Canon finally stretches video legs with EOS 1D X - resolution fixed and better compression chip

[amband]

[quote author=MattH link=topic=884.msg6428#msg6428 date=1340494035]
[quote author=amband link=topic=884.msg6427#msg6427 date=1340493638]
[size=12pt]why bother.  From what I can see the audio is no better.  People here don't seem to be that concerned with audio, which is unfortunate, as it's 50% of quality video[/size]
[/quote]

Spend the same price on dedicated recorders and microphones then.  An Imax camera doesn't record audio.
[/quote]

well, all this DSLR movie is about being on a budget and working to a budget.  Given all the aftermarket kit required, better off getting a cheap HD camcorder with better onboard audio, easier workflow

[MattH]

[quote author=amband link=topic=884.msg6430#msg6430 date=1340495348]
[quote author=MattH link=topic=884.msg6428#msg6428 date=1340494035]
[quote author=amband link=topic=884.msg6427#msg6427 date=1340493638]
[size=12pt]why bother.  From what I can see the audio is no better.  People here don't seem to be that concerned with audio, which is unfortunate, as it's 50% of quality video[/size]
[/quote]

Spend the same price on dedicated recorders and microphones then.  An Imax camera doesn't record audio.
[/quote]

well, all this DSLR movie is about being on a budget and working to a budget.  Given all the aftermarket kit required, better off getting a cheap HD camcorder with better onboard audio, easier workflow
[/quote]

Yeah definitely, if that type of videography is needed then a dedicated video camera is sometimes the better option.  But for narrative work I don't see an external recorder as a problem.  Its what the clapperboard was invented for. 

[amband]

[quote author=MattH link=topic=884.msg6431#msg6431 date=1340500650]
[quote author=amband link=topic=884.msg6430#msg6430 date=1340495348]
[quote author=MattH link=topic=884.msg6428#msg6428 date=1340494035]
[quote author=amband link=topic=884.msg6427#msg6427 date=1340493638]
[size=12pt]why bother.  From what I can see the audio is no better.  People here don't seem to be that concerned with audio, which is unfortunate, as it's 50% of quality video[/size]
[/quote]

Spend the same price on dedicated recorders and microphones then.  An Imax camera doesn't record audio.
[/quote]

well, all this DSLR movie is about being on a budget and working to a budget.  Given all the aftermarket kit required, better off getting a cheap HD camcorder with better onboard audio, easier workflow
[/quote]

Yeah definitely, if that type of videography is needed then a dedicated video camera is sometimes the better option.  But for narrative work I don't see an external recorder as a problem.  Its what the clapperboard was invented for.
[/quote]

sure, fair enough if that suits your purpose

[Germy1979]

[quote author=jcs link=topic=884.msg6423#msg6423 date=1340486867]
Examining the full clip in detail, the 1DX has more resolution, however its antialiasing is weaker. It appears to be antialiased more on the vertical axis than the horizontal axis, giving it a more digital look vs. film. Ideally, the image is high resolution and antialiased. The 5D3 image looks more like film, even though it is lower resolution.

Both images were noisy, and the ALL-I codec did not work very well for this shot (low motion): IPB would likely do better in this case with more detail and less block artifacts.

5D3 image sharpened at 33 + minor curve adjust, 1DX sharpened at 16, both Neat Video noise reduced.

After processing, during playback and full screen, hard to see much of a difference in quality.
[/quote]

You know i agree.  If the film look is Ultimately the goal with all these digital cameras, then if you watch movies shot on film, I don't think they are that sharp.  I was watching Copelandia today.  (5d3 short western narrative flick on Vimeo.).  I guess i just need to watch it on a 60" screen to see what the problem is.... because i thought it looked pretty damn good.  I think if it had been shot on Cinestyle it would've looked better.  I remember having to watch movies on tv with rabbit ear antennas.  Not one time do i remember thinking the movie looked less film-like because the picture was kind of blurry.  The DR was great high and low.  Nothing blown out or squashed.  24p 1/48th.  Anamorphic.  Motion blur. 

God i miss the 80's. 

