Kimmy - 1DX mark II 4K video

NorBro said:
Second ISO test I've seen from the 1DX Mark II...and again I think it's pretty darn clean (the high ones that appear usable).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mcu1Jx3NL7E
Click to expand...

I saw this a few days ago. It looks very clean to 1600 and usable to 6400. I don't think there is any doubt about the noise performance. With such large photosites, it will be better than almost any video camera you can imagine for signal-to-noise performance.

What I'm looking for here are favored ISOs like the 5D Mark II. When it goes from 400 to 800, for example, it actually gets darker! Is it applying negative gain? Next, from 800 to 1600, there is hardly any change. Between 1600 and 3200, it finally goes brighter again. From 3200 to 6400 it gets brighter again, but at 12800, it loses saturation and goes darker. 16000 looks brighter, but I pretty much stopped looking for the favored ISOs at this point as there is just too much noise.

Here is another ISO test from the same channel (go to 1:00 for the red Subaru ISO test):


Again, right off the bat from 100 to 200, the image gets darker! But, this time, from 400 to 800 gets brighter and 800 to 1600 gets darker. What is going on here? It's a very bizarre performance that contradicts the other test. Did s/he forget to take it off auto gain or something? It's impossible to know what his or her settings were.

Also, recall how the ISO test at the beach had none of these issues:

 
Last edited:
The operator is probably adjusting the aperture or shutter during takes, if there are any between the ISO changes. At :45 there is definitely a cut.
 
Kinok said:
What is going on here? It's a very bizarre performance that contradicts the other test. Did s/he forget to take it off auto gain or something?
Click to expand...

The two videos are doing two completely different things.

In the top one they are keeping the Exposure Value constant (by adjusting shutter and aperture and/or filters). This is so that you can judge noise characteristics relative to a constant brightness level. The problem here is that they are shooting outdoors and light levels will change constantly.

The second video is shooting in a dark setting and they simply increase the ISO and let the image get progressively brighter.

The second video on the beach will probably be the better indication of ISO performance. In bright scenes, you can often shoot at high ISO without major problems since much of the image data sits so high above the noise floor.
 
AndreeOnline said:
The two videos are doing two completely different things.

In the top one they are keeping the Exposure Value constant (by adjusting shutter and aperture and/or filters). This is so that you can judge noise characteristics relative to a constant brightness level. The problem here is that they are shooting outdoors and light levels will change constantly.

The second video is shooting in a dark setting and they simply increase the ISO and let the image get progressively brighter.

The second video on the beach will probably be the better indication of ISO performance. In bright scenes, you can often shoot at high ISO without major problems since much of the image data sits so high above the noise floor.
Click to expand...

I think you are correct. It simply would have been better if the person who posted the video explained the settings and parameters of the tests. The beach scene is truly remarkable though for the ISO levels that are reached. It also shows a very linear ISO performance.
 
Here is some very impressive 100fps from the 1DX II shot by someone who already owns and operates the 1DC. The footage here is also showing better DR and roll-off, and more 1DC-like or "creamy" qualities:


Finally, it appears that in the right hands the 1DX II could match the 1DC!
 
Last edited:
I think the quality is just okay. Any 100/120fps from the Sonys looks much better IMO.

The focus pulls are nice.
 
At least on my monitor, that 100fps video looks far better than I expected. For some reason, it actually looks sharper than what I expect from Canon's FullHD. Maybe it is just the use of sharpening, as I was seeing some moire, but I could even see the fibers on the jackets and I would never be able to see that on the 60p on the 1DC. Canon appears to have upped their game on the 1DX II. It looks like it could cut with the cinema cameras.
 
The Cruising Havana footage was recently re-uploaded on Vimeo. I'm not sure if they added anything (I don't seem to remember the dawn/dusk and night shots in the previous version), but this version looks even more impressive to me.


There is also a new field review from one of the filmmakers, Richard Patterson, who makes a very bold claim:

The 4k image is very crisp, has a smooth roll-off in the highlights and handles shadows well using the settings. I actually prefer the images a bit to those from my Sony FS7 at 4K in natural light. The 1D X Mark II definitely interprets and captures red hues better than my Sony FS7. In addition, the overall color interpretation seems less heavy-handed and feels more authentic with the Canon.
Click to expand...

http://nofilmschool.com/2016/05/field-review-canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii
 
Last edited:
Here is another impressive video that just posted. Noise performance and color are once again outstanding, as is the camera's resolving power at 4K. It's hard to believe this comes from an 8 Bit camera that you can carry in a relatively small camera bag. As with the magical 1DC, the 4:2:2 subsampling and the MJPEG make all the difference in retaining its filmic qualities. I think I may need one of these cameras. It's like a 1DC for half the original price.

