Canon USA introduces EOS-1D C Digital SLR camera featuring 4K

[Peer Landa]

Originally Posted by Jim Giberti

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

[Jim Giberti]

<<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.

[Simon Wood]

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?

[Matt Gottshalk]

I think that thread was crushed as well.

[Chris Hurd]

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.

[Aaron Holmes]

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. :-/

[Jim Martin]

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

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

[Brian David Melnyk]

Originally Posted by Peer Landa

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!

[Pete Constable]

Originally Posted by David Chilson

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

[John Wiley]

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"!

[Chris Hurd]

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

[Brett Sherman]

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.

[Ger Griffin]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

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 :)

[Markus Nord]

Originally Posted by Pete Constable

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.