Previous news story    Next news story

Canon to add 25fps 4K video recording to EOS-1D C pro DSLR

By dpreview staff on Feb 11, 2013 at 19:41 GMT

Canon has announced an upcoming service update to its EOS-1D C professional DSLR that will add 25p 4K video recording. The camera currently captures 4096 x 2160 resolution videos at up to 24p without downscaling, from an APS-H crop of its 18MP full-frame sensor. In a service advisory, the company promises more information about this update in April 2013 for US EOS-1D C owners. There is currently no information on the European website.

Read the full product advisory on the Canon USA website.

5
I own it
33
I want it
0
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 66
Sad Joe
By Sad Joe (Feb 12, 2013)

4k is the future - unlike the poor current 3D systems. Yep - roll on 4k at bargain prices - sure to come just before 4K 3D !!

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 13, 2013)

the 4K resolution is low enough for mobile devices which may have problem with 8K for sometime.

the current 3D is more like the old analog TVs, you get it as scanned. in the future when we have more computing power, we will be able to view from different angles and perspectives of a composed one (this requires shooting while walking, the way we see the world, a statue for example).

0 upvotes
Francis Sawyer
By Francis Sawyer (Feb 17, 2013)

No, shitty, pathetic-bitrate, compressed-to-hell crap being peddled as "4K" is the future, just as sham "HD" is the norm today.

Take a look at the "HD" on YouTube. You're going to get the exact same garbage blown up to "4K", at the same sorry bitrate.

1 upvote
Antony John
By Antony John (Feb 12, 2013)

Seems like Canon are still leading the way with video in SLRs.
Congrats to them from a Nikon user.
Whatever gripes some have it's better for the industry as a whole that some companies keep 'pushing the envelope'.

0 upvotes
KAllen
By KAllen (Feb 13, 2013)

I have the X and I also have a little Sony RX100 and the video output from the Sony other than slightly less highlight retention is as good and in some cases better the X.
Canon are not trying hard enough. The cost of the C is stupid, no way is there double the expense of the X in it. They could easily of had both cameras at the same price point.

1 upvote
Francis Sawyer
By Francis Sawyer (Feb 17, 2013)

Canon led the way years ago and then gave up. They still don't have real downscaling of their images for video; after years of development time and complaints, they're still using line-skipping and producing video with hideous aliasing and moire.

And they're still shooting to crappy codecs with decimated color information at laughable bitrates. Canon was the manufacturer that other video-camera makers were worried about. Not any more. They blew it, hard.

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Feb 12, 2013)

4k video will be available in $300 consumer models, soon enough. People will shout, "Hey, must have!" But then they will discover that 4k video demands perfect lighting, oceans of memory, 250mpbs bitrates, a $20k viewing screen, and dermatological enhancements--all for the sake of an image that looks the same at usual viewing distance. 4k video also demands a tripod, or super-duper stabilization, or any advantage is lost. The ability to crop 4k video might be attractive, except that the CPU and rendering time requirements are substantial. Easier to shoot with two mere HD cameras: one long, the other wide.

1 upvote
magneto shot
By magneto shot (Feb 12, 2013)

not if they use the 4k for current HD, everyone will have access to the best hd videos in sharpness and details

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Feb 12, 2013)

Will you buy a $25k 4k display to watch 2k Blu-rays? Or do you think the 5mbps YouTube "HD" will look better on that $25k screen?

3 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Feb 12, 2013)

"not if they use the 4k for current HD, everyone will have access to the best hd videos in sharpness and details"

Exactly. If you only have a full HD display, you can still make use of your 4K footage by reencoding it to 1080p. It'll have FAR better actual (real) resolution than the footage of any 1080p camera - pixel oversampling will always result in far better resolution than 1:1 recording. (See for example the Nokia 808's results in this regard.)

And, of course, 4K recordings you make TODAY are far more future-proof than 1080p ones. Sooner or later, everyone will have 4K displays.

1 upvote
maxnimo
By maxnimo (Feb 12, 2013)

Cheze, were you the one that used to say "4MB of ram is more than anyone will ever need." and "A 486 pc is overkill... no one has any real use for so much speed."?

0 upvotes
goman100
By goman100 (Feb 12, 2013)

They haven't got Blu-Ray straight yet and now 4K! Where are the video editors and other software and hardware to make this work? It's like shooting 60P video and your stinking BD player cannot handle it. A race for the cliff with wild techies in pursuit.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Francis Sawyer
By Francis Sawyer (Feb 17, 2013)

" they will discover that 4k video demands perfect lighting, oceans of memory, 250mpbs"

Perfect lighting? NO. Why would the resolution change the necessary lighting?

