Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

5D iv and 1dx ii as a b roll camera...

Also own a 1DX Mark II. have to admit am not a big fan of the Cinestyle profile because it feels like it takes away some characteristics of Canon's color science. I am mainly using it for stills and am loving it, but color matching the 1DX II with my Epic Dragon is a bit of a challenge. However, the motion Jpeg codec is excellent even though 8bit. Better than the C series's codec in my opinion.

We have used the 1DC for projects where we cut it with Red Epic Dragon and have to say no real problems with the codec at all.

Also of note is that the 1DX II is great for recovering underexposed, or on the shadows areas in stills, haven't tried with the videos. Great noise performance, specially bellow 3200 ISO.
 
the hdr is understandable but the 1.74x crop is ridiculous. the noise is going to be so much greater at lower iso's
 
I didn't do the math, but shouldn't the crop factor mean that it relates to S35?
 
Maik Müller said:
A number that's on top of the list of disappointments is 1.74x, the crop-factor when shooting 4k-video. Keep it in mind.

Canon just ignores the competition and protects too many lines. So after 4.5 years we get this, a slight upgrade that would have looked dated even 2 years ago. Even as stills camera it lacks any wow-factor, doesn't compare to a A7R2. And video-mode? Sorry, nope... I'm disappointed and don't know where to start. ;)

A cheap b-roll-cam? Even a Sony A6300 is more interesting for that kind of job.
Click to expand...

Maik, I love you brother and I know youre not really advising to get the A6300 but: Stay the fuck away from the A6300! This thing has the worst rolling shutter ever.
I should've brought it back instantly. Guess I'm stuck with it. (But stills are pretty great.)
 
Ha, ha, does the rolling shutter vary with shutter angle (can you reduce it that way). It has range, so a faster shutter should be usable, and dark scenes often are slower. Does this thing has alsising issues and is there a filter, Pactrick? During camera development over a decade ago, I found a fast electronic shutter (thousandths of a second I wanted to use to defeat rolling shutter. I suggested it to Red to deal with theirs, hence forth their solution. But the issue is, its as expensive as the camera. However, I wonder if there is a cheap version of a few hundred now. The only problem is tearing, you have to avoid the read out phase and synch it. A bit much to do.
 
AndreeMarkefors said:
I have both the 1Dc and the 1Dx mkII. I'm selling the 1Dc.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I have followed all your various posts, I love my 1dc and use it for what it is good for, but I would love to have the 1dx mkII auto focus. If only Canon would firmware upgrade the c500 to autofocus that would be a killer for what they are selling for used- along with a CD Odyssey7. I was told by Canon over a year ago that it was in the works but they seem to have forgotten about it.
 
Wayne Morellini said:
Ha, ha, does the rolling shutter vary with shutter angle (can you reduce it that way). It has range, so a faster shutter should be usable, and dark scenes often are slower. Does this thing has alsising issues and is there a filter, Pactrick? During camera development over a decade ago, I found a fast electronic shutter (thousandths of a second I wanted to use to defeat rolling shutter. I suggested it to Red to deal with theirs, hence forth their solution. But the issue is, its as expensive as the camera. However, I wonder if there is a cheap version of a few hundred now. The only problem is tearing, you have to avoid the read out phase and synch it. A bit much to do.
Click to expand...

No. Rolling shutter is only affected by frame/sensor scan rate, not shutter angle.
 
yeah the fs5 would be great if it shot amazing photos. i purchased the 1dxii because i need amazing images as well. will keep you all updated on how it looks. with the lack of c-log i am a little nervous but hopefully matchable to the scarlet-w footage with a little work...
 
8bit output is a disappointment.
If it were possible, I would trade the horsepower driving the 500mbs recording for 10bit

Mike Brennan
 
There are many situations where it is tough to use your favourite cinema camera. I use a 1DXII and find the MJPEG codec to be bulky but fine. Yesterday I was in a public place and filming with the 1DXII. People thought I am just another photographer standing with his camera. So I think the 5DIV would be fine for many applications unless you want slow motion in 4K. I would have loved the vari-angle screen that one finds in the 80D.
 
Hal Long said:
No. Rolling shutter is only affected by frame/sensor scan rate, not shutter angle.
Click to expand...

Depends, if they do shutter by scanning faster. Old handycams used to do 200hz+ (well 50+ originally) to reduce rolling shuuter, then integrate frames if needed.
 
Frankly, you could check out Craft or Axiom cameras, as they look like a stills in basic configuration. If only the Craft had a descent latitude on the sensor. I know what people say, 13 stops is descent, as film often gets to 12 stops, but like with most comparisons to film, it pales against human visions 16.5 regular scene stops, or the 20 or so stops we should be using.
 
