Kimmy - 1DX mark II 4K video

[AndreeOnline]

My tip would be to use HTP (Highlight Tone Priority) in conjunction with the Neutral profile. This would limit your lowest available ISO to 200, but you get an additional stop in the very top highlights. Make no mistake—it's not a slow, soft roll off like a log profile, but you DO get that stop of extra detail.

It has always been my theory that Canon Log is nothing else than the HTP concept (internal 1 stop exposure pull, that is compensated by a 1 stop shadow-mids push curve) on steroids: Canon Log limits ISO to 400, so you get 2 stops pull/push. But a difference being that Canon Log pulls much more of the highlights/mids, so it's a softer transition.

Anyway, This type of processing benefits greatly from good ISO performance, since Canon Log boosts the shadows-mids internally by 2 stops. Whatever noise is in there will reveal itself if you push too hard. I've never had issues with the 1Dc and its generally good ISO performance, but the 1Dx mkII would be even better—it's a shame that if it doesn't get Canon Log. I guess since the XC-10 isn't officially part of the Cinema EOS line, but still has Canon Log, there is a small change that the 1Dx mkII could get it. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Kinok]

My tip would be to use HTP (Highlight Tone Priority) in conjunction with the Neutral profile. This would limit your lowest available ISO to 200, but you get an additional stop in the very top highlights. Make no mistake—it's not a slow, soft roll off like a log profile, but you DO get that stop of extra detail.

It has always been my theory that Canon Log is nothing else than the HTP concept (internal 1 stop exposure pull, that is compensated by a 1 stop shadow-mids push curve) on steroids: Canon Log limits ISO to 400, so you get 2 stops pull/push. But a difference being that Canon Log pulls much more of the highlights/mids, so it's a softer transition.

Anyway, This type of processing benefits greatly from good ISO performance, since Canon Log boosts the shadows-mids internally by 2 stops. Whatever noise is in there will reveal itself if you push too hard. I've never had issues with the 1Dc and its generally good ISO performance, but the 1Dx mkII would be even better—it's a shame that if it doesn't get Canon Log. I guess since the XC-10 isn't officially part of the Cinema EOS line, but still has Canon Log, there is a small change that the 1Dx mkII could get it. I'm not holding my breath.

Thanks so much for your contribution. It's nice to have someone here who owns and operates a 1DC and can tell us more about that magical camera. As a person with a Raven deposit, I am seriously thinking of purchasing the 1DC instead because of the far superior noise & ISO performance, portability, weather sealing, crop factor (1.33 vs. 1.7), ease of use, and lower media cost. I already own the BMPC-4K and I'm not sure that I need another cinema camera with poor low-light performance.

In my thinking, and from what I've seen of these two 1D cameras, the 1DC looks great under both artificial light and natural light, whereas the 1DX II mostly looks good under artificial lighting because the latter conditions don't require the same dynamic range. You only need 9 stops of DR for most nighttime footage, whereas daytime is where a camera like the 1DC really shines. Even under artificial light, however, the 1DC still has its advantages. I don't think the 1DX II is capable of this type of "creamy" cinematic footage at night:

I know that Canon claims better ISO performance and lower noise on the 1DX II, but it's really hard to believe when the 1DC has slightly larger photosites (6.95 vs. 6.65 µm), and, one would assume, the better signal-to-noise that goes with them. Even if they have improved the sensor and the processing, the 1DX II still has to overcome the 1DC's signal-to-noise advantage. It may not simply be a case of "Log vs. no Log" as the 1DC without Log already looks amazing. Here is Abraham Joffe shooting the 1DC without C-Log but with polarization to bring out the sky:

It looks like the 1DC without Log has a higher DR and softer roll-off than the 1DX II, if both are shot in the exact same neutral profile. Imagine the difference with C-Log. Unfortunately, I don't believe Canon is planning to bring C-Log to the 1DX II. It's not the type of thing you add in firmware, unless it would a be paid upgrade à la the Sony method of offering paid upgrades (which, in the case of the FS5's RAW upgrade, was announced at that camera's launch). Adding C-Log to a camera that wasn't designed for it is far too intensive and complex for a simple or free upgrade. Rather, I believe that Canon will announce the 1DC II sometime later this year using the 1DX II platform but offering exclusive cinema features such as C-Log. If they really get ambitious, they could add 4K 4:2:2 10 bit 24/25P HDMI out like the Leica SL. But I imagine that if we ever got 4K 4:2:2 10 bit on the 1DC line, it would be internal and would require Canon to price the camera around the 1DC's original price of $12K. In that way, they could protect their market segmentation for EOS cinema cameras.

