January 28, 2013

Philip Bloom Braves the Weather for His In-Depth Canon 1D C Review, Plus More Sample Footage

The first DSLR that can shoot 4K internally should be cause for celebration, as it's the first time a camera of this size has been able to reach that standard. The 1D C has received a mixed reaction, however, mostly because of its price, which is quite a bit above anything most people would call "affordable" for a DSLR, but also because of the fact that we have some evidence it's practically the same camera as the $5,000 cheaper Canon 1D X. Either way, Philip Bloom's video review has been quite eye-opening, and this camera makes a bit more sense in the market after seeing what it can do. Click through to check out that video as well as some more clips.

Be sure to go to Vimeo and download these to see them in better quality. Philip has also made sample footage available from his site:

Here is James Miller's sample footage, plus some words about his workflow:

Shot using the Canon 1DC in 4K, Canon Log.
Lenses used. Canon 24-105 IS f/4 & Canon 70-200 IS II f/2.8.

Our workflow was to transcode the rushes into ProRes HQ using MPEG Streamclip, bring them in Adobe Premiere CS6, edit and grade and render out at 1920 x 1080 using scale to keep edges. Wide bars added in Premiere for aesthetics only and ability to reframe at full frame size.

Before you turn off your brain about the exorbitant price for the camera ($12,000), just remember that no camera this size has been able to produce an image like this. That may not mean a lot for many people, but the fact that you can put a camera around your neck that can shoot footage as beautiful as what we're seeing above is pretty special.

What surprised me was how good the 1080p Super 35 crop mode looked. This is a similar crop to the APS-C cameras, which is around 1.6. If the only mode that looked half-decent was 4K, I would say the usefulness of the camera would be limited thanks to the enormous file sizes -- a 128GB card gives you 30 minutes of footage. That's about twice what you'd get with RED 4K RAW at 7:1/8:1 compression -- and that's for 16-bit RAW files, not heavily compressed Motion JPEG. Compact Flash cards will, of course, be much cheaper, and prices will go down much faster than REDMAGs, so there is cost savings in one part of the equation.

Full Size Still Pulled from 4K Canon C-Log - Courtesy of James Miller

Either way, when you don't want the huge file sizes, you can very easily shoot 1080p and get similar results. This is what we've been waiting for on DSLRs. Granted, the Panasonic GH2/GH3 can produce some nice results, as can the Nikon D800, but those cameras suffer when you're trying to push them in lower light situations. That's not the case here, even in the 4K mode. That's one of the other reasons this camera is special. If you're shooting something in all 4K and you need a small light-sensitive B-camera (or even A-camera), this guy is a no-brainer as a rental. That's why the sticker price isn't all it's cracked up to be. Yes it's expensive, way more expensive than any other DSLR and probably under-featured given its price compared to the other cameras, but you don't have to buy every camera out there, and frankly, unless you've got a ton of money to throw away or you could really use dual stills/video, you probably won't be considering buying it anyway.

For what many people do, the C300/C100 will produce equal or better image quality, as will the new Sony F5. These are all better options when you need something that has built-in ND filters and XLR, and will probably make your life easier while shooting. The 1D C is going to suffer from DSLR syndrome when it comes to handling, but most of those problems are fixed by relatively cheap rigs anyway, and if you're spending $12K, that's not even a consideration.

Here is some more video, this time from , shot in S35 ALL-I mode:

So what do we have here with this camera that really makes it special? It's tiny, and shoots cinema-quality 4K and 1080p with a Super 35 crop (a first for DSLRs that don't have a decent amount of moire/aliasing). It's the only Canon camera with 50/60p below the C500, and it shoots on readily available and durable CF cards. The camera looks like it can just soak up light, very similar to the 1D X, except the results are much, much sharper. It's a specialty camera in my mind, not something that will work for all shooting situations, especially since it lacks zebras, audio, and peaking, and the maximum you're getting internally is 8-bit -- though I would say since it's quiet and the cards are cheaper, it's going to be more useful in a documentary situation than something like the SCARLET. Let's not forget another important factor -- ease of use. The thing will just work -- as long as you've got the right CF cards -- and it's going to be as simple to use as any other DSLR.

