1DC: Native 1Dc clips for download for the curious.

AndreeOnline

AndreeOnline

Veteran
I got a request from a Twitter user asking if I had any native 1Dc clips for download. I didn't. I convert to ProRes 422 on import and they are my new masters.

On a family trip to the zoo today I brought the camera and shot a few exterior clips with the 24-105mm f4 IS, handheld. They are Canon Log without sharpening.

I've now made them available for download for this guy, and if anyone here is curious about the 1Dc you can check Vimeo here if you want to take a closer look:


Link to clips in description. These clips are intended to help with workflow questions—it's not exactly the world's greatest footage.

Clips are hosted by Copy.com which is great in my eyes. It's like Dropbox, but instead of 2GB you get 15GB. If you signup using a link from a member you get an additional 5GB—all for free.

If you want Copy, use this link for 20GB straight away: Sign up for Copy
 
Beautiful stuff for random footy. Thanks for sharing. I will check out Copy.com, sending 4k online definitely requires more than dropbox.

Also, I love the fact that it is still the only camera of that quality that one can "just bring along" anywhere.
 
Last edited:
I see Copy gaining some traction among photographers/videographers.

15GB is pretty generous, and with a referral link it's 20GB for free. Then, if you can refer to a few friends of your own you steadily get more. I think Copy states that 60GB is kind of average among active users after a little while.

The interface and iOS/Android apps are good too. So are the speeds and reliability. Only drawback to Dropbox as I see it is 3rd party integration. Dropbox has been around longer and has become ubiquitous and the default for sharing.

I've got 560GB of free storage already, so the link above is for my brother. Feel free to help him, but more importantly yourself to 5GB extra. And for anyone who don't like referral links: just go register the normal way for 15GB. Nothing says you can't use both DB and Copy. I do.
 
Thanks for this, Andree! Quick question - what are you using for ND filtration on your 1DC? Mattebox, screw on, variable, etc?
 
I use a Schneider Vari-ND filter, but I'm not that happy with it. I think it's actually good as far as Vari-NDs go, but I'll probably go for fixed densities going forward.

With my variable ND (and probably all others too?) there's a color shift when dialing in the higher densities that has been a struggle at times. Sharpness is fine.

Up until now I've shot on Canon or Sigma glass. I feel that screw on filters have been more convenient than going the matte box route. I also like the stealth factor.

My gear lust would like to see my transition to cine primes. With their consistent design and form factor, I'd reconsider a matte box. But it's not on the immediate horizon.

So… that kind of answers your question. Now, here comes the trick. Or rather... the reveal:

What ND filter did I use for the clips I posted? None.

Shooting Canon Log put me at ISO400 and it was a bright sunny day. First I had to stop down, but I try to not go above F11 (maybe F16) if I can help it. So that meant shorter shutter speeds. Stopping down is appropriate for 4k on footage like this and I would almost go as far as saying that cheating the shutter is OK too. That means you get many more frames that will render cleanly for evaluation (frame grabs) and the motion penalty is remarkably small unless there is significant panning.

It's not how I normally shoot, but all things considered it was a fun experiment and I deliberately omitted that information on Vimeo.

It really is as I say in the descpriton: it was shot on a whim and when I looked at it I reckoned the guy would rather have this footage NOW, than wait two weeks for a proper shoot.

EDIT: for reference, my shutter speeds might have been 125-160-(200). Round about. Not like 500.
 
Last edited:
Wes. said:
That was really nice handheld footage also. Thanks for the Copy link!
Click to expand...

Thanks, and your welcome.

There's nothing to it. It's the "magic" of the much loved/hated 24-105mm. It has IS.

Oh, I probably had my LCDVF too. That does its trick as well (3rd point of contact). But no monopod or anything like that.
 
cookinghusband said:
You have to try the Tamron 24-70VC some time
Click to expand...

I'm holding out for the Canon 24-70 2.8 IS.

I also don't like the look of the Tamron. It seems to me like it's targeted at Nikon shooters and it even focuses the wrong way? Not sure about that... Or is it the zoom that is opposite?

Anyway, I know it's a good lens, especially for the money. It might be my loss but it's just not for me.
 
I'm on the fence about adding some primes, or going with a zoom. Zooms feel wrong, but they are so convenient. Though, would be nice to get those 'odd' focal lengths on the cheap.

Anyways, thanks again for the link to copy, sending a bunch of Christmas photos/videos just got a lot easier.
 
Last edited:
AndreeOnline said:
I'm holding out for the Canon 24-70 2.8 IS.

I also don't like the look of the Tamron. It seems to me like it's targeted at Nikon shooters and it even focuses the wrong way? Not sure about that... Or is it the zoom that is opposite?

Anyway, I know it's a good lens, especially for the money. It might be my loss but it's just not for me.
Click to expand...