[Germy1979]

[quote author=vincegortho link=topic=884.msg6404#msg6404 date=1340467970]
Im holding out for the magic lantern hack. Anyone think the bitrate increase feature may have give better results since now the 5dIII doesn't line skip?
[/quote]

If the Anti-Aliasing filter in front of the sensor is the issue, I don't know... I was wondering the same thing.  Andrew said it didn't seem to make a difference though.  Just a Pain in the @ss to clean the sensor.

[HurtinMinorKey]

[quote author=Simco123 link=topic=884.msg6407#msg6407 date=1340474606]
The 5DIII has higher bitrate and renders sharpness better in post than the 1Dx so all in all they are similar given both cameras uses similar codec.
[/quote]

According to the 1dx manual, it has the same data-rate. Seems like the same codec, written from a better sensor.

[Junius]

Still looks like shit. Canon is shit. I hope they suffer for their greed and lack of innovation. With the imminent release of the Blackmagic Camera, C300′s, and virtually every other EF mount “cinema” camera are about to lose a shitload of value. 13 stops of dynamic-range, 2.5K resolution, 10bit 4:2:2 ProRes/12bit RAW with a base ISO of 800 for $3000? The downfall of the greedy bastards has begun. When Blackmagic releases an APS-C version, hypothetically speaking, in 12 – 18 months for $6000, with better low-light ability and all of the current features of the Blackmagic camera, what is Canon going to do? Drop their C500 to $6000? HELL NO! Canon’s glory-days are behind them – if only they would snap out of their arrogance and realise it!

[amband]

[quote author=Junius link=topic=884.msg6445#msg6445 date=1340548611]
Still looks like shit. Canon is shit. I hope they suffer for their greed and lack of innovation. With the imminent release of the Blackmagic Camera, C300′s, and virtually every other EF mount “cinema” camera are about to lose a shitload of value. 13 stops of dynamic-range, 2.5K resolution, 10bit 4:2:2 ProRes/12bit RAW with a base ISO of 800 for $3000? The downfall of the greedy bastards has begun. When Blackmagic releases an APS-C version, hypothetically speaking, in 12 – 18 months for $6000, with better low-light ability and all of the current features of the Blackmagic camera, what is Canon going to do? Drop their C500 to $6000? HELL NO! Canon’s glory-days are behind them – if only they would snap out of their arrogance and realise it!
[/quote]

I got news for you.  Canon is a fine still camera.  It is not a motion camera, as Canon will tell you.  All this DSLR nonsense has been driven by indie ( read penniless without knowledge ) movie makers looking to do things on the cheap

The " lack of innovation " for DSLR is intentional, as they have never had any intention of threatening their own camcorder line.  Canon are running a profit making business, not a charity for movie directors, and if everyone recognized this simple fact ( not opinion ) in the first place we all would have saved ourselves problems

The blackmagic should do well, even if it is CMOS and not CCD, like the Bolex digital.  God knows how that will go?

[Andrew Reid]

[quote author=amband link=topic=884.msg6447#msg6447 date=1340549759]
[quote author=Junius link=topic=884.msg6445#msg6445 date=1340548611]
Still looks like shit. Canon is shit. I hope they suffer for their greed and lack of innovation. With the imminent release of the Blackmagic Camera, C300′s, and virtually every other EF mount “cinema” camera are about to lose a shitload of value. 13 stops of dynamic-range, 2.5K resolution, 10bit 4:2:2 ProRes/12bit RAW with a base ISO of 800 for $3000? The downfall of the greedy bastards has begun. When Blackmagic releases an APS-C version, hypothetically speaking, in 12 – 18 months for $6000, with better low-light ability and all of the current features of the Blackmagic camera, what is Canon going to do? Drop their C500 to $6000? HELL NO! Canon’s glory-days are behind them – if only they would snap out of their arrogance and realise it!
[/quote]

I got news for you.  Canon is a fine still camera.  It is not a motion camera, as Canon will tell you.  All this DSLR nonsense has been driven by indie ( read penniless without knowledge ) movie makers looking to do things on the cheap

The " lack of innovation " for DSLR is intentional, as they have never had any intention of threatening their own camcorder line.  Canon are running a profit making business, not a charity for movie directors, and if everyone recognized this simple fact ( not opinion ) in the first place we all would have saved ourselves problems

The blackmagic should do well, even if it is CMOS and not CCD, like the Bolex digital.  God knows how that will go?
[/quote]

Please do not bring this off topic by saying unrelated to 1D X rubbish, such as "DSLR filmmaking is driven by penniless filmmakers without knowledge".

