Canon USA Introduces EOS-1D X Digital SLR Camera

[Chris Barcellos]

Originally Posted by Allan Black

...... And if anyone is planning a bank heist, Nov. 3 will be a good day to do it.

Cheers.

Could kill two bird with one stone. I'd be able to afford the F3 and wouldn't need to hope Canon is going to sell a $3,900 F3.

[Charles Papert]

I think that post Nov. 3rd, the discussion regarding the 1DX is going to dry up somewhat (he said, dryly!)

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

On occasions when I have a director to answer to, we can easily do one of several things. Pull the chip after several takes and play back at a monitor, take the chip to a lap top for playback, or connect the camera to a monitor and play back.

So this raises a question in my mind. Is the production workflow that Charles is used to and that has become engrained in the production community during the days of film, an efficient workflow in the age of digital capture ? Charles if you could change the production system in the digital environment and weren't stuck with someone elses dictates, what would you do ? Would there be any changes ?

Chris, it's fairly self-evident that the options you presented in terms of playback are all less efficient than directors being able to view the image as it is happening and keeping the shoot moving. It's well known that playback is a time-suck on set and the prevailing wisdom is that in the time it takes to check it, you can shoot another take. Sometimes it's unavoidable or specifically desirable (shooting a stunt or gag high speed and making sure you have it to possibly avoid having to do another risky or time-consuming reset). I'll also suggest that while pulling one's own focus is preferable in a few situations, most of the time it is best handled by an AC with the proper knowledge and tools, especially with a larger chip like the 1D or 5D and especially with fast primes, as many people like it. I've shot plenty of one-man band stuff over the years but I'm not fond of it with these cameras. The last thing I shot like that (for the lovely and hilarious Garfunkel and Oates) resulted in me missing focus a few times, and it makes me poopy. It looked OK on the DP6, but soft frontal light makes it hard to judge critical focus.

The current HD production workflow is actually very different from film, where the one person who has absolute say over what is or isn't in focus is the camera operator as he is watching through the optical eyepiece. Everyone else is seeing an SD video tap image that only approximates the final image. When the camera is physically separated from the operator such as on a remote head or Steadicam, nobody can say for sure if focus is dead-on. In an HD environment, a 24" engineering monitor becomes the final word on focus, and notes are given via radio from the DIT or DP watching intently from a, uh, tent. The 5D is something of a throwback given that the best it could muster when recording is a letter and pillarboxed SD image not unlike that of a film camera tap, so it is particular ill-fitting to a high-end commercial environment where the image is being scrutinized by director and agency people.

Basically what this all comes down to is that if one is used to a particular physical workflow, the DSLR presented certain challenges and almost no improvements over prior technologies, except for cost. Those who had no prior expectations were able to embrace the wonky stuff in return for the great images, and will continue to do so with the next generation of DSLR. I'm sure I'll continue to use them for additional cameras and pickup stuff here and there, but as a primary camera, I'm more than ready to move to a more conventional form factor and rely less on the tinker toy bracketry.

[Dylan Couper]

I get the feeling you've only ever shot on DSLRs, so allow me to elaborate:

Originally Posted by Markus Nord

New mic is something you "need" for any camera.

Not true at all. The mics that come with most pro-lite cameras are usable and isolate camera noise very well. You may want a purpose dedicated mic, like a specific range of shotgun, but the built in mics will get very good ambient sound. The DSLR mics are terrible and translate all handling noise. That's why you need one for a DSLR but not for a real video camera.

Most camera don't got a big screen for viewing or focus, so you need that for other cameras too.

It's not about size. The position of the screen on a DSLR is bad and lacks focus assist (like peaking) which most real cameras come with. The 5x/10x zoom in is disabled during recording, which is when you need it the most.

Shoulder rig is depending on typ of shooting, not anything you need.

Sure if you NEVER leave the tripod with a DSLR, you don't need a shoulder rig... but for the other 99.9% of DSLR shooters... you need a rig. DSLR ergonomics are terrible. An AF100 or EX1 is much more stable... and I won't even get into shoulder cameras like the HM700.

Filter holder / matte box is something you need depending on lens and you would need it for more than just DSLRs.

At this point I'm getting the feeling you've only used DSLRs... Most pro cameras have built in ND filters... so no need for either a set of screw on ND filters or matte box with drop in ND filters. (some exceptions like the FS100)

External audio IS something you need for DSLR, and you need to sync in Post. That is not something you need for most cameras, but it is good in some situations.

So it is not that much diffrents between a DSLR rig from a, say FS100

There's not much difference if you've never shot on professional tools and don't know the difference. For the rest of us, they are big time savers.

