1DX2 - 4k full frame with touch-to-focus

[aroo]

It looks from Canon's announcements like the new pro camera will have 4k recording with dual pixel touch-to-focus servo AF. If it works like the 70D, it will be awesome. Does the motion-jpg format pose any big problems for quality?

 

[mkabi]

From what eosHD.com says about the 1DC which also uses Motion JPEGs for 4K recording, its softer than other offerings like Sony's a7rII. However, the softness gives a more cinematic, pleasing and organic look, but technically speaking some people like sharpness....whereas the color on the 1DC is better and more easier to work with compared to other offerings.

So, you have to ask yourself, how much of an improvement is the 1DX mark II over the 1DC?
Can you settle with softer images, but good color science?

Here is a good article about 4K and above and what one experienced DP thinks about it:
http://www.eoshd.com/2016/01/rodney-charters-asc-on-shooting-blackmagic-and-my-thoughts-on-the-new-ursa-mini-4-6k/

 

[aroo]

Thanks for the link, mkabi. It lead me onto this: http://www.eoshd.com/2016/02/all-is-revealed-canon-1d-x-mark-ii-video-faq/

Can't help but think this camera will contribute some spectacular video over the next few years. Touch to focus is just so immediately useful.

 

[tcmatthews]

I do not know how much it affects quality but motion-jpg takes much more processing power and creates larger files than H264 and Sony's AVCHD. This is because modern computers can off load the encoding of H264 to the video card. So you will need a more powerful computer and disk space to edit motion-jpg. Quality of motion-jpg is depended on the jpg engine inside the camera because it is literally a sequence of JPGs. I have always seen Canons JPGs as just ok I never been quite satisfied.

If they were serious about video they would have added a hardware encoder for H264 or included a clean 4k output for external recording. I do not know many people who would buy a 1DX2 primarily for video.

 

[Ozarker]

From what eosHD.com says about the 1DC which also uses Motion JPEGs for 4K recording, its softer than other offerings like Sony's a7rII. However, the softness gives a more cinematic, pleasing and organic look, but technically speaking some people like sharpness....whereas the color on the 1DC is better and more easier to work with compared to other offerings.

So, you have to ask yourself, how much of an improvement is the 1DX mark II over the 1DC?
Can you settle with softer images, but good color science?

Here is a good article about 4K and above and what one experienced DP thinks about it:
http://www.eoshd.com/2016/01/rodney-charters-asc-on-shooting-blackmagic-and-my-thoughts-on-the-new-ursa-mini-4-6k/

The 1DC has touch screen focus with DPAF?

 

[mkabi]

From what eosHD.com says about the 1DC which also uses Motion JPEGs for 4K recording, its softer than other offerings like Sony's a7rII. However, the softness gives a more cinematic, pleasing and organic look, but technically speaking some people like sharpness....whereas the color on the 1DC is better and more easier to work with compared to other offerings.

So, you have to ask yourself, how much of an improvement is the 1DX mark II over the 1DC?
Can you settle with softer images, but good color science?

Here is a good article about 4K and above and what one experienced DP thinks about it:
http://www.eoshd.com/2016/01/rodney-charters-asc-on-shooting-blackmagic-and-my-thoughts-on-the-new-ursa-mini-4-6k/

The 1DC has touch screen focus with DPAF?

Nope. But I'm answering the OPs original question about the motion JPEG format, which the 1DC does have...

 

[mkabi]

...
So, you have to ask yourself, how much of an improvement is the 1DX mark II over the 1DC?
Can you settle with softer images, but good color science?
...

Why would you want to buy the 1DC (if video is your concern) now that the C500 is $9999?

If you are asking me, I personally couldn't afford either one. If I was to choose, I would still choose the 1dx mark 2. But, if I could afford it and I only had the option between 1DC and the C500, I would still choose 1DC.
Because the C500 is still $2000 more than the 1DC, C500 is super 35 sensor vs. FF of the 1DC...
and even though the C500 has 4K option, its not internally. That is, you need an external recorder to get 4K from the C500. Whereas the 1DC has internal 4K.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/855975-REG/Canon_EOS_C500_Cinema_EOS.html

 

[Besisika]

If they were serious about video they would have added a hardware encoder for H264 or included a clean 4k output for external recording. I do not know many people who would buy a 1DX2 primarily for video.

