# Inside the Canon EOS-1D C



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 8, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href=""></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Is it different from the EOS-1D X?

</strong>We had a chance to peer inside the EOS-1D C (No photos allowed) to find out how much it differed from the EOS-1D X. The differences are minimal, the biggest change is the heat sink inside the camera to keep the sensor circuitry cool during 4K video operation.</p>
<p><strong>Firmware

</strong>The EOS-1D X has some traces of the EOS-1D C firmware code and the features are locked. We don’t know how much of the firmware is the same.</p>
<p><strong>Third Party Firmware?

</strong>I was told by someone at Canon that they would “bring the might of its legal team” to anyone that attempts to modify at the software level, the features of an EOS-1 camera body. So I think the firmware community out there today will probably leave the EOS-1D X alone.</p>
<p>More to come on this topic I’m sure. I am hopeful that someone provides pictures of the inside of the EOS-1D C in direct comparison to the EOS-1D X.</p>
<p><strong>Why does it cost so much more?

</strong>Production of the EOS-1D C is going to be a lot less than even the limited production EOS-1D X. Especially when you compare the numbers to the 5D Mark III or a Rebel. The software development will also add a lot of cost to the camera. How much bigger their margin is on the EOS-1D C over the EOS-1D X? I have no official word on that, but I’d love to hear about it.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/855962-REG/Canon_EOS_1D_C_EOS_1D_C_4K_Cinema.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EOS-1D C at B&H Photo for $11,999</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Bombsight (Jan 8, 2013)

Somebody is going to crack that 4k video capability in the 1DX.

.... they say laws are meant to be broken & there are many out there chomping at the bit to do it.


----------



## matukas (Jan 8, 2013)

Indeed. As a proof of concept, one who has resources, will crack it sooner or later. It's always been like this. Other thing is, what to do with this knowledge.


----------



## ryebrye (Jan 8, 2013)

There isn't much of a legal leg to stand on. 

The magic-lantern team is very careful to never redistribute Canon-copyrighted binaries or code of any sort, and the kind of reverse engineering that they do is entirely legal. 

I think the price of getting a 1D-X for the various developers who are capable of performing such work is probably going to be the biggest barrier to entry, really, than the actual technical work itself. 

(And my guess is that they will try to use an even harder level of encryption than they have on their previous firmwares, but they probably wont succeed to well at that)


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jan 8, 2013)

Maybe someone from a certain rental place will buy one and open it up for us to see.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 8, 2013)

I've been discussing in the ml forum and with the ml devs all over, thus the lengthy post:



ryebrye said:


> The magic-lantern team is very careful to never redistribute Canon-copyrighted binaries or code of any sort, and the kind of reverse engineering that they do is entirely legal.



And changing some flags in the 1dx firmware via ml probably wouldn't be illegal either, Canon doesn't make you sign a contract "no 3rd party firmware allowed" when selling the camera. But as it is, even targeting a whole department of lawyers on a single person might have some impact :-o

However, near consensus among the ml devs is to leave the 1dx alone, not just because Canon says so, but also because ...

a) ml is a community project to add new features to entry- to midrange cameras (5d3 being the absolute top of the line) and only there expand upon some firmware limitations (i.e. more than 3x bracketing), ml is not there to save money for rich people - at least that's not why I contributed source code to ml.

b) it would be stupid because Canon just relaxed a bit about ml (in comparison to plain ignorance) and maybe they'll even make life easier for the devs by giving some answers that save months of reverse engineering - but on the other hand Canon can disable the ml loader mechanism on the next cameras or via the next firmware updates, and that would be the end of it. A real possibility is that Canon tries to void all warranties if they detect ml has ever been installed which would cut 2/3 of the userbase just because of fud.

To sum it up: If someone hacks the 1dx to a 1dc, maybe even commercially ("give me half the 1dx/1dc difference and I'll unlock it") it won't be via ml - personally I hope it won't happen at all, people who actually use 4k in 2013 are most probably well off and should just pay for it.

As for Canon ripping 1dx/1dc users off: A dslr is a computer, the firmware is the software, and it absolutely common to deliver the same software with features unlockable for a price (i.e. 4k on the 1dc) even if the hardware (i.e. your computer) is the same. You cannot demand "I want Photoshop Elements for the price of Photoshop Extended" just because your computer can run it. It's a legit business model, even if people might not like it. I do like it because it makes well-off people pay more, now if Canon would just make reasonable prices for the rest of us...


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jan 8, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> As for Canon ripping 1dx/1dc users off: A dslr is a computer, the firmware is the software, and it absolutely common to deliver the same software with features unlockable for a price (i.e. 4k on the 1dc) even if the hardware (i.e. your computer) is the same. You cannot demand "I want Photoshop Elements for the price of Photoshop Extended" just because your computer can run it...



Yes, price out some of the basic and full featured CAD software packages. Huge price increase for the full versions.


----------



## UrbanVoyeur (Jan 8, 2013)

Hacking aside, I don't think the 1D C makes sense at it's current price level. It's too close to other entry level pro video camera bodies that (Red, Sony, Panasonic) that offer greater flexibility and control for $15-20k. And a good sale or promotion will wipe out even the slight Canon price advantage.


----------



## k1975 (Jan 8, 2013)

Since noise increases with heat, either exposing the camera to heat or after continuous use, does all that heat dissipation design also decrease noise in stills after being used continuously for a long time?