We all know it is driven by penniless filmmakers WITH knowledge 8)

You would have said the same about Super 8 yet that had a market of millions in the 70's, and gave many a great filmmaker his or her break.

By the way, you're trolling.

[Andrew Reid]

[quote author=jcs link=topic=884.msg6423#msg6423 date=1340486867]
Examining the full clip in detail, the 1DX has more resolution, however its antialiasing is weaker. It appears to be antialiased more on the vertical axis than the horizontal axis, giving it a more digital look vs. film. Ideally, the image is high resolution and antialiased. The 5D3 image looks more like film, even though it is lower resolution.

Both images were noisy, and the ALL-I codec did not work very well for this shot (low motion): IPB would likely do better in this case with more detail and less block artifacts.

5D3 image sharpened at 33 + minor curve adjust, 1DX sharpened at 16, both Neat Video noise reduced.

After processing, during playback and full screen, hard to see much of a difference in quality.
[/quote]

Good spot, it certainly does seem like there's a change to the anti-aliasing filter(s). From what I understood about the 5D Mark III it has a two-part filter, one to blur the horizontal and one vertical.

However I'd say the gain here is due to reading more pixels, rather than anything in the optical path.

[Junius]

[quote author=amband link=topic=884.msg6447#msg6447 date=1340549759]I got news for you.  Canon is a fine still camera.  It is not a motion camera, as Canon will tell you.  All this DSLR nonsense has been driven by indie ( read penniless without knowledge ) movie makers looking to do things on the cheap

The " lack of innovation " for DSLR is intentional, as they have never had any intention of threatening their own camcorder line.  Canon are running a profit making business, not a charity for movie directors, and if everyone recognized this simple fact ( not opinion ) in the first place we all would have saved ourselves problems

The blackmagic should do well, even if it is CMOS and not CCD, like the Bolex digital.  God knows how that will go?
[/quote]

Well, you haven't been paying attention have you? - Canon markets their DSLRs as motion-cameras - they constantly do press-releases how their DSLRs have been used for films and TV shows time and time again. They pay Hollywood cinematographers, amongst other influential filmmaking bloggers, to endorse their DSLRs as movie-making cameras. And no, Canon's only "fine" cameras sit above $15,000. And listen here, mate - if it wasn't for the "penniless movie makers" you mock, Canon's DSLR sales would be languishing severely. 80% of all 5DMK2 sales last year were bought primarily for video use according to an in-house Canon survey (I'd share the link, but can't currently find it in my bookmarks).

The 5DMK3 will only compete with the D800 due to three things; cleaner ISO performance, it's lack of moire/aliasing (at the cost of shitty resolution), and legacy full-frame EF lens owners. In photography terms, recent tests have put the 5DMK3's dynamic-range at 11.7, with the D800's Sony sensor sits well above 14. Even in still-photography, the only thing the 5DMK3 has going for it is ISO performance. It gets demolished in terms of sharpness and detail, let alone dynamic-range.

If Canon was being run by innovative, intelligent people, they would have sold the C300 for $8000, with 1080 60P and 4K 12bit RAW out via 3G/HD-SDI - instead, they got greedy and charged $16,000 for a 1080P camera running an 8-bit codec! You wanna talk profits? Every single indie-filmmaker on Earth would have bought a C300 for $8000 if it had 1080 60P and 4K 12bit RAW out via 3G/HD-SDI - CANON NEGLECTED THE VERY PEOPLE THAT GAVE THEM A FOOTHOLD IN THE FILMMAKING WORLD - it was the indie filmmakers, who according to you are "without knowledge", that gave Canon street-credibility amongst filmmakers. That is the simple fact that you can't recognise!

I used to love Canon. Now I hope Blackmagic and Sony bury them in the ground where they belong.

[Andrew Reid]

I agree with that, Canon are running a business and a large part of that business is video under $15,000. That is what they're lacking, majorly, at the moment.

