AccordingToMe

​It was present on h.264 export, a very common way to output files, I'd say. ​I had not seen the follow up post. It's good to know that Adobe reacted quickly and was able to solve that issue. It seems that any project output after Octobersih 2014 won't need to be re-exported.

Also, be advised about: The quality difference between FCPX and Premiere Pro output

OK. To me, laying out material, and working with the magnetic timeline, is exponentially faster than any other "classic" editor based around the 'source/record windows'. Also, I much prefer the organizational features in FCPX compared to DaVinci Resolve. And seeing that you answered "Yes. Yes": why on earth are you going via 3. party converters to get to ProRes?

​Before answering your question: are you on a Mac? Do you know FCPX well?

Import into FCPX, start working while media is still being copied from CF card. Simultaneously auto convert to 4k ProRes 422 in background by FCPX, as well as 2k ProRes proxy. Optionally let your converted 4k ProRes files replace your originals to save space. Optionally flip a switch in FCPX to enter proxy mode. Transfer whole project to 2.5" USB3 drive and edit on MBP Retina, or MBP Air for that matter. Easy .xml round tripping to Resolve with presets for FCPX already in place. Support up to UHD resolution free with Resolve Lite. I am an active Creative Cloud subscriber. I wouldn't dream of using Premiere Pro for video work.

It does seem nice. Most of all, it seems to have a good price/performance ratio. I've done a super quick research and most seem happy with it. I'll check out Dell's UltraSharp next and see what differs. Daisy-chaning will drop the monitor to 30Hz, so that won't work. I have a R9 280X 3GB in my MacPro and it should be able to drive two of these. While super high end monitors are nice, I've always thought that it's a high price to pay since everyone else will be watching whatever you create on a consumer monitor/TV (in most cases). Like most review say: ticks the boxes 60Hz, SST with good gamut at the right price.

Well, two of these side by side—daisy chained—for $1400 sounds kind of nice. But historically, the good 24" 4k panels have been around $1300. It's always good to know where the money is being saved...

So you found them—good.

​An image can't be more flat with crushed shadows. When people say crushed shadows they mean "crushed down", as in turning dark gray areas completely black. Crushing the shadows makes an image more contrasty and punchy, often with the purpose of removing the dark, noisy part of the image by sending it to black.

​It's in the Canon Log white paper. I don't have the direct link, but it should be easy to find with google. Highly recommended reading if shooting Canon Log. Canon has released many white papers on the Cinema EOS system. Reading them will probaly increase one's understanding of Canon's philosophy towards sensors, cameras and lenses. Remember, Canon Log has been out for a long time. It's been thoroughly discussed and examined online. ​In their documentation of the Cinema EOS system, Canon describes the C300 as a quick-to-market product. They had to use Digic DVIII and went with a mpeg-2 codec. Mpeg-2 specifies 8 bit, and so Canon's hand was forced. The Canon C100 mkII uses Digic DV IV, but again it comes with a consumer codec. I am, however, fully expecting the C300 mkII to be both 4k and 10 bit or more capable. It will be very interesting to see those camera specs. Not in relation to the FS7... but in relation to Canon's own IQ goals/standards. The C500 ($16.000) already does this: 4k (4096x2160/3840x2160) raw 10bit at 60fps4k half raw 10bit at 120fps2k 4:4:4 12bit at 60fpsHow about 4k internal to a consumer (think efficient) codec with 4k 10 bit output, 2k 12 bit output, 2k 120fps, Dual Pixel AF?

​OK, thanks. The fact that you can't go below ISO200 suggests to me that there is something similar going on. It dosen't really matter what it is, but my understanding is that Sony recommends quite high ISOs with the log profiles, correct? ISO3200 even? And then the community has landed somewhere below that at maybe ISO2500? I'm grasping here.... not really following Sony... As anecdotal as it may seem, I also can't help but noticing that for filmning, looking at the "money making" ISOs from ISO400-6400, the DR is for all intents and purposes identical between the A7s and the 1Dc (according to DxO screen). The difference between the "theoretical" 14 stops and the more "rubber hits the road" 11 stops often fall below the forum discussions "noise level".

​Yes, do the thinking up front. Applicable to many scenarios.

​My own analysis of Canon Log is that when put the 1Dc in Log mode (which is a special MODE in the camera, not just a picture profile) the raw data is pulled by 2 stops. The ISO400 then boosts the image back up again, according to the Log curve. If you put a 1Dc in Log mode and ISO below 400, you will never reach IRE 100, no matter how you expose. The data is pulled. It is equivalent to highlight protection mode. It makes sense for non raw recording. Take 10 clean base stops and add 2 "ISO stops" and you end up with 12 stops, even if DxO only measures around 11.8 for 1Dx raw. Sony does the same. But instead of going for 12 reasonable stops, they up the ante and go for 5 stops via ISO3200. 10 base stops and 5 ISO stops. DxO rates the A7s pretty high at ISO100, but raw is one thing and video is another. It assume they are doing something similar behind the scenes. I don't know what the signal looks like on an A7s at ISO100. can you still expose the histogram all the way to the right?

Oblivion comes to mind. That is a movie I can watch just for the visuals and the soundtrack. Shot on F65: There are many beautiful shots in this movie. Naturally there are many computer generated images as well. But I remember sitting up straight in the theater during the scenes around the provisional lake cottage.

