Kino

Is the Terra really "out this year" and how many? I have trouble believing such a small company will be able to ship in large numbers. The 6K also suffers from the worst rolling shutter you have ever seen unless you shoot it in "sport mode" and a lower resolution. And what about warranty service with Kinefinity. Does it have to go back to China every time something goes wrong? I'm certainly intrigued by the Terra 5K with its switchable global shutter. I currently have a Raven on order (which I might switch to the Scarlet-W for the 5K). The only thing that would make me reconsider is if Kinefinity announced a U.S. distributor or if Canon announced the 1DC II. While I love the C500, the available recorders may be too large of an addition for the type of portability I am looking for in a 4K camera. With all the wires going everywhere and a big screen attached to the camera, it may become a little unwieldy.

Thanks for the review. I look forward to your findings with 4K going to the Odyssey as well as how you intend to setup your rig. I do love the image from the C500, even though it may not have the same DR as some other cinema cameras. It's also one of the best low-light performers out there as you mention. I think there is a good reason for that. It has a larger than average 35mm sensor (26.2 x 13.8mm) with huge photosites (6.4 µm) compared with competing cinema cameras from RED, Sony and Blackmagic. It simply collects more light and can provide a better signal-to-noise ratio than many of these other cinema cameras.

I thought that C-Log must be shot at ISO 400 or above to avoid banding on the 1DC. ISO 800 was probably chosen for what they thought may be the best performance, but it does seem slightly odd considering the fact that they had to use different apertures. As for the rolling shutter, they claim the 1DX II achieves an incredible number: 14ms. I do agree that the Xyla test is questionable considering everything we have seen from these two cameras. It also does not demonstrate the highlight roll-off of the cameras and is more informative for what is going on in the shadows (where C-Log is also preserving more color information based on other tests we have discussed here). And, yes, of course, Cinestyle is no real substitute for C-Log on the 1DC for reasons I have already stated (no access to RAW sensor data like C-Log). However, we should also not forget that filmmakers like Abraham Joffe have shot beautiful footage on the 1DC without using C-Log: In fact, Joffe has stated that he prefers shooting the 1DC using the picture profile settings and not C-Log: http://www.untitledfilms.com.au/2013/11/shoot-edit-deliver-4k-now/ You can check out all his 1DC films including the National Geographic TV series, Tales By Light, to get an idea of what is possible outside of C-Log: Now if I owned a 1DC, I'm sure I would use C-Log for most situations, but it doesn't mean that great results are not possible without it or that it is ideal for every lighting condition. C-Log or not, the 1DC is just a magical camera.

That is awesome. Thanks for posting. It's obvious those first four bars are clipped on standard gamma, whereas only two are clipped on C-Log. The distribution of the stops is also very different: C-Log provides a much greater "usable" range (10 stops vs. 8 stops). Again, for me the 1DC footage looks like it came from a high-end cinema camera (and is often used alongside such cameras), whereas the 1DX II just has too much contrast to cut with such cameras.

I agree that in the footage we have seen thus far, the 1DX II has much more contrast and has nowhere near the same highlight roll-off as the 1DC. At the end of the day, I don't care about Xyla tests as much so I have no idea why the DR is exactly the same here: the 1DC just has a very different and much more appealing look to me. As you suggest, the results may be due to a flawed testing methodology. I just want to see 1DX II footage that demonstrates the DR results in this Cinema5d test because I'm not seeing it in the 1DX II videos. Perhaps it has to do with the way the DR is distributed in the 1DX II since it does not have the same DR as the 1DC in the highlights. C-Log is also able to access RAW sensor data in a way that Technicolor Cinestyle does not, so there should be a significant difference between them as there is on the 1DC itself, where neutral and Log show about 3-4 stops of DR difference. This difference is especially evident in the highlights:

I posted this amazing Xyla on the other thread not knowing you had already posted it here. Anyway, the reason for the different apertures is because the 1DX II has better ISO performance and thus the 1DC needs to open up for more light on the Xyla test. Moreover, ISO 800 is chosen to maximize the DR performance on both cameras. With Technicolor Cinestyle, the 1DX II is thus achieving the exact same DR as the 1DC with C-Log. If I can see some Cinestyle footage from the 1DX II that demonstrates this, it will have saved me thousands of dollars as the 1DX II is also far superior to the 1DC for rolling shutter. It's actually even better than many cinema cameras. I suppose there is no need for C-Log or any "1DC II" when we can install Cinestyle for a similar effect.

