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

[RichST]

[quote author=Policar link=topic=884.msg6464#msg6464 date=1340574525]

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....
[/quote]

I also think it's the latter, binning to a single 1920x1080 bayer grid would take less time to read off the sensor and could make use of the camera's debayering and processing chip(s)

[Policar]

[quote author=RichST link=topic=884.msg6468#msg6468 date=1340587876]
I also think it's the latter, binning to a single 1920x1080 bayer grid would take less time to read off the sensor and could make use of the camera's debayering and processing chip(s)
[/quote]

I know next to nothing about this, but I agree just based on how similar 5D Mark III footage looks to a JPEG still zoomed to 100%.

It's too bad; the camera is per-pixel sharp (kinda) when raw files are processed in DXO mark and optionally sharpened with deconvolution (when I use my ultra-sharp lenses!).  I remember all those sample 5D Mark III JPEGS were published and everyone thought they were terrible, and they were--but it had more to do with the camera's JPEG and sharpening engine than it did with the resolution difference between the D800 (whose sample photos were processed from RAW) and the 5D III.  There are so many reasons this camera should be better than it is, but I assume debayering is low-level code.  Oh well.  It's still not bad.

[gene_can_sing]

Regardless of whether the 1D-X is sharper than the 5D3, I'm saying "Seacrest Out" to Canon.  This debacle just further illustrates how insanely greedy Canon has become

1) T4i has moire / aliasing
2) Buy the 5D3 for no moire / aliasing, but still soft image.
3) Don't want soft image? Then shell out 2x more cash for the 1D-X. then you'll get real HD.

I'm sure Canon has engineered the 1D-X with some major fault which will they hope will spur people to then buy a 1D-C, which will lack something major which will spur people to buy the C-500. At that point, you are one broke Canon Fan boy.

As for me, I did the smart thing and pre-ordered my FS700. It's going to have a similar IQ to the C500 when they both have 12 bit 4K RAW recorders hooked up. The big difference is, the FS700 costs $8000 while the C500 is rumored to cost $30,000. A $22K price difference for similar IQ and RAW specs.

The most insane part of the C500 is that it's going to come in 2 versions -- EOS mount and PL mount. So if you want to use both types of lenses, you will have to buy two C500 which is going to cost $60,000. At that point, the $8000 FS700 with a universal mount that take both EOS and PL on 1 camera starts looking really good.

So for the Canon fan boys, keep on shelling out insane amounts of money for crippled, heavily tiered products with incremental improvements such as the 1D-X. For me, I am buying 1 FS700 that takes all of the features from 5 different Canon cameras (true HD, clean HDMI, 12 bit 4K RAW, HD 60fps and even higher frame rates, ND filters, continuous autofocus, no moire / aliasing, PL mount options, etc, etc...)  and combines them into 1 reasonable price of $8000 and into 1 camera.

Now that makes sense.

[TC]

Why don't they just go the whole way, and watermark the video output from every Canon DSLR with the words, "NOT FOR VIDEO USE. PLEASE PURCHASE THE C300. ONLY $16,000 BODY ONLY."

[HurtinMinorKey]

[quote author=gene_can_sing link=topic=884.msg6472#msg6472 date=1340602840]
As for me, I did the smart thing and pre-ordered my FS700. It's going to have a similar IQ to the C500 when they both have 12 bit 4K RAW recorders hooked up. The big difference is, the FS700 costs $8000 while the C500 is rumored to cost $30,000. A $22K price difference for similar IQ and RAW specs.
[/quote]

Sorry, but I haven't seen any FS700 footage that looks anywhere close to as good as the c300. You're paying $8000 do be able to do really cool slo-mo. In terms of IQ at regular fps, it's about $7000 more than you need to pay.  There is a reason the F3 is still more expensive.

[Andrew Reid]

[quote author=TC link=topic=884.msg6476#msg6476 date=1340614073]
Why don't they just go the whole way, and watermark the video output from every Canon DSLR with the words, "NOT FOR VIDEO USE. PLEASE PURCHASE THE C300. ONLY $16,000 BODY ONLY."
[/quote]

Haha!!

