Canon 1DX-II vs. 1DC - Which one would you buy?

[Policar]

Why would the RAW recording have more dynamic range than the raster signal? That isn't the case with most high end cinema cameras. Is the C300 Mk II's pipeline broken in a way the Alexa and C500's isn't (both of them have equal DR in RAW and raster). I have only used the C500 and Alexa and would be upset to learn Canon screwed up their new camera.

Why does Cinema5D choose to willfully misinterpret the xyla chart? The C300 Mk II has visibly and substantially more DR, perhaps a stop, than the Sony and both have about what is advertised (14 and 15 stops, respectively), whereas the Alexa surpasses 15 stops, which is about right. This whole thing is just beyond me. It seems so simple but there are all these complications that I don't understand. All three read as having great DR.

Looking at more of their tests, they give the 5D Mark III better DR than the C300, which is very far off base, simply because the codec smudges the noise. The C300 has way more DR. Their measurements are completely inconsistent, but I suppose I just don't understand how they differentiate between "usable" and "actual."

I try not to worry about this stuff, but it still confuses me.

[Luke Mason]

43 minutes ago, Kino said:

You will notice that I made the distinction between visible and usable DR. The Xyla test reveals the entire "visible range," but Cinema5D's conclusions on DR are generally based on the "usable range," which can be reduced by 1-2 stops (especially with RAW). That's what I'm referring to as the recoverable DR that Cinema5D does not include in its DR ratings. You can see this on their Xyla tests as the difference between all the steps the camera records and the red line that marks what they accept as "usable" DR. They even lift the gamma to expose this expanded range that is accessible in post. On the C300 II, they counted only 12 steps (13 bars) of usable DR, whereas the visible DR range goes beyond that by several stops.

Also, the C300 II was tested in its internal 10 bit 4:2:2 codec, where it achieved 12.3 stops of DR on IMATEST. However, using 12 bit RAW one would assume a slightly greater DR and a more usable range. They did not test the camera using its 4K 12 bit RAW output. They claim to have tried it out on 2K 12 Bit RAW but do not post the results as, according to them, it was no different from the 10 bit file.

Ultimately, a Xyla test is just another test with variables that can affect the outcome, including the acceptable level of noise or clipping that one interprets when counting steps. Using IMATEST just guarantees that all camera results are treated equally and can be compared against one another. IMATEST is not some higher standard of DR "precision."  It still has to make a quantitative assessment of acceptable noise and clipping levels. Yet there is no universal or scientific standard for noise performance. What is acceptable to one person may not be to another.

The standard is Alexa, they advertised 14 stops and the test proved it. If you must say C300 has more than 12 stops, than Alexa can do 15 or even 16, but ARRI decided on 14 based on years of research and strict standards.

12bit RAW does not increase dynamic range, and it does not make any part of it "more usable". SNR is affected by sensor characteristics and compression, not quantisation.

[Policar]

2 hours ago, Luke Mason said:

The standard is Alexa, they advertised 14 stops and the test proved it. If you must say C300 has more than 12 stops, than Alexa can do 15 or even 16, but ARRI decided on 14 based on years of research and strict standards.

12bit RAW does not increase dynamic range, and it does not make any part of it "more usable". SNR is affected by sensor characteristics and compression, not quantisation.

The last part makes sense to me. I always thought that, though I'm no expert.

Fwiw, a friend just bought an Alexa Mini and his Arri rep confirmed that their latest sensors and firmware can capture 15+ stops, but Arri sticks to 14+ stops for its marketing so as not to confuse things. The original C300 has no more than 12 stops, but the C300 Mk II certainly does, as every proper demonstration as shown:

http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/02/18/alan-roberts-tests-the-canon-c300-mkii-finds-15-stops-of-dynamic-range-and-says-it-meets-ebu-tier-1-standard-for-hd-and-tier-2-for-4k/

https://joachimhedenworkblog.wordpress.com/2015/10/22/some-dynamic-range-tests/

The Alexa is still peerless, I'm not saying it isn't. Just that cinema5d is terrible.

