Why the downer on the 1D C?

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by cowpunk52
If you can't make good images with an 8-bit camera, then you certainly can't with a 12-bit camera either.




Absolutely true! In fact, getting down to reality, the camera is at the BOTTOM of the must have components of a great movie.
As many of us agree, Awesome audio comes ahead of the picture quality but the pile of critical elements is large before you even push that round red START button ;)
You'd think that these threads were being written by professional colorists the way people bandy the importance of bigger/better about.
 
Graemsay said:
Cinema DNG supports lossless compression. (See Adobe's site.) Lossless algorithms mean that you can reduce the size of a file without loosing any quality, as the name suggests, but I believe that they're limited to reducing size by around half.

I'd hope that the Blackmagic Cinema Camera is applying something, because otherwise it's going to be generating around 14 MB for a single 2.5K frame. And I'm not sure how many SSDs can sustain a 430 MB/sec data transfer rate.
Click to expand...

I'll have to follow your ADOBE link later. BUT I read the entire Wikipedia entry just now. I see NO reference to "reducing a file's size by any amount- much less by half.
From what I can tell in fact..."DNG makes it easier, and many software products can handle, via DNG, images from cameras that they have no specific knowledge of.[SUP][22][/SUP] An unresolved restriction is that any edit/development settings stored in the DNG file by a software product are unlikely to be recognized by a product from a different company." This is , no doubt a direct reference to proprietary tagging of RAW files such as 'NEF' by Nikon for example. So Adobe wants to replace CAMERA company tagging with ADOBE proprietary tagging. A choice 'F' word spring to mind!!
Adobe is trying to do a trick they've done in the past, patent a unique file format so they can corner the market (Postscript/Acrobat PDF spring to mind).
The DNF are simply Adobe tagged RAW files. Their supposed advantage is the metadata is not camera specific so in the future, aliens can open them without having a specific camera 'decoder ring' on their bony little fingers ;)
Any time I see that kind thing it cause me to roll my eyes and shake my head. We don't need another proprietary ADOBE file format. I see no mention of reduction of file size at all. In fact, it would be a false to think you can "chop the size in half losslessly unless the camera specific metadata bloats RAW files that much" By twice???
But I never paid attention to this before and will call a friend up to see if there is an authentic value to DNF beyond Adobe mucking up the waters.
 
Last edited:
Brian@202020 said:
My point is, if you want DVCPROHD or less quality 4K then your good. I myself want more color space and bit depth.
Click to expand...
OK, looks fair. Me too. Canon gives us the C500. Even though, there's no other camera like 1DC as of today. Overpriced, yes. But unique. And with quality enough to shine anywhere, big screen included. There's no more 'softness argument' against the DSLR route.
 
i dont know why people thinks that 1dc is so unique ...
it doesn't use full frame for 4K and crop factor is little bigger than red scarlet....and only 24fps...
for 15000$ i dont wont to be restricted by 8bit codec ...doing color correction with 8 bit image is like dancing on the edge of the cliff and i dont need to think about that when i paid that kind of money(neat video tricks and all that voodoo is for cheap cameras not pro stuff)...and no zebra ,false color and focus peaking ... and 1080p doesnt look any sharper than 5d3...
what canon did is so lazy and take money and run that is mind boggling...
 
Erich Ocean said:
And backing this up further, for years and years, Quantel was an 8-bit system through and through. Commercials would be shot on film, telecined to D1, and then loaded into the Quantel. All of the color correction was done at 8-bit, and they did this dynamic rounding thing to add a bit of noise at each point, so that no banding would show up.

Point is, you can get amazing results out of 8-bit footage if the initial capture is done well.
Click to expand...

And this is all cover for low precision.
Masking the problem doesn't mean it is not there. Be it noise, or interpolated values: it is all fake values.
Besides, 8-bit scans tended to preselect a limited amount of range from the film media, clipping/crushing below toe and above shoulder, and work with that.


And truth is, you can do more amazing things with 12-bit raw footage even if the initial capture is a bit off. We are not in a perfect world, where everyone shoots perfect footage. And even with perfection, sometimes 8-bit just can't save one's ass. There are situations where light control is not an option. And then you are set for a lot of pain with 8-bit capture.

And, honestly, if I am on the receiving end of this (i.e. colorist), I'd rather have crappy RAW footage than crappy 8-bit footage. It is obviously much easier for crap shooters to get useable results out of a RAW camera. A RAW camera is simply more foolproof than 8-bit.
 