 
Last edited:
Kinok said:
Here is another impressive video that just posted.
Click to expand...

First things first: I think full IQ 60p, quite usable high speed (100-120fps), DPAF and a significantly lower price outweighs the lack of Canon Log—in a direct comparison to the Canon 1Dc.

But looking at the poster frame for that video, the look of the much steeper REC 709 curve and how quickly the wooden panel of the car gets really bright is such a HUGE step backwards from Canon Log.

Canon Log will clip too, but it doesn't rush head first into it. It's not the actual blow out lights that gets annoying with Neutral PP, but much more the steepness of the curve and how the panel of the car that should sit around IRE 60 with that light on it lands over IRE 80.

But OK, proper technique and some craft will go a long way. I can see how being freed up from constantly worrying about focus will allow the operator to focus on what's actually going on in front of the camera (in a single shooter situation).
 
NorBro said:
I think the quality is just okay. Any 100/120fps from the Sonys looks much better IMO.

The focus pulls are nice.
Click to expand...

While the HFR could be a bit more detailed, I would say in a very positive view, this footage had a very "filmic" look to it. Much more than I would expect from a Sony camera. Canon always had the look with their DSLRs but the detail was dialed back. Get the detail involved and they are back in the winners circle.

Makes me wonder how the 5DMKIV will compare to this camera with its video capabilities. Or to be honest, how much it will or will not be crippled.
 
Last edited:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder for sure...because I thought it looked very video-like.

Where the motorcycle one looks super "filmic" to me.
 
AndreeOnline said:
First things first: I think full IQ 60p, quite usable high speed (100-120fps), DPAF and a significantly lower price outweighs the lack of Canon Log—in a direct comparison to the Canon 1Dc.

But looking at the poster frame for that video, the look of the much steeper REC 709 curve and how quickly the wooden panel of the car gets really bright is such a HUGE step backwards from Canon Log.

Canon Log will clip too, but it doesn't rush head first into it. It's not the actual blow out lights that gets annoying with Neutral PP, but much more the steepness of the curve and how the panel of the car that should sit around IRE 60 with that light on it lands over IRE 80.

But OK, proper technique and some craft will go a long way. I can see how being freed up from constantly worrying about focus will allow the operator to focus on what's actually going on in front of the camera (in a single shooter situation).
Click to expand...

You will notice that I praised only the noise performance and colors of the DIFRENT video. The exposure and high contrast left much to be desired. The key light is indeed way too hot and leads to the problems with overexposure.

In contrast, the operator of the Malta Saluting Battery video, who is an experienced 1DC user, seems to have turned the in-camera contrast levels down and utilized a picture profile that matches a little more closely what you get out of Canon Log. That video to me is one of the most promising things I've seen from the 1DX II. We are starting to see that in the right hands this camera can produce images closer to the 1DC's C-Log, even though I don't believe it will ever match it exactly. Out of the box it does not have that 1DC look, but, with some tweaking through the picture profiles, and with good control over lighting, it can start to resemble the smoother curve and highlight roll-off of the 1DC. Consider these screenshots from the 100fps HD Malta video:

Malta Saluting Battery.jpgMalta Saluting Battery 2.jpgMalta Saluting Battery 3.jpgMalta Saluting Battery 4.jpg

Of course, at the end of the day, the question for those of us who don't own either one of these cameras is which is the better investment for video at this point? Which one has the better DR, highlight roll-off, smoother curve, graded footage, noise performance, color, and overall cinematic picture quality? I think the answer is obvious. Undoubtedly, the 1DC is still the king of the Canon video DSLRs and its only drawback is the rolling shutter that has been much improved on the 1DX II. There is a reason why Canon retails one of these cameras for $6K and the other for $8K. If you want the best camera for cinema, you have to pay more for it. Is it worth $2,000 more? It all depends on what you need from a camera.

My reservations about the 1DX II are simply that it will never get C-Log and that a 1DC II will be along in about a year. If I go with the 1DC, however, I know exactly what I am getting. For you guys who already own a 1DC, the 1DX II would be a nice B-camera to add to your kit that could match the 1DC footage in many instances and would provide some additional features. In no way do I believe that the 1DX II will effectively replace the 1DC for filmmakers who need the absolute best image quality, except in those instances where the 1DC's rolling shutter or lack of 4K 60fps would be an issue. The AF features might also be essential if you are pulling focus and have no external monitor. Moreover, the 1DX II monitor has a higher resolution than the 1DC allowing for more precise manual focusing as well.