But...it's $12,000. That's probably why most of you won't (or shouldn't) buy the camera, and part of that cost is attributable to the fact that it has no record time limit, and thus it is considered a video camera and is subject to heavier EU taxes (which is one of the reasons DSLRs never recorded more than 30 minutes internally). NAB 2014, or a little more than a year from now, will probably see another camera like this. Canon may be slow on lots of specs, but no one else has a 4K DSLR. It's tough to say how the Super 35 mode compares to other cinema cameras without comparing them, but I would venture to say it's right up there from the samples I've seen. Nothing else quite competes with exactly what this little guy can do, but there are other cameras that have many more functions to make your life easier while shooting, and that's why I say it's more of a specialty cam.

One thing is for sure, I want one -- but buying this camera doesn't quite make much sense at the moment when the technology will improve in the rest of the Canon line, and we may get a cheaper version of this camera at some point down the road that does most of what this guy can do (a Cinema EOS Mark III maybe?). This will also probably go for under $10K once it becomes available on the used market, so early adopters will be the ones paying for the R&D. It would have been really interesting if they could have released it for the same price as the 1D X and removed all the photography features, but, alas, it's $12K, and if you want to buy it, that's going to be your price.

Be sure to head on over to Philip's site to download sample footage.

What do you guys think? If you can (or could) afford it, is this something that you could fit into your workflow? Are you surprised by the quality of the Super 35 crop mode?

Link: Super in depth Video review of the Canon 1DC in which I froze my n*** off to make! -- Philip Bloom

Your Comment

75 Comments

Honestly I think it comes down to what Bloom mentioned near the end... If the 1DC was a standalone it'd be good value. But the fact that Canon can sell the 1DX, then basically make a firmware update to hack up the price is stupid.

It just shows how Canon doesn't really want to pay too much attention to their audience. That being said, weather proofed 4K in a DSLR body, plus incredible low light performance and a S35 crop mode. This is Canon's best camera for filmmakers so far. That's including DSLR's, their Cinema line, etc...

-- Ron Parida, Los Angeles based Automotive Commercial Director and Photographer

January 28, 2013

0
Reply

That thing produces one hell of an image, and I'm sure that it will get plenty of use as B or C cams on high level productions due to the size to image quality ratio.

And while I sure as hell can't afford one, I think that this camera bodes well for the future of budget filmmaking.

January 28, 2013

0
Reply
Robert

I agree, and in a matter of a few years we're going to be extremely spoiled with camera options under $10K - and even under $5K - compared to what we had just 3 or 4 years ago.

January 28, 2013

0
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Editor-at-Large
Shooter/Writer/Director

Not that we aren't already getting spoiled over the past 2-3 years! Lol. But you are right Joe, even more spoiled now hehe.

Which makes reaching for the wallet every 4-6 months more and more tempting... good thing I'm broke because by the time I can afford a camera I want we may well have a dslr shooting 240fps RAW 12 bit to a piece of lint.

I kid I kid, but seriously, great times ahead!

January 29, 2013

0
Reply

He did a fantastic job.

This isn't an easy review and he was right in mentioning frequently that the "4k" Canon claim really isn't 4k....it is waxy, mushy, and has poor color. That being said he was also correct to state that it does resolve more detail vs the 1DX but not $5,000 more.

Canon can be praised for being the first and having 4k on a CF card - but after trying the camera myself and seeing that the end result struggles to keep up its asking price it really only works if someone NEEDS stills as well and doesn't want to carry 2 devices. Otherwise there are other Sony/Nikon combos that provide a superior picture and value.

Canon was close - but with more and more devices showing better color screens (Panasonic at CES, Apple Retina, etc) Canon was wrong to 8 bit everything.

Shame. So close.

January 28, 2013

0
Reply
jordan carr

The one thing they can't get right is the price to value ratio. Of course their cameras are good. But the prices make me turn to other companies. The footage does look amazing though, but I wouldn't spend 12,000 for it.

January 28, 2013

0
Reply
Gareth

http://vimeo.com/58252561

hmm. Doesn't look amazing to me. Download that 1.5 gig clip. To each their own. But again Canon 8 bit skin tone looks so cheezy to me.

January 28, 2013

0
Reply
jordan carr

"buying this camera doesn’t quite make much sense at the moment when the technology will improve in the rest of the Canon line..." is like saying "buying an iPad doesn't quite make much sense at the moment when a new one is going to be released next year..."

Of course it's going to improve. If your waiting for a time when it WON'T improve, you'll never stop waiting.

January 28, 2013

-2
Reply
TehRandax

Right, but I'm assuming if you're reading this website you own some camera already, and it's not like you can't already utilize said camera and get pretty good results. I'm talking about waiting on a specialized camera like this for the price. This is a first-gen product, and you're paying the price. This technology will come down in price, but in the meantime, I think there are plenty of other cameras out there that have a much better price/performance ratio.