Dear Andree,

Sorry to side track a bit.

Since you have a 24-105 L, will you say the piece you own is Para-focal? Many people say it is, while some also say no. Wondering what year is your 24-105 manufactured.

According to my recent research, seems like older EF lenses are more para-focal, while newer ones are not, even when they are of the same model. Also probably the test were done at different F-stops because of DOF it will become para-focal when aperture is closed to a certain number.
 
cookinghusband said:
Since you have a 24-105 L, will you say the piece you own is Para-focal? Many people say it is, while some also say no. Wondering what year is your 24-105 manufactured.
Click to expand...

I'll happily answer this for you. I've said it numerous times, but I understand the confusion since the term parfocal for this lens (and others) comes up every now and then.

If it were parfocal you could set focus at a wide angle, and it would still be in focus as you zoom in. The 24-105mm does NOT show this behavior. The 24-105mm is varifocal. I'm sure it is a cheaper and more flexible design for photography lenses.

On the forums you sometimes see statements to the effect of: if I zoom in, set focus, and then zoom out again—the object is still in focus. Well, this does not make the lens parfocal.

What happens is: you zoom in and set critical focus. As you zoom out to wider focal lengths, the DoF increases as we all know. Now, the object is not longer in critical focus, but it remains within the increased DoF, so we perceive it as "in focus". If you perform this "trick", the composition at the wider angle really is in acceptable focus. It's just not the definition of parfocal.

As an example:

With my 24-105mm zoomed in to 105mm I focused on an object at just short of 3m. As I zoomed out to 24mm it still appeared in focus. If I used the camera's autofocus at 24mm to set focus, it selected a distance of maybe 1.8m. This is the shortest focus distance at 24mm where an object at just under 3m appears tack sharp (greatest amount of DoF).

I also then re-checked using manual focus in live view (not looking at the focus distance markings as I focused) and I arrived at the same 1.8 focus distance. As we know however, this would not be correct when zoomed in.

At 24mm, setting the focus distance to just short of 3m oddly enough did NOT render as sharply as the 1.8m setting even if the object was just under 3m away. On a variable focus lens such as the 24-105mm, the distance markings simply aren't that precise for all focal lengths.
 
AndreeOnline said:
If it were parfocal you could set focus at a wide angle, and it would still be in focus as you zoom in.
Click to expand...

Not to argue with you but zooming full in to set focus is SOP on ENG lenses that are certainly parfocal. The deeper DOF while wide makes setting critical focus while wide very inaccurate on even the finest parfocal lenses. If you zoom in full close, set focus and it holds focus as you zoom out to full wide, then you got lucky on a lense with no backfocus and it is as parfocal as you could expect it to be. If it holds focus as you zoom back in close, you are gold.
 
mhood said:
Not to argue with you…
Click to expand...

Agreed. I see no argument or contradictory information. I would also zoom in and focus for a higher success rate. Like you say: standard operational procedure.

The discussion here is regarding the term "parfocal". A parfocal design keeps absolute focus over the focal range (has nothing to do with where you set your focus—best done zoomed in).

Here, the procedure "zoom in to set focus, zoom out and you still have acceptable focus" has been called parfocal. While a good tip and sound operational procedure, it's not the same thing as parfocal. That has been my only point. Several times.

And now, after a direct question, I wanted to clarify.

Regarding 24-105mm: if my goal was to shoot a scene at 24mm, I would definitely NOT zoom in to 105mm, focus, and then zoom out again. On a parfocal lens I would.

-------
EDIT: The quote you pull above is a bit unfortunate. I feel it's a bastard child of the somewhat lengthy reasoning I was diving into. It isn't how I would focus on a parfocal lens. Thanks for pointing that out.
 
NorBro said:
Does this camera have focus peaking yet? Will it via firmware update?
Click to expand...

No it hasn't and nothing is announced. In most aspects it's really like any other DSLR—for better or worse.

When handheld I use the LCDVF, with more of a setup I use SmallHD AC7.

For me it isn't a problem, but I never saw any peaking implementation that I liked.
 
Thank you. What are the chances of a successor for it in 2014? Same DSLR body, more options/features, etc?
 
NorBro said:
Thank you. What are the chances of a successor for it in 2014? Same DSLR body, more options/features, etc?
Click to expand...

Don't want to be a party pooper, but I'd say NIL.

I guesstimate at least a 4-year cycle. And I just don't think Canon is ready/deems it viable to make the necessary adjustments like fattening up the mount to make room for ND-filters.

We can always hope for a few firmware tricks. Other than that I think Canon sees the 1Dc as a 1Dx spin off, meaning it will never really become a video/film camera on the hardware side more than it already is.
 
It needs colored peaking (a choice of color would be nice) at all times...it's unbelievable it does not have it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top