Why the downer on the 1D C?

squig said:
Got all the tools, got the great script, got an amazing lead actress, got the money to shoot a 15min short teaser based on the feature script, but I'm struggling to find a great cast.....I'm going to put off shooting until July....If I can't get great performances I might as well shoot charts.....they cost a lot less to feed and they don't try to self direct!
Click to expand...

THis is OT Squig so I'll be brief - if youre having trouble finding decent actors in Sydney - drop me an email to admin@scarlet-films.com and Ill send you a couple of contacts that can help.

Now back to the topic at hand.

OK first the 1D-C will probably drop in around 12-13K IMO. Now if thats too much for you - find another camera? Very easy Id say with the BMD Cine Camera @ under $3k. Now forget codec etc. Theres only one guy out there showing footage - Thank you John Brawley for actively participating in our forum BTW - but for the most part its untested (Im sure it will do a good job btw).

Second, how many here have shot with a 1D-C? None? How about a C300 or a C500? That guy over there in the back? OK. Well, Ive shot a bunch of work on a C300 (thats real world paid work) and a short to give it a work out (call it my camera test). I keep hearing 8 bit pooh, 8 bits not enough for me, 8 bit.... and this from some people who dont even do this full time. Im not going to reiterate how the C300 does, or how the 1D-C does it, but Im here to tell you - its not like any other 8 bit Ive worked with. Stretching, pulling, pushing - no banding. And no not with noise over the top to wipe it out. @ 850 iso, beautiful pristine gradients across the range. In log, you can simply take the shot to the next level. Is it perfect? No. Is it great, simple, enjoyable to work with - Yes.

As far as I can see from the thread Luis was the only one who's seen the projected 1D-C footage - Luis said "It was clean, sharp and gorgeous". Good enough for me, but then I trust Luis's opinion.

My 2c. Not everything is equal.
 
The original question - Why are people so down on the 1DC?

This is DVX USER. That camera offered a price to performance ratio that made it the camera for low budget productions. A lot of people here are looking for the best price to performance ratio in a camera....the 1DC, although it makes a nice image...is not a great price to performance camera. It is a niche camera.
Great modern day price to performance cameras are IMO:
The AF100
The FS100
ANY NUMBER OF SMALL SENSOR CAMERAS for all the features they include- Like the Canon XF100, The new Sony (that is a twin of the XF100) The Panasonic HVX200A, HPX170 AC130/160....still the DVX100B (for what they go for!)
DSLRs by any number of companies that are 3000 and below.
The new BMC...hopefully the Bolex Digital

Yes more expensive cameras can still have a great price to performance ratio...but for them to be considered a great in that aspect, they better do a lot and be full featured. For instance the Canon C300 has a lot of bang for the buck, the F3....FS700. The Canon 1DC is a specialty camera...not a low budget phenom...like the DVX100 series was.
 
Noel Evans said:
THis is OT Squig so I'll be brief - if youre having trouble finding decent actors in Sydney - drop me an email to admin@scarlet-films.com and Ill send you a couple of contacts that can help.

Now back to the topic at hand.

OK first the 1D-C will probably drop in around 12-13K IMO. Now if thats too much for you - find another camera? Very easy Id say with the BMD Cine Camera @ under $3k. Now forget codec etc. Theres only one guy out there showing footage - Thank you John Brawley for actively participating in our forum BTW - but for the most part its untested (Im sure it will do a good job btw).

Second, how many here have shot with a 1D-C? None? How about a C300 or a C500? That guy over there in the back? OK. Well, Ive shot a bunch of work on a C300 (thats real world paid work) and a short to give it a work out (call it my camera test). I keep hearing 8 bit pooh, 8 bits not enough for me, 8 bit.... and this from some people who dont even do this full time. Im not going to reiterate how the C300 does, or how the 1D-C does it, but Im here to tell you - its not like any other 8 bit Ive worked with. Stretching, pulling, pushing - no banding. And no not with noise over the top to wipe it out. @ 850 iso, beautiful pristine gradients across the range. In log, you can simply take the shot to the next level. Is it perfect? No. Is it great, simple, enjoyable to work with - Yes.

As far as I can see from the thread Luis was the only one who's seen the projected 1D-C footage - Luis said "It was clean, sharp and gorgeous". Good enough for me, but then I trust Luis's opinion.

My 2c. Not everything is equal.
Click to expand...
And Stephen for the same conclusion: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...e-1D-C&p=1986129992&viewfull=1#post1986129992

Well said BTW.
 