What about the small studios, small content producer, the kind I see a lot here in Berlin - the type of guy who walks into a shop with $10,000 and buys 3 or 4 5Ds for video? This is the kind of important customer Canon is letting down. The guy who needs and can afford 3 or 4 C300's is NOT a small studio, they're a niche, a rarity, a rental house maybe.

Since the convergence of pro stills and video happened, due to the web and the cheaper cost of doing pro video, a new demand for pro video at $3000 has opened up. Canon wouldn't neglect their pro photographers at $3000, I have no idea why they feel the need to neglect pro video at $3000. They think it doesn't exist. I have news for you, it does. Massive new market!

The stills guy who does video as well... Multimedia content, web designers, small to medium size business content producers, etc. etc. So many of them use DSLRs for video and have been left out in the cold by Canon focussing on a tiny but very high margin band of Hollywood twits.

And don't get me started on video enthusiasts. They've been majorly, majorly shafted. Not important? Well there's tens of thousands of us with nothing to buy, nothing compelling. Surely this is a neglected market if ever I saw one. Blackmagic must be happy.

Anyway, let's please try and get back to the 1D X as it is a different topic and very political!

[see ya]

Well apart from the usual f--k up with transcoding Canon MOV's, the other thing noticeable is the 5D MK III is more contrasty, the skin tone more saturated and 'softer' look especially to the hair, but hasn't it already been stated that the in camera sharpening has been reduced in the MK III assumed to make it better to grade, so is it any real surprise, really?

For those not wanting to sharpen in post, then just up the in camera sharpening?

The window detail to the right looks more detailed in the 1D X but because the 5D MK III is more contrasty far more of the window area is clipped, loosing detail so it's not a like for like comparison.

Pulling a selection on the 5D III vs the 1D X image and looking at the histogram shows levels are stretched in the 5D MK III compared to the 1D X so inconsistency there.

Very subjective, inconsistency between source files and with all these tests the original files are never provided.

[sandro]

I want more videos not only this!

[sandro]

Anyway this is ANOTHER proof Canon wants "video people" to pay A LOT MORE for a video res they could give on $600 cameras

[jcs]

[quote author=Andrew Reid link=topic=884.msg6451#msg6451 date=1340552541]
Good spot, it certainly does seem like there's a change to the anti-aliasing filter(s). From what I understood about the 5D Mark III it has a two-part filter, one to blur the horizontal and one vertical.

However I'd say the gain here is due to reading more pixels, rather than anything in the optical path.
[/quote]

It would be helpful if Canon released whitepapers for the 5D3 and 1DX, as with the C300, explaining how optical and image processing is performed. Anisotropic filtering for texture maps on an angled, 3D projected image is a useful feature, however it's not desired for screen-aligned 2D images. After a small amount of post-sharpening on the 1DX, much of the horizontal antialiasing is gone. Sharpening on the vertical axis only will preserve the horizontal antialiasing. Another option would be to perform a horizontal blur first, followed by a normal sharpen. Extra work in post...

A challenge which can be directly compared to other cameras: how does it do with the ISO 12233 chart compared to a downsampled still frame?

Since many "1080p" (1920 horizontal res) cameras aren't storing 960 horizontal lines (minimum required for true 1080p), it would be helpful if resolution charts results were collected in one place, along with commentary (as we do with audio gear: http://www.avisoft.com/recordertests.htm). Once the list is constructed, a leaderboard is established, and provided the page is popular and well-known, manufacturers will strive to be on the top of the list.

[lubricated]

Mk3 is a nice upgrade for photos while video is a bust, i agree with you on that.

[Policar]

Canon is selling tons of 5D Mark IIIs (even if most are primarily used for stills) and the C300 is apparently selling fine, too.  I'm not sure when this rude awakening is going to occur, if ever.  If you like the black magic camera (hard to know since no one has used it), get it.  Imo the internal battery makes it useless except as a test bed, but based on most of the replies here all anyone's shooting is resolution charts.  Granted, the 5D Mark III is quite soft (no worse than the 7D), but it's good enough as an A cam for HDTV and web and a B cam for theatrical; if that's not enough, the C300/F3/FS100/FS700 is a dirt cheap rental.