Your bitrate comment is on the money, but sadly people will gobble up fraud "4K" at 5 mbps the way they gobble up bullshìt "HD" at the same bitrate.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 12, 2013)

still is deading, long live video!
SLR is deading, long live mirrorless!

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 12, 2013)

1D C belongs to neither category.
a hermit crab between lobsters and real crabs.

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Feb 12, 2013)

"Still" still has its advantages. Any homely print, in a nice frame, will win a polite "Hmmm, nice" comment from from a friend, even if only as a segue to chatter about something else. A video longer than 10 seconds, on the other hand, will drive friends batty, unless it is very humorous or unless they like the music. Good video demands exceptional content or heaps of work (and money helps).

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 12, 2013)

still is dying in that it becomes part of video.
you will know it if you read Daily Prophet.

0 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Feb 12, 2013)

First old proverb: the wise person doubts, the idiot claims.

Second old proverb: when the idiot is laughing, trembles with fear the wise person.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 13, 2013)

still should have never happened and it only happened because of our technical incapability. anyone with a pair of small video cameras can see it, the way the God designed us.

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Feb 15, 2013)

yabokkie, you must have a really short attention span, if you can't concentrate on an image for more than a fraction of a second. There's a huge aesthetic pleasure to be derived from contemplating a well-composed still image.
And saying that stills never should have happened, and only happened because of the technical inability to create video, amounts to saying that painting/drawing never should have happened, and only happened because of the technical inability to create cartoons!
Basically, you dismiss the entire history of art and its principles of composition.

Many people nowadays talk about stills becoming part of video, but I don't see that happening. I can see why some might find it useful to extract stills from video, like documentary or sports photographers, or even fashion photographers shooting models on the catwalk. But not fine art, landscape and portrait shooters, or anyone who really cares about composition. So to say that stills is dying is just ignorant IMHO.

0 upvotes
AliRoust
By AliRoust (Feb 12, 2013)

24 fps = choppy videos why even bother?

1 upvote
Bruce ShrewsburyMA
By Bruce ShrewsburyMA (Feb 12, 2013)

Why bother? The 24fps and 25fps allow flexibility in use for both film and TV broadcasting. Here's why.

The appearance of "choppy videos" is more a matter of what shutter speeds are used. All movie "films" were and are still shot and shown at 24fps. To make them smooth, the shutter speed needs to be slower than 2 times the frame rate. Movie audiences are used to this rate and generally don't like the higher rate.

24fps does not transfer smoothly to televisions that originally used 30 fps as derived from their 60Hz AC power in the US. The 25fps rate is easier to adapt to TVs both in the US and Europe, which uses 50Hz AC power. Over the years TV frame rates have increased to multiples of 30Hz.

The 4K video recordings requires processing 4 times the data as 1080p. To collect and store this much data continuously at 30fps and up requires faster data processing speeds that is probably beyond the capabilities of even the EOS 1D C.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 12, 2013)

HDSLR cameras are given 24 fps so that videos have a more "cinematic" or film-like look. A properly shot using 24p as the frame-rate does not look choppy, but renders motion in a way that we are accustomed to seeing in narrative film / motion pictures.

30p is smoother, some say too smooth, too much like video. 24 fps is the industry standard for film and projection, and with digital video is a popular choice for many videographers as it mimics film.

The Canon 5DII didn't originally have 24p. It was added in a firmware update as videographers requested this frame rate, not because they wanted their videos to look choppy, but because of the pleasing way it renders motion.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 12, 2013)

don't worry we'll have 240 fps 8K in 10 years time maybe.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Feb 12, 2013)

"The 4K video recordings requires processing 4 times the data as 1080p. To collect and store this much data continuously at 30fps and up requires faster data processing speeds that is probably beyond the capabilities of even the EOS 1D C."

Exactly. Camera companies must plan beforehand and build in components that actually are capable of handling such a HUUUUUGE bandwidth. Very few of them do. Take a look at the GoPro 3 Black Edition's 4K mode (15 fps max). They surely would have added 24...30 fps if they had been able to to make the camera stand out even more (and be actually usable to shoot action at 4k). They weren't for the reasons explained above.

1 upvote
maxnimo
By maxnimo (Feb 12, 2013)

On a related note, my wife is used to the nice, simple washboard and loves the old, classic feel of rubbing those clothes, so why bother with a stupid washing machine!