 

[laverdir]

Did anyone tried Technicolor CineStyle with 1D X MII?

Apparently, it will not roll off highlights as nicely as C-log, but there should be noise improvement in shadows.

 

[AndreeOnline]

The main thing to remember here is that we are dealing with 8bit cameras. That puts a frame around the possibilities of playing with picture profiles. By maximizing DR in 8bit space we are going to compress parts of the image that contain important information. While some local decompression is possible in post, it's important to remain realistic. It's probably best to think of it as a trade off between captured stops of light vs richness/thickness/tonality.

But still, even if we had a true 18 stop camera that recorded to 16bit files—too much tweaking of the image (especially local contrast adjustments) would soon produce an unnatural looking image. The 18 stop log file would be extremely flat, and when contrast is added naturally (globally), much of the shadows and highlights would be pushed close to what we're already seeing in 12 stop images. If not, we wouldn't have any contrast in the traditional "meat of the image". We could do tone compression similar to HDR photography, but that would only mean we had already fallen off the cliff (in my opinion).

This isn't meant to sound apologetic—to have all the information in a rich file will always be advantageous from a technical standpoint. But it might be possible to save a lot of money and hassle if we shoot with the end goal in mind… There's LOTS of focus on forums today on the intermediate file, without perhaps considering if it was worth it, once the end file is compressed and uploaded.

I DO find Canon Log to be a very reasonable compromise that can lend a certain cinematic flair to your images. I only shoot in Canon Log myself. But having done quite a few tests, in many scenarios the differences (they are certainly there) between well shot Neutral with reduced contrast and Canon Log might only be seen by fellow peers. If the general public is your audience, only the few know what to look for.

 

[AndreeOnline]

Did anyone tried Technicolor CineStyle with 1D X MII?

Apparently, it will not roll off highlights as nicely as C-log, but there should be noise improvement in shadows.

I tried it and rejected if for my 5D mkII and mkIII. It's much better with the 1Dc and it's probably going to be fine with the 1Dx mkII. For sure: it's an option worth to explore. But I'm uncertain if you gain any real data. I have a feeling you might actually throw things away (or cheat the camera of tonality) by raising the blacks like that in a "normal" picture profile. The flat look sure makes you feel you "capture a lot", but I'd like to see that proven. Haven't tested it enough myself since I have Canon Log.

 

[LeoGrey]

It looks like the 1DC without Log has a higher DR and softer roll-off than the 1DX II

You are not making any sense with these assumptions. How about waiting until we see some relevant tests / productions.

There's LOTS of focus on forums today on the intermediate file, without perhaps considering if it was worth it, once the end file is compressed and uploaded.

I DO find Canon Log to be a very reasonable compromise that can lend a certain cinematic flair to your images. I only shoot in Canon Log myself. But having done quite a few tests, in many scenarios the differences (they are certainly there) between well shot Neutral with reduced contrast and Canon Log might only be seen by fellow peers. If the general public is your audience, only the few know what to look for.

Agree with this completely and through my own testing have come to the same conclusion.

 

[Kinok]

You are not making any sense with these assumptions. How about waiting until we see some relevant tests / productions.

We've had many 1DX II productions/tests already from esteemed Canon shooters from around the world, including several that I have posted and praised on the very forum. The list so far includes Abraham Joffe, Mo Ming, Michael Ori, Alexis Cuarezma and several others. Many of these individuals such as Joffe and Ori know the 1DC very well and have brought all their experience to the 1DX II. Even still, they have not been able to match the cinematic qualities of 1DC footage on the newer cameras, despite the marketing hype that Canon has created surrounding this camera's video abilities. So far, in the numerous videos and tests that have been posted, the 1DX II simply a produces a more "punchy" image with more contrast and less DR than the 1DC. It's wonderful that the 1DX II boasts 4K 60 fps, great low-light performance, improved rolling shutter, and an amazing AF system inherited from the EOS Cinema line, but none of this matters if it can't produce images that are at least as good as the 1DC in terms of DR. As a cinema camera, the 1DC is still the better choice and indeed costs $2000 more for that added capability. Of course, I wish that were not the case, as the added cost of buying the 1DC over the 1DX II is the price of another Canon L lens to add to my collection. For that reason, I will wait and see how the 1DX II performs "in the wild" before deciding which camera to get.

