous.

Why would you have to do that? I have both an SSD reader, as well as a USB cable that connects directly to SSD. And if neither of those work for you (I'm not sure why they wouldn't), I am sure if this camera is a success there will be even more options.

Edit: Kholi beat me to it. He was responding to your post and said nothing negative about the 1Dc. He proved you wrong and I am assuming he didn't want other people to believe the incorrect information that you shared. Rather than admitting you were wrong you replied with a childish response.

And for the record, I am interested in both cameras.

[cpc]

And lastly, the EOS 1D C has the same C-Log functionality as the C300 according to some of the reports I've seen. That'll overcome some of the shortcomings of not being a RAW sort of file.

Bit Depth

The Canon outputs an 8-bit image, which obviously sucks...

Well, maybe not. There's a post at DVInfo that the EBU reckoned 8-bits is enough for acquisition in most cases. More bits are definitely better for post production, but it's easy enough to up convert at that stage.

The EBU's argument is that the limiting factor in image quality is noise. The more compression you've got, the more artefacts you introduce. A 10-bit frame is going to be at least 125% of the size of an 8-bit frame, and a 12-bit frame will be at least 150%. (I say at least because computer data is normally packed into bytes, so the 36 bits for the three RGB channels for a 12-bit image would go into 40 bits, or 167% of the size of the 24 bits of an 8-bit image.)

So a 12-bit per channel image will need more compression to get down to size. That 440 Mb/s data rate of Scarlet is actually closer to 260 Mb/s for an 8-bit image, so equivalent to half that of the 1D C.

It's not that simple.
Putting 12+ detailed stops of decently clean DR into 8 bits is a hard task. One can't argue with Math; this is a simple matter of tonal precision. That's why Canon Log will never be as versatile as S-Log, etc. (Well, at least until Canon go 10-bit or more.)

[mcgeedigital]

Because the "4k" is offset by the mjpeg compression.

And I am not paying $15k for a DSLR.