Canon USA Introduces EOS-1D X Digital SLR Camera

[Chris Barcellos]

Cool, Charles !

Point is, in any set up I've seen on most any narrative shoot, their will be a wide choice of things that will be hung from the rig to meet the particular needs of the shoot. Seems to be liberal use of tape, ties, and sticky back velcro. Its adaptation and ingenuity at its finest. And its rarely a pretty thing, unlike the pimped out rigs we see some proudly display some times.

[Don Parrish]

Charles, if I could ask a question it would be much appreciated.

If you were to shoot the same shot with just the existing oem camera, what would suffer, I can imagine audio right off the bat, but image wise what would be wrong and how different would it be ??

Thanks

"http://vimeo.com/31175496" Canon Europe rep talks about 1DX and why somw features are what they are.

P.S. take out the quote marks on the link

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Markus Nord

What is it that you put on you DSLR rig that you don't put on a "normal" video rig?

Here's the about the bare minimum you need to get a DLSR up to speed with a "normal" pro video camera:

-External audio recorder, Zoom or whatever
-External monitor and/or LCD loupe.
-shoulder rig (debatable depending on camera)
-fader ND or mattebox + ND filter set
-shotgun mic + mount

That's $2000-$5000 worth of gear, and 4+ lbs, plus shifty ergonomics at best, since you have to figure out a way to add it all in and balance it. Yuck.

[Charles Papert]

Don, I'm assuming you are referring to the 1DMKIV setup.

So, if I stripped this down to the 1D and lens (in this case the Zeiss ZE, what would be different? In terms of the actual image quality, nothing would change. In both setups, light goes through the lens and onto the sensor. Achieving the various shots themselves and incorporating the system into a working set is another story. An outboard monitor for the operator is important so that they can always see what they are shooting, whether the camera is on the ground or on a jib over their heads. The AC uses his monitor as a focus aid along with the Cinetape, Hilty, tape measure etc., and the Preston system gives him more range of motion and precision with the travel of the focus ring. I have long believed in limiting my "exposure" to the HDMI connector so the Blackmagic convertor is a must; feeding the onboard monitors and sending a signal to video village for the directors/producers (and my engineering monitor) is essential. That director likes using a handheld monitor so the downconverter and transmitter serviced that requirement. For efficiency's sake, everything is powered from a single battery (including the camera). The single item that potentially presents an image-improving aspect would be the mattebox; the use of creative filters as well as the eyebrow and side flaps to eliminate flare. Theoretically that could be achieved to some degree with screw-on filters and a french flag, but not as efficiently.

Working efficiency also translates into more time in the day for additional setups or takes. My rig took very little time to convert from studio to handheld to Steadicam mode, because everything was already incorporated (remote focus system, etc). For handheld, we just slip the handles on the front of the rods. For Steadicam, we pull the onboard monitors. We didn't even have to change baseplates.

So: all of the extra gear is required to integrate the DSLR into a true production environment with minimal disruption to the existing workflow. If there was something else I could introduce to improve the image, I would have done so. In fact, I make a slight compromise in using the 1DMKIV over the 5D in situations where the 1D's low light capability were critical; I think the image from the 5D is slightly better but the loss of HD monitoring when rolling was an ill-fit for many shoots (no-one can confirm critical focus) so I made the compromise to use the 1D.

I have shot a little bit here and there with a bare camera and lens, and while it is sort of liberating to have such a compact package, I instantly start to suffer with the little built-in monitor and having to get my eyeball to it (fine if you are at operator height but otherwise, uncomfortable). And the limited throw of the lenses combined with the monitor makes me nervous focus-wise. I'm never quite sure if I got it. It's great if I need to stuff a camera into a tight spot, or "steal" a shot, but for standard shooting, it's not a good fit for me.

[Charles Papert]

and to clarify and add to Dylan's post, prior to the DSLR's we never saw HDMI outputs; every pro HD camera used the HD-SDI standard. So working within that standard, you will need an HDMI convertor and that will affect the choice of onboard monitor as well. Using the loupe on the viewfinder disqualifies because it precludes the option of external monitoring, a restriction that no pro camera presents.

It's possible to work with HDMI and use onboard splitters or the newer looping monitors (and many people do this), but one has to carry a stack of backup cables and go through them like expendables. HDMI is a headache!

[Don Parrish]

Awesome. thank you Sir.

Do you think the LAN connection can be used for viewing in the future ??

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

and to clarify and add to Dylan's post, prior to the DSLR's we never saw HDMI outputs; every pro HD camera used the HD-SDI standard. So working within that standard, you will need an HDMI convertor and that will affect the choice of onboard monitor as well. Using the loupe on the viewfinder disqualifies because it precludes the option of external monitoring, a restriction that no pro camera presents.