 

[Kinok]

I DO find Canon Log to be a very reasonable compromise that can lend a certain cinematic flair to your images. I only shoot in Canon Log myself. But having done quite a few tests, in many scenarios the differences (they are certainly there) between well shot Neutral with reduced contrast and Canon Log might only be seen by fellow peers. If the general public is your audience, only the few know what to look for.

But my point again was that the 1DC neutral setting is already flatter than what is happening with the 1DX II and I referenced it with Joffe's wedding video above. It's an amazing performance for the 1DC without C-Log enabled. Log or no Log, the 1DC is designed to produce beautiful cinematic images with great DR and manageable color for grading. It is an 8-bit camera in the end, but the 1DC "transcends" its 8-bit (linear) shackles when all said and done and you have the Log footage or the graded end product. I see few of the same qualities in the 1DX II footage thus far. Perhaps things will change as people develop more skill with the 1DX II platform. That is always a possibility.

As for no one in your audience noticing the difference between Log and neutral, one could say that of far more extreme differences. How many in your audience would spot the difference between footage from the 1DC and the RED Epic? To experts, it would seem substantial but not to the average guy watching on his mobile device or his computer or TV at home.

 

[Kinok]

In the interest of fairness in our debate over the 1DX II's DR, I went back and looked at Kimmy's ungraded version available for download on Vimeo. There is actually a lot more shadow detail than what is visible in the graded versions on both Vimeo and YouTube. I'm not sure why this was graded out but I'm beginning to suspect that my reservations about the 1DX II may simply be due to grading choices or color space issues encountered by those who are posting the footage.

For example, here in this low-quality JPEG that I pulled, you can still see details from the darkest shadows right up to the details in the clouds (unfortunately, the shadows got a little crushed again after the upload to this website, but it looks pretty amazing on the original files). In the graded version, the building outlines in the foreground form a single silhouette of pitch black. Now I'm not sure how many stops of DR that is, but it is more than enough and looks very close to the 1DC in C-Log. It's actually an awesome performance here.



In another example from Kimmy, it seems obvious that the image has been overexposed, leading to a loss of DR that would have been much better with a slightly lower exposure. Even still this is a beautiful shot with very rich colors.



Finally, in these examples you can see a far better performance in DR than what is visible in the graded version:



I hope that soon we will get our hands on some untouched MJPEG files straight from the camera so that we can try them out in Resolve.

 

[AndreeOnline]

But my point again was that the 1DC neutral setting is already flatter than what is happening with the 1DX II and I referenced it with Joffe's wedding video above. It's an amazing performance for the 1DC without C-Log enabled.

I understand. But I think it's simply a question of not comparing the same source material. My expectation is that the 1Dx mkII will look the same in Neutral as the 1Dc but with even stronger shadows. They can already be lifted quite a bit with the 1Dc to take some of the crunch out. The 1Dx mkII can potentially under expose a bit more to save highlights in Neutral and then let you lift the shadows in post.

 

[LeoGrey]

So far, in the numerous videos and tests that have been posted, the 1DX II simply a produces a more "punchy" image with more contrast and less DR than the 1DC.

It is nothing other than silly to form assumptions and generalizations about a cameras performance that has not been released yet, let alone make them based on examples that have been shot from the hip, subjectively altered and compressed for web viewing.

A great example of this is the c300/c100 launch films. Both cameras are capable of delivering equally beautiful images but you wouldn't have known it comparing their launch material. Granted mobius had a large budget and production crew.

 

[Kinok]

It is nothing other than silly to form assumptions and generalizations about a cameras performance that has not been released yet, let alone make them based on examples that have been shot from the hip, subjectively altered and compressed for web viewing.

A great example of this is the c300/c100 launch films. Both cameras are capable of delivering equally beautiful images but you wouldn't have known it comparing their launch material. Granted mobius had a large budget and production crew.

See my post (#89) above where I went back and looked at ungraded Kimmy footage, which I think looks very impressive for DR. The 1DX II has great potential for a video camera. We just need to petition Canon for adding C-Log as this would turn it into a proper cinema camera alongside the 1DC.

Perhaps Canon would be willing to listen to us if we got enough support from 1DX II owners who would pay for the firmware update? I'm sure that Canon would not go out of its way to add C-Log for free, but for a few hundred dollars per camera, they could make a tidy profit.