Nuno Dias said:
Its certainly a game changer for beginners, I for one, as much as I love its specs, find unable to get excited about it. Everyone raves about its 12bit file, but no one knows at how many Mb/s it compresses those 12bits! For all I know, its so compressed that its as good as an 8 bit file on a H264 codec!

Also its tiny sensor its anything but good. Among many other things, you can't use it on a professional shoot, like how is the entire cast and crew going to stop and wait for the camera assistant to download all the media to a computer for example...?! Its ridiculous.

The 1DC and BM are totally different cameras. One aimed at the general public, the other aimed at professionals. Is that simple.
Click to expand...

The blackmagic camera does not compress it's video at all when recording in raw. Thats sort of the point.
 
cpc said:
And, honestly, if I am on the receiving end of this (i.e. colorist), I'd rather have crappy RAW footage than crappy 8-bit footage.
Click to expand...

It's not that cut&paste. We recently had to grade some Red Epic material that was shot poorly, but they didn't realise it on the set. With an 8-bit cam, maybe they would've? (Not enough light)
 
Brian@202020 said:
My point is, if you want DVCPROHD or less quality 4K then your good. I myself want more color space and bit depth.
Click to expand...

After seeing the footage projected in 4K in a movie theater I can tell you that the quality was incredibly impressive.
I didn't see any obvious banding, blocking or compression artifacts - or anything else you might expect from 8bit material.
It was clean, sharp and gorgeous.

Personally I still feel the camera is overpriced - but the image quality of the 4K footage is not the issue at all.
 
Will Turner said:
The blackmagic camera does not compress it's video at all when recording in raw. Thats sort of the point.
Click to expand...


Small bit of correction: it is compressed, technically. Just, compressed uncompressed. It's KIND of similar to how RED's uncompressed is still actually compressed. 5MB for each 2.5K frame is pretty small, me thinks (in the grand scheme of uncompressed images), but it kinda doesn't matter how or why to me personally.

Barry said once that if it's a good and reliable image, then how much does it matter how it gets there? I agree.
 
@maarek
then u dont need 4k ... buy 5d2 ....going cutting edge in resolution and stay in 8 bit is nonsense...
if that 8bit is good enough why bother with 4k ...that video look great but its vimeo stream ...and if u need camera for internet work or TV , dont buy 1dc(its a waste of money) ....1dc is meant to be high production camera and its just not ...
 
and dont forget that 4K image is color corrected by technicolor ,shoot by professional DP...how many can afford high postproduction facilities ...
and they can make any decent video look great.... real test of that camera would night , day , high contrast , low light, run and gun situation .... and few raw videos for download would be nice....
 
vladszp said:
i dont know why people thinks that 1dc is so unique ...
it doesn't use full frame for 4K and crop factor is little bigger than red scarlet....and only 24fps...
for 15000$ i dont wont to be restricted by 8bit codec ...doing color correction with 8 bit image is like dancing on the edge of the cliff and i dont need to think about that when i paid that kind of money(neat video tricks and all that voodoo is for cheap cameras not pro stuff)...and no zebra ,false color and focus peaking ... and 1080p doesnt look any sharper than 5d3...
what canon did is so lazy and take money and run that is mind boggling...
Click to expand...
Lighter and smaller than Scarlet.

Neat Video is a moviemaking tool, if it is affordable, we must cheerfully praise, instead of claiming the glass as half empty. When it is overpriced, we call them cheaters. When the price is fair, we call it... cheap trick? (PS: you're funny, now you claim the 4K gorgeous reports @big screen to be consequence of "high postproduction facilities"?! : ) C'mon...

1DC won't cost $15,000 in the street, either.

What makes the PRO label to be attached to anything, it is the outcome you get with what you do with the tools you manage. Do you get them for living? Then you are a PRO. Some journalists and artist photographers (I am producing some quality photography work to be published worldwide made by a 2003 or 2004 Motorola) will get it with the upcoming Pureview 808 smart phone by Nokia :P

1DC @1080p doesn't have to be sharper than 5D3. Isn't the 1DC a 4K version of 1080p 5D3? ;)

Last but not the least, because there's no budget or we want to restrain the camera department budget to some extent, this doesn't place a camera out of the budget less interesting. Yes, it is unique. Give me another 4K DSLR example, please ;-)
 
Last edited:
"Isn't the 1DC a 4K version of 1080p 5D3?"
no because 5d3 does 24,25,30 fps not just 24...
"I am producing some quality photography work to be published worldwide made by a 2003 or 2004 Motorola"
thats cool but u didn't pay 15000$ for them...:)
Neat Video is emergency only tool not for every situation because you pay the price(some details are gone) ...
when companies put PRO label on something cheap of course it is just marketing but when they charge 15000$ i expect maximum ... and its not that lighter and smaller 1300g vs 2300g...
and it needs to be sharper in 1080p 60p for slow motion ...
just look at hurlbut video slow motion look too soft ... and because its still DSLR show how lazy is CANON ... it needs to be mirrorless so we can mount much more lens ... and no hd sdi on pro camera :) ...yeah, they really try hard ...basically this is a for diehard canon fans and producers who asked for most hyped camera ...
 
