Andrew Reid

  Opposite, like on a full frame sensor you will need a longer focal length to avoid vignetting with the anamorphic.

Is it box ticking you want from a camera spend $55,000 and get the F55   If it is an amazing image for $4k you want then this certainly looks the ticket.   I can forgive the lack of ProRes. The add on recorder for CineForm is unlikely to be that expensive and Cinema DNG is better supported than CineForm at present.

It certainly makes me approach the issue of sensor size differently.   I mean...   Imagine if Canon gave us the following camera for $4k....   - Full frame - ProRes - EOS mount - Modular form factor - 1080/60p   Well that is now what the FS100 is with the Speed Booster and Blackmagic HyperDeck Shuttle

It actually improves the image. MTF chart improve. Metabones claims:   "All other aberrations, including field curvature, coma, astigmatism, distortion, and chromatic aberration are also well-corrected.”

http://vimeo.com/57292607 The Speed Booster will be available from Metabones later at a date TBC Are you sitting down? Sensor size is history. An optical reducer is something I have long thought was possible on a DSLR and wondered why nobody had made one. If your sensor is smaller than full frame, shrink the image that the lens throws to fit over it. That is the principal behind the Metabones Speed Booster which essentially gives you the full frame look and a brighter image all at once on your Sony E-mount camera. Crop factors are a thing of the past. This is revolutionary...  

In a sea of insipid and faceless cameras for the corporate workplace, here is something different. Like the Blackmagic Cinema Camera it is designed for filmmakers who want image quality as close to Super 35mm film as possible but can't afford $15,000+ This is rumoured to be around the $4000 mark and has a Super 35mm sensor, Cinema DNG raw recording and a very compact body with no fan.

Yes we are suffering. Your Canon is crippled because Canon want to protect the ridiculously high margins of their Cinema EOS line. You paid for hardware that does HDMI at 1080p, you get 720p. You paid for true 1080p resolution with no moire, you get moire on the 6D and upscaled 720p on the 5D Mark III.   ScreenPro and others are stating the obvious when it comes to indie filmmaking. It goes on regardless of Canon or camera specs. It is a different argument.   But everyone who has a Canon and shoots their indie project with it could have had it so much better in terms of image quality if it were not for Canon holding back on any serious improvements.   Sure go ahead and party like it's 2009 with your 5D Mark III. Fixed moire and all. Woohoo. Great.   I have moved on.

Someone needs to reassure the team. They seem very jumpy. They have nothing to fear. I will have to email Alex and ask why they are feeling like this.   Sad to see.

3D was oppressive, attention seeking and now 3D is dead. Quietly dropped by all consumer electronics firm if the 2013 CES is anything to go by. Or is it?

That's a totally different argument ScreensPro

  There was a really oppressive sequence in The Hobbit in 3D which absolutely annoyed me and it was at that moment I wished I was watching it in 2D. Experiment over. Avatar too, when I re-watched it in 2D I found it far more immersive. I don't like being distracted CGI tree branches flying out of the screen all the time. Do you?

Agree Ben.   But what a shame we've no 4K DSLR for $6k or even a full frame DSLR with proper 1080p resolution and no moire.   The 1D C since it is based so heavily on the 1D X also has some drawbacks like no HD-SDI or 25p 4K for European shooters.   When oh when will they get the blindingly obvious (to us) right.

  How is that 'perfectly' covers. Bloody hell.

Canon entered the indie filmmaking market in 2009 with the 5D Mark II whether they intended to or not. The live view stills mode enabled a rudimentary video feature. This provided the basis for a whole new business, that ignores completely the indie filmmaker.

Actually I preferred Avatar in 2D.   Rich is right. 3D adds nothing artistic. It adds nothing to the story. Artists - i.e. proper filmmakers - don't need it.   It IS a gimmick to sell cinema tickets and televisions. Wake up! Look at the production cost of the tech, it is so cheap. Pair of plastic sun glasses and a software routine which any open source media player can do on a Windows laptop!   It isn't a magical future technology that is somehow not quite there yet. It never even got started. The current technology is a replay of the 1960's. What is needed is for genuinely new technology to get started and develop into something actually useful and artistic, preferably before it hits our cinemas.