[sandro]

[quote author=gene_can_sing link=topic=884.msg6472#msg6472 date=1340602840]
Regardless of whether the 1D-X is sharper than the 5D3, I'm saying "Seacrest Out" to Canon.  This debacle just further illustrates how insanely greedy Canon has become

1) T4i has moire / aliasing
2) Buy the 5D3 for no moire / aliasing, but still soft image.
3) Don't want soft image? Then shell out 2x more cash for the 1D-X. then you'll get real HD.

I'm sure Canon has engineered the 1D-X with some major fault which will they hope will spur people to then buy a 1D-C, which will lack something major which will spur people to buy the C-500. At that point, you are one broke Canon Fan boy.

[/quote]


I'm sorry but I loved your post I couldn't stop laughing. SOO right ! :) Too bad there's really no real HD alternative for middle level products. Sony, Nikon... all doing the same.

[amband]

[quote author=Junius link=topic=884.msg6452#msg6452 date=1340552598]
[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.
[/quote]

Indeed they do market it as a vid maker, for amateurs, and they probably pay those pros a lot of money to promote " this film shot on whatever DSLR "  However we know, and Canon know, it's a stills camera with video, and audio, as an afterthought.  I suspect most of the advertising for these companies is pushed through forums & blogs.  You do most of it for them

[quote]CANON NEGLECTED THE VERY PEOPLE THAT GAVE THEM A FOOTHOLD IN THE FILMMAKING WORLD [/quote]

Canon don't care.  Those that make films like Indie film makers with DSLR are not  part of the market.  Their real market is the millions of amateurs who take stills, and have the convenience of a movie editing program on the PC

There is no profit in indie users

[TC]

[quote author=gene_can_sing link=topic=884.msg6472#msg6472 date=1340602840]
I'm sure Canon has engineered the 1D-X with some major fault which will they hope will spur people to then buy a 1D-C, which will lack something major which will spur people to buy the C-500. At that point, you are one broke Canon Fan boy.
[/quote]

Of course, it's Canon - they have carefully engineered omissions in *ALL THREE* models!  Not even $30k avoids Canon's deliberate crippling.

1D X: No headphone jack, low bitrate codecs, no clean HDMI out.

1D C: Marketed as a video camera (actually, cinema camera) with internal 4k recording, but no video specific firmware features such as focus peaking or zebra stripes.  No video specific hardware changes either, such as a swivel screen, despite the enormous price difference to the almost identical 1D X.  But it does have a headphone jack.

C500: Video specific firmware features and ergonomics, but no internal 4k recording.  Twice the price of the 1D C which has this feature. 

[amband]

[quote author=TC link=topic=884.msg6575#msg6575 date=1340791928]
[quote author=gene_can_sing link=topic=884.msg6472#msg6472 date=1340602840]
I'm sure Canon has engineered the 1D-X with some major fault which will they hope will spur people to then buy a 1D-C, which will lack something major which will spur people to buy the C-500. At that point, you are one broke Canon Fan boy.
[/quote]

Of course, it's Canon - they have carefully engineered omissions in *ALL THREE* models!  Not even $30k avoids Canon's deliberate crippling.

1D X: No headphone jack, low bitrate codecs, no clean HDMI out.

1D C: Marketed as a video camera (actually, cinema camera) with internal 4k recording, but no video specific firmware features such as focus peaking or zebra stripes.  No video specific hardware changes either, such as a swivel screen, despite the enormous price difference to the almost identical 1D X.  But it does have a headphone jack.

C500: Video specific firmware features and ergonomics, but no internal 4k recording.  Twice the price of the 1D C which has this feature.
[/quote]

for God's sake.  If you wish to make movies, don't buy a stills camera.

[amband]

[quote author=Junius link=topic=884.msg6452#msg6452 date=1340552598]
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!