Last edited:
cpc said:
...
Masking the problem doesn't mean it is not there. ..8-bit scans tended to preselect a limited amount of range from the film media, clipping/crushing below toe and above shoulder, and work with that..., you can do more amazing things with 12-bit raw footage even if the initial capture is a bit off. We are not in a perfect world, where everyone shoots perfect footage. And even with perfection, sometimes 8-bit just can't save one's ass. There are situations where light control is not an option. And then you are set for a lot of pain with 8-bit capture.

And, honestly, if I am on the receiving end of this (i.e. colorist), I'd rather have crappy RAW footage than crappy 8-bit footage. It is obviously much easier for crap shooters to get useable results out of a RAW camera. A RAW camera is simply more foolproof than 8-bit.
Click to expand...

This is a key set of observations. the takeaway?

Bit depth matters and the more post you are likely to put a file through the higher that the bit-depth needs to be. What the sweet spot of resolution/bitdepth is depends on several parameters. Too many readers here are really honestly only going to deliver 1080p over Vimeo >ipad so really, they are not in the market for bit depths or file sizes that grossly exceed that. There is a transitional world between enthusiast and broadcast production but that may mean that it's time to split the forum in half so ...Pros | Enthusiasts... can conduct relevant conversations respectively.
 
well the downer on canon is simple technology is moving so rapidly
and canon after dominating the dslr market with their models have apperently forgot that there are other players in this game , and took their time with it
they went with the wrong strategy going for 4k i think and not dealing with other issues that users are asking for like getting closer or doing RAW footage, better DR ,and the ability to do slowmotion at higher frame rates

now there is a

nikon d800/d4 - which can do better DR and color reproduction and uncompressed 8bit hdmi out
sony fs700 - which above announcing that they will add 4k abilities , they have better DR and AMAZING slowmotion capabilities at a lower price
there is ofcourse the surprise of the year : Blackmagic Cinema Camera that outputs complete RAW footage with 12bit 13stops amazing DR

and panasonic is also gonna probably pull a card of their own
so what canon is left with is just cameras that offer some of the features , each one with its own specs , and the 1d c that finally does offer 8bit hdmi out and excpet for doing 4k , its just not enough at the current state of developments and now its just overpriced
they have been dreaming all along instead of developing IMO relaying on their domninace and now they rip what they sow , just like the red scarlet - they did too little too late
 
vladszp said:
"I am producing some quality photography work to be published worldwide made by a 2003 or 2004 Motorola"
thats cool but u didn't pay 15000$ for them...:)
Neat Video is emergency only tool not for every situation because you pay the price(some details are gone) ...
when companies put PRO label on something cheap of course it is just marketing but when they charge 15000$ i expect maximum ... and its not that lighter and smaller 1300g vs 2300g...and it needs to be sharper in 1080p 60p for slow motion ...
just look at hurlbut video slow motion look too soft ... and because its still DSLR show how lazy is CANON ... its need to be mirrorless so we can mount much more lens ... and no hd sdi on pro camera :) ...yeah, they really try hard ...basically this is a camera for diehard canon fans and producers who asked for most hyped camera ...
Click to expand...
To me and some director/writer/producer I am co-producing a feature with as of today, with who I was discussing offline this camera last night, 24fps fulfills most part of our needs. And yes, we work in PAL land. The flickering is also BS unless you'll work outside the usual 180º shutter coverage.

As same as jello, unless you are a terrible director and confound the camera like you have a banana milk shake to prepare. Because if it will be some other fruit, you'll have it under control. First lesson @ film school (needless to say that both of us had an exigent film school).

25fps is not 24fps, it looks like. But it is not the same cadence. If you want to produce the same perception to your audience as thousands of other filmmakers did along the history of moviemaking... then go safer with 24p.

1300g vs 2300g if it is accurate after having a Scarlet full loaded, it is nearly the double!

You want slow motion, get another B camera to rent or buy if we're addicted to slow motion. Horses for courses. In any case, I never base my work in only one camera model. There isn't such 'perfect' thing ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top