High Latitude JPEG

High Latitude JPEG

An interesting thing about MJPEG, is that as we discover his to compress better, some of that new technique can be applied used with the existing MJpeg toolset (useful to view it as a toolset to get the idea if it being how you use it), making the results much better. For instance, U did not mind MJPEG in the SD 720p days, but text would basically get stuffed up, because it did not preserve straight edges well. But I found a car camera JPEG implementation that detected and preserved the straight edges of text. Indeed, I wrote a whole post on how to priority preserved image structure to appear many times better per data rate, and sent a link to s guy at ambarella around 12 years ago (maybe 14+). Their chips are many times better than the implementations of the time, and I'm still amazed at how well the image holds with movement.

Now, with the improvements a good implementation of MJPEG might appear three tines closer towards uncompressed than before. But, it is even better, the new replacement JPEG after Jpeg2k, has similar performance to wavelet, or mpeg2. So Jpeg s not necessarily as bad as JPEG.
 
High bit JPEG.

High bit JPEG.

I'll tell you something that nay interest you. Years ago I came across a high bit JPEG codec. So the 16 bit picture compression did a lot better per compression ratio, maybe a bit more than a 8 bit version, as it was mostly an extension onto the JPEG data and not twice as much.

There are other things like this, doubling the frame rate produces closer clearer images requiring less compression, and increasing the pixel format from 4:2:2/4:2:0 to 4:4:4, was not a direct ratio cinversikn, as 4:4:4 was more compressible per bit of raw data.

I used to avoid mentioning this when advocating for better data rates and frsme rates on forums manufacturer's marketing people would read. Worked liked a charm, even sprooked HDMI output as away to head off demand for low end digital cinema cameras threatening their pro lines. But for some reason Jim doesn't want to do a prosumer/Eng level camera I keep suggesting here for years (but looks like the pocket is finally coming. Maybe not the directors viewfinder I was advocating, but good).
 
Michael J Brennan said:
8bit output is a disappointment.
If it were possible, I would trade the horsepower driving the 500mbs recording for 10bit

Mike Brennan
Click to expand...

There is NO horsepower, the whole reason it is the large 500mbs rate is because the Canon sensor is too woefully underpowered to be able to compress the footage intelligently in a smart way so it does it in a dumb way which results in way way way larger file sizes than neccessary.
 
scott devitte said:
Interesting, I have followed all your various posts, I love my 1dc and use it for what it is good for, but I would love to have the 1dx mkII auto focus.
Click to expand...

Hi there. If it's any consolation: the 1Dc still has the best image up to 25p. The thing is that what you get from the 1Dx mkII is close enough once you use CineStyle to get rid of the crunch you get with Neutral (even tuned down). I really didn't like CineStyle with the 5D-series of cameras, but perhaps it reacts differently with the high bitrate intra frame mjpeg. I find it quite tolerable now, and very color neutral on the 1Dx mkII. And once you get to that point you start to see all the small upgrades the 1Dx mkII offers. The photo side counts as well.

I'm pushing the few Canon contacts I have as hard as I can to offer Canon Log 3 (and a re-badging to replace the 'X' with a red 'C') as a paid upgrade. I don't care if they feel they need to charge $1995. The Canon Log implementation in the 1Dc is not just via picture profile—it's hardware too. They pull the exposure by 1 2/3rds stop and then boost the lows and mids with ISO, thereby requiring ISO 400. A similar approach with the Dx mkII would give us stellar results. I'm sure of it. The raw files are EXTREMELY robust in Lightroom. The quality is there.

On a separate note: 4k DCI at 60 fps pushes approx 531 MP/s through the system buffer. A full sensor readout at 25fps would be 5472*3648*25 = 499MP/s. I wouldn't mind seeing a FF 5.5k 25p readout included in that paid update too.
 
David Peterson said:
There is NO horsepower, the whole reason it is the large 500mbs rate is because the Canon sensor is too woefully underpowered to be able to compress the footage intelligently in a smart way so it does it in a dumb way which results in way way way larger file sizes than neccessary.
Click to expand...

Canon DSLRs use Digic processors. The 1Dx mkII uses two Digit 6+. Canon Cinema EOS cameras are part of their video line-up and use Digic DV. It's another chip for video. Those cameras offer XFAVC at 405Mbps for 4k DCI. The XC-10 uses a 305Mbps flavor for UHD. Both are intra frame.

Since the 1Dx already has a jpeg compression 'engine' built in (for obvious reasons) it's seems very efficient to use that to grab clean sensor crops without any scaling and just use light compression to maintain quality. Yes, you pay 500Mbps instead of 405Mbps. Yes, a dedicated chip for video would have been better. But the constant whining about the mjpeg from people who don't use it is getting tiresome. Especially from those who compare it to some blotchy, Long GOP 100Mbps implementation.
 
A rough scale (figures have moved due to increased intelligence in how you cannuse a compression standard, but that does not mean your implementation of the codec is that intelliegent).

H265=2xH264 datarate=2xmpeg2=2xjpeg

So h264 100mb/s is roughly 400mb/s jpeg in old terms (doesn't sound right) but 100mb/s h264 is crap, 144mb/s more acceptable, 300mb/s acceptable. 500 is not 600-1200mb/s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top