I preordered the 1DX2 primarily for video (my 1DX can do photo just fine).
That is because it would be the most versatile video camera given the set of lenses I use and that I already owned a 1DX as a B camera. Not to mention that I shoot both still and video.

1DX2 as such is not that versatile though, at least in my mind. What unleashes its power is the addition of an external recorder, in particular the Ninja assassin, and because of it I will be over-budgeted. I was planing on getting a C100 II but for what I do the 1dx2 seems to be a much better tool.
Bear in mind though, that image quality is not my top priority. Getting the job done and better ability to tell the story are. I publish in 1080P and dual recording 1080P in Prores HQ on the Ninja together with a from time to time internal recording in 4K for zoom, panning and stabilization purposes makes it the most valuable camera for what I do, not to mention reduced overheating, magnify while recording, no time limits, very clear and tilt screen, and video assist features delivered by the Assassin; DPAF aside. When necessary, I will be able to finally crop my video as I do with photo, not to mention that my beloved prime lenses will act as if they were zoom lenses and the zooming focal length can be decided in post when my head is calm.
I do not intend to shoot 4K at all time, due to file size. I would only when it is needed.

I do agree and emphasize though, that 4K external recording would bring this guy to a next level and futuristic, and the sooner Canon realizes that the better for them in order to attract more run and gunners like me.

The c500 is a way much better cinema camera, but I don't need the best, I need the best tool for what I do and even if they reduce the price at $5000 I wouldn't be still interested - simply not what I need; I need a truck, not a racing car.

 

[syder]

I do not know how much it affects quality but motion-jpg takes much more processing power and creates larger files than H264 and Sony's AVCHD. This is because modern computers can off load the encoding of H264 to the video card. So you will need a more powerful computer and disk space to edit motion-jpg. Quality of motion-jpg is depended on the jpg engine inside the camera because it is literally a sequence of JPGs. I have always seen Canons JPGs as just ok I never been quite satisfied.

If they were serious about video they would have added a hardware encoder for H264 or included a clean 4k output for external recording. I do not know many people who would buy a 1DX2 primarily for video.

This is all wrong.

MJPEG is an intraframe codec with pixel-level data which requires very little processing power to work with. H264 is a long GOP codec which uses macroblocks not pixel level data, which means that it's always been considered a nightmare to work with as an editing codec. It was designed as a delivery codec, and is great for that (Blu-Ray/YouTube) but its a pain to edit with. GPU acceleration helps (as in before you couldn't typically play H264 files in Avid/Premiere beforehand), but H264 is still not really an editing codec, most professional workflows will convert to something more friendly (Prores or DNxHD) before working with H624 material. So H264 requires a more powerful computer to work with directly than something like MJPEG, which is the total opposite of what is argued here.

And AVCHD, MPEG4 and H264 are all the same thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC

The fact that intraframe codecs take up more disk space is not an argument for not using them either. That you argue for an external recorder (which would use an edit friendly codec which will take up more disk space) suggests that you are aware of this though. To illustrate, DCI 4K DNxHR at 60fps tops out at 3730mb/s, and the 8 bit 4:2:2 HQ version you'd be more likely to use for most things is still 1865mb/s. Not the 100mb/s you see on Sony/Panasonic cameras.

But if you really need that, you're probably in the market for a c300 ii not a 1DX ii. And spending a small amount on extra disks or server storage for your ISIS/Terrablock at that stage is spare change.

 

[Jack Douglas]

I do not know how much it affects quality but motion-jpg takes much more processing power and creates larger files than H264 and Sony's AVCHD. This is because modern computers can off load the encoding of H264 to the video card. So you will need a more powerful computer and disk space to edit motion-jpg. Quality of motion-jpg is depended on the jpg engine inside the camera because it is literally a sequence of JPGs. I have always seen Canons JPGs as just ok I never been quite satisfied.

