Canon May 'Bring the Might of Its Legal Team' if You Modify 1DX or 1DC Firmware

[Stephen Mick]

So far I love everything about the 1DC except the price of the red sticker. I do have one hesitation though, Shane has mentioned on his blog that the 1DC likes a lot of light thrown at it in contrast to the MKII which likes to be starved of light (Shane's words not mine, mine doesn't like to starve much). As a starving indie that's a concern for me, I don't have a truck full of lights. I would imagine he's just saying you need more light to get the best out of it which goes without saying.

I've yet to find a digital camera that likes to be "starved for light." Whether it's the Epic or the C100, the more light you can feed the sensor while still producing faithful colors and avoiding clipping, the better. I have no idea what Shane might mean by that, but it hasn't been my experience. Ever. With any digital camera.

 

[dustylense]

The clients both understand the benefits of 4K, and were willing to pay for them.

And as a businessman, I don't make it a habit to waste my money, regardless of client needs.

Thats awesome S. Mick. I would love to see some footage posted from your 1Dc in 4k, 1080, and some stills. Please upload some samples for us to look at to say Dropbox or something when you might find the time

On a side note. I'm not sure why people don't get that this camera records 4k 24fps to cheap easy to get CF cards! Name another camera that does that?????? Secondly, this only means that it will trickle down into more affordable bodies sooner than we think. Get over it and the price of the 1Dc.

Congrats S. Mick!

 

[androbot2084]

But don't your clients want 60p?

 

[dustylense]

But don't your clients want 60p?

He can rent the C500 for that.

 

[Stephen Mick]

But don't your clients want 60p?

The 1DC does 1080/60p.

 

[visualbrother]

I have always found the 1Dc V 1Dx argument a bit odd because if you are shooting 4K then $6K is what? 4 day shooting? I doubt anyone is offering 4K at the same price as a DVX100?

 

[Barry_Green]

So why the C100 then Barry?

For the obvious reason... A B-camera for C300 shoots. Same sensor, comparable imagery, stripped down feature set and smaller size and cheaper price. With the cheap lens mount so you can use it with cheap glass, making it more suitable as a crash cam or for being able to cheaply outfit a lot of camera angles.

Same reason we've always had B-cams.

What did you think it was for? It sure wasn't designed to be the A-camera.

View it in the context of who Canon has already said is their target audience and it all makes sense. The C100 is like their version of the A-Minima.

 

[squig]

I've yet to find a digital camera that likes to be "starved for light." Whether it's the Epic or the C100, the more light you can feed the sensor while still producing faithful colors and avoiding clipping, the better. I have no idea what Shane might mean by that, but it hasn't been my experience. Ever. With any digital camera.

"Immediately you can see that the 1DC really needs light. With the 5D sensor, we needed to starve it of light to get it to look filmic. With the 1DC, it reacted much like film" www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2013/01/testing-your-cameras-latitude/

i think he's exaggerating a bit with "starve". Lighting for a 5D would most likely mean "starve" to ASCs who are used to lighting with white trucks.

 

[Stephen Mick]

"Immediately you can see that the 1DC really needs light. With the 5D sensor, we needed to starve it of light to get it to look filmic. With the 1DC, it reacted much like film" http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2013/01/testing-your-cameras-latitude/

i think he's exaggerating a bit with "starve". Lighting for a 5D would most likely mean "starve" to an ASCs who are used to lighting with white trucks.

I certainly get the low-light benefits part of the equation, but everything I've ever shot with any of the digital cinema cameras has shown that if anything, you want to feed the sensor light, creating a "thicker negative" (to use film terms, hopefully correctly). So while you don't need nearly as much light to get a good exposure on the 5DII, in my opinion, a "good exposure" should still mean "exposing to the right" without blowing highlights.

Naturally other's mileage may vary.

