Why the downer on the 1D C?

[jimagine]

I think the over all answer to the thread question is simple - the majority of what has become a very large new market segment - DSLR producers - wanted a camera like this quite a while ago for a lot less money.

Canon showed that they could deliver a camera for about $2k (body) that they touted as delivering a Hollywood level image, as did LaForet, as Did Hurlbut....

From the moment we all got our first 5DIIs we wondered how long it would be before Canon got us a version that was made for film making - not a DSLR that shoots video.

It took over 3 years to deliver and it came in 6x the price of a 5DII body and with an average codec.

The vast majority of us aren't looking for 4k now - we need killer 1080p for TV, film, Doc, commercial and corporate - that's where the industry makes it's money.

It's why, even with some of it's limitations (I think it will have far less when it's released) the BM camera launch is such a success.

They delivered the camera most of the DSLR industry has been waiting for for 3 years.

Canon simply didn't.

 

[pulpfiction007]

Excellent post- Very true. The fact that the 1DC is an excellent camera that will suit the needs of many with higher equipment budgets is irrelevant when it comes to the responses of many members here. When a camera is announced, we all take a look then ask-
What are it's capabilities and how much is it?
The 1DC for VIDEO only purposes adds really only a couple of things over a 5DMK3 - 4K (admittedly a great thing... that many here really don't yet need) cleaner high iso shooting and a clean HDMI out for getting higher quality Full HD footage. It has the same ergonomics, the same controls, the same lack of a view finder, the same lack of focus tools, ND filters......to put it simply- it's still a DSLR that shoots video and one that can't justify it's price FOR MANY HERE. Now listen real close- NOT saying it's overpriced, not saying Canon should have offered the same thing for peanuts....they just built the wrong camera for many in THIS crowd to be super excited about, plain and simple.

 

[Emanuel]

The vast majority of us aren't looking for 4k now - we need killer 1080p for TV, film, Doc, commercial and corporate - that's where the industry makes it's money.

Yes, but in past and present. 4K is present and future proof if your product suits that category, for sure not an ad ;-)

 

[EndCredits]

Seems to me that the 5D was a big deal cause it was cheep for the features it made available. You think that a similar aesthetic was only achievable with a big and costly cinema camera or a big and still costly camera and 35mm adapter combo. Well the 1dc seems to be the same sort of thing, its cheep for the features it make available, 4K and the 35mm aesthetic. The negativity is some what due to the belief that companies can do everything for a tiny cost and that they should, both of which are untrue.

 

[Simon Shasha]

I think the over all answer to the thread question is simple - the majority of what has become a very large new market segment - DSLR producers - wanted a camera like this quite a while ago for a lot less money.

Canon showed that they could deliver a camera for about $2k (body) that they touted as delivering a Hollywood level image, as did LaForet, as Did Hurlbut....

From the moment we all got our first 5DIIs we wondered how long it would be before Canon got us a version that was made for film making - not a DSLR that shoots video.

It took over 3 years to deliver and it came in 6x the price of a 5DII body and with an average codec.

The vast majority of us aren't looking for 4k now - we need killer 1080p for TV, film, Doc, commercial and corporate - that's where the industry makes it's money.

It's why, even with some of it's limitations (I think it will have far less when it's released) the BM camera launch is such a success.

They delivered the camera most of the DSLR industry has been waiting for for 3 years.

Canon simply didn't.

+1!

 

[trez]

Quick example, to illustrate that: a flat wall might be quantized to 511 in 10-bit for all four pixels in a 2x2 block. In 8-bit the 4 pixels would all be rounded up to 128, and when integrated together would yield 4*128 = 512.

That's why we need some noise It can serve as dither...

It is a common misconception that gamma encoding is connected to CRT characterstics. Typical 2.2 gamma is entirely based on human perception under specific viewing conditions and on our higher resolution in the darker tones, and provides for a more effective distribution of values over these tones. Straight linear encoding would just not honor resolution in the darks. The fact that a typical CRT has a gamma of around 2.5 was merely a (happy) coincidence. But it is not a coincidence that middle gray is 18% gray (and not 50% gray). Again, this has nothing to do with screens, but only with human vision and the need to effectively encode a tonal range for reproduction (usually on a limited contrast display).