​Lot's of photographers can make it work and still plenty of people do complain about it. Or rather, they even complain about the DR of 1Dx raw. And there isn't such a thing as a "1Dx jpeg". If you compare a PP 'neutral' with contrast all the way down to a PP 'EOS standard' with default contrast, the difference might be even bigger than what you show here. What settings did you use for your jpeg? What people need to understand is that there is a tug-of-war between DR and tonal reproduction. Especially in 8 bit. I can somewhat understand the greed for DR when you shoot raw. But when we shoot to a compressed video format we need to consider the "big picture". Canon modeled Canon Log after Kodak's Cineon system from 1993. It's seems like a good compromise to me, and to base it off of ISO400 is reasonable. Putting base ISO at 2500-3200 seems like over reaching to me. Fans of Sony's implementation love to talk about 14 (I even hear 15) stops, but I rarely see any discussions about possible drawbacks. Nice 4k frame grab by the way.

​I'm talking about camcorders. Were you guys expecting real cameras at CES?

The upside is that when choosing a camcorder, it doesn't really matter which one you pick. It's not a camera system like a DSLR where you need to match your body to your lenses. For anyone happy with Sony's or Panasonics' offerings: go for it! Why wait for Canon?

So, no blocking? Let's see how this pans out, in terms of admitting error and such. An excellent opportunity for many to relax their stance.

​Re-read the thread and you'll find that my only interest is to share information and insight. I do not critique peoples efforts, opinions (see below) or creative work. If anyone shares opinion as fact, I will try to correct it if I think I know better—based on sound reasoning or by linking to actual information. If people go out of their way to argue about something, I might run with it for a bit. My posts are rational and motivated. My opinions are probably consistent over time. Everything changes, but if I do a turn around I'll admit that I was wrong and explain why I changed my mind. There is nothing inflammatory in my posts. Perhaps with the exception that I do tend to point out where someone's reasoning doesn't add up. It can be very annoying for someone who always wants to be right to learn that they are in fact wrong. I want to be right all the time, but I don't have to be. I'll always accept the truth, "not because someone said so" but because "someone proved it". Everything else is speculation, which is also fine. It just has to be worded as such.

No listen, like I said before: ​Wait… what?

​Of course you can rent. That's a whole other strategy/mentality. It's a valid business choice. I assumed it was clear to everyone that my perspective is that of an owner/operator. The part you quote from me was regarding the very specialised Hasselblad medium format market. It's significantly smaller than the generic video market and much business is done via networking and recommendations. ​There are several words missing between 'real' and 'professional' for that sentence to make sense and not look straight up derogatory. "A real golf professional doesn't by a camera like…" "A real professional chef doesn't by a camera like…" "A real video professional, who needs traditional video camera features currently lacking on a 1Dc, doesn't by a camera like…" I can assure you that there are plenty of 1Dc owners who are professional photographers and videographers. That makes your statement false, unless you flesh it out a bit. ​I am sure you can do business that way too. Most clients are totally oblivious to cameras and the technology behind them. But I don't doubt for a second that catch phrases and name dropping can get you business, if that's how you want to run it.

​My first casual glance neglected to see that it was an EVF. With the features you outline, some chunkiness would be in order. Especially if the mic simply gets relocated—still available. All good. I guess the handle remains redundant for me. When shooting one hand holds the lens for stability and focus. To carry around, I use a Spiderholster Pro personally. There's no better way to carry a camera—according to me.

​That viewfinder seems clunky and the handle is redundant; the 1Dc's ergonomic design has been honed over decades. Wrap your hand around the body and you can be sure that almost every finger finds a button or dial that is important. The LCDVF attaches via a magnet and comes on/off instantly. Extremely convenient. You want the top hotshoe available for an external microphone.

I don't know if you are serious here? Are you insinuating that Canon should invest and invent and then hand out their gear for entry level money, so that as many happy enthusiasts as possible get access to the world's best gear? ​As you can see, this account is newly registered so I've been spared any guidance. That fact aside, I made my informed decision and bought a 1Dc two years ago. The first project I made (3 shooting days, with about two weeks in post) paid for the camera at retail price. It was a business investment. The camera has always been the same (disregarding two marginal firmware updates). Your evaluation of it should not change from then to now. The price of the 1Dc is a feature. It still costs $12.000. What you can get a used one for is not relevant. Seems like you got a good price—congratulations. The $12k price keeps the camera out of the hands of amateurs. This, my friend, whether you realize it or not, is important to working professionals. A comparison can be made to how RED handled their launches and how much easier it was for the $55000 Epic M early adopters to get their money back, than it has been for some of the $24000 owners that get access to the camera in a saturated market. I know for a fact that Canon gets constant feedback from their CPS users begging them to make their pro gear more expensive. Surely you understand the BUSINESS logic here? Hasselblad medium format also comes to mind: pay the price of admission and you've got an isolated market up for grabs. The 1Dc is not a hobbyist's camera first. Since you bring it up, the Sonys and Panasonics aren't important to me at all. I am happy for all the users that are happy with these cameras. I do follow some of the news around the A7s. Mostly since I want to see how the kinks get worked out on the external recording side. The only features I really miss on the 1Dc are the Dual Pixel AF and NDs. DPAF is a more current innovation. All of the assist features that you talk about makes much more sense to me when used on an external monitor. I use a LCDVF for mobile shooting and a monitor when locked down. Well, a lite 4k consumer codec would be a nice addition as well for those times when you just want to roll the camera and not worry about files sizes. Filming the kids comes to mind. I'm using this account to provide an alternate perspective to some of your readers. Time will tell if they are interested.

​Nonsense. This is the difference you can expect. Also look at how clean the gray color is on the wall. He does some panning and the mkII never shows any moiré. What shows up as a bad case of moiré here (but still untypical for a C100), sometimes revealed itself as a minor "nervousness" in fine textures when I had my C100. It's one of the things I like so much about the 1Dc: it has such a peaceful image. Tranquillising and soothing—yet well resolved and detailed where it needs to be. Anyway, the C100 mkII is a significant upgrade and a solid contender for what it does. Highly recommended.