0 upvotes
maxnimo
By maxnimo (Feb 12, 2013)

Way too slow. Ideal fps would be 300, but 120fps would be a good start.

4 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Feb 12, 2013)

Way to slow? Or way too fast? What would you need 300fps for, other than to see mosquito wings in slow motion? What sort of images would you expect to obtain with a 1/300 shutter speed in low light?

1 upvote
ryansholl
By ryansholl (Feb 12, 2013)

Not enough. 300,000 frames per second minimum. How could we possible live with less?

/sarcasm

I personally find 120 nauseating.

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Feb 12, 2013)

"Way too slow. Ideal fps would be 300, but 120fps would be a good start."

You've forgotten to add "/sarcasm" to show us you didn't meant that seriously...

Camera manufacturers are having a VERY hard time adding even 15 fps support at 4k in their cameras, let alone 120, which is, at the current state of technology, is plain impossible (in cameras costing less than, say, 50k US$)...

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
maxnimo
By maxnimo (Feb 12, 2013)

No, I'm not kidding at all. It's so sad to see how many photographers have so little knowledge about any other subject. At 300 fps an image appears like you are looking out of a window at real life in motion. And speaking of impossible... just a while ago 1TB hard drives were impossible, 1GB of ram was impossible, 10 GFLOP cpu's were impossible, and 10Mpixel cameras were impossible.

1 upvote
maxnimo
By maxnimo (Feb 12, 2013)

ryansholl , I'm sorry to hear that you find 120 nauseating as you must be in perpetual pain and suffering since real life is way, way faster than 120 fps. Again, my heart hurts for your terrible pain.

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Feb 12, 2013)

"No, I'm not kidding at all. It's so sad to see how many photographers have so little knowledge about any other subject."

1. Many even state 60 fps is an overkill and 30 fps is sufficient.

2. Hardware will be capable of 300 fps at 4k. In some 2-3 years but definitely NOT today. It is, today, IMPOSSIBLE to do what you're asking for. Even the ones that desperately need as high fps as possible (action camera makers) can't do it in their top-end models.

0 upvotes
sagebrushfire
By sagebrushfire (Feb 13, 2013)

300 FPS? There's no logical reason to ever present anything at 300 frames per second, your eyes and your brain could not process that much information, not to mention things that *should* have motion blur will mysteriously not have it. Look at your hand and wiggle it back and forth, see how blurry that is? Kiss that goodbye at 300FPS, how exactly would that be like "real life"? The sad thing here is that YOU are criticizing peoples' ignorance when you don't actually have the slightest clue what you're talking about. High frame rates can deliver certain effects but the most practical use for anything over 60 fps is to remap to a lower fps for slow motion effects (300fps would be awesome in that respect, you could turn 1 second into 10, more than enough for most cinematic effects). And re:real life, frame rate is not analogous to the way your eyes perceive visual stimuli. For the sake of video and animation, 60-120 fps is the reasonable limit; any more is a waste of resources.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
maxnimo
By maxnimo (Feb 14, 2013)

sagebrushfire , yes, when you move that hand in front of you it will appear blurry... until your eyes lock on and track it. Then it will be smooth as silk. Do you know why? Because real life is way, way faster than 60 FPS. This is easily seen on a movie screen whenever a camera pans across a landscape or when you watch a moving spaceship... instead of smooth motion you get nauseating choppy jitter.

0 upvotes
G Davidson
By G Davidson (Feb 12, 2013)

Very technical, but hope they soon allow 30fps. Seeing the difference, motion's a lot smoother and people can always limit it to 24/25fps if they want. Sounds like processing this amount of data is difficult, so it may be a while before they offer a 'true' 8k model. Which makes me wonder- isn't high resolution film still a better archival format? Sorry to be inane, but when something is touted as the best thing since sliced bread, sometimes it's good to point out it's limitations.

1 upvote
graybalanced
By graybalanced (Feb 12, 2013)

High resolution film is better if you can preserve it. Color dyes still shift and fade over time. The most archival method is breaking out the RGB color into 3-strip B&W, but while it's clearly the best, it's not something most people will be willing to do. For most businesses and families, it's better to plan to continually migrate video to whatever format is current.