So let me see if I fallow this now...

When 8-bit was on cheaper cameras like the original canon DSLRs... it was the worst thing in the world and completely un-professional and un-useable. But now that it's on big expensive cameras that only professionals can afford, it's somehow "as good as 12-bit" and completely workable? Got it. Good to know.

Can people finally admit that they just like big expensive/exclusive cameras that the masses can't afford (cause it makes them feel better) and we'll be done with it? All these justifications of things that were ripped apart in the past (when they were on cheaper cameras) is getting crazy.

If canon released a "C700 rapid-cinema camera" with the 7D's 4:2:0 45mb/s codec for $100,000... people would be saying that it's "like RAW" and "8-bits that seem like 16!"

There seems to be two camps people are in... one group who objectively see's the tech for what it is... and don't like the 1Dc because of canons screwy marketing and up-selling. And the other camp that can "professional" afford these cameras and desperately want them to be better than what anybody else can buy (even though they really aren't).
 
GH2user said:
When 8-bit was on cheaper cameras like the original canon DSLRs... it was the worst thing in the world and completely un-professional and un-useable. But now that it's on big expensive cameras that only professionals can afford, it's somehow "as good as 12-bit" and completely workable? Got it. Good to know.
Click to expand...

Youve completely missed the mark. The difference is those cameras were line skipping / pixel binning to read the sensor, these new cameras read the entire sensor - in the case of the C300 1920x1080 Green, 1920 x 1080 Blue, 1920x1080 Red from an 8MP sensor - so not one thing is wasted. The standard onboard codec is also 4:2:2 - this alone makes a big difference.

But more to the point of what you're ignoring is that real world users are seeing a difference in the out put. Again, as I said, not all things are equal. The 8bit codec on the C300 is simply, in real world use, worlds apart from the 8bit codec on the 7D.
 
GH2user said:
So let me see if I fallow this now...

When 8-bit was on cheaper cameras like the original canon DSLRs... it was the worst thing in the world and completely un-professional and un-useable. But now that it's on big expensive cameras that only professionals can afford, it's somehow "as good as 12-bit" and completely workable? Got it. Good to know.

Can people finally admit that they just like big expensive/exclusive cameras that the masses can't afford (cause it makes them feel better) and we'll be done with it? All these justifications of things that were ripped apart in the past (when they were on cheaper cameras) is getting crazy.

If canon released a "C700 rapid-cinema camera" with the 7D's 4:2:0 45mb/s codec for $100,000... people would be saying that it's "like RAW" and "8-bits that seem like 16!"

There seems to be two camps people are in... one group who objectively see's the tech for what it is... and don't like the 1Dc because of canons screwy marketing and up-selling. And the other camp that can "professional" afford these cameras and desperately want them to be better than what anybody else can buy (even though they really aren't).
Click to expand...
Why not just accept what Noel says about the C300's 8 bit. He clearly uses it and reports that he can stretch it quite nicely. As well as others that state the same. The Cinema world is unfortunately very expensive. There is an old saying though, "you get what you pay for". I think though with the BMDC, things will change a bit in that regard, and Canon will have to take notice. But they will continue to make cameras that are just too expensive for some. As will Sony, Panny, RED, ....
Noel's Beast short looked quite nice. I'll take his word for it about Canons 8bit.
 
GH2user said:
So let me see if I fallow this now...

When 8-bit was on cheaper cameras like the original canon DSLRs... it was the worst thing in the world and completely un-professional and un-useable. But now that it's on big expensive cameras that only professionals can afford, it's somehow "as good as 12-bit" and completely workable? Got it. Good to know.

Can people finally admit that they just like big expensive/exclusive cameras that the masses can't afford (cause it makes them feel better) and we'll be done with it? All these justifications of things that were ripped apart in the past (when they were on cheaper cameras) is getting crazy.

If canon released a "C700 rapid-cinema camera" with the 7D's 4:2:0 45mb/s codec for $100,000... people would be saying that it's "like RAW" and "8-bits that seem like 16!"

There seems to be two camps people are in... one group who objectively see's the tech for what it is... and don't like the 1Dc because of canons screwy marketing and up-selling. And the other camp that can "professional" afford these cameras and desperately want them to be better than what anybody else can buy (even though they really aren't).
Click to expand...
Again, overpriced, yes. But who else has 4K MJPEG 4:2:2 for about (if not under) €10,000? ;-)
 
Simon Shasha said:
No ND filters, no peaking, no XLR, no 25P @ 4K - lacking these features would be okay if it was around $6K, hell, even $8K - but at $15K, it's a joke. That's why people are down on the 1DC.
Click to expand...