If they were serious about video they would have added a hardware encoder for H264 or included a clean 4k output for external recording. I do not know many people who would buy a 1DX2 primarily for video.

This is all wrong.

MJPEG is an intraframe codec with pixel-level data which requires very little processing power to work with. H264 is a long GOP codec which uses macroblocks not pixel level data, which means that it's always been considered a nightmare to work with as an editing codec. It was designed as a delivery codec, and is great for that (Blu-Ray/YouTube) but its a pain to edit with. GPU acceleration helps (as in before you couldn't typically play H264 files in Avid/Premiere beforehand), but H264 is still not really an editing codec, most professional workflows will convert to something more friendly (Prores or DNxHD) before working with H624 material. So H264 requires a more powerful computer to work with directly than something like MJPEG, which is the total opposite of what is argued here.

And AVCHD, MPEG4 and H264 are all the same thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC

The fact that intraframe codecs take up more disk space is not an argument for not using them either. That you argue for an external recorder (which would use an edit friendly codec which will take up more disk space) suggests that you are aware of this though. To illustrate, DCI 4K DNxHR at 60fps tops out at 3730mb/s, and the 8 bit 4:2:2 HQ version you'd be more likely to use for most things is still 1865mb/s. Not the 100mb/s you see on Sony/Panasonic cameras.

But if you really need that, you're probably in the market for a c300 ii not a 1DX ii. And spending a small amount on extra disks or server storage for your ISIS/Terrablock at that stage is spare change.

If you can spare a few minutes to share some of your video expertise, I'd be very interested in what your thoughts are on the 1DX II as a singular camera used primarily for stills of birds/wildlife etc. but providing the ability to capture some video of the same subjects as well as the surrounding landscape.

I've been doing mostly stills and hear lots of comments from folks on CR that they don't even want video capability, but to my way of thinking seeing some action (behaviour) associated with the birds/wildlife I shoot as stills, is very rewarding.

Jack

 

[AlanF]

Jack, I once shared a hide with someone using a standard, small, relatively cheap camcorder, taking superb short movies of birds. Maybe it would be easier, and much cheaper and more convenient, to get one of these.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Hey Alan, I've found the 6D does a decent job but my beloved 6D is going to get supplemented due to its limitations that all know about. I don't want to hike with a video and a still camera. The video AF of the 1DX II looks to be the one thing that I'd really benefit from. Not to mention 120 HD.

And Alan, folks like you and me aren't exactly satisfied with "pretty good", right. It's all relative though.

Jack

 

[AlanF]

Jack, I love the 5DS R. It has the reach of and is slightly sharper than the 7DII with superb AF and the field of view of FF. Huge files and slow fps though, but worth the sacrifice.

 

[gsealy]

...
So, you have to ask yourself, how much of an improvement is the 1DX mark II over the 1DC?
Can you settle with softer images, but good color science?
...

Why would you want to buy the 1DC (if video is your concern) now that the C500 is $9999?

If you are asking me, I personally couldn't afford either one. If I was to choose, I would still choose the 1dx mark 2. But, if I could afford it and I only had the option between 1DC and the C500, I would still choose 1DC.
Because the C500 is still $2000 more than the 1DC, C500 is super 35 sensor vs. FF of the 1DC...
and even though the C500 has 4K option, its not internally. That is, you need an external recorder to get 4K from the C500. Whereas the 1DC has internal 4K.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/855975-REG/Canon_EOS_C500_Cinema_EOS.html

People like Magic Lantern because it can record RAW video compared to native 5DIII. In the same fashion the C500 can record RAW if the user wants to go that route. The 1DC cannot.

 

[gsealy]

From what eosHD.com says about the 1DC which also uses Motion JPEGs for 4K recording, its softer than other offerings like Sony's a7rII. However, the softness gives a more cinematic, pleasing and organic look, but technically speaking some people like sharpness....whereas the color on the 1DC is better and more easier to work with compared to other offerings.