1 upvote
G Davidson
By G Davidson (Feb 12, 2013)

Excellent point, in this sense for most people digital is safer, especially if you can do multiple back-ups. I do wonder for feature film makers, though, if formats like this will stand the test of time as well as conventional film, especially the 70mm variety. Digital is often presented as state of the art and as if it is the only available technology. Film at it's best still has a lot of advantages and I'm not sure I like the glossy, plasticy look of digital for conveying atmosphere, though of course it can have filters applied a la Instagram.

It's a little sad for me that despite all the fuss, digital is still a work in progress, without the maturity film has achieved through years of evolution. An 8k scan of an old 70mm film would offer so much more detail and subtlty than this, but given the choice of convenience, who would bother?

2 upvotes
graybalanced
By graybalanced (Feb 12, 2013)

A lot of great films are rapidly deteriorating right now. While a lot of people try to take a fanboy approach and pit film vs digital in some kind of "war," the fact is that one of the biggest reasons great old films are being restored is because of digital DVD, Blu-Ray, and 8K. It is the economic potential of these digital markets that is making funding available to restore classic films. If we still had only film available, the theatrical market is not nearly large enough to justify this and great old films would rot and die. Film simply doesn't even last 100 years, in many cases not even 50.

As far as 8K scans of 70mm, you are mostly right. For most films, no one will bother. But when the film is cherished by the right people, it will happen. The 70mm masterpiece Baraka was scanned at 8K and the resulting Blu-Ray is so spectacular many say it's a "reference disc" enthusiasts use to rate all other Blu-Rays.

What would make 8K scans commonplace? If it becomes inexpensive and easy.

2 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Feb 12, 2013)

30 fps is more for TV, but definitely higher fps is needed 120/240/300+ for Cine, but at the moment, affordable dCine-cams/dSLRs are not going to offer that for awhile.

i think it is badly needed, as vast majority of theater release (4k/8k/IMAX/DLP/70mm of 'today') suffers from major lateral panning blur in big screen theaters. i go to a lot of new movies, that all suffer this blur problem, it makes one feel the large screen format is wasted because fps/refresh rates are too low/slow to reduce ugly panning-blur: so many 'scenic' shots are ruined by it in movies, even digital projection movies struggle as well (including CGI enhanced animated/movies sequences). if this isn't done soon enough, most are better off seeing a movie at home (minus 'big sound' and 'proper 3D', that comes along with big screen hi-res theater movies)

any step towards higher fps is welcome, especially if it's target is Cine/Theater, not 'home theater'.

Baraka/Samsara will still suffer pan-blur at lower fps too

2 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Feb 12, 2013)

"Very technical, but hope they soon allow 30fps. "

If the hardware itself is capable of such a high bandwidth... very few cameras are.

0 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Feb 12, 2013)

it wasn't long ago people asked what's the point of Full HD 1080p (or blue-ray) when no one had HDTV capable of it... but they were definitely on their way.

ditto 4k for TV/projectors/theatres

a dSLR format that offers 4k Cine instead of 1080p is only logical next step and closer to higher res that Cine demands instead of 'home videos'.

and 25p for UK/Europe instead of just 24p Japan/NorthAm makes full sense, to include such a huge market instead of excluding it

30p(regular speed)/60p(slo-mo) is for the higher fps of 'action/sports' telecasting (usually sports event 'video' (rarely 'Cine') of 'everyday' TV)

why question addition of 25p when other questioned leaving it out???

Philip Bloom wished the 1Dc had 25p... as would others
http://philipbloom.net/2013/01/27/1dc/

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Feb 12, 2013)

"30p(regular speed)/60p(slo-mo) is for the higher fps of 'action/sports' telecasting (usually sports event 'video' (rarely 'Cine') of 'everyday' TV)"

60 fps isn't necessarily slo-mo only. Today, a lot of (in this regard) advanced even P&S cameras shoot at 60 (in PAL lands, 50) fps (progressive): look at Sony's and Pana's models (RX100, ZS30/TZ40, LX7, the HX series etc.).

60 fps is MUCH smoother even for non-techies and for non-sports too.

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Feb 12, 2013)

When are they coming out with an app so I can plug this into my 7" iPad?

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Feb 12, 2013)

What do you exactly want to do? Import images? You already can with the new CCK. Remote control your camera via a cabled connection? You won't see anything like that, "thanks" to Apple's restrictions.

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Feb 11, 2013)

It needs a FB, Twitter and Instagram button to show the world at lightning speed only 1% of people who own these cameras actually take good pics and can use the camera at full potential.

2 upvotes
Cane
By Cane (Feb 11, 2013)

Sometimes inner monologue is better.