Also, there is a strategic way to spend money on consumer items. When Apple did their Retina iPhone, it was clear they would do a Retina iPad, so if you waited, the Retina iPad is a much better looking product.

January 28, 2013

0
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Editor-at-Large
Shooter/Writer/Director

Very true, but it's 12,000 dollars.

January 28, 2013

-1
Reply
Aaron Grimes

Whatever happened to his gh3 review seems like its reception has run a bit stale. Not even a nofilmschool review, and please don't reply with oh there are plenty of reviews out there already. Just wanted to see what was nofilmschools and philip blooms take on the camera.

January 28, 2013

-2
Reply
alguti

The problem with the GH3 is that nobody will care unless it is hacked. Recent Driftwood hacks vault the GH2 beyond the GH3 so there is little point unless you want 60p.

Once the GH3 is hacked and its slightly better sensor gets leveraged, its game on.

January 28, 2013

-1
Reply
jordan carr

A hack really won't make the GH3 much better than it already is, there is a point of diminishing returns after 50mbps or so, which the GH3 already has. It's clear the GH2 resolves a little more detail than the GH3, and no hack will be able to fix that.

January 28, 2013

0
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Editor-at-Large
Shooter/Writer/Director

not true - the recent Driftwood hacks are playing with looks that are different from a simple bit rate improvement.

January 28, 2013

1
Reply
jordan carr

We don't review cameras very often because we haven't really had enough personnel to do so. Philip said he is combining his review with a comparison to a number of other cameras - so he's working on it.

January 28, 2013

2
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Editor-at-Large
Shooter/Writer/Director

My Gh3/ 6D/ C100 comparison is coming. It's just it was shot then a really shitty thing happened to me which you can read about in my first of Jan post. So basically I wasn't able to finish it and as it was all filmed on location in Australia I am figuring out a way to make it work. I will....I am going to film some new links and I will have it up in around 2 weeks. So am sorry it's not done yet but it's top of my list of things to do.

January 28, 2013

0
Reply

Thank you Philip, looking forward to GH3 review ;-)

January 29, 2013

0
Reply
PeterK

I'm impressed with Mr Bloom. He doesn't owe any explanation to anyone, but he still takes the time to answer! And in blogs other than his! Damn you're cool! XD

January 29, 2013

0
Reply
VictorQC

It boils down to $12,000 (body only) for 8bit.

I dont care how much resolution it pumps out, it's massively flawed at only 8-bit, at that price.

January 28, 2013

1
Reply
Ellery Ryan jnr

Good review but at the end of the day , this is a specialty camera, one that produces not the most amazing 4k big screen image, but one that produces an image that resolves to the point where you could walk up to the screen and not see a pixel. As of today there the c300,c100, nor is any other dslr or camera c 2kapable of that.

Sure dynamic range counts alot and having 444 color space like one from f3 is amazing but at the end of the day unless it is higher than 2k most likely if you it will not resolve as well as this camera does on a big projection and thats the point with this camera, A small stills/4k compressed (big screen capable with no pixels showing to human eye close up) that can run long on cheap batteries , lowlight capable and lightweight, a camera that does not have a loud turbine fan to cool it down.

Not a scarlet, alexa, or black magic camera but it is what it is.

January 28, 2013

0
Reply
NoWhiteInMyCup

This is a major flop. The 1dc looks so videoish and who cares if it is 4k. It's just a marketing trick.
Majority of Hollywood productions finish on 2K.
Canon does not know, or does not want to make good cameras for competitive prices. This would sell really good for 5K, not more.

January 28, 2013

0
Reply
mike

Yep, the 1DC is a marketing trick of frustrating proportions. Praising it too much would encourage Canon to continue its overpricing policy. Wake up folks! 8bit! I mean, c'mon!

January 29, 2013

-1
Reply
paul

Off topic: any news about BMCC shipping?
Bmcc + speed booster = 5Dc, who (theoretically)?

January 28, 2013

0
Reply
vinceGortho

Hey, no zebras.. but still a great CINE camera
Oh and no waveforms, but still a tremendous CINE camera
Oh and you need to sell one kidney to buy it the other kidney to buy the storage if you want to be shooting for a journey without offloading ... but still a great CINE camera
c'mon!
If this camera wasnt Canon all the people, phillip bloom included, would be destroying it in the reviews.
Oh... did i mention it has only 8 bit compression... but still,,,,

January 28, 2013

1
Reply
Martin

don't for get 11 stops or less dynamic range

January 28, 2013

2
Reply
jordan carr

or the massive Jello Wobble making hand holding useless

http://tiny.cc/drgnrw

Darn!