Thanks for posting that Cinema5d review. It's really informative. With Technicolor Cinestyle installed on the 1DX II, he achieves the exact same DR as the 1DC with C-Log (those final stops look much darker but they are there indeed: note that the 1DC is shooting at f5.6 while the 1DX II is at f11): Of course, I'd love to see footage that demonstrates this in a side-by-side (like the one on the other thread). Honestly, I would not have believed it based on most of the 1DX II footage I have seen, but this is concrete proof. Is no one else shooting with Technicolor Cinestyle installed on the 1DX II? Moreover, the rolling shutter on the 1DX II has been reduced to 14ms, which is incredible! That's better than the FS7 and Ursa Mini 4.6k.

Wholly color gamut Batman! Whenever someone complains about 8 bit color, point them to 01:45-02:40 of this video. Only Canon can make 8 bit color look more rich and accurate than 12 bit color from competing cameras. Bravo to the filmmaker as well as the engineers behind this camera.

First of all, what is a "5DC"? I've never heard of such a thing from Canon corporate. Canon won't even give you the features you have listed in the $6000 1DX II. Do you really think they will give them to you for under $3000 and in a 5D body within the Cinema EOS line? 4K 4:2:2 10 bit internal would be a stretch for the 1D body, with its far superior heat management, recording data rate, and processing power relative to the 5D cameras. It would simply be impossible in a 5D form factor with current sensor and heat sink technology. Here is what you are going to get in any future 5D Mark IV (which Canon hasn't even announced or acknowledged): UHD 8 bit 4:2:2 XF-AVC (just like the codec in the XC10, if you are "lucky") UHD 30p / HD 60p No C-Log No DPAF Look at it this way, it could be much worse. At least, unlike the 1D cameras, it might get something from Magic Lantern . . .

The 1D cameras are not mass produced and sold in the millions like iPhones or iPads. 1D cameras are marketed to photo and video professionals and "prosumers" with sales only in the thousands. One can and should have different expectations about consumer products that retail for $800 and professional products that retail for $8000 and come with a greater level of customer support. With so much competition in the $5000-10,000 4K video camera sector, Canon has really fallen behind and lost many customers to Sony, BMD, and even RED. But, of course, as I mentioned Canon doesn't care about what we want or expect. They are a massive electronics conglomerate with a bottom line to meet for every quarter and very conservative ideas about market segmentation and product development. It they thought that providing affordable 4K cameras with the necessary features was part of that they would have already brought such cameras to market and not a C300 II for $16K.

"21st century"? Actually these trends started decades ago. And no one is saying Apple doesn't do it, but Sony and Canon were around long before Apple. At least with the iPhone, the most expensive and latest model, the 6S Plus, has all the best features. Not so with Canon and Sony on the 1DX II and A7SII, respectively, so the comparison doesn't hold in this case. Apple doesn't make you buy two different versions of the same thing just to have the different features and iPhones don't cost $6,000-8,000. As for my suggestion to wait for the 1DC II as the perfect marriage of the two 1D lines, this was intended for a forum member who doesn't like either the 1DC or the 1DX II. Personally, I would be very happy to shoot with the 1DC just as it is today. In fact, I was disappointed when Canon announced a higher resolution for the new 1DX II sensor since it meant a reduction in the size of the photosites and an accompanying loss in signal-to-noise performance on the new generation. Perhaps this is why the test above showed more noise in the 1DX II image. While technologically more advanced in terms of video features (DPAF, 4K60p), the 1DX II is a downgrade from the 1DC in terms of DR, color gamut (in addition to greater DR, C-Log also provides a wider and richer color gamut for grading), and noise performance. It's a shame that Canon made these compromises with the 1DX II just to protect the Cinema EOS line.

Surely, Sony isn't "crazy enough" to sell old sensor technology (A7SII) at almost the same price as newer and much better sensor technology (A7RII)? But, yes, they are just that "crazy" because they have mastered the art of incremental product advancement. The A7RII has internal 4K, BSI, and IBIS, all of which was missing on the A7S. This newer model, the A7SII, has S-Log3, which the A7RII is lacking, thus providing a slight advantage to the newer camera in one particular area even though the A7RII offers a much higher resolution and is far more advanced in terms of sensor tech (sound familiar?). Canon has the exact same strategy here with the 1DC and 1DX lines, except that, unlike Sony, Canon charges a premium for everything (e.g., $16K for the C300 II vs. $10K for a Sony FS7/XDCA combo with the same features). They will alternate which camera gets the latest technological advancement so as to get you to buy the next one, while holding out some features to make the last one still relevant. So, yes, the Japanese electronic conglomerates are crazy cats who do whatever they can to get you to buy as many models of a product that are available because each one is lacking what the other provides or what the next version will provide.