11 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Feb 11, 2013)

Hmmmmm. Is he the 99% or 1%? I'm guessing the 99%. Inner dialogue is much better than inner monologue ;)

3 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Feb 12, 2013)

@Trollshavethebestcandy, where's your superior shots?

1 upvote
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (Feb 12, 2013)

I am in the the 99%
all my best photos have been taken with my eyes and stored on my grey matter drive. Bad print quality but great dynamic range and detail. My best shots have been taken at the range at 1,000 yards

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
hugh crawford
By hugh crawford (Feb 11, 2013)

What use is 4K at 25fps ? Just curious.

As far as I know there is no display standard for 4K 25fps and 4K is a ciniema production standard for movie theaters

It's not like they have a 4K at 30fps option either.

3 upvotes
J Birn
By J Birn (Feb 12, 2013)

What's the point? Lots of points!
1. Think of it as a "burst mode" that captures 8MP stills, but can grab 25 of them in a second.
2. Allows for post-production, including zooming & cropping into an image, to output full HD video.
3. Capture panoramas with ultra-wide adapters, then crop down to the part you need.
4. As you said, 4K is already a standard in theaters.

4 upvotes
Alec
By Alec (Feb 12, 2013)

@ J Birn, I think Hugh means what's the point of 25fps specifically - there's a standard for 4K at 24fps but to me it seems he questions the added value of 25fps. There's a legacy affinity in Europe for 25fps being half of 50Hz (their local refresh rate), but their tech has long been capable of displaying 24fps correctly,

1 upvote
mgrum
By mgrum (Feb 12, 2013)

Once again it is necessary to point out that you don't need 4K broadcast/viewing setup in order to make use of 4K recording.

A 4K bayer sensor camera downsampled to 2K will look much better than a 2K bayer sensor image. The difference is akin to that of foveon vs. bayer.

Also it is better to do green screen and compositing work at a higher resolution and then downsample.

So the point of this mode is to produce high quality footage for 1080p25 broadcast in Europe.

0 upvotes
Octane
By Octane (Feb 11, 2013)

Remind me again how much this camera is? $12,000 ? Ah OK, never mind.

3 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Feb 11, 2013)

Probably more like $25,000 with a "low end" set of Cinema lenses

5 upvotes
graybalanced
By graybalanced (Feb 12, 2013)

For the intended audience, $12,000 is strictly bargain bin.

2 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Feb 12, 2013)

$12k ?
< 5% of low-budget production / day
< charter helicopter for flyover shot
< used auto used for crash scene
< 3-month fee paid by star for yacht harbor slip
< 1 second Super Bowl "spot" ad fee
> average household cash savings.
> 50% average annual SS pension benefits.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 12, 2013)

Technically, you don't need high end Cinema lenses with this camera, you can simply use the EF lenses you may already have.

The camera is not cheap, and for a lot of people who don't need 2 K, the EOS C300, C100, RED Scarlet or BMCC would be a better choice.

But for many, all of these cameras are more rentals cameras.

That said, footage from this camera looks very good as it should.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Kite Kraemer
By Kite Kraemer (Feb 12, 2013)

I mentioned in a post below, the camera is way too limiting without 30p. Who cares about 4k when you cant get 30p/60i?! I love Canon and would hope they release a similar camera with that feature. (the c300,c100,red, BMCC aren't cameras that go on long expeditions in your backpack.)

0 upvotes
disasterpiece
By disasterpiece (Feb 11, 2013)

This won't bother too many of us, will it? :P

14 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Feb 11, 2013)

I am glad they are offering this update, but I am shocked they didn't think about 50hz ahead of time on a product this high end.

3 upvotes
ryansholl
By ryansholl (Feb 11, 2013)

What makes you think it's just that easy? There are significant hardware needs to handle that sort of datastream.

I assure you this wasn't done as an afterthought and a great deal of work went into the camera ahead of time just to make this possible.

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Feb 11, 2013)

The fact that they didn't include a 25fps option, but did including 24fps means they totally forget about the whole 50hz and PAL market.

The fact that they already have a fix means it isn't a giant feat of engineering.

5 upvotes
Tonio Loewald
By Tonio Loewald (Feb 12, 2013)

25fps is the PAL market. PAL is 50i/25p.

0 upvotes
Kite Kraemer
By Kite Kraemer (Feb 12, 2013)

Without at LEAST 30p-- this camera will have a hard time keeping up with any real video camera; even if it's not 4k. Overcranking is what people want anyway--lets hope canon can make it so.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 66