So, you have to ask yourself, how much of an improvement is the 1DX mark II over the 1DC?
Can you settle with softer images, but good color science?

Here is a good article about 4K and above and what one experienced DP thinks about it:
http://www.eoshd.com/2016/01/rodney-charters-asc-on-shooting-blackmagic-and-my-thoughts-on-the-new-ursa-mini-4-6k/

The 1DxII records 8 bit, and it doesn't currently have C_Log. These are two fairly important limitations.

 

[syder]

I do not know how much it affects quality but motion-jpg takes much more processing power and creates larger files than H264 and Sony's AVCHD. This is because modern computers can off load the encoding of H264 to the video card. So you will need a more powerful computer and disk space to edit motion-jpg. Quality of motion-jpg is depended on the jpg engine inside the camera because it is literally a sequence of JPGs. I have always seen Canons JPGs as just ok I never been quite satisfied.

If they were serious about video they would have added a hardware encoder for H264 or included a clean 4k output for external recording. I do not know many people who would buy a 1DX2 primarily for video.

This is all wrong.

MJPEG is an intraframe codec with pixel-level data which requires very little processing power to work with. H264 is a long GOP codec which uses macroblocks not pixel level data, which means that it's always been considered a nightmare to work with as an editing codec. It was designed as a delivery codec, and is great for that (Blu-Ray/YouTube) but its a pain to edit with. GPU acceleration helps (as in before you couldn't typically play H264 files in Avid/Premiere beforehand), but H264 is still not really an editing codec, most professional workflows will convert to something more friendly (Prores or DNxHD) before working with H624 material. So H264 requires a more powerful computer to work with directly than something like MJPEG, which is the total opposite of what is argued here.

And AVCHD, MPEG4 and H264 are all the same thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC

The fact that intraframe codecs take up more disk space is not an argument for not using them either. That you argue for an external recorder (which would use an edit friendly codec which will take up more disk space) suggests that you are aware of this though. To illustrate, DCI 4K DNxHR at 60fps tops out at 3730mb/s, and the 8 bit 4:2:2 HQ version you'd be more likely to use for most things is still 1865mb/s. Not the 100mb/s you see on Sony/Panasonic cameras.

But if you really need that, you're probably in the market for a c300 ii not a 1DX ii. And spending a small amount on extra disks or server storage for your ISIS/Terrablock at that stage is spare change.

If you can spare a few minutes to share some of your video expertise, I'd be very interested in what your thoughts are on the 1DX II as a singular camera used primarily for stills of birds/wildlife etc. but providing the ability to capture some video of the same subjects as well as the surrounding landscape.

I've been doing mostly stills and hear lots of comments from folks on CR that they don't even want video capability, but to my way of thinking seeing some action (behaviour) associated with the birds/wildlife I shoot as stills, is very rewarding.

Jack

So it's always hard to talk about a camera before the reviews of production models are out...

But that said for what you outline the 1DXII looks like it might work very well. I'm guessing that for birding/wildlife you've already got some seriously long glass working with full frame - the Cinema series is S35 so pretty much APS-C for crop so you can go crazy long with teleconverters, and as you're manually focusing you don't need to worry about f8. But if you're glass works for stills then it should do for video.

Bearing in mind that you'll likely have a much slower shutter (1/50th for PAL 1/60th NTSC unless you're shooting slo-motion) you'll need a decent tripod with a long lens, but again my guess is that you'd be covered with your existing wildlife setup?

The slo-mo video might also be a useful feature for you. 120fps HD is nothing to be sniffed at (though again we've not had much detailed analysis of the quality of that footage).

I've not seen/used the DPAF version on the 1DXII, but with the touchscreen it should mean that if you want to have autofocus for video it works about as well as any system (most video has been an exclusively manual focus affair). For BiF that might be a huge plus.