The D800 is no good at 720p. Much better at 1080p. For slow mo the GH3 is a better choice. The RX100 is nice but it is only a compact camera with a 1 inch sensor. You need a fast lens and larger sensor for shallow DOF.

The problem with 3D is psychological, until the human mind gets rewired it won't work. For some applications the technology does have a future when it moves beyond ridiculously cheap glasses and an equally cheap software trick on your television. This current craze was driven by sales people not filmmakers although filmmakers who were also sales people (cough cough PJ) did have a good go at it :)

It is a real shame that Canon's legal bluff has scared these guys off but I can understand their position, I wouldn't want to get into the politics of it either.   Still in my opinion I don't think it is illegal.

Well if hacking the 1D X is illegal than the GH2 hacks and 5D Mark III hacks are too.   I can see absolutely no technical difference in enabling higher bitrates on the 5D to enabling 4K on the 1D C.   You're simply turning on existing functionality.   Alex I think is talking about a port of the 1D C firmware to the 1D X and that is rather different.   But if the 4K features are already in the 1D X and just turned off, then that is legally and technically the same as any other hack we've seen.

It isn't about getting something for half price, it is about getting something which is fully enabled for the asking price (in the case of the 1D X) and not artificially crippled to protect some cynical business strategy.   Videographers and filmmakers who buy a 1D X are paying for hardware that does 4K video only for it to be disabled. If you disable such a big part of the camera, where's the discount? And don't say the 1D X should cost $12,000 and that $6k represents a discount, because it doesn't!   Had Canon no Cinema EOS line, they would have had 4K on the 1D X and we'd all be celebrating them and buying one.   Anyway 4K is the least of my worries. I still haven't even got dramatically improved 1080p from a DSLR yet which is why I am now a Blackmagic Cinema Camera shooter. People vote with their feet in the end, and the Japanese companies can play all the silly business games they like, let's see where it gets them. Total financial collapse is my bet.   Can you imagine Blackmagic or Red going to the effort of producing a hardware that performs to a certain high level then switching it off in firmware? It isn't business it's bullshit!

  Bruno. Listen before shouting nonsense. It isn't legally wrong. Ask Vitaliy. 100% legal. Magic Lantern as it stands does not modify the firmware code. It runs separately alongside it. Again the project is 100% legal and if Canon wanted to sue them, they really wouldn't have a leg to stand on. I hardly think "because we can" is a very strategic business decision. Also... You're trolling.

Usually most Super 16mm cinema glass won't cover the larger sensor in the Blackmagic Cinema Camera. The sensor is closer in size to the Panasonic GH3. However Shane Hurlbut has had a rather useful discovery, in shooting with the Canon 8-64mm F2.4 on the BMCC he found it covers the sensor just fine without vignetting. Canon 8-64mm F2.4 PL / Arri on eBay US

Promising signs. With The Hobbit snubbed for almost all nominations at the Oscars and with the commercial death of 3D, there's no room for HFR any more either. Good riddance!   Another one: http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/8/3852452/death-of-3d

What Canon are doing here makes no business sense to me. They make a healthy margin on the 1D X as it is at over $6k, imagine the sales leap had they enabled 4K video on it.   So they are going to sell how many 1D C's? 2000 of them? Mostly in one country. Does that seem like a good reason to piss off the 40,000 who would have bought a 1D X for 4K video? Does that seem like a good business decision, really?   Aside from the morally repugnant profiteering and loss of reputation such a cynical product results in for Canon, they have had to cripple their core business to satisfy this tiny niche of Hollywood cameras. We all know the video on the 5D and 1D X is not as good as it should be. It is just as well their competition is so utterly clueless and weak. Nikon anyone? Sony? Red have had 4K cameras out for what seems like a whole era and the Japanese are only just now bringing cameras out.   Essentially when you can produce a camera that does 4K and make a nice profit on it at $6k, it just shows how weak the competition is when Canon can still be a market leader and DISABLE the entire feature, instead selling it for double the price to a select few. 4K isn't mainstream yet, but when it is Canon won't be able to sell a 4K DSLR for $6000 let alone $12,000.

And I am the one who will decide not to buy it. Great arguing with you Bruno, have you thought about a career in business?   Do you realise you are defending the indefensible and also voting against your own interests??