[Kino]

3 hours ago, Luke Mason said:

3 hours ago, Luke Mason said:

The standard is Alexa, they advertised 14 stops and the test proved it. If you must say C300 has more than 12 stops, than Alexa can do 15 or even 16, but ARRI decided on 14 based on years of research and strict standards.

12bit RAW does not increase dynamic range, and it does not make any part of it "more usable". SNR is affected by sensor characteristics and compression, not quantisation.

The standard is Alexa, they advertised 14 stops and the test proved it. If you must say C300 has more than 12 stops, than Alexa can do 15 or even 16, but ARRI decided on 14 based on years of research and strict standards.

12bit RAW does not increase dynamic range, and it does not make any part of it "more usable". SNR is affected by sensor characteristics and compression, not quantisation.

You must have missed the part where I said that Canon's claim of 15 stops is "false" because it would put the C300 II above the Alexa. I thought I was pretty clear on that. Cinema5D's Xyla test clearly showed the Canon as behind the Alexa and on par with the FS7 at 12 stops "usable" based on their methodology.

I also never said that RAW "increases" dynamic range only that it allows for better recovery of the highlights and shadows in post depending on your camera. On the BMPC-4K, this is very much the case as RAW maximizes the available DR from the sensor when you compare CDNG and ProRes files in Resolve.

But it should be pointed out that RAW implementation simply does not behave the same on all cameras (e.g., Log vs. Linear) to make any generalizations about what it might do to the camera's potential DR as Sony FS7 owners were unfortunate enough to learn when they paid thousands of dollars to add a RAW "upgrade" that was really a downgrade in DR when compared to the camera's internal 10 bit 4:2:2 S-log3.

 

[Kino]

So getting back to the main topic of this thread, here is some great 4K 60fps slow motion from the 1DX II:

The performance of the 800 Mbps MJPEG is just astounding here in terms of the detail you can see in the image. It's a very high-quality slow motion with perfect motion cadence. I guess it better be at 100 MB/s!

 

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

I have no trust in Cinema5D tests whatsoever. One reaaon, the 5D MKIII H.264 is scoring higher dynamic range than the C300 C-Log. While in true life, the C300 has a solid two full stop advantage.

This destroys their entire methodology for me. 

The Chart they're using, the lighting, lens consistency and camera settings are absolutely superb, it doesn't get higher than this. Actually, Canon Semiconductors uses the same exact chart for measuring the dynamic range of their CMOS ships. 

The problem lies on the interpretation of the chart images represested. They're using a conputerized piece of software to determine what it considers where it start counting the stops based on how it likes the noise, this software leaded in the 5D error as the software decided the mush h.264 black floor is more usable than the C300 fine/apparent noise structure. 

It's not a conspiracy. It's not the methodology. Just the counting of the stops in the final test images. 

Canon used the same chart and qouted the 15 stops of DR based on the technical definition of dtnamic range, how much it can capture from 0db to clipping. 

On the C300II image of the chart viewed on a quality Waveform monitor, you count exactly 15 stops of range from the 0 point to 100 point. 

I don't think this is a good way of evaluating DR though, because there will be cases where a camera with 10 stops of full range to have the first 2 stops look horrid and unusable while a camera with absolute 9 stops only has 1 unusable stop, making the whole "full DR" qoute practically useless simply because cameraa have different looking images in shadow transition and highlight roll off and noise pattern. 

You want some real evaluation of these cameras? It's this: 

Canon C300II and FS7 both have identical range in terms of how much latitude you can keep. So does the F5/55/URSA 4.6K/Red Weapon. I have never measures it numerically but these have the same number for all practical purposes. Arri Alexa/Amira have more highlight range that can be pulled down. 

1DC, XC10, C100, BMPCC, D750, all have the same DR. Less than the previous list.

While the GH4, nx1, 5DII/III/D800 etc are all in the third group, hovering the 10 stops area. Which ia fine. 

 

You can find minute differences between each cameras DR within each group but trust me it's uaeless aside from shooting tests. 

How this is ON topic? 