 

[squig]

Sure, underexposure gets real ugly, but I don't think "starve" means underexposure. Shane's got that model lit up with a 2k blondie! The only time I've used a blondie with the 5D is to light a whole street! I recently shot a scene with the MKIII lit with a 20 watt LED, and some shots were overexposed!

It's good to see the 1DC has a bit of leeway in the highlights.

 

[Jay Birch]

This is quite an interesting feature:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...p-modes-surprise!&p=1986262994#post1986262994

 

[William_Robinette]

On a side note. I'm not sure why people don't get that this camera records 4k 24fps to cheap easy to get CF cards! Name another camera that does that?????? Secondly, this only means that it will trickle down into more affordable bodies sooner than we think. Get over it and the price of the 1Dc.

You mean like the RED ONE did 6 years ago? Except that had the benefit of REDCODE to get reasonable record times. The way this thing records 4k seems like a PITA

 

[Kholi]

I've yet to find a digital camera that likes to be "starved for light." Whether it's the Epic or the C100, the more light you can feed the sensor while still producing faithful colors and avoiding clipping, the better. I have no idea what Shane might mean by that, but it hasn't been my experience. Ever. With any digital camera.

Indeed. But a difficult task a lot of the time. I've noticed that, for some reason, photographers transitioning into video think there's always the power of the sun at your fingertips. As if feeding a camera light is anything but obvious? I do think I get what SHane's saying, just that the 5D doesn't look as good as when you underexpose it for whatever reason.

I certainly get the low-light benefits part of the equation, but everything I've ever shot with any of the digital cinema cameras has shown that if anything, you want to feed the sensor light, creating a "thicker negative" (to use film terms, hopefully correctly). So while you don't need nearly as much light to get a good exposure on the 5DII, in my opinion, a "good exposure" should still mean "exposing to the right" without blowing highlights.

Naturally other's mileage may vary.

"Immediately you can see that the 1DC really needs light. With the 5D sensor, we needed to starve it of light to get it to look filmic. With the 1DC, it reacted much like film" www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2013/01/testing-your-cameras-latitude/

i think he's exaggerating a bit with "starve". Lighting for a 5D would most likely mean "starve" to ASCs who are used to lighting with white trucks.

He does have a habit of doing that. =P Half reporting things etc. Just yesterday he said that the Canon 8-64 S16/C-Mount lens covered Blackmagic "perfectly"... and of course, less experienced bloggers picked that up and regurgitated it. Same thing that's wrong with this thread... as Barry points out: where's the proof?

Think Canon's not out to serve your needs, give your money to someone else. =D

 

[squig]

As if feeding a camera light is anything but obvious? I do think I get what SHane's saying, just that the 5D doesn't look as good as when you underexpose it for whatever reason.

I'm not Shane's spokesperson but I think what he's saying in not so many words (and is my experience) is you have to be dead on exposing the 5D but overexposing the 1DC looks gorgeous.

+3 stops with CC


+ 1/3

 

[Teodor Miljevic]

I certainly get the low-light benefits part of the equation, but everything I've ever shot with any of the digital cinema cameras has shown that if anything, you want to feed the sensor light, creating a "thicker negative" (to use film terms, hopefully correctly). So while you don't need nearly as much light to get a good exposure on the 5DII, in my opinion, a "good exposure" should still mean "exposing to the right" without blowing highlights.

Naturally other's mileage may vary.

it all depends on what kind of picture profile you have. If it´s a totally linear profile then yes. if it is a logarithmic (or other type where the highlights are compressed) you should really be conservative with your overexposure especially with complex areas like skin. I have against better knowledge tried this and the outcome is bad with poor definition and contrast(the effects is worse the flatter the profile is). If you have 10 bit it is more forgiving but if a premium result is wanted a slight overexposure might be ok but that depends on the contrast ratio. Film holds saturation in highlight in a way that dslr never can so if you want to mimic film (have it look filmic?) it can be good to keep face highlights down (if you want any color in them)