Canon EOS 1D Mark IV - 1080p, ISO 12800

andersonnd

andersonnd

Active member
Canon Press Release - http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=19584

I'm sure a lot of people remember when "Reverie" came out in September 2008 and showed what a stills camera could do with video (http://www.vincentlaforet.com/index_reverie.html).

Fast forward to October 2009 and we have Canon's latest addition to the conversation, the 1D Mark IV. Shooting with this camera, the same people that did "Reverie" have created a new short titled "Nocturne" ("Nocturne" video is down on creators site, but there are many links on other pages still active).

Compared to Canon's previous HD capable stills cameras, the 1D Mark IV seems to have improved rolling shutter issue solutions. It's headlining feature is greatly expanded low light capabilities, around which "Nocturne" (as the name implies) was designed. At Laforet's blog, it is stated that much of "Nocturne" was shot at ISO 6400:

"The ISO stayed locked in the 6400 ASA range - with a very few shots hovering 1 stop above and one or two set to 3200 ASA because we had TOO MUCH depth of field…(on the bridge.) At one point I found myself shooting at 12,800 ASA by mistake - and I didn’t even notice any noise on the rear LCD in the skies… 6400 ASA is the new 1600 ASA - maybe even the new 800 ASA. Stop to ponder that for a second - and what it can mean to the way you approach your craft."
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2009/10/19/lights-out-camera-action/

In my opinion, this may be Canon's first answer to professional photographers using this class of camera as a motion and stills tool, much in the way stills are being pulled from the RED camera on a regular basis.

The camera body is currently going for around $4999.
 
Last edited:
I hope unlit films do not become a trend now that some cameras can achieve this sensitivity. Sunlight is enough light for every single camera on the market, but we still need to spend time on modifying sunlight by adding lights, filtering, reducing, diffusing, reflecting, etc to get interesting results. And I hope we don't stop doing that when the cameras get 30stops of dynamic range on top of their unheard of sensitivity. It will be a very boring world.
 
You may be right that a couple generations from now, nobody will know what "magic hour" means. It will simply be shooting with or without direct sunlight.

IMHO the true advantage to having unreal (literally, because this goes WAY beyond what our own eyes can do) sensitivity is going to be in the field of documentaries, or any other "on-the-fly" type production, where scenes must be shot as they naturally are lit. For those projects, the advantages are artistic and not economic.
 
Tech is good

Tech is good

if im not mistaken, right now the majority of ccds or Cmos can have more less easy way of capturing Infra red and other light frequencies. Right now they are just holed up by the end producer for market purpose.
Technology you say couple of gen could be in a 5 year period, tech is so scalar in its evolution, that only the monetary systems holds it.
 
In still cameras it is easy to get higher sensitivities. In video modes of still cameras or actual video cameras it is much harder. I remember one test in which a video capable SLR had 5x higher noise after 10 minutes of "live" sensor. But we are still better than the previous generation because the sensors are far better now. The 5D II CMOS has quantum efficiency that is almost as good as that of a Sony or Kodak scientific imaging CCD which is a miracle considering the cost. The analog to digital converters are also better in the new cameras (14 bit in many cameras). If you have low noise and high resolution AD conversion, the same quantum efficiency can provide far greater sensitivity.

Btw, video ISO tests must use the same exposure for all ISO modes because the goal is high sensitivity at normal shutter, not achieving faster shutter speeds. A clean ISO1000 1/400 sec does not mean 1/50 will be clean.

You might have noted that the ISO figures sound a little high (why did they need ISO12000 in a night shot when street lighting is present?), but that's not the case. When comparing formats with different sensor size and a practical depth of field is required, the far smaller relative apertures on the full frame cameras require high ISO. ISO800 f1.4 on a 2/3" F900 will require ISO11,250 f5.25 on full frame if you want to keep the DOF. So, it's impressive that a film is shot at ISO6400 and ISO12800 but always remember that the smaller sensor could only need ISO 400 or 800 to get the shot.
 
Last edited:
Otis Grapsas said:
I hope unlit films do not become a trend now that some cameras can achieve this sensitivity. Sunlight is enough light for every single camera on the market, but we still need to spend time on modifying sunlight by adding lights, filtering, reducing, diffusing, reflecting, etc to get interesting results. And I hope we don't stop doing that when the cameras get 30stops of dynamic range on top of their unheard of sensitivity. It will be a very boring world.
Click to expand...

Low light capability doesn't mean that talented filmmakers are going to make "unlit" films. Implying so, or being afraid that it might happen, is just silly.

Lighting a film doesn't always mean a geny hooked up to lights you bring with you. And you don't always have to use bounce cards, reflectors and negative fills. Lighting is also framing. It's positioning of actors and camera depending on where the existing "unlit" light already is. Nocturne did a great job of this, but they also used reflectors, fills and negative fills I'm sure.