I am afraid is that what I am seeing from the 1DX-II is in the third group of DR. And it makes since, it's the same contrast/saturation/colour science of the 5DII/1Dx but at gorgeous high resolution...

That's the only reason i am not pulling the plug on the 1dxii, waiting for side by side with 1Dc, trying to hope that it doesn't have the 5DII contrast range/reaolution due to the idebtical picture styles. Hope it's not. Reallly doomvvg

[TheRenaissanceMan]

I'm really hoping to see a used 1DC drop to ~$3000 now that the 1DX II is out...wishful thinking, I know, but it could fill literally every one of my stills/video needs--doc, event, narrative, studio, portraits, candids, etc-- depending how I kit it out at any given time.

[Kino]

3 hours ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

I'm really hoping to see a used 1DC drop to ~$3000 now that the 1DX II is out...wishful thinking, I know, but it could fill literally every one of my stills/video needs--doc, event, narrative, studio, portraits, candids, etc-- depending how I kit it out at any given time.

You, me, and everyone else! I check the 1DC price twice daily and it hasn't moved in months. I read that B&H had a flash sale at $6500 or $7000 at the end of 2015 but I haven't seen anything like that since. I don't expect that the retail price will move until we are closer to the 1DC II announcement.

[Kino]

Ebrahim,

We could be here all day talking about testing methodology for DR, but life is too short. As I mentioned, Cinema5D's methods are not perfect because even IMATEST has to make arbitrary decisions about what level of noise or clipping is acceptable when determining steps of DR. Even so, once that methodology is applied universally to all cameras that they test, it provides as good a picture as any of which cameras have a greater or lesser range. Perhaps the 5DIII/C300 example is an anomaly, but we don't have all the data in front of us to make that determination.

I just like the fact that their Xyla charts expose a lot of manufacturer (and fanboy) claims about certain cameras. Soon enough, BMD's claims about "15 stops" on the 4.6k will meet Cinema5D's Xyla-IMATEST combo. The results won't be pretty.

So I think it's great that Cinema5D causes controversy because that tells me they are doing their job correctly by offending a lot of people who should know better than to believe manufacturer fictions on DR.

As for the 1DX II, it's a camera to recommend more for function than cinematic image quality, which is not its forte. All the same, I think it would be a great documentary, corporate, travel, or event video camera, especially in shooting conditions that don't call for a lot of DR.

[Policar]

9 minutes ago, Kino said:

So I think it's great that Cinema5D causes controversy because that tells me they are doing their job correctly by offending a lot of people who should know better than to believe manufacturer fictions on DR.

No, it's not. It's no better than someone starting a controversy over the earth being flat or something equally dumb. They are repeating inaccurate information and presenting it as fact, that's why they're making people angry. Being "controversial" doesn't always make you right; in this case the controversy is over the fact that they won't stop using a really dumb methodology and offering inaccurate figures.

That said, if you read deeper and actually examine the charts for yourself, you can see that most manufacturer's specs are pretty much spot on, and Arri is performing above spec. So the charts themselves are useful.

No one's stopping you from thinking the earth is flat. Just don't expect others to respect you for it or be impressed by the controversy you've generated.

[Kino]

1 hour ago, Policar said:

No, it's not. It's no better than someone starting a controversy over the earth being flat or something equally dumb. They are repeating inaccurate information and presenting it as fact, that's why they're making people angry. Being "controversial" doesn't always make you right; in this case the controversy is over the fact that they won't stop using a really dumb methodology and offering inaccurate figures.

That said, if you read deeper and actually examine the charts for yourself, you can see that most manufacturer's specs are pretty much spot on, and Arri is performing above spec. So the charts themselves are useful.

No one's stopping you from thinking the earth is flat. Just don't expect others to respect you for it or be impressed by the controversy you've generated.

No one is stopping you from making completely false comparisons . . .

Misinterpreting or misrepresenting DR numbers from a Xyla chart is far from arguing that the "earth is flat." That's just nonsense! We are talking about a difference of a few stops between manufacturer claims and actual DR performance in terms of "usable" stops.

