Why the downer on the 1D C?

Nuno. Please stay on track and direct your comments to discussion on the 1D - C. Not your thoughts on what you perceive others get (post removed).
 
Jason Ramsey said:
Then why did you bring it up?
Click to expand...
And why are you fueling the fire even further??

Why do I get the sense that if we were on opposite sides, I would have been given a warning about trying to TROLL?

What's wrong with these moderators all of the sudden? You're the ones doing the trolling on this thread?
 
Nuno Dias said:
Yes, but at what speed does this camera records the 12 bit file? Do you know?
Click to expand...

They're uncompressed 12-bit DNG's right off the sensor at 2.5K. It's as simple as those images being copied directly to the SSD by the imaging device with the proper meta data included. It's basically just saving 24 consecutive uncompressed images to an SSD as you record. You're trying to dig deep and find some sort of technical failure that's not there.
 
Basically the 1D-c is expensive. Beyond that the image is kind of unknown until use and reviews are out. For the same money one could get an F3. Glad to see 4k is actually being recieved in the marketplace as I think it should be right now - like 3D. Good for some, not for most. I agree with Matt. If they are going to charge $12,000 for the camera drop the DSLR form and put together a real camera body with XLR audio etc... I don't get the $12,000 "crash cam" approach either. The C300 is plenty small to fit in tight spaces.
 
Some things were said - some replies were made. Done and dusted.

Discuss the 1D C on this thread from now on please.
 
KyleProhaska said:
They're uncompressed 12-bit DNG's right off the sensor at 2.5K. It's as simple as those images being copied directly to the SSD by the imaging device with the proper meta data included. It's basically just saving 24 consecutive uncompressed images to an SSD as you record. You're trying to dig deep and find some sort of technical failure that's not there.
Click to expand...

Ok I have to keep it up here, because on the BM thread I'll be banned, but what I want too know is at what speed does the camera resolve those 12bits? The 1Dc resolves 8 bits at 500mb/s! The 5D resolves the same 8 bits at 50!!!

Big difference.

Anwser?
 
I don't think you're understanding this at all. It records individual images, uncompressed DNG files at 2.5K. Each image will have it's own file-size. There is no .MOV file with a bit-rate like you're talking about. If you wanted to estimate the mb/s resulting from playing back 24 uncompressed DNG's at 2.5K why not just do the math? You're asking questions that are related to codecs, this thing doesn't use any unless you're recording into the Avid format it supports or Prores. Otherwise it's straight individual DNG images.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but that's how I understand it.
 
I didn't read this whole thread. I don't really care about 8-bit or 12-bit or mjpeg or bitrate. Past a certain point, it really doesn't matter. If you can't make good images with an 8-bit camera, then you certainly can't with a 12-bit camera either. Personally, I think the 1D-C is pretty cut and dry, and I've no doubt that the 1D-C will do what it does admirably well, and find it's own comfortable niche in professional 4K production. But that's just it - it's designed for productions that want/need high quality 4K in a sub-miniature form factor (and will work with gear and accessories on the market and in stock and that is set-tested and ready).

Honestly, there is probably <1% of dvxusers that fall in the category of needing a camera like that. Add to the fact that it's a DSLR and you have a camera out that many of us can't afford and don't need! So of course people are going to complain; they want Canon to make a camera for them (yes, in features - but especially price), not for a different market. Many people, myself included, have a hard time seeing past their own needs and desires.

We're an egotistical species; plus we're filmmakers, so that goes double.
 
Nobody is talking about it because it's kind of a joke. Just because it shoots 4K doesn't mean it's a good quality 4K. Think of it this way, remember when people preferred the HVX200 at 720p over the Sony HDV cameras at 1080? It's because of compression. The HVX had rectangle pixels which was 720x960, but it had a lot less compression leading to a better image. For 4K to have the same compression as 1080 the bitrate would need to be 4-5 times the 1080 bitrate since there is 4-5 times the pixels. Motion JPEG and DVCPROHD are comparable codecs, so a 30p 4K Motion JPEG image would need to be roughly 400-500 Mbps to equal the compression of 30p 1080 DVCPROHD.
 
This is coming from someone who actually sat in the theater at the Palms last Sunday and watched the 1D-C footage on the big screen…

While I have some issues with the creative choices made by director Chan and DP Hurlbut (deep focus is okay at times, guys), the 1D-C footage looked amazing projected at 4K. Really impressive. So like cowpunk says, for the right production and needs, it's going to be an invaluable tool.