Didn't know that. I realized it was determined by the way we perceive light intensities, but was sure it compensated for CRT transfer curve (which couldn't overcome certain technological limitations) as well.

LOG gamma in the digital realm only exists to ensure (approximately) equal tonal resolution over the entire captured dymanic range so that exposure tweaking in post is viable. This is not how we see things. We need any digital signal to be converted back to linear space for display (that's what a monitor does; it expands the gamma back to linear, harvesting the benefits of preserved tonal resolution in the darks) so that we can see correct luminance and colors.

This is exactly what I meant.

Even if you project a LOG-gamma image (no gamma display involved) it would still appear washed out.

Are you saying about projecting LOG-gamma footage on linear-gamma display? If this is the case then yes - I agree, sure it's gonna look washed. I was only referring to the logarithmic nature of our perception. We perceive one f-stop as constant interval no matter what the absolute intensity is. So, LOG gamma utilizes available digital word more or less optimally, distributing light intensity level in such a way that there's the same range spanning one f-stop, unlike linear gamma (never actually used in digital cameras) which wastes a lot of available coding space for highlights while using only very small range for shadows. So, when using LOG gamma in post (and assuming you're not trying to make your footage look out of this world) the risk of banding is reduced.

The projection also has limited contrast and needs some contrast applied, even in the relatively dark environment of the movie theater. (That's why the filming process involves a composite gamma of approx. 1.8 from scene contrast to projection: around 0.6 gamma for the film negative in its toe-shoulder range, 1.0 for intermediate stocks, 3.0 for release stocks. The release stock serves to make contrast presentable. In stills prints, the high gamma of the photographic paper does the same: injects contrast back.)

Interesting information. I learn a lot reading your posts - thanks. Don't know much about film stock... Coming from audio world I perfectly understand what you mean, though - it's like applying compression so that your song can be heard
when played back in the car, in presence of some background noise, or on poor (any, actually) system, which due to physical limitations cannot reproduce enormous dynamic range.

If we had high precision displays with very high bit-depth, capable of reproducing very high dynamic range (high contrast ratio similar to scenes contrast ratio) no gamma would be required at all, be it log or whatever.

And perfectly dark screening room, too.

Gamma encoding would be redundant as it is simply a vehicle for effective tonal quantization.

Speaking about delivery format - yes. For post, assuming wordlength limitation, it also allows to code wide DR into short word (and improves 'gradeability', as you noticed).

Dispaying contrast, on the other hand, would still need to be taken care of, because unlike scene viewing conditions, watching conditions stay more or less the same (during an entire movie). If we had a display system which alters viewing conditions to match scene conditions, that would be redundant too.

Not sure what you mean by this distinction. What are 'viewing conditions'? In totally dark environment, if screening device was capable of reproducing 30 f-stops of DR, there would be no need to adjust contrast from scene to scene. The screen would simply be as bright (or dim) as real world, so our eyes would adapt just like we were watching real life. Please, explain it, as I'm sure you have something on your mind here - it's just me not getting it

Here is a bit more detailed text on flat curves, I've written recently, so that I don't repeat myself here .

That was good read! Thanks.

 

[yoclay]

I think the over all answer to the thread question is simple - the majority of what has become a very large new market segment - DSLR producers - wanted a camera like this quite a while ago for a lot less money.

Canon showed that they could deliver a camera for about $2k (body) that they touted as delivering a Hollywood level image, as did LaForet, as Did Hurlbut....

From the moment we all got our first 5DIIs we wondered how long it would be before Canon got us a version that was made for film making - not a DSLR that shoots video.

It took over 3 years to deliver and it came in 6x the price of a 5DII body and with an average codec.

The vast majority of us aren't looking for 4k now - we need killer 1080p for TV, film, Doc, commercial and corporate - that's where the industry makes it's money.

It's why, even with some of it's limitations (I think it will have far less when it's released) the BM camera launch is such a success.

They delivered the camera most of the DSLR industry has been waiting for for 3 years.

Canon simply didn't.

+2

 

[cpc]

That's why we need some noise It can serve as dither...

Indeed, that's also one of the purposes of adding film grain to digital video. The texture masks things.