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

Interestingly, I as of yet haven't had an issue with the HDMI port on my Canon's going bad. Has anyone ?

No issues with the HDMI ports on any of my cameras either, though have lost a USB port on a 5D2.

For mini HDMI adapters, I've had some luck with the ones that are about 4" long. The ones that are just a snap on plug get about 1-4 uses before they are dead.

[Markus Nord]

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

I get the feeling you've only ever shot on DSLRs, so allow me to elaborate:

Well, I do have shot on different cameras, DigiBeta, XL2 to name a few...

Not true at all. The mics that come with most pro-lite cameras are usable and isolate camera noise very well. You may want a purpose dedicated mic, like a specific range of shotgun, but the built in mics will get very good ambient sound. The DSLR mics are terrible and translate all handling noise. That's why you need one for a DSLR but not for a real video camera.

I have felt the need of better mics on the cameras I've used... But you are probably right about new cameras... For my type of filming the on board have not been good enough. Abient sound is just a filler and I have always hade the need of better sound in al my pro productions...

It's not about size. The position of the screen on a DSLR is bad and lacks focus assist (like peaking) which most real cameras come with. The 5x/10x zoom in is disabled during recording, which is when you need it the most.

I did use my 7D for one year without a ex monitor, but now I got one and for me the size make a big diffrent and it would have made a big difference of other cameras I've worked on... If it doesn't for you, that's your opinion. Not on super pro cameras got a big pivot screen.

Sure if you NEVER leave the tripod with a DSLR, you don't need a shoulder rig... but for the other 99.9% of DSLR shooters... you need a rig. DSLR ergonomics are terrible. An AF100 or EX1 is much more stable... and I won't even get into shoulder cameras like the HM700.

I have not worked with EX1 or AF100, but what I have read AF100 is not so good for hand hold w/out a rig (not fs100 or F3 ether). I do shot some hand hold, most low angle, so a rig would not help. I do use a rail system to hold my matte box so it is a bit more stabile than just the camera. Ofcourse if you going to shot eng style than you need a rig, but that is something you need for many new cameras...

At this point I'm getting the feeling you've only used DSLRs... Most pro cameras have built in ND filters... so no need for either a set of screw on ND filters or matte box with drop in ND filters. (some exceptions like the FS100)

If you can point me to a camera with build in half ND filter, it would be useful. That and for use of colour filter you need some type of filter holder. A matte box if useful for more that just filter holder, but I think you know that...

There's not much difference if you've never shot on professional tools and don't know the difference. For the rest of us, they are big time savers.

It is up to you to choose what camera that fits your type of filming. For me DSLR is the best for cost/money, I cam fill a raggsack with camera, lenses, sound gear etc and a tripod, slider and jib AND still I can take all that on my back for hiking with sleeping gear and food just by my self. The image IS good enough for me clients.
If you don't like it, don't use it, but stop bashing DSLRs!
Take the discution with Mr Hurlbut if the image is good enough for pro films...

[Don Miller]

A true hybrid camera will allow a photojournalist to hold it up to their face and take stills or video with sound. Sound without lens noise.
I actually thought by 2012 Canon and Nikon would have a pro product to meet this basic need. Silly me.
For all the great improvements, the 1DX is still a Frankencamera.
Or rather its a Frankencamera for the hybrid and video shooter.
Seems great for the still shooter.

[Ben Denham]

Originally Posted by Don Miller

In ten years when they review how Chinese and American companies became so competitive in imaging they can think about how they spent their time not satisfying clear, specific customer needs and wants.

I agree with the general sentiment that Canon have missed an opportunity here. If they just made sure that every camera that they make (in both stills and video division) is as good as it possibly can be I'm sure that they'd move more units overall. But I do understand how the people in the video division might be wanting to protect they're patch.

This is surely a case where you need a dictatorial CEO with a vision for the company as a whole and who is able to execute that vision without compromise, but it seems Canon doesn't have a Steve Jobs-type figure in charge.

Maybe if the video division has significant success with whatever they announce on the 3rd of November they will stop trying to protect their patch in the company and we'll get a DSLR with all the features we've been asking for.

[Josh Dahlberg]

I tend to agree with you Markus.

I have an XF300 and 5DII. I never use the onboard sound on the XF (in professional productions) except as backup/reference, and I don't rely on its LCD either (even at 4" it just isn't good enough).

So whether I'm shooting with a mid-sized camera or DSLR, either way I prefer two system sound and an outboard monitor (DP6 in my case).

I use a Vari-ND and rather like it, it provides more subtle graduations than the internal NDs on a camcorder - putting it on is no big deal.

In some instances (like when using a slider or blackbird), the DSLR has a much better form factor than the the mid-sided video camera.

