The EOS-1D C does not allow you to change it via the internal Menu. The specs detail that it has Pal 25P in all the lower resolutions except the highest 4K which is ONLY 24fps.

Almost 80% of the world use 25P (and Secam), including Bollywood in India (which is bigger than Hollywood in films produced), Australia, South Africa, Europe etc....

Why are you so surprised? This whole EOS-C evolution is driven by Canon USA, their engineers and American cinematographers, etc. Not wanting to generalise, but USA folk can be quite insular sometimes... "The World" is often seen as just USA only.

Reminds me of the 'international' (sic) competition ran by Canon USA and Vimeo a couple of years back, "The Story Beyond The Still" which was... Open to US residents only!

It's a crying shame. Look at who Sony recruited to tell their engineers what developments they wanted to see out of the FS700... An international team of cinematographers consulted. You really need that input to engineer something for international use. What did we get? 50/60Hz switchable, etc...

You gather a group of American DoPs, engineers together to brainstorm the developments required for the next upgrade, you're hardly going to get one of them standing up saying, "We'll need 25fps in there too for our British counterparts!"

Off topic. Kris, if your anywhere near the runway at Gatwick a Virgin plane has just made an emergency landing there - evacuation with chutes deployed etc. No word yet on any details yet. Hope all got off OK (these things usually result in the odd broken leg).

..."We'll need 25fps in there too for our British counterparts!"...

I can imagine someone standing up in the Houses of Parliament, shouting "Here, here!" :)

Can't believe I'm reading this "nationalistic" stuff. Is it really necessary, Kris? Jesus, haven't we learnt yet, take away the accent and the address and we're all the same.

take away the accent and the address and we're all the same.

Except for frame rates.

Is the lack of 25p such a deal breaker or is it just an inconvenience? The difference between 24p & 25p is only 4% & for years we in PAL-land have been viewing 24fps Hollywood movies on DVD speeded up 4% & nobody noticed. I could understand if the camera only had the old NTSC 30/29.97 rate then it would be a really big issue. The only real problem that I can see is if you wanted to intercut footage of the same scene shot simultaneously with other cameras that only shot 25p (e.g. a PAL Canon XF305 without the $400 24p/30p firmware upgrade).

It's a crying shame. Look at who Sony recruited to tell their engineers what developments they wanted to see out of the FS700... An international team of cinematographers consulted. You really need that input to engineer something for international use. What did we get? 50/60Hz switchable, etc...I was wondering who it was who decided on an ugly box covered in innumerable little buttons
You gather a group of American DoPs, engineers together to brainstorm the developments required for the next upgrade, you're hardly going to get one of them standing up saying, "We'll need 25fps in there too for our British counterparts!"Evidently that is exactly what they did with the C300/C500. Previous Canon camcorders were not world cameras by default but either PAL or NTSC (or HD equivalent) e.g. to upgrade a PAL XF305 to shoot 24p/30p costs around $400 & similarly to upgrade an NTSC XF305 to shoot 25p.

I like the EOS 1D C for some unaccountable reason.

The codec is easy to manipulate with either still image processing tools, or even homebrew code. (Reading JPEG files is straightforward.) It writes onto commonly available media. And it's a compact device. In fact I've got a couple of ideas where this would fit really well.

I'd be interested to know what the bit rate is, and does it suffer from rolling shutter.

As for the 25 fps thing, I wouldn't be surprised if that turns up in a firmware update. It doesn't significantly more bandwidth than 24 fps, so I doubt that the camera's hardware is the limiting factor.

This 4K fever for 98% of us on here won't mean squat for years to come and even longer with the general public. Almost 50% of tv's sold are 720P.


This reasoning reminds me a bit of the early 90s when quite a few were perplexed to why we started developing tools for 24bit/96kHz audio. Their argument back then was that the 24/96 was just a fad "since no one could possibly hear the difference between it and the established 16/48 standard". I.e., not realizing how useful such dense & linear material would be in post processing. The same goes for video shot in 4K -- in post you'll have more leverage to crop, zoom and tweak it beyond any regular HD footage -- no matter if its final destination is "only" 1080p.