It's possible to work with HDMI and use onboard splitters or the newer looping monitors (and many people do this), but one has to carry a stack of backup cables and go through them like expendables. HDMI is a headache!

Try renting HDMI cables out... :)

I was going to add "HDMI splitter" to my list but you're right on with the HDMI to HD-SDI converter.

[Chris Barcellos]

Agreed, I go through HDMI cables like I used to go through video tape. I tried a couple of those hinged HDMI adpapters from mini HDMI to regular. Idea of hnge was to relieve strain on camera port, At least on the Canon DSLRs, I think it actually made things worse. And they tended to break up too.

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

One of the issue with firewire on my Sony was that the ports there were easy to kill.

[Markus Nord]

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

Here's the about the bare minimum you need to get a DLSR up to speed with a "normal" pro video camera:

-External audio recorder, Zoom or whatever
-External monitor and/or LCD loupe.
-shoulder rig (debatable depending on camera)
-fader ND or mattebox + ND filter set
-shotgun mic + mount

That's $2000-$5000 worth of gear, and 4+ lbs, plus shifty ergonomics at best, since you have to figure out a way to add it all in and balance it. Yuck.

New mic is something you "need" for any camera.
Most camera don't got a big screen for viewing or focus, so you need that for other cameras too.
Shoulder rig is depending on typ of shooting, not anything you need.
Filter holder / matte box is something you need depending on lens and you would need it for more than just DSLRs.
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

[Chris Barcellos]

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

So: all of the extra gear is required to integrate the DSLR into a true production environment with minimal disruption to the existing workflow. If there was something else I could introduce to improve the image, I would have done so.

The key words here are "true production environment". And this is why I think the enthusiast like me and many otheres can put up with the DSLR to get the images we get. In many of the productions we do, it a one man band thing. Often, we shoot, direct and edit. I know what I can fix in the edit. I pull my own focus, either with a follow focus using a Marshall monitor, or without one, using a manual focus ring on my 35mm prme lenses and an LCD magnifier. Generally, I can tell if we got the shot right. Guy on the boom can tell if he got the audio right.

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 ?

[Brian Drysdale]

I don't think it's anything to do with film as such. The chances are that film, before the days of video villages, could've had less people hanging around than modern digital sets. The costs are higher because you've got an expensive actor doing their stuff and producers want to reduce risk of losing a shot. There's also a lot more politics involved than if you're shooting something for yourself.

Doing most things yourself can also be done with film, although it's easier with Super 16 than 35mm. Certainly the costs are higher for the stock and processing, but theoretically you can shoot with just as small a crew as with digital. I've shot 16mm film drama with 3 people in the crew including the director and recording sync sound.

[Jon Fairhurst]

All cameras need additional equipment to meet specific production requirements. Sure, a DSLR doesn't provide everything you want with an ENG camera, but put it on a jib for narrative work and its small size can be an advantage.

What I really want is a camera that automatically applies make up and provides catering services. ;)

[Allan Black]

Ha ha that's right. And if anyone is planning a bank heist, Nov. 3 will be a good day to do it.

Cheers.

[Ben Denham]

Some interesting information on the 1DX in this video from Dan Chung.

Canon Pro Solutions 2011: Audio Developments DSLR mixer on Vimeo

While we all would have liked clean HDMI out and 1080 60p I think the canon rep in this video makes it clear why we aren't seeing those features. With reference to clean HDMI out he says "we're still in discussions in Canon about conflicting between the EOS and video market".

So as a company Canon is still working out how to deal with these sort of features across their still and video divisions. They clearly still want to sell both sorts of cameras and so some features have been left off the 1D X.

The other interesting point in the Dan Chung video the Canon rep says that the new implementation of the H.264 codec "increases the file size by about three times". So if we do the math on the current bit rates that would mean around 150Mbit/s.

[Don Miller]

I have a hard time believing Dan will be putting a 1DX on a rig as the primary video camera in the future. If he's doing that, Canon has really screwed up its forthcoming video product.

The lack of audio out for monitoring on the 1DX is just bizarre. Talk about leaving out a simple improvement that would make life easier. They add time syncing over ethernet to satisfy a very small number of prestigious users, but no headphone jack. dumb.

It seems the 1DX is is scanning the whole sensor every frame. I guess that's why there's no 1080 60p. I can understand lack of 60p as a compromise to high quality 30p. But all I see with audio is frivolously crippling one product to protect another.

Originally Posted by Ben Denham

So as a company Canon is still working out how to deal with these sort of features across their still and video divisions. They clearly still want to sell both sorts of cameras and so some features have been left off the 1D X.

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.