January 28, 2013

0
Reply
jordan carr

Martin, I COULD NOT HAVE SAID IT BETTER!

I'm calling bulls**t on this review - I really like Philip Bloom, but this review was full of contradictions and a constant biting of the tongue. It's true, if this camera wasn't branded "Canon", especially if it wasn't branded "Canon Cinema EOS", Philip would be ripping it to bits. The Blackmagic camera absolutely destroys the 1DC in dynamic-range, grain structure, and I'm sure if you were to compare the BMCC to the 1DC at ISO800, the BMCC will trump it in blacks and dynamic-range even more. And what's more, I bet if you up-res'd the BMCC's 2.5K to 4K, it'd probably be sharper than the 1DC at 4K.

8bit, but "it's still a great camera".

Jello-city, but "it's still a great camera".

Up-res'd 4K, but "it's still a great camera".

And this "great camera" for $12,000?? Give me a break, Phil!

And MJPEG? Really? Can somebody tell Canon that it's friggin' 2013! MJPEG @ 3MB p/s...Jannard must be rolling on the floor laughing his ass off. Friggin' ridiculous!

January 28, 2013

1
Reply
Voltaire

Voltaire,

My heart sunk when I read your comment. The community here is so great and I thought this sort of BS was done on Nofilmschool, people like you had finally had finally had the surgery to remove the bug rammed so deep up your arse that it was making you act and say things that make no sense and are just designed to aggravate.

Voltaire, I am assuming that bug is still residing someone up there, because if wasn't then you then would actually realised what I do has no hidden agenda. Has no bias and is done to help people. No more, no less. Now, if you a problem with me then speak to me directly. You know like a person? Not hiding behind anonymity! I am easily contactable via twitter, facebook and email. But it's easier to hide behind anonymity I guess. That is the worst thing about the internet.

I have had this solid for the past 5 years of my blog. I review a Sony...I am biased. I review the Blackmagic...I am biased. I review a Canon...I am biased. I review a Panasonic...I am biased. I review a vacuum cleaner...I am biased. When does it end? People like you simply want to cause trouble. By definition, a troll. Pure and simple. What benefit is there of being a troll? Does the community need people like you who cannot contribute properly to a thread?

I get a lot of this crap and the toilet gradually fills up then when it gets to the top and all the nastiness can no longer be contained with the toilet. The flusher is broken and I am not going to get my plunger out then I speak out AGAIN. So I am fallible. One day I may never let people like you bother me. But I am a passionate man about everything i do in life and of course I am human after all.

I stand by my review 100%. You are talking absolute nonsense and your comments offend me deeply. How about showing me just a teeny bit of respect rather than being rude, obnoxious and offensive?

When was the last time you spent 4 days making a video to explain to people the pros/ cons of a camera and what it represents and the hopes in what it can bring to others?

My Blackmagic review took 9 days to make. 9 damn days! I got a lot of thanks but a lot of grief to. None of these are paid and these are all days I simply cannot work and this is the real world. I need to earn money to live....

So I ask the question would you rather nobody reviews anything so we can all live in ignorance and buy cameras knowing sod all about the good and the bad? Informed decisions SAVE US MONEY and the more people who share their hands on experience of things helps us all.

Honestly, I still can't believe this bollox is still said popping up on nofilmschool. I simply set out to educate people about this camera, the good and the bad. A camera that confuses me as you may have noticed in the review. I saw frequently that this is a camera of many contradictions and that is what makes it clearly not for everyone. I make that clear. I made this video for the community FOR FREE. Zero financial gain. You imply I have a hidden agenda and bias. So offensive.

I have been libelled so many times on forums in the past, you imply certain things which come close. I am independent for a reason. That reason being you simply cannot have a website like mine if you have sold your soul to a camera company.

Now, can I ask, did you actually bother to read the ethics statement at the beginning of the video? It couldn't have made things any clearer yet you seem to have ignored all of it.

Do you want to know why I don't review as many cameras as I would like to? Partly the time, party the shit I get from people. Life is too short my friend. All I am trying to do is help and "pay it forward".

For the most part people are amazing and I thank them. Then there are people like you Voltaire who are just plain bitter. Get out of your mother's basement. Get some fresh air and make human contact with someone once in a while and realise that just because it's on the internet doesn't mean you can say what you want.