Are you saying about projecting LOG-gamma footage on linear-gamma display? If this is the case then yes - I agree, sure it's gonna look washed. I was only referring to the logarithmic nature of our perception. We perceive one f-stop as constant interval no matter what the absolute intensity is. So, LOG gamma utilizes available digital word more or less optimally, distributing light intensity level in such a way that there's the same range spanning one f-stop, unlike linear gamma (never actually used in digital cameras) which wastes a lot of available coding space for highlights while using only very small range for shadows. So, when using LOG gamma in post (and assuming you're not trying to make your footage look out of this world) the risk of banding is reduced.

Yes, I meant linear gamma display/projection.
But my point really is that this uniform distribution (of log gamma) is dubious in 8-bit. Typical gamma (+ knee adjustment) will give more tonal resolution to the mids where the most important tones are. 10 bits and more is another matter as there is more tonal precision for a uniform distribution over stops. IMO, log gamma over 8 encoding bits should be used with care and mostly when the lighting conditions are uncontrolled. Canon obviously understand the limits 8-bit is imposing over extended DR encoding, because their c-log is not really uniform, but a compromise.

Interesting information. I learn a lot reading your posts - thanks. Don't know much about film stock... Coming from audio world I perfectly understand what you mean, though - it's like applying compression so that your song can be heard
when played back in the car, in presence of some background noise, or on poor (any, actually) system, which due to physical limitations cannot reproduce enormous dynamic range.

Yes, the audio analogy is good.

Not sure what you mean by this distinction. What are 'viewing conditions'? In totally dark environment, if screening device was capable of reproducing 30 f-stops of DR, there would be no need to adjust contrast from scene to scene. The screen would simply be as bright (or dim) as real world, so our eyes would adapt just like we were watching real life. Please, explain it, as I'm sure you have something on your mind here - it's just me not getting it

Because of the lateral brightness adaptation of the eye.
When one watches a screen (or anything, for that matter) the way one perceives darks depends a lot on the brigthness of the environment. You have undoubtedly seen the popular vision trick with a gray rectangular box inside a black rect box, and the same rectangular box inside a white box. The gray in the black appears brighter than the gray in the white box, even though it is actually the same brightness.
It is really the same with the theater screen. In the dark environment of the screening hall darks appear brighter than they are because the screen is surrounded by relative darkness (and further back in the audience, the stronger the effect). Whites, on the other hand are almost unaffected. This leads to a lower perceived contrast compared to what one would experience standing in the middle of the real scene.

This is one of the effects that print stock gamma handles. The other two important elements are stray light (this lowers projection contrast significantly) and low luminance of the screen (48 cd/m^2 in the digital cinema standard; similar for film projection; scenes can get much more brighter - hundreds of cd/m^2 are normal). The latter works similar to the lateral adaptation. The eye has more DR in low light and when looking at low luminance surfaces tends to see darks as brighter. These two effects wouldn't be an issue with high contrast light emitting displays. But lateral adaptation still stands.

That was good read! Thanks.

Glad you like it.

 

[agcohn]

It's why, even with some of it's limitations (I think it will have far less when it's released) the BM camera launch is such a success.

They delivered the camera most of the DSLR industry has been waiting for for 3 years.

Did they? Because for all of the Blackmagic Camera's recording options, isn't the sensor still smaller than the GH2?

 

[TheDingo]

Did they? Because for all of the Blackmagic Camera's recording options, isn't the sensor still smaller than the GH2?

...And your point is ?

Having a sensor that that is a little smaller than the GH2 just means that it may take some work to put together a full range of lenses for BMC camera.

Myself, I am going to wait to see if a BMC camera with a Micro 4/3 lens mount ( as rumored ) gets released, as it might be difficult to find 8 - 12mm wide angle lenses with the Canon EF mount.

 

[agcohn]

...And your point is ?

Having a sensor that that is a little smaller than the GH2 just means that it may take some work to put together a full range of lenses for BMC camera.

Myself, I am going to wait to see if a BMC camera with a Micro 4/3 lens mount ( as rumored ) gets released, as it might be difficult to find 8 - 12mm wide angle lenses with the Canon EF mount.

People use cameras like the 7D and 5D Mark II, because of the larger sensor size, and the "cinematic" images that they can achieve because of said sensor size.