It's a DSLR for reason dude. If you want video camera features give up the DSLR form-factor and go for something that's...you know...a video camera? How in the world do you expect internal ND filters inside a DSLR body? How about XLR? 25P ok fine that's a valid point, but those other two?

I mean for pete's sake even the Scarlet has a tiny 1/8th audio jack and a bad pre-amp and people don't go all crazy about it. Where's the Scarlet's internal ND, lol?
 
Noel Evans said:
I keep hearing 8 bit pooh, 8 bits not enough for me, 8 bit.... and this from some people who dont even do this full time. Im not going to reiterate how the C300 does, or how the 1D-C does it, but Im here to tell you - its not like any other 8 bit Ive worked with. Stretching, pulling, pushing - no banding. And no not with noise over the top to wipe it out.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that Noel.

I had a chat to my brother, who's a very good amateur photographer (he wins national competitions every so often), and he said that his workflow is to process an image in the RAW colour space, and then render it down to an 8-bit per channel image for display and distribution. He's never had any issues with banding, and reckons it's mostly down to people pushing saturation or compression too hard.

The thread I linked to earlier contains a few posts by "people who do this full time", and the 8-bit versus 10-bit comment was due to the recommendations in a paper by the EBU (the association of the major European broadcasters) that the former is generally good enough, with the caveat that 10-bit is preferred for really high end work. In fact, the opinion of several posters on that was the difference between the two was minimal in terms of quality, but uncompressed and higher bit depth formats caused significant headaches in editing and post production simply due to having to deal with the enormous data rates.

I'm coming to the impression that 8-bits is sufficient, and 10+ is nice to have rather than essential.

The 1D C looks to be a fantastic piece of kit, but at a price. The BMD Cine Camera also looks great. In fact I'm hugely impressed with its user interface design, which looks a generation ahead of what anyone else is producing.
 
I understand the sentiment of GH2 user...not really the 8 bit part, simply because I have ZERO knowledge of how all these things work...BUT I do remember an ENDLESS LINE of people saying the following of early DSLRs- "They aren't cinema cameras, they are stills cameras with video added on."
Next gen DSLRs with more options including amazing hacks that allow a ton of features the 1DC doesn't have- "They aren't cinema cameras, they are stills cameras with video added on
5DMK3, gets rid of aliasing and moire, improves codec, adds better audio features, HD monitoring - "It's not a cinema camera, it's a stills camera with video added on"
Then CANON releases a VERY expensive stills camera with video added on and a red C on the body - "NOW it's a cinema camera"

I've watched it from the beginning, heard the words.....it's pretty damn funny!
 
pulpfiction007 said:
...Then CANON releases a VERY expensive stills camera with video added on and a red C on the body - "NOW it's a cinema camera"

I've watched it from the beginning, heard the words.....it's pretty damn funny!
Click to expand...

haha yes exactly. That was the point I was making. I'm sure the codec isn't bad or anything... but it's mostly the fact that 90% of people can't afford it now that really makes it a "real cinema camera" in some people's eyes.

Heck, even the OP of this thread, literally, said that the BMD camera isn't professional because it's priced to sell to the masses. Not because of features, or performance, but because allot of people will be able to afford it. Some people just want exclusive stuff.
 
Last edited:
Yes and no. Your point has merit. The fact is, though, so far you've only found aliasing/moiré in soft 1080p aka real 720p outcome package ;-)
 
dustylense said:
Why not just accept what Noel says about the C300's 8 bit. He clearly uses it and reports that he can stretch it quite nicely. As well as others that state the same. The Cinema world is unfortunately very expensive. There is an old saying though, "you get what you pay for". I think though with the BMDC, things will change a bit in that regard, and Canon will have to take notice. But they will continue to make cameras that are just too expensive for some. As will Sony, Panny, RED, ....
Noel's Beast short looked quite nice. I'll take his word for it about Canons 8bit.
Click to expand...