Thanks

Philip

January 28, 2013

0
Reply

Philip, I'm truly sorry if I offended you, and now that I read back what I wrote, I feel that I was very crass with my tone and choice of words. I do appreciate what you do, and I am well aware of your ethics and that you do it for free. I don't think you're bias, I don't think your ethics have been jeopardised, and truth be told, just from watching your videos, I can tell you're a very honest and cool person. However, I can't help but feel that your 1DC review lacked the sense of objectivity that all your other reviews seem to have. Again, sorry if I offended you. I guess we don't see eye to eye at all on this camera.

January 28, 2013

1
Reply
Voltaire

Also, a note to the admins, please feel free to delete my comments if you believe them to be crass, unhelpful, and more importantly, offensive. Sorry if I offended anyone.

January 28, 2013

-1
Reply
Voltaire

Phillip! I ve seen your work and your collaborations of reviews and sharing your experience... much appreciated and thanks...I learned most of my skills online, from people like you, like andrew kramer, richard crook, among others...whether just uploading a video with cool vfx, or actually teaching us something...you guys help the community and the independent film/video makers and that's the bottom line at the end of the day...you guys help and it's all for the love of film...

thanks!
keep it up!

Alain Maiki

January 29, 2013

0
Reply
Alain Maiki

You go Philip!! Have to say even though I'm not too interested in this camera at least as a purchase (maybe a rental), I appreciate this review the most simply because of the awful weather you had to endure to bring us the info. Cheers

January 29, 2013

-1
Reply

Hey Philip, don't let these idiots bother you. You don't have to justify yourself.
If people are too lazy to read the disclaimer on your site, that's their problem.
Replying to their nonsense is a waste of time.

January 29, 2013

0
Reply

You get offended too easily Philip.
And then your reaction is way worse than the "offense" you got.
In 2013 4k 8bit is a rip off. End of story.
I repeat it: in 2013 4k 8bit is a rip off.

January 29, 2013

0
Reply
Paul

Voltaire has been trolling on all Canon related articles, don't sweat it.

January 29, 2013

1
Reply
Michael

Phillip, you shouldn´t spend any more time of your live with these haters, instead you could be having fun with your family... or making more reviews for the other 99% of the world´s filmaking community that values them as the great knowledge resource they are.

Thanks for your hard work... Hope you come to Cuba some time ;)

January 29, 2013

0
Reply
Ee

Guys, have a look
http://vimeo.com/58445400
The black magic cinema cameras in all its glorious 12bit
8bit is so 2012 we should stop reviewing 8bit camera in 2013.

January 29, 2013

1
Reply
valerie

if 8-bit camera reviews bother you that much, simply stop reading them and responding to them.

January 29, 2013

3
Reply

After the Brighton rain Phillip Bloom continues braving the weather at nofilmschool!

January 29, 2013

1
Reply
Martin

P.S. Feel free to compare the two cameras you mention. The community would be very grateful as would I. Thanks.

January 28, 2013

-1
Reply

Yeah, takes alot to put your stuff out there and have things said about you, Philip you're a damn good guy who puts time and determination to your work. I salute you.

January 29, 2013

1
Reply
Xiong

Lol...I agree...Guys, if you need 4k, get a scarlet. Otherwise get a BMCC.

January 29, 2013

1
Reply
paul

I've read somewhere that there's a special way to transcode the 4k 8bit footage to, say, 2k 10 bit, because of the extra resolution. Is there any truth to this?

January 28, 2013

0
Reply

none - 8 bit in 8 bit out. Any transcoding will only create an algorithm to "try" to add bit depth....but it isn't the same. I wish it was, I like a lot about the 1DC - except its final image quality.

January 28, 2013

-1
Reply
jordan carr

it doesn't change the bit depth but it damn well makes it easier to edit. I transcode to 2k ProRes 422 and 4k ProRess 422. The 2k is exactly half the rez of the 4k. If I need a 4k version then I reconnect. If I simply need a rescaled image I grab the 4k version and dump it on the 2K timeline. The 4k looks great. As does the scaled down 2K and you can crop to around 2x times just about if needed. Not as good as cropping on a red but it's certainly very acceptable with a touch of sharpness added.

January 28, 2013

0
Reply

Each pixel in 4k mode has 8 bits per colour channel. That is 256 shades per colour channel. But 4 pixels from your 4k image will be sampled down to each HD pixel. So you actually have 4x256 = 1024 possible shades for each down-sampled HD pixel. 1024 is 2 to the power of 10. I.e. 10 bit.