Panasonic charged $100 for V-Log on the GH4 and Sony is going to charge $500 for RAW output on the FS5. Adding C-Log on this camera should be priced somewhere between those I would imagine.

Now, of course, the only little problem here is that adding C-Log to the 1DX II would make the 1DC instantly obsolete, which would leave retailers stuck with 1DC units they could no longer sell at the current price. But once they have sold all the 1DCs in stock, then perhaps C-Log will be forthcoming on the 1DX II.

 

[ReelWorksMedia]

See my post (#89) above where I went back and looked at ungraded Kimmy footage, which I think looks very impressive for DR. The 1DX II has great potential for a video camera. We just need to petition Canon for adding C-Log as this would turn it into a proper cinema camera alongside the 1DC. Perhaps Canon would be willing to listen to us if we got enough support from 1DX II owners who would pay for the firmware update? Panasonic charged $100 for V-Log on the GH4 and Sony is going to charge $500 for RAW output on the FS5. Adding C-Log on this camera should be priced somewhere between those.

I think this idea is not at all like the "Canon we all know." I really don't see them caring about it honestly.....though if they did, I would jump on it in a second like many others I suspect. I just don't think its gonna happen. Canon just does not have a track history of "doing what they should do....and what should obviously be done."

 

[NorBro]

At the end of the day, it's a camera for photographers first. Only people on these forums want LOG. No one else is going to care about it and some may not even know what it is.

 

[Kinok]

At the end of the day, it's a camera for photographers first. Only people on these forums want LOG. No one else is going to care about it and some may not even know what it is.

As a DSLR with a high frame rate, the 1DX II is by definition a stills camera intended for action sports. In addition, it's releasing in time for the Rio Olympics, just as the original 1DX arrived ahead of London 2012. But what's interesting is if you compare the 1DX II's marketing with Canon's marketing for the 1DC as a 4K video camera that allows stills photographers to extract JPEG images from video. That was actually the 1DC's main selling point along the lines of a hybrid camera for photographers. For example, recall the Micro Expressions video:

Now contrast that with all the marketing Canon has put out on the video qualities of the 1DX II and the number of sponsored video shoots. It's quite remarkable how much emphasis Canon is putting on the 1DX II's improved video capabilities over the 1DC despite the fact that it is primarily a photo camera. We're also not seeing the same rhetoric anymore: the 1DX II shoots video for videographers, or photographers who want to expand their business into video, and not for photographers who simply want to extract still frames from MJPEG.

Combine that with the fact that Canon representatives are describing the 1DX II as the convergence of the 1DX and 1DC product lines and you realize that Canon intends to sell this to videographers in large numbers, many of whom are interested in LOG or other cinema features. And that's where an online petition comes in, which we could all add our names to and that Canon would certainly respond to if it was backed with the promise of $$$.

I do agree that it's not "typical" of Canon to add something like LOG in firmware, but these are not typical times for Canon. The latter has lost many loyal customers to the other camera manufacturers, including Sony, Panasonic, and Blackmagic, and I believe that they are now more responsive to customer demands than they were when the 5DII came out. Adding LOG in a paid 1DX II firmware option is the least they can do to keep customers from going elsewhere.

 

[LeoGrey]

The only thing that worries me in terms of firmware updates for the 1DX II(or even the 5D IV for that matter) is how nicely the cinema / photo divisions are playing with one another. Clearly the photo division @ Canon is focused on doing just that, still imaging. The cinema division on the hand has also produced some amazing products. Each division clearly has their own politics, licenses, budgets, goals, problems, quotas and getting that many people on the same page to collaborate can be quite the task(esp with large divisions).

I look at the 1DC as a product of what happens when brilliant ideas become mis-managed with poor communication. To compound the problem it sold poorly and both divisions probably went into the red, thus the limited support/updates. This is all guesstimating but many are still in awe of the 1DC's image/build quality and hope Canon gets this figured out. The 1DX is the photo divisions flagship "baby", so I can't imagine them being too excited when the video guys want to modify/re-engineer parts of it for cinema.

They are in fact pushing the video features of this thing and aside from sports/journalists, I could see MANY purchasers losing their sh!t if Canon announced a 1DC II later in the year.

 

[NorBro]

haha, I'm actually holding off for a bit just because of the possibility of a 1DCII and I would definitely lose my...

Even with the petition, I don't think 20-30 people from DVXuser (etc.) would change anything...too much work for something that probably doesn't matter at all for Canon.