Besides, Cinema5D is independent of those manufacturers who routinely exaggerate their DR claims, which can be off by 2-3 stops as demonstrated by the C300 II and FS7 Xyla charts above. As for Arri, they generally don't advertise DR numbers for their cameras, even though the Alexa is shown as the best performer in Cinema5D's Xyla tests. I don't think there is any controversy in that at all.

[TheRenaissanceMan]

2 hours ago, Kino said:

You, me, and everyone else! I check the 1DC price twice daily and it hasn't moved in months. I read that B&H had a flash sale at $6500 or $7000 at the end of 2015 but I haven't seen anything like that since. I don't expect that the retail price will move until we are closer to the 1DC II announcement.

Well, I could care less about the retail price. It's the used market I'm interested in. 

[Policar]

33 minutes ago, Kino said:

No one is stopping you from making completely false comparisons . . .

Misinterpreting or misrepresenting DR numbers from a Xyla chart is far from arguing that the "earth is flat." That's just nonsense! We are talking about a difference of a few stops between manufacturer claims and actual DR performance in terms of "usable" stops.

Besides, Cinema5D is independent of those manufacturers who routinely exaggerate their DR claims, which can be off by 2-3 stops as demonstrated by the C300 II and FS7 Xyla charts above. As for Arri, they generally don't advertise DR numbers for their cameras, even though the Alexa is shown as the best performer in Cinema5D's Xyla tests. I don't think there is any controversy in that at all.

Are you willfully ignorant or actually just really dumb?

Those charts show 14+ stops nearly 15 for the FS7 and 15 for the C300 Mk II. 15+ for the Alexa, the same as their current market reps will claim (fwiw, their claim was always 14+ and 16 is still 14+). Sony claims 14. Canon 15. They aren't exaggerating anything and the charts you linked to prove it. Yes, Arri understates their DR claims, that's been known forever.

There's no controversy. The earth is still round. Cinema5d is still full of shit. You can't just make up a fake metric, define it arbitrarily, and measure manufacturers against that fake metric like it means anything. I mean you can, but it's a huge waste of time and no one should care about it. What's funny is both the FS7 and C300 Mk II charts show what the reps claim, and then Cinema5D just draws a line somewhere random and tries to start a controversy to generate hits (and it's working because people like you take their bullshit seriously). On what sane, intelligent basis do you think Canon or Sony are exaggerating?

[independent]

The 1DX II is a "better buy" if you're talking about financial investment. It's a top of the line stills camera too, it'll hold it's value better. When and if the 1DC II comes out, that's not going to help the 1DC as an investment. 

Anyways, the 1DX II It has a cutting-edge, unparalleled video autofocus. It's a FAR more functional camera. The 1DC is now a more specialized camera, and unless you need the form factor and weather sealing, the blackmagic ursa mini 4.6K is a better video camera anyways, for the price range. 1DC v 1DX II is kind of a contrived comparison...there are other options out there. But if you're going to limit this to a two-horse race, I think the 1DX II is a better buy, especially since the 1DC retails for $2K more (in the USA) YMMV - of course if you can get one that fell off the back of a truck, that changes things. 

And as mentioned before, dynamic range isn't everything. If your shots aren't in focus, or you're racking in and out of focus, or you need to spend time blocking and setting up focus marks, rigging up your 1DC with a follow focus, while framing, while moving, etc. I mean, it's not even close...the 1DX II is far better if you're a one-man band or a skeleton crew.

If you have a full crew, the 1DC would be better, but then again, you probably would be better off using a proper video camera.

As far as preferring image quality, the 1DC does seem to look more organic (softer) with better highlight roll off. Is it more cinematic? Depends. If it's an independent film, yes. But look at the blockbusters or mainstreams films. Very contrasty. Vivid colors. There are also many shots that I see in beautifully shot films and shows that have blown out highlights. Some intentional, some you know it was probably a limitation, a trade-off (expose for the talent). The cinematic look is broader than you think. 