January 29, 2013

4
Reply
TiCa

You can't say that 4k 8bit -> 2k 10bit, but downrezing image certainly improves its quality in many aspects. Grain gets finer, encoding artifacts and banding are masked to a certain extent, image detail gets finer and sharpens much better, maybe even some color detail is improved.. But it's hard to put into numbers. And certainly 4:2:0 footage doesn't become 4:4:4.

Actually Philips's co-reviewer James Miller says: "The Canon 1DC does produce very nice 4k files when set up correctly, but for most of my needs and one of the reasons I am considering buying the camera is the ability for it to produce a clean and sharp 2k file from the 4k masters."

So I imagaine that even if 1Dc 4K is not as good as RED 4k, 1Dc 4K->2K is probably better than most other 2K cameras. It would be nice to see some comparisons. But maybe Philip will leave that to other reviewers ;-)

January 29, 2013

-1
Reply
PeterK

@PeterK No, you can say downscaling 8-bit 4k gives you 10 bit HD! And it is not hard to put in numbers, in fact it is as simple as multiplying by 4, as I just explained. Actually, it I essential to go to 10 bit if you want to preserve all the luminance information of the original 4k file. I'm not trying to be annoying, because this thread is already getting nast, but please read my post again and think about carefully. Perhaps someone else can explain it better than me?

January 29, 2013

0
Reply
TiCa

Let me try and explain again. 4 pixels from the 4k image are combined to make one HD pixel. Let's consider one channel, say the green channel. What is the darkest value of green we can have? All four 4k pixels have G=0. Let's add them up and assign that green value to our HD pixel. G_hd = 0+0+0+0 = 0 for our HD pixel. What is the next darkest value of green? One of the 4k pixels has G=1, the other three have G=0. Let's add them up and assign that value to our HD pixel, which will have G_hd = 0+0+0+1 = 1. And the next darkest? Two of the 4k pixels has G=1, two have G=0. Adding them up to form our HD pixel, G_hd = 0+0+1+1 = 2. We can continue like this all the way up to the brightest value. Our 4k file is 8-bit so the brightest value is G=255. Our HD pixel will therefore have have G_hd = 255+255+255+255 = 1020. I hope it is clear that you have 1021 different possible values of G_hd. To preserve that you need 10 bit colour depth, which can store up to 2-to-the-power-10 = 1024 different shades in each colour channel.

If you reduce the number of pixels by 4 (2-to-the-power-of-2), you should increase the bit depth by 2 to preserve all the luminance information.

January 29, 2013

1
Reply
TiCa

I posted my post after you did yours and only saw it then. And by the way thank you for making me use my brain :-D

I think your math is good. You basically say that 4 pixels each of 256 shades of color downsample to 1 pixel of 1024 shades of color (1 RGB channel). However I am not sure that it is how downsampling works.. Something doesn't fell right.. I think that some of the information must be lost in the process. Or maybe you are right.

But there is 4:2:2 chroma subsampling missing from this math. I think that would also influence the downsampling process. If you imagine 2 channel image, then the luminance channel contains 2x as much information as the chroma channel (in 4:2:2 as is my understanding). So the chroma channel is "missing" some information compared to luminance channel. And this "missing" information would influence the downsampling so you would not get "perfect" 10 bits of information (per RGB channel).

I don't know if this is clear, it's making my own head spin :-D What do you think? Anyone else?

January 29, 2013

0
Reply
PeterK

@PeterK Glad I have got you thinking :-) You are right - if your 4k source has 422 chroma subsampling you obviously have less information to begin with. I guess the general point I wanted to make is as follows. You have a trade-off between frequency information and amplitude information. In the case of video that is resolution (spatial frequency) and bit depth (amplitude). You can increase you amplitude information at the expense of frequency information.

January 29, 2013

0
Reply
TiCa

Just thought of a nice example. Colour magazine. You have an image with a bit depth of one: each channel of cyan, magenta, yellow or black is either on the page or it isn't. But the resolution is very high and if you "down sample", which in this case means hold the magazine at arm's length, you get plenty of shades of grey.

January 29, 2013

0
Reply
TiCa

Good examples both (frequency/amplitude and magazine). However it took me ages back in my design days to grasp the concept of print rasters (did not study at school or do any serious DTP). For all-digital guys it might be better to use an example of 1bit black/white image. If you start really large and then make it really small in greyscale mode (Photoshop), shades of grey appear. Magic ;-)

January 29, 2013

0
Reply
PeterK

Drool worthy and ground breaking camera! Early adopters will have to pay the hefty price tag. Interesting that the higher frame rates have lower quality images, and there is no focus assist/peaking etc on a "cinema" branded camera. My iMac will probably have trouble dealing with big 4K files but the high quality Super 35 looks great but perhaps the 5DIII with HDMI to an external recording will be just as good???. The stealth aspect and ruggedness is attractive, and if the price comes down I might buy it knowing a cheaper better camera release within a couple years is inevitable. Might be worth waiting to see what developments the NAB show will offer.