 

[Kinok]

Canon announced the 1DC one month after it released the 1DX in 2012. One year later the 1DC was released with upgraded heat sinks and other features that allow it to manage the increased heat caused by 4K processing in MJPEG. Finally, it is now releasing the 1DX II to replace both models.

All of this is confirmed by the video I posted above with the Canon Professional Product Manager for S.A., Roger Machin, who very clearly states that the 1DX II replaces two cameras as it incorporates the 1DC's heat management system. Is he going lie about the 1DX II as the replacement for both the 1DX and the 1DC? I really doubt he would go out of his way to deceive Canon customers. Other high-ranking Canon reps have said the same thing and I'm sure that if you contact your regional rep, s/he will say the same thing. Retailers who have commented have also reaffirmed this basic point. It's unanimous so far. The only reason they can't advertise that everywhere is because there is 1DC stock that is still sitting on the shelves and it would hurt those sales if they came out and announced a 1DX II that ships immediately with C-Log and is the replacement for the 1DC.

So let's put the idea of the 1DC II to rest. There's absolutely no need for it. This 1DX II has all the processing, heat management, and recording capacity (CF 2.0) that any 1DC II would have for 4K video. It already records at 800 Mbps (100 MB/s). That's an unbelievable data rate for a DSLR video shooter and equal to or higher than some dedicated cinema cameras.

Now what would the 1DC II offer that the 1DX II cannot with its incredible horsepower and vast array of dedicated video features: C-Log and audio line-in through the mic jack? I just don't see it. It's more and more likely that the 1DC was a risky and unprofitable one-off and that the two lines have now been merged, as according to any authority who has spoken publicly on this issue. Don't forget that Canon had to lower the price on the 1DC from $12K to $8K because they couldn't sell enough of those things and that Canon U.S.A. has stopped stocking the camera on its website.

Going forward, it's a lot cheaper and more efficient for Canon to offer one 1D camera that does everything than two cameras, one of which never got any kind of market share. Canon learned its lesson with the 1DC and will never repeat it.

As for the C-Log petition, I'm thinking of a global petition with support from Canon shooters and videographers from around the world. I could see hundreds of people adding their names and not just a few of us from DVXuser.

I believe that Canon's main reluctance in adding C-Log to the 1DX II is that it would confuse photographers who are new to video or to video grading, thus leading to all kinds of problems in the graded files. An optional and paid C-Log upgrade for videographers, however, would avoid that problem.

Another possibility for Canon's reluctance here might be the improved JPEG processing and ISO performance that has been noted by users of the camera. One photographer who wrote a review of the 1DX II claimed that this generation of Canon's JPEG on the 1DX II has DR and color performance that approaches many characteristics of last generation's RAW! [I'll find this review and post it as soon as I can locate it again]

It may be that C-Log is simply no longer required to achieve great results in DR or color grading.

 

[NorBro]

Regardless if the 1DC was a success or not, all of Canon's cameras dropped in price. It's not like the $12K to $8K happened after a few months like the price drop with the XC10. It took 3 years. The technology is outdated (it's not an ALEXA) and no one would buy a 1DC for $12K right now. $8K is even questionable in my opinion.

 

[Kinok]

Actually, it did not take 3 years--not even close.

The 1DC price drop was on February 1st 2015, less than two years after the camera was released in March 2013. It was very steep ($4,000) and was announced at a time when no replacement was in sight.

The 1DC's sales numbers are also very important in determining the future of Canon's product lines. Poor sales projections and no real market for the 1DC II means it's just not going to happen. We are talking about a very conservative and massive Japanese electronics conglomerate here where every bean is counted. The 1DC was a rebel and served its purpose in advancing Canon's DSLR cinema technology as an experimental camera. But there's just no use for another camera like that and no market, especially when one can kill two birds with one 1DX II.

Besides, all of this 1DC II discussion is a moot point. Canon has already moved ahead by implementing advanced video features in the 1DX II that one would have imagined for the hypothetical 1DC II. The main feature that has been left out is C-Log and the reasons for that I have already speculated on above. Everything else is there. You can of course wait all you want for a 1DC II announcement, but it makes no sense from Canon's product strategy at this point, especially with the amount that Canon has invested in selling the 1DX II as a dedicated video camera in addition to its primarily photographic use. It's a true hybrid machine, now with a switch on the back that divides the camera's two personalities or modes.