As for the those who hope that a 5DIV will be any match for these . . . you must be dreaming! The 5D body lacks the heat management capacity required for this level of video quality using current sensor technology. If there is a 5DIV, it will have some nasty 4K interframe codec with 4:2:0 subsampling. That is pretty much guaranteed. Our only hope going forward is a 1DC II, which I'm pretty sure is on the drawing board somewhere at Canon. How can they resist marrying the 1DX II platform with the 1DC's cinema features and why are those specific features missing from this release? I think it is a given that Canon is withholding them for a 1DC II.
 
Last edited:
Kinok said:
In contrast, the operator of the Malta Saluting Battery video, who is an experienced 1DC user, seems to have turned the in-camera contrast levels down and utilized a picture profile that matches a little more closely what you get out of Canon Log.

View attachment 113472
Click to expand...

Hi,

The first screenshot, I'd say, has a .6 to .9 graduated ND over the sky. And then you end up with a look like that: different parts of the image don't match.

As for the rest of the images… while it's a hot sun, all the shots are in an open space. Contrast should be very manageable. It's not a challenging scene in my opinion.

But I DO think the images look very nice for the high speed mode (apart from that intro shot with the unfortunate sky) with enough detail to keep me satisfied for casual 100fps-ish footage. It's also my impression that the auto focus works fine in the high speed mode, which would be great.
 
Hi AndreeOnline,

It states in the Vimeo description that he is using Lee Filters presumably for general ND, but I don't see any telltale signs of graduated ND in that shot. Look at the water: it is all exactly the same tone, from top to bottom. Even if the graduated ND starts at the horizon, there is no gradation of light in the sky. The clouds are not getting any darker as you reach the top. Now you might say that it is an abrupt fall-off or line placed at the horizon. But, again, there is no sign of that in the image. Rather, it appears that he is using a general ND to bring down the the sky and, in turn, the entire image.

In any case, the second shot of the flanking cannons most certainly does not have any graduated ND and looks very good for reduced contrast.

ND filters aside, if you watch some of his other videos, you can see that he is an experienced 1DC user like yourself and someone who probably has a good idea of how to setup the 1DX II to make it look very similar.

Ultimately, that is what I want to see: a side-by-side comparison of the 1DC and 1DX II to see how closely the latter can match the 1DC's C-Log through some creative picture profile settings. Will you be getting the 1DX II? Perhaps you should be the one to do the tests! That would be greatly appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Kinok said:
It states in the Vimeo description that he is using Lee Filters…
Click to expand...

Yes. It can be filters or a grade, but the sky looks off to me with the clouds (and the dull sky) being too dark in relation to the foreground. I have a Lee set myself and the grad doesn't leave any specific trace if you're careful. I only see it in the first shot, so I think he did it there and then dropped the idea.

Kinok said:
Ultimately, that is what I want to see: a side-by-side comparison of the 1DC and 1DX II to see how closely the latter can match the 1DC's C-Log through some creative picture profile settings. Will you be getting the 1DX II? Perhaps you should be the one to do the tests! That would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the release of the camera in Switzerland is lagging behind the larger countries. We'll get it the next few days, but it isn't really here yet. I had a pre-order but canceled it a while back because I need to test the camera first.

I think someone who knows what they're doing can get pretty close between the cameras after grading, but you won't be able to totally replicate Canon Log. But the 1Dx mkII has many large and small upgrades that make it compelling. I like the form factor. To me it's about being ready to shoot and switch seamlessly between photos and videos. Having an AF that you can trust and control is worth a ton for quick on-your-feet shooting.

Shooting Neutral would imply you expose to save the highlights (but not specular lights) and then lift the shadows. But while you can lift this camera's shadows by several stops in raw, you can't really do that in an 8bit file. Still, you only need to lift them a little to take some of the crunch out.

Any type of footage that gets graded to a 'normal' level of contrast can be made to look pretty similar. Log footage gets DeLogged and Neutral gets DeCrushed.
 
This was just posted and is some of the best 1DX II slow motion I have seen so far. The detail level in this HD footage is pretty impressive especially on the tree and leave shots. Unfortunately, the picture profile looks like it is just plain Standard and is not maximizing the DR:

 
Last edited:
Typical Canon over-sharpened looking, pixel-binned, line-skipped HFR quality...looks like it's from 2010.

Love the filming and I don't mean to be harsh and I guess I'm extra critical about this part of the camera (because of my slow-motion experience with other cameras) where others may analyze different features more extensively, but this 120fps is not impressive.

But no one is buying this camera for 120fps so who cares.

EDIT: Typos
 
Last edited:
I would have to agree. This almost looks like 720p uprezzed along with the good old limited dynamic range we have come to know from Canon DSLRs shooting video (outside of RAW). In 2016 they can do way better. But who knows how this was processed and shot.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top