The lower production cost on the 1DX II enables a much cheaper 1DC II priced closer to the 1DX II. That is the "game changer" for the 1DC line. They are sister cameras after all and everything the 1DC II would need from a hardware perspective is already in the 1DX II body, with its amazing heat management, processing power, and recording data rate. You do realize that your 1DX II is capable of recording at the same data rate (100 MB/s) as the RED Raven and Scarlet-W cameras. That is simply incredible for a DSLR. I cannot imagine Canon would give up the chance for a 1DC II with everything that can be done with the technical masterpiece that is the 1DX II platform. The only major differences between the cameras will be C-Log, Super 35mm mode, and Cinema EOS support. They could possibly add a higher bit depth but I doubt it for the reasons I stated above. The unlimited recording time also might not be possible because of the EU taxes and the need to keep the price as low as possible. As for my current camera, the BMPC-4K, I don't like it at all. The rig that is required to provide power is cumbersome and doesn't play nicely with my equipment, including the slider, the stabilizer, and everything else. The rear screen is also useless here in the California sun so you need to add monitoring as well. Moreover, the RAW CinemaDNG files are far too massive at 12 GB/minute and very difficult to grade and edit with on most computers. The 1DC would solve all my problems in terms of portability, ease of use for production and post-production, and weather sealing for dusty or wet environments.

I expect Canon to keep the 1DC model around and to release updates just like any other camera model that they currently have in production. Of course, Canon may want to discontinue the 1DC entirely and bring out a C200/C100 III with internal 4K so as to compete more effectively with the Sony FS7 in that $8,000 price range. That is certainly possible. The 1DC II is pure speculation at this point, but seems likely to me based on the several important factors: 1) intentionally withheld cinema features on the 1DX II 2) lower production/retail cost on the 1DX II ($6,000) vs. the original 1DC ($12,000) 3) product cycle extension: as the 1DX II sales dry up Canon will look to maximize yields on the 1DX II platform 4) incremental feature advancement: 1DX > 1DC > 1DX II > 1DC II As for 10 bit internal, that may require a fan, which is not really possible on these weather-sealed bodies. They would also have to add another codec or redesign MJPEG using the new JPEG 9 standard, which allows for up to 12 bit processing. That may be too much to ask from Canon. If we do see a 1DC II, it will likely be identical to the 1DX II to keep the costs down, but it will add those missing cinema features.

The 1DC did not sell well because it was way overpriced on release. If anything, the 1DX II demonstrates that Canon can deliver roughly the same tech (or even better) for half the price. Then again, there are key features missing from the camera. These two facts, reduced production/retail costs and withheld cinema features on the 1DX II, combine to make a 1DC II even more of a possibility. If Canon could sell the camera for the current 1DC price of $8,000, it would do much better than last time.

Yes, let's stick to facts as opposed to fanciful ideas on Canon firmware upgrades for adding C-Log to the 1DX II that have no chance or history of occurring and that belong to a different product line and division.

That was Roger Machin of Canon, South Africa, and it was an off-the-cuff remark. I would not take that too seriously as a much higher spokesman from Canon has confirmed that these are two separate "lines." The most telling aspect of this is that the 1DC retails for $2,000 USD more than the 1DX II and will continue in production, at least until it is replaced by the 1DC II. The number to call is actually 1 855-CINE-EOS.

Guesswork or not, one could have said the same thing about every Canon camera that currently has a mark II or III next to it. Standard procedure for Canon would entail a 1DC II to follow the 1DC and based on the 1DX II platform. It's not like we are picking camera models out of the sky. By withholding those key cinema features (C-Log, Super 35mm mode, unlimited record time [which raises the EU taxes]) from the 1DX II, they are even telling you that a more expensive and capable 1D video DSLR is on the way. It's pretty much telegraphed at this point. Of course, they cannot yet announce the 1DC II officially as this would hurt the 1DX II sales as well as the remaining 1DC retail stock.