January 28, 2013

0
Reply
Rob

I like it. (Still overpriced) Looks like once again canon will start a revolution. They started one a few years with fimmakers, this time I see them starting one with the manufacturers. It goes to show how far (and fast) 4k is maturing. CF cards! Ha..Just a matter of time before all the players will have something comparable to compete. It's hard to bash this camera for so many reasons. It's certainly a great tool, terrific rental and a welcomed first step to get other manufactures building cams to compete. I'm sure the 1dc will be work horse in the industry. Great review Phillip!

January 28, 2013

0
Reply
Anthony Marino

thanks Anthony. a lot of hard work (and still working on it) and now it seems I have to make some changes to stuff as potentially some things are coming to the camera very soon. Total mirror of the Blackmagic camera review. 9 days making it. Put it up, 12 hours later they announced an M43 that I said in the review that they should have made instead of the EF.

So if you have a camera that you want to be better...just get me to review is and it's guaranteed to get better right after I publish it! :)

January 28, 2013

-1
Reply

Hi Philip. After seeing your review of the fs700, I bought it. No one reviews the tools we love better than you! Thanks, your hard work pays off, your opinion matters to a lot of us. The Fs700 has been great for me so far. It's exactly how you described, I'll patiently await your review on the BMCC. Take care and thanks for the reply.

January 28, 2013

0
Reply
Anthony Marino

Philip Bloom says the 1DC has contradictions. The Harvard Business School should do a study on Canon product managers and engineers and how they decide to parse features, prices and models for their camera product line. Is there someone in Japan coordinating these decisions or is it more of an international decision making process? Do they rely on faulty info from focus group studies? I wonder if improvements can be made.

January 29, 2013

0
Reply
Rob

Thanks Philip for your review. I believe I've stated this before about this camera but I think its going to sell very well especially if they do add 25p via firmware as promised. I completely agree with Joe.
Personally I'm extremely excited about this cam. As a true hybrid shooter the range of features is very attractive. That I can also use it as a B cam on bigger shoots or A cam on my personal projects is perfect.
Others in my office have raved about the footage. Just got to get my hands on one to try....

January 29, 2013

0
Reply
marklondon

It's interesting seeing how the D800 was used on Dexter and trying to see how this camera would fit into a big tv production or crash cam coverage for a feature.

I suspect that's probably where it sits best but it almost feels like it's abstracting the DSLR ethic too far. Too expensive... and that's kind of it. DSLR cinema is cheap and if you're going to spend the dollar for a film worthy cam, then it's going to hopefully be a film cam.

Nightmare for rental houses, but never been better for producers.

January 29, 2013

0
Reply

The D800 is a great camera. Its files are superb. The 1DC is mediocre compared to the D800. However the 1DC is more cinematic than the C300 and C500 which are big disappointing toys.

January 29, 2013

0
Reply
paul

I own a D800. It's nice, but the 1dc footage looks better, plus it has better low light. Plus, you know, 4k.

January 29, 2013

0
Reply
Marklondon

A red one does 4k, oh and proper slow mo, and it's RAW. It's also a mahoosive pain in the ass but in the bang for buck stakes that's where the biggest value lies. Hold tight though and I'm sure we'll see even more pocket and budget friendly cameras that do 4k. It's all bollocks though really isn't it? 2k was plenty for Skyfall after all. The irony is that all these so-called cinema cameras will mostly be used for web video. Cinema is about distribution, film is about creativity and ideas, what camera you shot on is really not that important.

January 30, 2013

0
Reply

I didn't think I needed 4k assuming I would never be able to pull a decent still from the stream, looking at both James and Phillips work that now seems possible. What's also a revelation is the 2k from 4k master, that's beautiful. Cheap media makes it more feasible.

I think the 4k marketing has worked on me, now, when shooting, I'm constantly haunted by the fact that I might be getting a few seconds of my best work but I'm only capturing it in low resolution. The moment is gone for ever.

I've shot in a lot of unique places and have been very regretful about not having a better camera so the extra 6k is worth it to me. Even when I buy I am only really renting. It could be sold next year for 6k and I'm sure it would have made at least the other 7k back by then [1-2 days a month].