-- peer

Yes Peer, but just like then, people can't hear the difference between 44k, 48k, or 96k. As a producer I've been involved in a number of blind tests like this comparing the highest spec audio gear, preamps etc.

David's point is still the most relevant. For the vast majority of people buying any and all of the cameras and post gear we're discussing, the end result of their work will be shown at significantly lower res than 1080p let alone 4k, either regional, local TV, and more and more web distribution.

Not that deeper color space and bit depth aren't important - they are. When I produce a project there's a good chance it will be broadcast in HD, SD, on web and shown on large screens at events.

That's where a camera like the BM looks promising with great latitude and color space. 4k has real value, but in the list of priorities to 95% of the camera market it's just a gimmick right now simply because the work that they're producing and distributing will not benefit from it in a practical space.

We do a ton of post and grading and pro res 4:2:2 does everything anyone needs for anything from broadcast down.

Yes Peer, but just like then, people can't hear the difference between 44k, 48k, or 96k. As a producer I've been involved in a number of blind tests like this comparing the highest spec audio gear, preamps etc.

Yes Jim, but just like then, this isn't the issue at hand. Nor was this the reason why 24bit/96k was developed -- it's for signal processing in POST.

For example, any FFT process (phase vocoders, convolution, etc.) require high bit & sample rates in order to stay within an acceptable fidelity -- no matter if the final destination is only 16bit/48k.

Just like high quality slow-motion needs to be shot with high frame rates (and/or with high shutter speed for post processing in Twixtor, etc.) -- no matter if the final destination is only 24 or 30p.

Hence, it depends on what the initial recording will be used for. If it has to go through post signal processing, yes then you'll definitely hear the difference. But if you just gonna listen to it straight out as recorded, you'll most likely not hear any difference between 96k/24bit and 48k/16bit (or even 44.1).

So again, this is the reason why I'm in the market for a 4K camera -- I tend to spend most of my time in post, and therefore love to have that extra wiggle room, whether it's for audio or video.

-- peer

<<Just like high quality slow-motion needs to be shot with high frame rates (and/or with high shutter speed for post processing in Twixtor, etc.) -- no matter if the final destination is only 24 or 30p.

Hence, it depends on what the initial recording will be used for. If it has to go through post signal processing, yes then you'll definitely hear the difference. But if you just gonna listen to it straight out as recorded, you'll most likely not hear any difference between 96k/24bit and 48k/16bit (or even 44.1). >>

I definitely understand why you'd want 4k Peer, but these are two different points.

You need the extra frames to create quality slo-mo - it's the difference between useable and unusable footage but that's not the case for most situations with a quality codec and 1080p or 44k audio for post.

I've produced music for radio and TV for 25 years and rarely have used 96k sources mixing on large consoles and applying tons of EQ and effects and the results sound great - full broadcast quality.
These days virtually all radio is delivered as MP3.

Likewise, a Pro Res 4:2:2 signal is very robust and capable of the grading and finishing we do for film and broadcast.

4k is nice but it's not necessary for quality work for what the vast majority of people and their deliverables in the real world.

I'm sure I had a thread about the 1DC and Shane Hurlbut and his idea that it 'crushes' the Alexa & Epic....or perhaps I just dreamt it (or I'm juggling too many forums)!

Anyone see that?

I think that thread was crushed as well.

It's temporarily out of public view while I clean it up. Too many
personal attacks and other other garbage. It'll be restored shortly.

Why would Canon leave out zebra and peaking on the 1D C? That's just plain bizarre. Is that understood to be an intended omission, or might it just be a limitation of the pre-release firmware? As an intended omission, I cannot fathom the reasoning except that perhaps Canon's marketing department felt the need to deliberately sour the thing. Hmmm. :-/

'cause it's being made by the still division.....they're still behind the curve in video......my guess.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Yes Jim, but just like then, this isn't the issue at hand. Nor was this the reason why 24bit/96k was developed -- it's for signal processing in POST.