Anyways, we're also talking out-of-the-box looks.  if you handle the image acquisition right, ETTR, adjust settings as aforementioned in the thread, give it a "filmic" grade, it seems you can get pretty close to the look you want. 

As yourself this: 

Can you tweak the 1DX II so it'll give you a look you'll be satisfied with? 
Can you tweak the 1DC so it'll get all your shots in focus?

 

 

 

[Kino]

2 hours ago, Policar said:

Are you willfully ignorant or actually just really dumb?

Those charts show 14+ stops nearly 15 for the FS7 and 15 for the C300 Mk II. 15+ for the Alexa, the same as their current market reps will claim (fwiw, their claim was always 14+ and 16 is still 14+). Sony claims 14. Canon 15. They aren't exaggerating anything and the charts you linked to prove it. Yes, Arri understates their DR claims, that's been known forever.

There's no controversy. The earth is still round. Cinema5d is still full of shit. You can't just make up a fake metric, define it arbitrarily, and measure manufacturers against that fake metric like it means anything. I mean you can, but it's a huge waste of time and no one should care about it. What's funny is both the FS7 and C300 Mk II charts show what the reps claim, and then Cinema5D just draws a line somewhere random and tries to start a controversy to generate hits (and it's working because people like you take their bullshit seriously). On what sane, intelligent basis do you think Canon or Sony are exaggerating?

Hurling insults isn't going to advance your argument, or make you seem particularly logical, composed, and mature. Are you here to debate people in a civil way or to insult them?

We've been through the charts a million times. As I noted before, Xyla tests are up for interpretation and are not scientific. Acceptable levels of noise vary depending on who is undertaking the testing. What Cinema5D is doing is applying IMATEST software to the results to come up with one standard however arbitrary it may be to you or me. Then that standard is applied universally to all cameras so that they can all be compared against one another in an objective way. Moreover, their results are mostly consistent with DR tests from other sources such as the Hurlbut tests I posted above on the 1DC. You are free to believe whatever Sony and Canon state, but that doesn't mean that manufacturer claims are credible or that they can demonstrated through independent tests such as those undertaken by Cinema5D. I for one appreciate independent tests undertaken by industry technicians who provide the evidence to back their results more than baseless claims from a camera company's marketing department.

[Kino]

2 hours ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

Well, I could care less about the retail price. It's the used market I'm interested in. 

A retail price drop will affect the used price as well. And, unlike most cinema cameras, the 1DC has no sensor remapping function built into the camera so just make sure there are no bad pixels on any used unit you are looking at. The only way to fix it at that point is to send it back to Canon, which might get costly without a warranty.

[Policar]

1 hour ago, Kino said:

Hurling insults isn't going to advance your argument, or make you seem particularly logical, composed, and mature. Are you here to debate people in a civil way or to insult them?

We've been through the charts a million times. As I noted before, Xyla tests are up for interpretation and are not scientific. Acceptable levels of noise vary depending on who is undertaking the testing. What Cinema5D is doing is applying IMATEST software to the results to come up with one standard however arbitrary it may be to you or me. Then that standard is applied universally to all cameras so that they can all be compared against one another in an objective way. Moreover, their results are mostly consistent with DR tests from other sources such as the Hurlbut tests I posted above on the 1DC. You are free to believe whatever Sony and Canon state, but that doesn't mean that manufacturer claims are credible or that they can demonstrated through independent tests such as those undertaken by Cinema5D. I for one appreciate independent tests undertaken by industry technicians who provide the evidence to back their results more than baseless claims from a camera company's marketing department.

Here's an "interpretation" of 2+2. It equals 5.

The fact is, you're feeding into idiotic information slavishly. You're either an idiot times two or a troll. Or so self-absorbed that you'd rather support the dumbest argument I've ever read on the internet (and I've read countless youtube comments) than admit you're wrong. 

I'm not hurling personal insults. I'm not saying you're dumb (though the only other conclusion is self-absorbed asshole). Just that what you're writing is either the stupidest thing I've ever read on here or a spot-on impression.