This is where we start to loose the plot a bit. The cinema world WAS very expensive. The varicams we were using a few years ago cost well double the 1D-C's price, and the performance was a world less, no doubt. No, even the top end of the cinema world is now shockingly inexpensive compared to just a few years ago. Example compare the cost of the Sony F23 with the cost of the FS700. Compare the specs. So even the top (Alexa, RED) is a good buy in contrast these days. No, the issue here is bang for the buck right now compared with the rest of the field, and there, it seems, many of us feel the new canon 4k DSLR is lagging.
 
Aside: internal NDs are a 100% prosumer invention. Film cams and high end video didn't have em.

I like having them too, but please don't confuse them as being a 'pro' feature.
 
Cosimo Bullo said:
This is where we start to loose the plot a bit. The cinema world WAS very expensive. The varicams we were using a few years ago cost well double the 1D-C's price, and the performance was a world less, no doubt. No, even the top end of the cinema world is now shockingly inexpensive compared to just a few years ago. Example compare the cost of the Sony F23 with the cost of the FS700. Compare the specs. So even the top (Alexa, RED) is a good buy in contrast these days. No, the issue here is bang for the buck right now compared with the rest of the field, and there, it seems, many of us feel the new canon 4k DSLR is lagging.
Click to expand...

Kool. I'll go out and get my new porsche for $20,999 before tax and licensing. From a corporate side of thinking, delivering rocket ships at indie prices will put them out of business. As consumers we want this, but from a board of directors it's a different story. If two shooters with the same talent bid on the same job and one undercuts the other, that guy undercutting is killing his industry. He'll get a ton of work, but he'll ruin it for the other shooters and rates will never be what they once were. How would Sony feel about their DSLR's if the 1Dc was $4500? What is a Rebel worth now if you stack specs against the 1dc at $4500? Let's make the 1Dc cost $3800, who would buy the 5dmk3. How would RED feel if the C500 was $22,000? Hey Canon, just give these things away, that's what we want! Canon, Sony, Panny, JVC, RED, Arri, they are all there to make a profit.

1Dc is too expensive, sure. Put it at $9800 and they would sell more. In fact, ditch the 1Dx altogether and sell the 1dc at $7900. Then will you be happy?
 
Somehow I don't think you responded to my point at all. I'm talking about prices dropping over time and what is a good price now, not what would have been a good price last year or next year.

I just got back from Best Buy, had to pick up a mouse. And I was astonished to see just how inexpensive non Apple laptops have become. Prices go down, quality goes up. And there are no Porsches in cinema. Just cameras, and the price can change quickly.

(moreover, I've known a few guys who undercut their prices in the biz, and generally they just get known as the 'cheap guy.' Not good. And not a good analogy either. Human talent doesn't get undervalued at Moores Law speed, thank goodness.
 
Also, I AM happy. Sold my RED, have the 5d2, couple of GH2s, and a clunky HVX200, and am just waiting to see what we should invest in next. It's, frankly, a great time to be a customer, that's certain.
 
Cosimo Bullo said:
Somehow I don't think you responded to my point at all. I'm talking about prices dropping over time and what is a good price now, not what would have been a good price last year or next year.

I just got back from Best Buy, had to pick up a mouse. And I was astonished to see just how inexpensive non Apple laptops have become. Prices go down, quality goes up. And there are no Porsches in cinema. Just cameras, and the price can change quickly.

(moreover, I've known a few guys who undercut their prices in the biz, and generally they just get known as the 'cheap guy.' Not good. And not a good analogy either. Human talent doesn't get undervalued at Moores Law speed, thank goodness.
Click to expand...

Then how come milk isn't $.50? You do realize that the US$ is not that sought out anymore, yeah? 5dmk2 $2800 at launch. Mk3, $3500. So the Gh3 will be body with 14-42 will be $599, right? Those laptops, they're cheap because they are factory direct to outlet. Drive by an HP store lately? Try to buy and Iphone without a contract. It will cost you $699. But they will sell you it for $299 if you agree to keep it 2 years. Moores law is broken, especially with the declining dollar. I bought a Macbook pro 17 4 years ago. Paid $2700. Bought one 5 months ago, paid $2700. It got better, but not cheaper. The one from 4 years ago however still works perfectly fine and my Mom loves it.
No Porches in Cinema? Really? Really??? Then why do so many productions here in LA shoot with Alexa? I mean, why not get a Chevy like the AF100 or FS100?
 
3 TB harddrives for $190, right there on the shelf. $399 HP laptops. Moore's law is anything but broken.

Canon's pricing department, that's another story.

Edit: and, again, everything about a digital cinema camera is subject to Moore's Law except the case and lens.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top