To the critiques amongst us. Just a handful of years ago we didn't have this much info, no one was producing in depth reviews on new cameras, it was a lot of work to figure out what to buy. There needs to be some respect for that at least.

January 29, 2013

0
Reply

You raise a great point. Even as just a stills camera it's worth 6k in a year. I know that this is a video/film blog, but don't underestimate this camera's stills ability. They've essentially grafted a $4k 4k camera on to a killer stills cam.
This will sell sell sell.
As to those saying the DSLR form is 'over' you are quite wrong. If you're a jobbing camera guy this cam is not for you. If you're not, this camera has a lot of possibilities. Based on the work my D800 gets this camera would pay for itself in a little over 6 months (and thats without the tax benefits). It probably would have a 3 year life cycle in my kit, with a pessimistic minimum residual street value of 20% of it's original value.

January 29, 2013

0
Reply
Marklondon

Brilliant way to look at it Mark. Allover sudden it doesn't sound overpriced anymore!

January 29, 2013

-1
Reply

Except that the d800 is under 3k and crushes the canon for resolution and dynamic range (stills).

so the photographer wanting the1dc camera must have a need for its fast fps and 4k.

Seems like a camera in search of a market. Sports journalists perhaps?

January 29, 2013

0
Reply
jordan

So the bottom line is that despite the Blackmagic cinema limitations philip blooms ponte tower video looks incredible. And nobody is able to produce beautiful canon1dc videos. So with all current canon products the user pays for speed and usability.

Nothing wrong with that approach. Usability first, picture quality last. Just not what people expect but I think we can see that canon are aiming for a different market.

January 29, 2013

0
Reply
jordan

This http://vimeo.com/58252561 looks pretty good to me..

January 29, 2013

0
Reply
PeterK

Does it look 12k good to you?

January 29, 2013

0
Reply
Premini

If this camera can earn you money it's worth it... Most people that buy a Red won't become rich and succesful because they bought one... No camera is worth anything because its specs... If you can get a good income from buying this camera it's worth 12K. If not, well then it's not worth it. By the way, if you have a small business you can get money back from tax deductions. If you don't have a small business....well, then don't buy a camera this expensive!

In my mind this camera is for people who are both photographers and filmmakers. If you're only into film there might be other interesting cameras out there. I'm a photographer and filmmaker myself and would never buy a Red camera because of its capacity as a stills camera. You can grab nice frame grabs from it but there are so many other things a DSLR must have: top class autofocus, uncompressed raw (CR2, NEF), great high iso performance and great battery performance.

You have to choose the right camera for the right job...

The 1DC seems to be have a great sensor. A camera with a sensitive sensor can make magic with subtle, subtle changes in light and requires less lighting. It's also great on high ISO numbers which is important for documentary work.

January 29, 2013

0
Reply
MartinK

Nope. Looks average to me.

January 29, 2013

0
Reply
jordan

I think Philip's ambivalence about this camera is understandable and forthright. It has so many great things going for it yet it's still lacking in some major areas. I'd have really liked to see a truly Full Frame (not 1.3x) and uncompressed 4K (at all but super-speed frame rates) with either an internal SSD or outboard recording via HD-SDI out. It's size and with the huge support it's getting from Shane Hurlbut will make a popular B cam once the alchemy of matching profiles to the Alexa and other high end cameras is figured out. This is obviously not a piece of overpriced junk as some contend, but the schizophrenic implementation of features means it's of limited appeal to a lot of videographers and filmmakers.

Users who could really benefit from this camera are people in need of high resolution stills, an extremely lightweight and small camera body and for those seeking a B or C cam to a RED or Alexa. For the rest of us it's just too darn expensive for what it delivers. I plan on renting it for jobs where it is suitable, but I would never buy it.

January 29, 2013

0
Reply
Marc B

the picture quality of this camera is absolutely amazing. why is everybody complaining? who cares about 8 or 10 bit... the pictures say everything even with net compression

January 29, 2013

0
Reply
Ben

I think the "cropability" (if I can invent a word) would be fun. When I take pictures, I usually crop them at least a little and I'm amazed at how much you can do for a photo with a little cropping. To shoot 4k and then make a 2k project, well, maybe it's a little overkill, but to have all that potential for cropping would be nice. You could shoot a little wide all the time and choose your close-ups in editing.

And it's 4:2:2 in 4k.

January 29, 2013

1
Reply
Tom