- Status
Policar said:
I would definitely pay $8k for true 1080p detail with better highlights in a 5d3 body. But I also admit that I'm one of the rare few. I make my living doing food photography, then blow my living making movies. I'm making movies to play on theater screens in a festival and when it comes to the amount of work a feature is, I'll do what I have to to make it look the best. I'm just now finishing up on well over a year of work on a film and if I could go back and pay a few grand for true 1080p detail, I absolutely would. More than a dozen people have put thousands of hours into this thing.
Currently, I will be renting a C300 the next movie I shoot (or the 1D C to shoot at 1080) and that's going to run nearly $3,000 for a 1 month shoot. I would've definitely preferred to lump that onto the cost of my 5d3 and had an infinite amount of time to practice the camera and the ability to schedule a reshoot without re-renting. Though I may say screw it and shoot the 5d3 after all. I've been saying that I'd rather be great at shooting on a 5d than mediocre at shooting on the pro-grade stuff and I've built up quite a lot of 5d film equipment. Heck, 10 years ago when I was a kid, we made a feature on a horrible Sony handicam and got into multiple festivals. We were the only movie not on film at 2 of them but it didn't stop us. We would have sold our souls for video quality my iPhone can shoot! Of course, expectations and competition is a lot harder now with accessible equipment and the ease of editing and effects.
Upvote
0
ssrdd said:
The difference though is that all you have there is a video camera, with the 1D C you have both a video camera and a top of the line action camera.
Upvote
0
Christian_Stella said:
Sure, but $3000 is peanuts compared with craft services ($30,000 or so for an ultra low budget feature, obviously somewhat less for micro budget) or even the lowest-paid crew member's rate for a one-month shoot. I get what you're saying, but $3000 for a c300 is trivial in movie budget terms. And then you're saving tons of money by being able to rent a smaller G&E package (due to increased sensitivity over film) and hire fewer grips, and then saving gobs more in post and from not buying film stock.
And that said, incorrigible film snobbery aside, the more prestigious festivals will take a "grittier" video look over a polished one nine times out of ten. That's why the internet is flooded with red tech demos but most festival shorts are shot on dSLRs. So while a super 5D would be nice, the market for one simply boils down to people who want it but don't professionally need it. It already supports the photographer/videographer market, is good enough for a crash cam on theatrical releases (and a main camera for national ads!), and the c300 is inexpensive for the cinema market if you need the extra features.
Fwiw, the highlight handling on the 5D is great with highlight tone priority turned on, imo it's pretty close to the Red MX at normal ISOs and even if it clips a bit earlier the rolloff is way smoother. It's not great with highlight tone priority turned off, though. If you have significant clipping issues it's operator error, bad lighting, or a matter of poor art direction (or artistic decision, blowing out windows, etc.).
Do I wish the 5D Mark III's image were just a bit sharper, though? Very, very much....
Upvote
0
Policar said:
Oh absolutely. We made our 5d2 film for $6k, not including most of my equipment, which is used in my photography business too. Our craft services was a whole lotta granola bars. I'm planning a $20k shoot for winter though. It would definitely be nice if Canon removed most of the pro video features that we've all learned to work around and offered something bare bones with 1080p that's true 1080p. Don't need the XLR inputs or built in ND filters and all that jazz. I've got a full set of B+W NDs and a variable ND for trickier shots. Always do the sound separate with a Tascam recorder.
I'd love to see the industry forced to print resolution in actual resolved detail rather than the files being recorded. You'd see how quick every Canon SLR looked crystal clear if they had to state 810p or whatever the people claim the 5d has in detail on the box.
Don't get me wrong, I love the 5d3 and think the ISO and aliasing improvements were video upgrades enough. As a still camera you'd have to pry it away from me. Here's to hoping the 5d4 will do true 1080p come three years fromb now
Upvote
0
Christian_Stella said:
We'll get real 1080p, focus peaking, and everything else we all want three years from now, but then we'll all want 4k or HDR or something, which the high end cameras will have. When we had the dvx we wanted HD, when we had the EX1 we wanted DoF adapters, when we had those we wanted speed…it won't stop, and filmmakers should stop waiting and start shooting. (Not that I wouldn't love a little more resolution and focus peaking, myself.)
The issue is that there's a huge market comprised of amateur, student, and casual filmmakers and all of them would like to be shooting on $3,000 Alexas instead of dSLRs--but manufacturers of high end gear have to differentiate it somehow so rental houses will buy high end instead of cheaper cameras. There are two ways in which they differentiate expensive gear--adding features only "pros" really need on expensive equipment and actual legitimate crippling of low end gear. I feel like the 5D Mark III isn't nearly as crippled as everyone claims and that if those people who criticize it turned around and tried to shoot an actual narrative film on red (or particularly on film) they'd have a new perspective on the process and what expenses and priorities matter when you're not shooting brick walls. Sure, the red is king of test shoots, but under time constraints, its advantages diminish for no budget work. Relative to 35mm film, which is even more difficult to shoot, the Epic and Alexa are pretty awesome to work with, but they're still not point-and-shoot. And of course 35mm shot properly (for instance, Tree of Life) still looks better than anything other than 65mm shot properly. So money and effort do buy you something.