To diss the 5D Mark III and 1D C and say that the Blackmagic has delivered what "most of the DSLR industry has been waiting for for 3 years" is clearly inaccurate, because the Blackmagic camera is missing probably the one thing that the DSLR industry seems to crave most, a 35mm film sized sensor.

That's not to take anything away from the Blackmagic camera, but people wouldn't still be shooting with the 7D and 5D Mark II, despite their drawbacks, if the sensor size weren't important to them.

 

[Zephyrnoid]

People use cameras like the 7D and 5D Mark II, because of the larger sensor size, and the "cinematic" images that they can achieve because of said sensor size.

To diss the 5D Mark III and 1D C and say that the Blackmagic has delivered what "most of the DSLR industry has been waiting for for 3 years" is clearly inaccurate, because the Blackmagic camera is missing probably the one thing that the DSLR industry seems to crave most, a 35mm film sized sensor.

That's not to take anything away from the Blackmagic camera, but people wouldn't still be shooting with the 7D and 5D Mark II, despite their drawbacks, if the sensor size weren't important to them.

Not sure weather you are talking still or cinema. The Indie cinema market is really looking for Super35. The shallow DOF of full frame DSLRs is lovely for still but very very difficult to follow focus. Other than this, Super35 can be 4K and that's why a lot of serious film makers will gravitate to the FS-700 on the high end and the BlackMagic on the lower end, though I have my doubts about Micro4/3 due to its very deep DOF.

Super35 will be the new Mantra.

 

[FrameFarmMedia]

People use cameras like the 7D and 5D Mark II, because of the larger sensor size, and the "cinematic" images that they can achieve because of said sensor size.

There isn't much difference in size between 7D and GH2. 1.6 crop vs 1.8 crop. The 5D is unique and that has its appeal although many including me find I have to make compromises in order to keep a reasonable DOF.

I'd say people like Canon's colours more than anything when choosing a large sensor cam.

 

[TheDingo]

People use cameras like the 7D and 5D Mark II, because of the larger sensor size, and the "cinematic" images that they can achieve because of said sensor size.

...But almost all films in the history of cinematography are shot with either the Super35 digital, 3-perf motion picture, or 4-perf motion picture formats which is in the range of the Micro 4/3 and APS-C sensor sizes.

The 35mm Full Frame Still Photo format has almost NOTHING to do with the history of cinematography, so I would NOT call it a "cinematic" format. Now it might be an interesting format to work with, but it really has little relevance to cinematography.

To diss the 5D Mark III and 1D C and say that the Blackmagic has delivered what "most of the DSLR industry has been waiting for for 3 years" is clearly inaccurate, because the Blackmagic camera is missing probably the one thing that the DSLR industry seems to crave most, a 35mm film sized sensor.

I would disagree here. People have been looking for digital video cameras that produce a finished product that looks like the motion picture films that people have been watching over the past 100 years.

 

[squig]

erm VistaVision?

 

[TheDingo]

erm VistaVision?

Yes, I'm fully aware of VistaVision, which is why I stated "almost NOTHING".

...Out of all films shot in the history of cinematography, what do you think the percentage of VistaVision films are ?

I would guess that it is an extremely small percentage.

 

[agcohn]

Not sure weather you are talking still or cinema. The Indie cinema market is really looking for Super35. The shallow DOF of full frame DSLRs is lovely for still but very very difficult to follow focus. Other than this, Super35 can be 4K and that's why a lot of serious film makers will gravitate to the FS-700 on the high end and the BlackMagic on the lower end, though I have my doubts about Micro4/3 due to its very deep DOF.

Super35 will be the new Mantra.

Of course Super 35 is the main target for most filmmakers, which is why I included the 7D in my post.

But the Blackmagic camera is closer to Super 16 than Super 35.

 

[squig]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_VistaVision_films

 

[TheDingo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_VistaVision_films

...That looks like a pretty short list against all motion pictures ever made.

 

[vanvideo]

I'm beginning to think that what gives an image that "film" look has more to do with the dynamic range that the DoF. Although a narrow DoF doesn't hurt.
I suspect that's why the BMC camera is so popular - the promise of 13 stops of dynamic range and working with raw video, instead of its DoF. A deeper DoF from the smaller sensor is seen as an acceptable trade-off for the other features.

And the 1D C has 4K and narrow DoF. Win-win, except for that price. Ouch...