Nocturne (and many films throughout history) do a great job of using available or existing light (day and night) to make great images. Study Vermeer's paintings and one can learn how to use natural light to it's full beauty, or how to artificially create something that looks natural.

Low light capability is a tool like anything else. The talented will use it as such and will have more options at their disposal because of it.

Happy filmmaking.
 
Well, Phil, this film looks unlit to me. The civil engineers decided what lights to use in the streets for practical and cost reasons and since I didn't find a cinematography credit we could credit them for the results. I don't think Nocturne looks good. The photography is flat and lifeless and I don't know about the raw material but the output is what a kid with Magic Bullet would produce.

Verneer did take the time to position or imagine lights when designing a painting. The simplicity of the setups only shows how skilled he was. The rendering he used in his forms is very sophisticated, you would need lots of support to get it with the light sources shown in the paintings. If he was a 20th century painter, he would also be a great photographer who would know how to light well.

Low light capability is indeed a tool, but like any tool it can make people think less and produce work that is inferior. These cameras are about 2 stops better than the typical camcorder so they could make some people very lazy, especially those who think lighting is a need and not a tool. This is what my comment was about.
 
Otis Grapsas said:
Well, Phil, this film looks unlit to me. The civil engineers decided what lights to use in the streets for practical and cost reasons and since I didn't find a cinematography credit we could credit them for the results.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. I believe that clever placement of camera and actors to make use of available light qualifies as "lighting" a scene. The civil engineers deserve no credit.

Otis Grapsas said:
I don't think Nocturne looks good. The photography is flat and lifeless and I don't know about the raw material but the output is what a kid with Magic Bullet would produce.
Click to expand...

Art is subjective. I think it looks great. Although I would have went with a different color correction.

Otis Grapsas said:
Low light capability is indeed a tool, but like any tool it can make people think less and produce work that is inferior.
Click to expand...

Comments like this are just silly to me. Every single new tool or advancement in a tool results in some naysayer making a comment like this. It's pointless. Advancements in technology give talented people new tools and allows everyone else more opportunities to practice their craft and become better. If anything, it makes filmmakers and their projects better, not worse.
 
The civil engineer credit was an attempt at sarcasm. The light happened to be there, and that is also the case in my kitchen. The chances that available light at night shots (my kitchen included) will be interesting and fit a story are slim IMHO. It's good to use available light, an art on its own and very important in still photography. But for moving images, available light can easily become a major compromise, something I would only accept if I had no other option.

New tools are great in experienced hands. But we are talking about cameras that are in the price range of consumer camcorders. The tool will be misused. A lot. So much that it will have a negative effect in the next generation of filmmakers, just like the DOF adapters did IMHO. Film takes effort to light for adequate depth of field, but due to this limitation, those that have experience in film, are a hell of a lot better in the creative use of lighting.
 
Again, I disagree. I think that having more opportunities to practice ones craft will result in better products in the end. Yes, that does mean more crap along the way, but it also means a greater sum of better products in the end. And if you don't know how to use available light for moving images, then I feel you have a tool missing in your toolbox. But, whatever works for you, go for it. Just let everyone else do their thing as well.
 
Last edited:
Phil H. said:
Just let everyone else do their thing as well.
Click to expand...

The cinematography police wasn't formed yet and I wouldn't want to handle the task in any case:) I'm just putting an opinion on the table since we will see lots of material in this style.
 
Otis Grapsas said:
The photography is flat and lifeless and I don't know about the raw material but the output is what a kid with Magic Bullet would produce.
Click to expand...

well I didn't necessarily love the color grading but that kid with Magic Bullet was actually Stu Maschwitz, who invented Magic Bullet :grin:
 
Otis Grapsas said:
That explains the presets:)
Click to expand...

I agree that Magic Bullet presets are super-heavy and annoying. That said, it's easy to amek your own, and these can be as subtle as you like.

On your lighting comments, I do agree. As an example, big Hollywood prods and adverts light OUTSIDE in FULL DAYLIGHT. Why? Because that way they can best control shading.

I don't have the budget for a 5K outside, but I do carefully plan my shooting day around sun angles.

I think with cheap tools we are seeing that tools were not, in fact, the barrier preventing Uncle Harry from shooting Spiderman. The barrier was talent, which is about as rare today as it was at any time in the past.
 
I think a great example of what you're saying is the cinematography of Sven Nykvist, double Oscar winning DP of most of Ingmar Bergman's films. Nykvist was an absolute master of controlling available light, and using minimal lighting and filtration to get stunning results, a style that changed Cinema actually. Though some may view his style as being dated, or quaint perhaps today.

As to Nocturne, what bothers me most about the film is that the whole hype was presented like it was the camera that made the film what it was. Like all you have to do is buy this camera, and all your shots will look this good. That's an absolutely absurd notion, but people buy into it anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top