[/quote]

I recognize a lot of gullibility and lack of knowledge of DSLR negatives promoted by the indie film makers to their [s]victims[/s] Arts college audience

[bigdaddy]

not exactly sure the point of this comparison with regard to sharpness, other than both shots are soft. first of all, the 24 - 105 is a great and versatile lens for run and gun video but noway a sharp lens. the videographer of this demo, should have selected, for example, a prime, say the 35 - which is an incredibly sharp lens… might be one of the sharpest they make.  however, on this comparison video, it NO WHERE resembles anything i've currently shot with this lens on my 5d mk III.

unless you are able to color, edit and playback in 2, 4k world, picking apart differences in sharpness with a 900 dollar lens is moot. broadcast TV is 1080.59.94 or worse, 720p. most of TV is cut and mastered in Avid and spit out to tape or QT at avid's dnx 145. therefore, 2k, 4k doesn't matter. so one's focus should be on what camera holds up best in avid at this compression - sharpness matters, YES, but it should not be at the top of the list when looking to buy a HDSLR camera.

i've been editing high-end broadcast TV for over 17 years. i can tell you from my perspective, that the mk II, mkIII holds up easily with RED, F3 and Alexa. of course, you can tell the differences, usually with regards to lenses - fifty grand piece of glass on that alexa makes a difference and most can pick that out. however, for me it's about color, noise in blacks and low light images. hands down the mkIII is a game changer with regards to that. it easily holds if not exceeds in the avid timeline with bigger, more expensive cameras. i have not seen sharpness being a factor. in fact, too much sharpness translates into looking a little too much like video - which is a sony thing.

[Andrew Reid]

[quote author=amband link=topic=884.msg6578#msg6578 date=1340793761]
[quote author=Junius link=topic=884.msg6452#msg6452 date=1340552598]
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!


[/quote]

I recognize a lot of gullibility and lack of knowledge of DSLR negatives promoted by the indie film makers to their [s]victims[/s] Arts college audience
[/quote]

You can't blame DSLRs. You can only blame people. Give certain people an Epic and they will produce shit. Hell knows I've seen a lot of that.

[amband]

[quote author=Andrew Reid link=topic=884.msg6602#msg6602 date=1340839728]
[quote author=amband link=topic=884.msg6578#msg6578 date=1340793761]
[quote author=Junius link=topic=884.msg6452#msg6452 date=1340552598]
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!


[/quote]

I recognize a lot of gullibility and lack of knowledge of DSLR negatives promoted by the indie film makers to their [s]victims[/s] Arts college audience
[/quote]

You can't blame DSLRs. You can only blame people. Give certain people an Epic and they will produce shit. Hell knows I've seen a lot of that.
[/quote]

quite right Andrew.  That's why I said they were a stills camera and not a competent vid camera

[Andrew Reid]

You're still mentioning the "competence of the camera" not the competence of the shooter though. I rest my case.

DSLRs are competent as video cameras. But it is clear to me Canon could be doing better than just competent, given that the large sensor and interchangeable lens mount blows a consumer camcorder into the weeds for a cinematic image.

[amband]

[quote author=Andrew Reid link=topic=884.msg6633#msg6633 date=1340900519]
You're still mentioning the "competence of the camera" not the competence of the shooter though. I rest my case.

DSLRs are competent as video cameras. But it is clear to me Canon could be doing better than just competent, given that the large sensor and interchangeable lens mount blows a consumer camcorder into the weeds for a cinematic image.
[/quote]

Andrew, how many times do I have to say it.  Canon will not do anything to improve the DSLR as they wish to sell their camcorders.  These are industrial, for profit business decisions

I own and love my 5D, but it has limitations by design.  I would no more shoot a movie on it than enter the Tour De France on a monocycle

DSLRs are not competent for vids as they have lousy audio compared to a camcorder, and other shortfalls.  The size of the Canon sensor, is, if anything, a pain in the backside, as their are times when it's a focus puller's nightmare.
There is such a thing as too much shallow DOF.  The average person does not require cinematic images