I don't think the 5D is intentionally crippled, at least in terms of IQ (its lack of focus peaking is infuriating, though).  The 5DIII seems to be binning before readout.  Either the pixels are binned at 4x4 to three channels of 1440X810 and added using a scheme similar to the C300 or they're binning to one 1920X1080 bayer grid that's then debayered.  My guess is the latter.  Either way you can expect about 75% of the linear resolution you want, while other cameras are oversampling quite a bit....  There's this artifact that looks like aliasing or stair stepping in high frequency saturated red areas and next to Alexa or Epic footage it just jumps out.  Canon has bad debayering and sharpening algorithms, which is what makes it look even worse.  The JPEGS out of camera look terrible at 100% and so do the 1DX's.  Canon would have to rewrite their debayer algorithm and sharpening algorithm entirely to get better video since the binning appears to be done in hardware.  And the read noise (also a hardware issue) is horrible on the 5DIII.  I don't think it's crippled; it's just not very good (it is, however, the best low light video camera available except that the noise is ugly).

Presumably the 1DX is skipping lines (worse for low light, but presumably the read noise and quantum efficiency make up for it), but oversampling.  So it's sharper but more aliased.  I doubt it will be a popular camera for video.  The video looks sharper but still not great and it suffers in more important areas (lack of headphone jack; ergonomics; etc.).  I don't think it was designed for video and, paradoxically, that's probably why it has sharper video.

I'm still waiting on a 7DC, but not holding my breath.

[Andrew Reid]

5D Mark III isn't selling as well as the chief rival, Nikon D800. Stills guys are mostly as underwhelmed by the incremental steps as we are. C300 is renting well. It doesn't however sell in great quantities, like a DSLR. It is a professional niche cam. The high value niche market is what Canon seem more intent on opening up, to the expense of a gaping giant hole called sub $15,000 video market - that includes pro, prosumer, consumer and enthusiast. Not a small group to piss on. The rental industry as a whole is on a downward trend BTW, exactly because of DSLRs and it is a trend that will only accelerate when the Blackmagic Cinema Camera comes out.

The internal battery of the BMCC certainly does not make it useless 'except as a test bed'. You connect an external battery, as you would on any serious camera rig be it a FS100, GH2, 5D or BMCC. Resolution charts - name the last time you saw one on EOSHD. I think I've blogged one in 12 months!!

However I do agree with you that the 5D Mark III is possibly just 'not very good' rather than crippled.

[Policar]

Is the 5D III selling that much worse?  From what I understand they're both selling very well.  The D800 does look particularly great for stills.

I'm just not sure Canon will lose that many customers.  And lens sales matter more for profitability than do body sales (presumably, most D800 buyers are upgrading from D700s, not 5D Mark IIs).  As for video, the non-standard lenses available for the GH2 and black magic camera and their non-standard workflows put them in high-end enthusiast owner/op territory exclusively (and you really need to buy special-purpose lenses around video, pretty exclusively, for either camera, which is a significant expense not mitigated by versatility).  And high-end enthusiasts isn't as big or lucrative a market as say rentals, wedding videographers, journalists who want to shoot video and take stills, more casual hobbyists, etc.  Most hobbyists (the biggest market by far) are interested in ease of use, which is the real advantage with Canon cameras, that and lens availability (just look at any rental shop's inventory); most professionals are interested in reliability and compatibility over image quality, and the Canons and Nikons excel there.  There are still huge markets for which "good enough" but easy is great.

The 5D III is a pretty boring jack-of-all trades camera, but for a professional shooter or hobbyist (both of whom want versatility) it does everything well enough and the Canons are exceptionally reliable.  It fixes aliasing and bad AF, the two most common complaints with its predecessor.  I don't think Canon will gain any market share this generation, but they won't lose much either.  Canon's biggest miscalculation was making the 5D III so incrementally better than its predecessor that most shooters (stills or video) won't upgrade, but Mark II owners still buy Canon glass….  If the C300 does fail, that might be more of a legitimate wake up call than the 5D III's middling success, but the progeny of that are years off, at least...

The D800 does look great though, doesn't it?