But still: working with high end gear is a pain for what are increasingly diminishing returns. Even if a red epic cost $5000, I'd be wary about using it on a no-budget set. Batteries last 30 minutes. File sizes are huge. Transcoding takes forever. You need to meter since it's got enough latitude that the monitor will lie to you. You need external monitors in the first place. You need to conform and grade properly. Way harder to hit critical focus in 4k. Art design has to be better to hold up to that resolution. It's not a one-operator camera, let alone a one-man crew camera. That's why so much red footage on the internet is just glorified tech demos and test shoots, it's too hard to make a cheap project on it or an Alexa without money or at least a good crew. The c300 does seem to hit a nice middle ground, so does the f3/fs100, but even then you've got more work cut out for you. If you can afford the high end gear, and a full crew and post house to support it, yes…there are benefits over a dSLR, obviously. If you can't, consider your priorities; is your story so good it needs 4k and HDR for you to tell it, or is it so lacking you need 4k and HDR to hide its weaknesses in technical perfection?
I'd like a little more resolution (or even better in-camera sharpening would be enough) in the 5D Mark III, but all these bells and whistles (high speed, 4k, log modes, etc.) are just more trouble than they're worth to me on smaller sets that can't rent better. And, fwiw, the fs100 already does it all at under $5,000 but no one is terribly interested in it because it doesn't give great spec. The two+ stop improvement in low light performance with the 5D Mark III is a revolution in terms of real production needs (say goodbye to the genny truck and those 12k HMIs for night exteriors, we can make do with M18s and residential power now), but it's not on a spec sheet so no one cares. And of course, M18s are still $10,000, and actors and crew members are priceless... The 1D C seems reasonably priced to me, and will sell well to its intended market, which I'm unfortunately too poor to be part of, but if I had that money I'd invest it elsewhere, anyway, because I'm not a test shoot kind of guy.
Upvote
0
There is no question in my mind that 4k acquisition isn't for those on a budget. But I cant imagine a professional photographer going for gig to click, ending up shooting a few video clips in 4k for vimeo or a news clip for that matter. Or a cinematographer wanting to take 12fps in the set of a film. They are both unlikely scenarios.
This is where the FS-700 scores as a video camera.
This is where the FS-700 scores as a video camera.
Upvote
0
Ranga said:
They did use a 1D's still photo mode in 127 Hours for a few shots at like 8 frames per second to give a dreamy look. So, you know... The 1D C will allow 30 million dollar productions to save a few grand!
All jokes aside... The 12fps at photo resolution could make for some interesting establishing shots or dream / drunk sequences in competent hands on a smaller production. Not enough to be so ever present in the camera, but not entirely useless.
I purposefully used the 5D2's auto focus button in video mode on my movie shoot to get all the focus searching and drastic exposure changes in a drunken montage and it turned out incredible. While I'll probably never need to do that again, it made me king shit that day and everyone watching the dailies thought I was doing something insanely difficult.
Upvote
0
J
Jimmy_D
Guest
conserning the 4k video issue, i suggest you take a look at the following article. My opinion is that it is very informative! here's the link: http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels
Upvote
0
J
Jimmy_D
Guest
One thing i don't understand is that Canon has released 2 cameras (identical in stills) instead of releasing one camera. i.e. an 1D X with 4k video for $8000 to $9000.
My logik would be to either produce an 1D X with no video but a dedicated stills camera and a 1D C with 4k video but average stills features, OR , one camera to do both 4k video and be top for stills(apparently the 1D C) at a price that make sense for videographers AND photographers.
My logik would be to either produce an 1D X with no video but a dedicated stills camera and a 1D C with 4k video but average stills features, OR , one camera to do both 4k video and be top for stills(apparently the 1D C) at a price that make sense for videographers AND photographers.
Upvote
0
Ranga said:
I'd guess it depends how popular(either for viewing or editting) you believe 4K is likely to be.
At the moment the most likely dual users to me seem likely to be wildlife and sports pro's, those are areas that were at the forefront of the move to HD so I'd guess there also likely to be in the same situation if home 4K takes off.
Upvote
0
I understand the argument that the 1D-C is for a professional market with little concern or price. But there are still several reasons this is WAY overpriced. There is already a crowded market of excellent cameras for those with deep pockets from RED, Sony, Panasonic, Canons C500, and others. Figure, Canon is merely updating an existing camera. They are not creating a new body geared for videographers, they are not adding professional audio, they are not adding nd filters, and they still lack many features pro video cameras contain. The $3000 Nikon D800 exports uncompressed HD, records 1080p video at 30fps, and the Sony A77 records 1080p @60fps as well. The only real improvements over any other DSLR is the ability to record 4k at 24fps. The fact is a DSLR sucks as a video camera by nature but due to the low price of the 5D mark II, we compromised and dealt with the missing features, lack of sharpness, crappy format, and awkward (for video) body style.