The point is that Canon segments the photo and cinema/video divisions through clear price points. The 1DX II is priced relative to competing DSLRs (Nikon D5) and other Canon DSLRs (7D, 5D, etc.). The 1DX II is not priced relative to the Cinema EOS line, where features such as 4K internal, C-Log, Super 35mm mode, and unlimited record time have a particular price attached to them. While getting 4K internal, 4K60p, and DPAF is a great coup for a Canon DSLR such as the 1DX II, for Canon to add those missing features such as C-Log through a free/paid firmware upgrade and turn the 1DX II into a "new 1DC" is impossible at this point in the game, especially when they have future plans for the 1DC line. If you don't like the 1DX II as it is and don't want a 1DC either, just wait for the 1DC II. It will be the perfect marriage of the two.

Canon cannot possibly put C-Log into the 1DX II. There are many reasons for this, most of which have to do with segmentation and price point. The 1DX II is priced at $6,000 USD so as to compete effectively with the Nikon D5 at $6,500. That very fact means that it cannot have C-Log, as it would annihilate the C100 II as well as the 1DC and disrupt any plans for a 1DC II or even a C200/C100 III with 4K. Having intentionally withheld C-Log and Super 35mm mode from the 1DX II, the most logical thing for Canon is to release the 1DC II, which I would expect in the next year or two. That is far more likely than Canon adding a C-Log firmware upgrade for the 1DX II.

No chance. C-Log is exclusive to Cinema EOS cameras and Canon camcorders (XC10). You will never see it on the 1DX II. The paid "firmware" upgrade will come with its own body in the form of the 1DC II. I think this is predictable market segmentation by Canon. In terms of video, the 1DX II only serves as a platform for a dedicated and much more capable cinema DSLR.

We've already addressed this user-made graph on the forum. It was posted by a regular forum member at fredmiranda.com and is not from any review site or reliable source: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1421137 It's also using the RAW files and not JPEG, which is more relevant to the MJPEG codec in the 1DX II and 1DC. The difference between neutral and C-Log on the 1DC is 3-4 stops. If, as this test shows, neutral is the same on both cameras, the 1DX II is shooting with a 3-4 stop penalty vs. the 1DC. I will leave it to other forum members to decide if this is significant or not based on their intended use. I think if you are shooting under artificial lighting (e.g., nighttime, studio filming) or overcast conditions, it's not as much of a problem since you don't need more than 9 stops of DR for these conditions. Another way to think about it is if 3 stops of DR, Super 35mm mode, and improved color grading are worth the extra $2,000 while sacrificing DPAF and beautiful 4K60p.

According to Mitch Gross of Convergent Design, FS700 RAW will provide the same quality as FS5 RAW as the RAW sensor data is exactly the same on the FS cameras. The sensor is also the same Sony Super 35mm used on the FS7, F5, and F55. The main difference is that the F5/F55 can record in 16 bit RAW, while the F55 has the global shutter that has already been mentioned above. Personally, if I had to choose among the FS cameras, I would still go with the FS7 for its internal XAVC 10 bit 4:2:2 S-log3 as it provides more dynamic range than 12 bit linear RAW from the same sensor. Of course, if you have the money, the F5 is a masterpiece and the only camera you will ever need in the 4K era. But used prices are never much lower than brand new. When you think about it, at $16K it's only $1K per bit!

I feel like RED went in the wrong direction after the Epic 5K sensor, which had larger photosites than Dragon (5.4 vs. 5.0 µm). While I love the color you get from the Dragon, and have put in an order myself for the Raven (which I'm likely to switch to Scarlet-W, as it is the sweet spot for price/performance in RED's lineup), there is no comparison between Dragon and Alexa when it comes to ISO performance at 800: Of course, the Alexa can be noisy as well (e.g., Lubezki's Birdman had excessive noise in the shadows as much of the film was shot in near darkness), and its resolution is not ideal for 4K release, but its lowlight performance is far superior to the Dragon, which gets very noisy above ISO 1600. The 6K resolution does minimize this noise pattern better than the same Dragon sensor at 4K, but it's still very noticeable on a lot of 6K lowlight footage that I have seen.

This is precisely what I have been saying. RAW definitely has an advantage in post, but a camera's color science is far more important than the fact that it shoots in RAW. This why so many 8-bit Canon cameras look so good when it comes to skin tones or true-to-life color capture. It's also why RED cameras have such an advantage over BMD, despite the fact that they both give you 12 bit RAW.