And we've not seen definitive high ISO testing, but chances are that you'll be able to take fairly clean video even in quite atrocious light.

Magic Lantern RAW is a pain in the backside to do anything much with tbh (I still prefer the image out a C100/300 to 5D3 ML RAW and you don't have any of the workflow/storage issues), although the ML focus aides etc are great. And 8-bit C-Log means that you have no room for exposure issues or you'll end up with banding. I'd rather have the C100 Wide DR profile to be honest. I'm not entirely sure what the 1DXII picture style options are, if you got one it might be worth looking to find something that works for you and how you want to grade your video. I think I remember liking the Visioncolour picture styles a lot when I last shot video on a DSLR.

If you're coming from 14-bit RAW images, then 8-bit or 10-bit compressed images are going to feel pretty limited. You have to get your exposure much closer to right in camera than you would with your stills (no 6-stop pushing going on unless you're creating a worn out VHS effect).

But as you say that your primary usage would be stills, the 1DXII sounds like it would suit what you want to do pretty well as the high-iso and crazy high stills frame rate and AF system will be spot on for your wildlife photography and the very well-specced video will likely be a lot of extra fun.

If you haven't already seen it this video with Andy Rouse taking some wildlife stills/video with a 1DXII might interest you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3s-KQXuES0

 

[Jack Douglas]

syder, I really appreciate your feedback. There is an awful lot of misinformation and very biased views that are hard to sift through when one lacks the experience. Your posts have be very helpful and I believe accurate. I do have the glass and have been pleasantly surprised at what the 6D has been able to produce so I am confident the new camera will be a thrill. No boredom in retirement. Thanks!

Jack

 

[expatinasia]

I shoot a lot of stills and video with my 1D X - not always the same subjects however.

Everything that is wrong with the 1DX from a video perspective, seems to have been fixed in the 1DX Mark II.

The DPAF is just an enormous feature, massive. The headphone jack is nice, and allows you monitor the sound being recorded internally if you did not want, or did not have time, to set up an external recorder such as the Tascam DR-60D or DR-70D. That gives you a little more flexibility. The touch screen AF with speed control, will be great in certain situations - I know I will use that a lot when I want to start a shot with the person out of focus and then pull the focus onto that person's face at the speed I want and all automatically. I am sure there are more benefits to the 1DX II video but I can't remember what they are, those I mention are stand out features for me.

Video does eat battery like crazy and am sure 4K will be even worse, so two batteries will be a minimum, depending on the style and type of video you shoot.

 

[Jack Douglas]

expatinasia, I feel the same about the new AF and am feeling the pressure to adopt earlier than I initially thought. 128GB Cfast is around $500 and I'm wondering if that will drop in the near future. I guess CF can do short video segments of 4K. HD 120p also interests me for slow motion.

Any thoughts on gimbals for video? Seem to be relatively inexpensive for some.

Is it possible to tether an external battery, like something you could hook on you belt, maybe like the AC adapter setup?

Jack

 

[expatinasia]

Jack, I do not have a gimbal at the moment. All my video is shot on a tripod with Manfrotto 502HD head.

What I am considering rather than the 1DX Mark II is getting a dedicated video camera. Perhaps the XC10, XF200 or even a C100 or something completely different - really no idea as I have not tried them yet. Reason I am thinking about that is that I could then use my current 1DX as a secondary video camera which would be a nice option to have. But I will need to test what that looks like. Switching from a camera shooting 4k to one shooting 1920x0180 may not look nice at all. And the 1DX has really nice video image quality when used with their good lenses, but I also do not want to buy two sets of lenses (for 2 camera video shoots).

Perhaps use the 1DX for as the primary camera for stills work, and secondary camera for video work. I like two camera shoots as you can break a scene up very easily.

A lot of my videos are also quite long, so not always short bursts so I would probably need more than 128GB CFast is shooting 4K.

A lot of things to consider, and it very much depends on what you shoot etc., but the 1DX Mark II definitely has some massive selling points, especially in the video sections, over the 1DX.