For me, the big issues with the 5DII (and the reason I often choose the XF for safety) are:
* excessive moire/artifacting (by far the biggest issue for me)
* severe rolling shutter
* codec
* 4gb file limitation
* only 1 CF slot
* temporary black out on external monitor when you hit record
* only SD output to monitor

Apparently, these issues have ALL been addressed in the 1DX - to what extent with some of them (like moire) we'll have to wait to find out, but Dan's interview hints at a vast improvement. Notwithstanding what Canon reveals on 3 Nov, the 1DX looks like it could be a significant step up in video, taking care of the little issues that plagued the 5DII.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Why should we want cameras to have mics? Camera mics are too far from the talent. We should hire talent with built-in mics and XLR outputs. ;)

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

Why should we want cameras to have mics? Camera mics are too far from the talent. We should hire talent with built-in mics and XLR outputs. ;)

I think this really depends on what you're shooting. It's not that unusual for a sound recordist to switch on the camera mic to pick up some atmos sound when filming somewhere it's impossible for them to access. For example when only one crew person is allowed in the location, or it's too confined, However, the mic being used in this particular instance would be better than I suspect you'd find on a DSLR,

The camera mic is also part of one person filming (either news or documentary), when a radio mic is commonly put on the "talent" and the camera mic gives the wider perspective.

I'm not against the camera having no mic, after all film cameras rarely had them, although they were fitted on some CP16 news cameras.

[Chris Barcellos]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

Why should we want cameras to have mics? Camera mics are too far from the talent. We should hire talent with built-in mics and XLR outputs. ;)

Jon: How about a built in digital recorder. No wires....

Seriously. My current work flow requires a camera sound track to match sound with. In a recent shoot with another director, I was struck at how much time was wasted in doing the traditional clap board. With digital files that can be renamed or sorted in folders for each scene and/or take, and with ability to match audio tracks with various available software, I believe it to be pointless. I am sure others will disagree and want to maintain the ritual, but I usually do not use it in my film projects.

[Brian Drysdale]

There are a number of techniques for putting a slate on. For drama or music videos etc the traditional clapper board is useful because it attracts everyone's attention, for other productions other methods can be used like mic taps, another way is the flash of a light that combined with a audio tone that can be used for syncing. However, to do this efficiently needs good team work and anticipation by the crew, which is the key to doing fast slates.

For most documentary type work, single system sound is the easiest.

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Markus Nord

It is up to you to choose what camera that fits your type of filming. For me DSLR is the best for cost/money, I cam fill a raggsack with camera, lenses, sound gear etc and a tripod, slider and jib AND still I can take all that on my back for hiking with sleeping gear and food just by my self. The image IS good enough for me clients.

That's swell... but this is not a discussion about what camera is better or image quality, it's about what tools you need to add to a DSLR to give it the same features as a real video camera.

If you don't like it, don't use it, but stop bashing DSLRs!
Take the discution with Mr Hurlbut if the image is good enough for pro films...

I'm sorry you took my list of DSLR add ons as a personal attack on your camera of choice, but:

1) Someone (you?) asked what tools you need to add to equal a pro video camera, I answered.

2) I've been shooting motion video on DSLRs (see my previous post on high speed still shooting) since before DSLRs shot video, and had a 5D2 probably before almost anyone on this forum. I own about a dozen 5D2s & 7Ds + AF100s, FS100s, EX1s, etc.... I'm objective about their strengths (which are few but great) and weaknesses (which are many).

3) I don't understand why you think Shane Hurlbut's opinion matters to me, or how what he thinks of DSLR images is relevant to tools needed to make them equal to video cameras. If I get tapped to direct Terminator Salvation 2, I'll phone him up for tips, but until then.... (Shane, if you're reading this, you can walk behind my actors anytime. Professionaly, we're all good baby!)

[Markus Nord]

I'm sorry for attacking you... I have nothing against you or anyone... I just got sick, sorry...

Absolutely... my question was about what gear that you need to ad on you DSLR "rig" that you don't need to ad to another camera rig... and how I see it, it is not that much different that you need to ad to a DSLR rig from a AF100/FS100/F3

It was just a response to some that think "you" need to ad so many things to make a DSLR "rig" work... And I don't, but those things that you need, is not that different from other rigs, that was my point.

I'm all good... going out tomorrow and shoting Christmas trees, not with a Christmas tree ;)

[Dylan Couper]

No worries. Personally I love a stripped down DSLR and hate dumping all sorts of stuff on top of it. Light, fast, easy. Hate "building" one up, but sometimes you have to to make it work with the shoot.

Edit, as a counterpoint, I should post a pic of my FS100 rig with all the trimmings to make IT a "pro" camera. :)