For example, any FFT process (phase vocoders, convolution, etc.) require high bit & sample rates in order to stay within an acceptable fidelity -- no matter if the final destination is only 16bit/48k.

Just like high quality slow-motion needs to be shot with high frame rates (and/or with high shutter speed for post processing in Twixtor, etc.) -- no matter if the final destination is only 24 or 30p.

Hence, it depends on what the initial recording will be used for. If it has to go through post signal processing, yes then you'll definitely hear the difference. But if you just gonna listen to it straight out as recorded, you'll most likely not hear any difference between 96k/24bit and 48k/16bit (or even 44.1).

So again, this is the reason why I'm in the market for a 4K camera -- I tend to spend most of my time in post, and therefore love to have that extra wiggle room, whether it's for audio or video.

-- peer

great explanation!

since i started recording and mixing at 96k, everything sits much better in the mix and it seems stacking a lot of things doesn't build up the unwanted sludge. much cleaner, tighter results which then translate better when heard at lower resolutions on various systems.

i would never record again at a lower resolution! just like i would never shoot jpegs instead of RAW for photography, even though jpegs are my delivery format.

though the cost and workflow for RAW 4k scares me, i would love to be working at the highest possible quality- even if i was just uploading to youtube!

IMHO anybody who would prefer the DSLR form factor in ANY situation (other than for the LOOK) doesn’t own a real video camera. And if you come up with one situation where a DSLR is better I can come up with ten where it’s lacking. We all have been tortured enough with shaky, fast and out of focus footage long enough.

Here here, Dave.
You will never do wildlife weddings sports events with a DSLR. Put a big zoom on it & try & freestanding, no tripod & film an animal at distance. Impossible. Need a shoulder mount camera. Canon, please divorce the Video & Stills departments & make a real shoulder mount Video camera again with interchangeable lens please.
Pete Constable

Pete, I've regularly shot weddings, sports and events on DSLR's, as have many others. To me, shooting surfing, a shoulder-mounted camera useless. So, as you can see it all comes down to personal requirements and opinions. For some, the DSLR form factor is a great thing. For others, it is the scourge of the Earth. Either way, it is never particularly wise to tell other people what they would "never do"!

Quite right, John -- the fact is that DSLR is very popular right now for weddings.

Almost all wildlife shooting is done from tripod anyway. DSLRs are perfectly fine on a tripod, especially with a flip screen or secondary monitor. Besides the fact that I can shoot much steadier with my 70-200mm IS lens on my DSLR than I can at a comparable focal length with a shoulder mount camera and no IS.

I've shot with both shoulder mount and DSLRs. I like the DSLR form factor for it's compact-size and it allows you to move into more positions than a shoulder mount does. The ergonomic challenges have more to do with lack of professional controls than it has to do with form factor. The C300 is an example of combining the best of both worlds.

Quite right, John -- the fact is that DSLR is very popular right now for weddings.

Agreed Chris. Also they will remain popular with those who master them.
IMO DSLRS strongest point is the way people behave when its being pointed at them.
The unobtrusive nature of a stripped down DSLR is perfect for events.
Tricky to use though :)

Here here, Dave.
You will never do wildlife weddings sports events with a DSLR. Put a big zoom on it & try & freestanding, no tripod & film an animal at distance. Impossible. Need a shoulder mount camera. Canon, please divorce the Video & Stills departments & make a real shoulder mount Video camera again with interchangeable lens please.
Pete Constable

Please Pete... Don't ever say what other should or shouldn't do with what camera. It is NOT aboute what camera you hold in your hand, it's about what you do WITH it.
I've been shooting professional with DSLRs for years and most of that is wildlife. All wildlife films is NOT about 2000 mm of a running lion. Some of my film would not have been done with a shoulder mount camer... They are hard to mount to a microscope, just saying...
DSLRs is not for everyone and not for every project, but a professional camera is not about how big or what ever... It about if you can get it done or not with the gear you can get your hands on.
If an iPhone and iMovie app is the only gear you got and you can get the job done, that the right camera for that situation. All cameras need some work-around.