Not to mention Canon is not known for sharp video even at 1080p with the sensor only resolving around 800 lines of resolution. The test footage for the 1Dx and 5D mark iii does not seem to improve this much at all either, even with the new lower compression format. For $15000, buy a real video camera. For $4000, I would deal with the shortcomings of using a DSLR for good enough footage at a lower price. For those who have unlimited budgets, i'm not sure why they would pick this over the RED, Sony, or even the C500.
Not to mention Canon is not known for sharp video even at 1080p with the sensor only resolving around 800 lines of resolution. The test footage for the 1Dx and 5D mark iii does not seem to improve this much at all either, even with the new lower compression format. For $15000, buy a real video camera. For $4000, I would deal with the shortcomings of using a DSLR for good enough footage at a lower price. For those who have unlimited budgets, i'm not sure why they would pick this over the RED, Sony, or even the C500.
Upvote
0
My idea is, that if the 1D-X and 1D-C are really the same concerning the hardware, why don't they sell the extra 4K-video stuff as an extra firmware update? You could produce ONE camera, that would be able to do both. But the basis cam is an 1D-X. If you want the 4K you just send the cam to Canon or something. Canon and the customer would safe lots of money, I suggest!
My first thought was, if it's the same hardware, then some people will be able to make the 1D-C firmware run on the 1D-X sometimes!
My first thought was, if it's the same hardware, then some people will be able to make the 1D-C firmware run on the 1D-X sometimes!
Upvote
0
rHellfire said:
Considering the price difference I would think there would have to be some hardware differences, $7k is way too much if it's all in the firmware. If this were the case it would probably lead to riots in front of Canon headquarters.
Upvote
0
ssrdd said:
A camcorder like the Black Magic is indeed more appropriate for consumers and prosumers. A HDDSLR is only a tiny part of the cost of a professional cinema layout.
Upvote
0
I understand the argument that the 1D-C is for a professional market with little concern or price. But there are still several reasons this is WAY overpriced. There is already a crowded market of excellent cameras for those with deep pockets from RED, Sony, Panasonic, Canons C500, and others. Figure, Canon is merely updating an existing camera. They are not creating a new body geared for videographers, they are not adding professional audio, they are not adding nd filters, and they still lack many features pro video cameras contain. The $3000 Nikon D800 exports uncompressed HD, records 1080p video at 30fps, and the Sony A77 records 1080p @60fps as well. The only real improvements over any other DSLR is the ability to record 4k at 24fps. The fact is a DSLR sucks as a video camera by nature but due to the low price of the 5D mark II, we compromised and dealt with the missing features, lack of sharpness, crappy format, and awkward (for video) body style.
Not to mention Canon is not known for sharp video even at 1080p with the sensor only resolving around 800 lines of resolution. The test footage for the 1Dx and 5D mark iii does not seem to improve this much at all either, even with the new lower compression format. For $15000, buy a real video camera. For $4000, I would deal with the shortcomings of using a DSLR for good enough footage at a lower price. For those who have unlimited budgets, i'm not sure why they would pick this over the RED, Sony, or even the C500.
AGREE!!
Not to mention Canon is not known for sharp video even at 1080p with the sensor only resolving around 800 lines of resolution. The test footage for the 1Dx and 5D mark iii does not seem to improve this much at all either, even with the new lower compression format. For $15000, buy a real video camera. For $4000, I would deal with the shortcomings of using a DSLR for good enough footage at a lower price. For those who have unlimited budgets, i'm not sure why they would pick this over the RED, Sony, or even the C500.
AGREE!!
Upvote
0
M
Musouka
Guest
Axilrod said:
There may or may not be hardware differences but there will certainly be manufacturing process differences. In the PC industry, a lower end Intel CPU ($300) might actually share the same die as a high-end one ($700+) but the best yields from the wafer are usually kept for the high-end CPU to provide better overclockability. In fact, when the i7 architecture first came out, the lowest CPU (the i7 920) was able to overclock really well to match its higher counterparts costing twice as much. The non-extreme series were also crippled with locked multipliers to protect the $1K extreme series. When the latter batches of the 920 arrived, Intel were using the worst yields they have for it so it didn't threaten the sales of the more expensive stuff (it didn't overclock as well). Intel further introduced a limitation on the non-extreme CPUs in the second generation of the architecture (Sandy Bridge) to limit overclocking to 10% only (the first batch of the 2.66GHz 920 was overclockable to 4Ghz+ on air). Heck, Intel even started selling $50 vouchers (a software tweak) to overclock the CPUs of those who weren't willing to risk voiding the warranties.
The comparison is not direct here, but the point is that a high-end product would certainly needs more attention and human involvement in the manufacturing process as the error tolerance tends to be low. You can bet this will get the best-yield sensors and have the best parts. Is it necessary? Maybe... maybe not. When you go up the ladder, it is more the question of prestige and the perceived premium than the actual cost of things.
I certainly don't like this but that's the way businesses work. Brand loyalty is a silly thing. One should always search for the best value for their money wherever it's present.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