Now the "overcrank" footage didn't look particularly good on the big screen. My understanding is that stepping up to 60p means you step down from 4K, and it's plain to see the effects on screen. And to me, that's the much bigger issue with the camera as presented. If your plan is to shoot 4K, and to do it all at 24FPS, the 1D-C fits the bill, even as an A-Camera. If you're thinking of using the 1D-C as a B-Camera to the C500, based on what I saw, you're good to go with that as long as you're not cutting 1D-C 60FPS alongside the C500's 4K. Really, it's that noticeable, or at least it was to us.

So while I love the image from the 1D-C, and the form factor, I do think it's a bit overpriced, especially given some of the other options out there. But again, for the right job and the right production, it's going to be a godsend.
 
cowpunk52 said:
I didn't read this whole thread. I don't really care about 8-bit or 12-bit or mjpeg or bitrate. Past a certain point, it really doesn't matter. If you can't make good images with an 8-bit camera, then you certainly can't with a 12-bit camera either. Personally, I think the 1D-C is pretty cut and dry, and I've no doubt that the 1D-C will do what it does admirably well, and find it's own comfortable niche in professional 4K production. But that's just it - it's designed for productions that want/need high quality 4K in a sub-miniature form factor (and will work with gear and accessories on the market and in stock and that is set-tested and ready).

Honestly, there is probably <1% of dvxusers that fall in the category of needing a camera like that. Add to the fact that it's a DSLR and you have a camera out that many of us can't afford and don't need! So of course people are going to complain; they want Canon to make a camera for them (yes, in features - but especially price), not for a different market. Many people, myself included, have a hard time seeing past their own needs and desires.

We're an egotistical species; plus we're filmmakers, so that goes double.
Click to expand...
Hey Cow, is the 1dc's mjpeg 422 8/bit the same as the XF line and the C300? If so, unless you've worked with the codec DON'T knock it. It's quite nice and uber gradable.
 
Brian@202020 said:
Nobody is talking about it because it's kind of a joke. Just because it shoots 4K doesn't mean it's a good quality 4K.
Click to expand...

It doesn't mean it's bad quality, either. While I don't see eye to eye on a lot of things with Shane Hurlbut, he seems to be impressed with the quality and the endorsement of a cinematographer of that stature does carry some weight. The only reason people aren't interested in it on dvxuser is because they a) can't afford it and/or b) don't need 4k. I really believe it's just that simple.
 
dustylense said:
Hey Cow, is the 1dc's mjpeg 422 8/bit the same as the XF line and the C300? If so, unless you've worked with the codec DON'T knock it. It's quite nice and uber gradable.
Click to expand...

No, not the same. Mjpeg is a lossy form of intraframe codec, while the XF line and C300 use a flavor of mpeg2, which is an interframe codec. Due to it's intraframe encoding, mjpeg does need higher file sizes to equal the quality of mpeg2 compression. Sounds like the 1D-C does encode at a very high bitrate, though, so I'd expect it to equal the quality of the XF codec.
 
cowpunk52 said:
It doesn't mean it's bad quality, either. While I don't see eye to eye on a lot of things with Shane Hurlbut, he seems to be impressed with the quality and the endorsement of a cinematographer of that stature does carry some weight. The only reason people aren't interested in it on dvxuser is because they a) can't afford it and/or b) don't need 4k. I really believe it's just that simple.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but for me there really isn't that much of a visual difference between 1080, 2K, 2.5K and 4K. There are 4K projectors here in town at some of the theaters, and visually the difference is minimal, so what sells to me more than resolution is bit depth and color space.
 
cowpunk52 said:
It doesn't mean it's bad quality, either. While I don't see eye to eye on a lot of things with Shane Hurlbut, he seems to be impressed with the quality and the endorsement of a cinematographer of that stature does carry some weight.
Click to expand...

Shane Hurlbut lost all credibility on the subject when he declared in front of over 1500 production professional that the 1DC made the Epic/Alexa and F65 "look like sh!t."

That is just ridiculous.

The reason HE likes the camera is because he is paid to pimp it.
 
I think one of the reasons it got panned on this site is the site is DVXUser and was started as a love of the DVX and what it could do. Its just not in a lot of users price point. I'd love to shoot with one but I could get almost 4 5D mark III or 5 of the Blackmagic camera. The DVX set the stage for really great price and image and most of us are looking for the 2012 version of this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top