How the fuck is Cinema5D an "industry technician." They're a troll. ASC members, the BBC, etc., and ANY reputable source including Canon defending itself in detail supports their 15 stop claims. How are Canon and Sony's claims "baseless"? They're arrived at through careful tests... such as the tests at Cinema5D that fully support them until they're willfully misinterpreted by a site owner who's a troll. The charts they post COMPLETELY support manufacturer claims until they invent an entirely different metric that's just arbitrary. The images from the tests show 14-15 stops of DR. It's like... how can you deny that? You'd have to invent a whole other system unless you're willfully trolling... Maybe you need more than 14-15 stops and that's fine, but denying what's obviously true is another story than needing the best of the best.

I'm not hurling insults, I'm just saying there are two possibilities: you're either the dumbest person I've ever had the misfortune to communicate with and the most self-absorbed–or you're a parody of that person, a good impersonation of a complete idiot.

Personally, I don't care. I don't shoot video professionally anymore and the stuff I shoot for fun has pretty limited needs. Chivo needs every stop of DR he can get and for him the Alexa provides that and that's great. I didn't need that. If you do and you're a brilliant DP on his level, I respect that, but at that point you should be running your own tests. I have no issue with you and I suppose that since you care so much about this you must be someone whose technical needs are pretty extreme and you're probably a very brilliant shooter. That's fine.

But I see people being willfully moronic on the internet and it upsets my sense of justice. And your arguments are so fucking dumb. You are either the dumbest person I've ever encountered on any forum, or the most self-absorbed. Either way, it's fine, it's up to you, but please don't spread misinformation. If you're not being snide you're being self absorbed and if you're neither of those you're very stupid. Rise above that. The facts are the facts. Beyond that are trolls.

White supremacists shake things up. Flat earthers shake things up. Shaking things up is no victory on its own.

[Kino]

Cinema5D uses IMATEST software to determine the "usable" DR from Xyla results, but you don't need that to see what the usable DR is in those C300 II results. You can see it for yourself on those Xyla charts where several bars in the range are useless because they are clipped or have too much noise to be counted as "usable" stops. It's really easy to see and does not make one "the dumbest person." Canon's response to the Cinema5D's assessment of 12 stops was not in the form of a Xyla where you can see noise patterns and clipping effects, but a waveform that they claim demonstrates 15 stops:

Unfortunately for Canon, this waveform actually confirms that the C300II does not have 15 stops usable as the last 3 stops are completely useless. The problem here is that the last few "stops" you are looking at are differentiated by voltage differences that do not rise above the noise floor:

https://***URL not allowed***/canon-measured-15-stops-dynamic-range-c300-mark-ii/

Moreover, Canon lists the C300 II's signal-to-noise at 67dB, which translates into 11 stops! That's about as damning as you can get. RED Dragon by contrast is listed at 80dB (which equals 13 stops not 16.5 as RED claims). That's a vast difference.

[hmcindie]

38 minutes ago, Kino said:

RED Dragon by contrast is listed at 80dB (which equals 13 stops not 16.5 as RED claims). That's a vast difference.

RED Dragon though has a set ISO. C300 ii will increase analog gain so it will keep onto the DR better when you start going up in ISO.

Alan Roberts did claim that the C300 ii has 15 stops and also this:

His method is based on standardised testing of the signal-to-noise ratio within patches of a colour chart under tungsten light. Alan explained to me that you can’t measure noise by simply covering the lens and shooting black (something that people sometimes do in online tests). This is because much of the noise in modern camera sensors is something called shot noise – random fluctuations in the numbers of photons hitting the sensor at a given illumination level. His method of testing is based on varying the exposure of the tungsten lit colour chart by adjusting the aperture, internal ND filters and shutter speed if needed.

http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/02/18/alan-roberts-tests-the-canon-c300-mkii-finds-15-stops-of-dynamic-range-and-says-it-meets-ebu-tier-1-standard-for-hd-and-tier-2-for-4k/

[User]

Fade in: A group of hairy, shirtless men surround a camera and begin preening, posturing and flexing amongst themselves. The camera looks away.