Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      

Archive 2013 · Stills from 4K video with the EOS-1D C
Matt Howell

Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · Stills from 4K video with the EOS-1D C

jcolwell wrote:
Sorry your expectations were not met.

Yeah they really were not. I expect more and clearly I don't buy the spin. Motion capture and still capture are really a seperate issue even on the same camera. As one or the other, the 1DC is a great camera. As both at the same time, not so much.

Mar 03, 2013 at 05:55 PM
Ben Horne
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · Stills from 4K video with the EOS-1D C

Dave_EP wrote:
To you, probably not

The 1Dc was not created to be a fast fps replacement for the 1Dx, it was created as a 4K cinema camera (hence the red 'c'). The fact that some people can & will use it for stills extraction is merely a bonus.

This is a tool, one among many available to us. If you can't see a reason for owning one, don't worry, pass on by.

Lots of people could easily rubbish lots of Canon products they personally don't have a use for, or can't justify the price of, yet others may own and use them regularly.
...Show more

It doesn't sound at all like the OP is "trashing" the camera. It's a very well thought out post that puts the camera in perspective. I wasn't aware of the 1.3 crop, and the odd aspet ratio. I hadn't done the math on what it amounts to with 2:3 or 4:5 aspet ratio, so I found those numbers quite interesting.

Mar 03, 2013 at 06:12 PM
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · Stills from 4K video with the EOS-1D C

The information on pixels etc as been available for months. The aspect ratio is pretty irrelevant because you'll likely crop this in post anyway, ether to HD 1080p for 16x9 (domestic TV) or using 4K to 2:35 (commercial movies). Personally we never use 1.85 and don't know any one who does.

The camera is primarily intended as a 4K video camera. It records the VIDEO in motion jpeg files, which are essentially stills, one for each frame of the video. Yes Canon are saying this and always have. Go look for Philip Bloom's review of it as a video camera.

What I don't understand is why people are saying it's not as good as cameras that shoot raw at a lower frame rate. This camera is essentially a superset of the 1DX. It CAN shoot raw photos, just like the 1DX, but clearly not at 24fps.

It's not intended to replace cameras that shoot raw at a lower frame rate, it's intended to be a 4K video from which you can 'also' take stills (at 24fps). Those stills are higher resolution that you got from earlier DSLRs, including the 1D (4MP) and very close to the 1D2. If you want / need raw then shoot raw like a stills camera. If you want higher frames rates there is a trade off, that being they are lower resolution and not raw.

Whether the price makes sense to you or not depends on why you'd buy it. Find me another product that can shoot 4K video AND 18MP RAW files for the same price (not two separate cameras).

To me it makes perfect sense due to some of the situations I shoot in (both photo and video). Can I afford it today? No. If I could afford it would I buy it? Yes. Would I capture video or stills with it? Both. Sometimes the stills would be 1DX raw style and other times it would make sense to capture video and extract the stills.

There are times when I can't be in the right position to capture something simply because there is no room, or permission cannot be granted due to the noise of the shutter or the distraction of a person standing there. But in those same situations I can often position a small, silent video camera and the option of taking stills from that camera and turning them in to large prints would be very welcome.

There area LOT of people here totally opposed to video, and especially video within DSLRs, choosing to vilify manufacturers, the features and even the users for reason that are totally beyond me. Yet, they themselves yearn for higher and higher fps on their 'stills' cameras so they can spray and pray at a bird flying by, or a car racing round a track etc, and then go look for the one good frame later on.

Many of these same people shoot JPEG already (there's nothing wrong with JPEG if you have the skills to use your camera properly) in order to keep the frame rate up and the buffers flushing more quickly. They then go on to spend $10K, $20K, $30K or more on glass to go with their high fps JPEG machines, only to post their shots on the web and never even make prints. While the pixels per duck may be lower on a frame by frame basis with the 1DC, they'll certainly get a lot more frames to choose from Do I criticise them? No, they're happy doing what they do, and long may they continue. But let's not kid ourselves, spray and pray is just a slow form of video from which you capture the one (or more) still that makes you smile.

I'm not, never was and never will be a purist. I'll take the tools available and use them as best I can. Just because a new tool comes out doesn't mean my old tool stops working, but equally, if the new tool allows me to do something I couldn't do before (but really wanted to do) then I'm happy to embrace it.

All new tools / technology costs more money that many can afford when it's first released, but prices come down over time while features generally increase.

So, I go back to the OP and say "so what"? Is it worth $11,999 to shoot 7MP crop photos at 24fps? The answer is if that's what you want to do, yes it probably is. If it's not what you want to do then no it's not. How is that any different to the 1DX vs 5D3 or T4i etc?

Mar 03, 2013 at 06:38 PM
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · Stills from 4K video with the EOS-1D C

Not being interested in video isn't the same as being opposed to it... 4k video is a step in the right direction in being able to grab quality stills. Perhaps 8k, or whatever the next stage is, will make it even better. Where will traditional stills sensor tech be by then, 48MP? 72MP?

Perhaps as things evolve so will the post processing tech, making it easier to grab and process the stills you require? For those who also do video the future looks rosy, I just don't see it impacting the traditional stills photographer. Not for the next few tech generations anyway

Mar 03, 2013 at 06:53 PM

Search in Used Dept. 

Matt Howell

Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · Stills from 4K video with the EOS-1D C

this could be fun, then what to do with all that data

1. 36x24mm sensor size capture area

2. raw, lossless compressed

3. 6K resolution at 3:2 aspect, 8K if wider than 3:2

4. Continuous AF on par with 1DX AI servo

Mar 03, 2013 at 08:27 PM
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · Stills from 4K video with the EOS-1D C

Paul Mo wrote:
No, you wouldn't.

...and I outlined the reasons why. Do you care to discuss the points I brought up about shutter speed / ND filters, editing time, 100% manual focus, etc?

One could say it's "cheating" to use autofocus as well! You shooting a burst, cheater? Do you digitally grade/edit your photos? Cheating! Or hell, even using digital in lieu of film! Use the best tool for the job.

Mar 11, 2013 at 06:52 PM
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · Stills from 4K video with the EOS-1D C

I shoot candid portraiture and low light action dance mostly. I cannot control the lighting for the dance so RAW is very important to me. I most always shoot 10fps bursts at 1/125 (or faster) to stop action in focus. So, at this point, the 1D C is not interesting to me since I have no interest in video.

But if there were a, silent, 24 fps, RAW, 12Mp+ camera with 1/100 and above shutter speed and reliable tracking AF I would buy it. I really wouldn't care if it shot Video too or what it was called. I expect, sometime soon, such a camera will be available. Then instead of 1000+ frames a performance to cull I will have 2400+.

I mostly shoot verticals so no chance I would be pulling frames from video clips (or pulling video clips from my "stills" either). But then I am not a commercial or Pro photographer who makes his living at photography. Neither would I have the obligation to cover an assignment with both video and stills.

I think some of the controversity is the thought, that as still photographers, we would be, "limited," to culling stills out of video frames by cropping horizontals into verticals as a technical and creative after thought during a Video. Or that, implicitly, a videographer would supplant the still photographer who would be reduced to struggling in post, with less than optimal video captures, to extract stills.

Apr 14, 2013 at 12:13 PM
1       2      

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password