----------



## that1guyy (Jan 8, 2013)

If you're going to spend $12k, spend $3k more for RAW.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Jan 9, 2013)

that1guyy said:


> If you're going to spend $12k, spend $3k more for RAW.



Or spend spend $2K less for raw:

$7K for 1Dx + $3K for BMC.


----------



## gmrza (Jan 9, 2013)

UrbanVoyeur said:


> Hacking aside, I don't think the 1D C makes sense at it's current price level. It's too close to other entry level pro video camera bodies that (Red, Sony, Panasonic) that offer greater flexibility and control for $15-20k. And a good sale or promotion will wipe out even the slight Canon price advantage.



I think where Canon is targeting the 1DC is at users who would prefer stills and 4K video in a single body, with the ergonomics of a stills camera. I would hazard a guess that documentary makers would be a major target market, especially where there is a need to travel light.

As far as the price is concerned, this is a "tool of the trade" so the willingness to spend the purchase price has nothing to be with being wealthy, but with the ability for the camera to satisfy a specific business requirement better than other products also available on the market. If a documentary maker (for instance) can reduce the overall weight or cost of equipment carried, that may satisfy a business requirement. A weight consideration may even sway a decision in favour of the 1D-C, even if the output quality is inferior to what RED or Sony could deliver, if the logistics of a production are sufficiently simplified or made cheaper.


----------



## coutts (Jan 9, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> And changing some flags in the 1dx firmware via ml probably wouldn't be illegal either, Canon doesn't make you sign a contract "no 3rd party firmware allowed" when selling the camera. But as it is, even targeting a whole department of lawyers on a single person might have some impact :-o



actually, when you download any canon firmware update you agree to these terms:
[quote author=Canon U.S.A.]
You shall not alter, modify, disassemble, decompile or otherwise reverse engineer the Software and you also shall not have any third party to do so.
[/quote]

I hope this announcement will be enough to make people leave us alone about hacking the 1D


----------



## AG (Jan 9, 2013)

For me the base problem i can see here is not with the people that are purchasing this camera and their wealth. 

It's more to do with the fact that canon has priced this camera at the point it has to not hurt sales of their other products like the 1DX and the C100 (both of which retail for around $7k).

If they reduced the price of the 1DC to say $500 more than the 1DX who honestly would buy the 1DX anymore?
Let alone the C100. 
So instead they put it up with the C300 and claim that its double the camera than the 1DX and thats why its double the cost.

I don't understand why Canon cant just put 4K into the 1DX, call it the 1DX Mk2 or 1DX "C" or whatever at the same price point as what the 1DX is now and thats the end of that.

They would create a second "DSLR video Revolution" as they like to call it, and the other manufacturers would have to play catch up again.

Oh well greed/profits always win out in the end.


----------



## gmrza (Jan 9, 2013)

AG said:


> For me the base problem i can see here is not with the people that are purchasing this camera and their wealth.
> 
> It's more to do with the fact that canon has priced this camera at the point it has to not hurt sales of their other products like the 1DX and the C100 (both of which retail for around $7k).
> 
> ...



Another reason for the price may also be to throttle demand. Paradoxical as this may sound - if Canon cannot fulfil higher volumes, the solution is to price it at a level which will reduce demand. There may be an element of this happening, in that Canon is pricing higher to reduce demand until it can streamline production. It has already been pointed out that this is a small volume camera, so unit production costs will be high. Manufacturing is a scale game.

Canon also does not have any direct competitors in this space (yet), so it can bide its time and perfect the product before opening the floodgates.

You don't have to like this strategy, but it is an approach Canon could viably take.


----------



## jondave (Jan 9, 2013)

IP is priceless, and Canon like anyone else can sell it at any price they want. Software companies have been doing this for decades.

I sincerely hope the usual Canon bashers here don't rant in this thread cause Canon is selling the same hardware for double the price. As I always say, if you can't afford it, don't buy it. Just because you can't afford it doesn't mean you should rant about it - if you're so pissed go invent one yourself and I dare you to sell it at the price you're thinking of.


----------



## victorwol (Jan 9, 2013)

jondave said:


> IP is priceless, and Canon like anyone else can sell it at any price they want. Software companies have been doing this for decades.
> 
> I sincerely hope the usual Canon bashers here don't rant in this thread cause Canon is selling the same hardware for double the price. As I always say, if you can't afford it, don't buy it. Just because you can't afford it doesn't mean you should rant about it - if you're so pissed go invent one yourself and I dare you to sell it at the price you're thinking of.



Ditto!!!


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 9, 2013)

coutts said:


> [quote author=Canon U.S.A.]
> You shall not alter, modify, disassemble, decompile or otherwise reverse engineer the Software and you also shall not have any third party to do so.


I hope this announcement will be enough to make people leave us alone about hacking the 1D 
[/quote]

Thanks for the information, just as everyone else I never read the fine print (and am not a lawyer) :-o


----------



## pp77 (Jan 9, 2013)

>Firmware
>The EOS-1D X has some traces of the EOS-1D C firmware code and the features are locked. We don’t know how much of the firmware is the same.

For me this statement strongly implies that it can be done in principle....


----------



## NormanBates (Jan 9, 2013)

Fair or not, this "same hardware at twice the price" thing is not going to earn them a lot of sympathy


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 9, 2013)

AG said:


> For me the base problem i can see here is not with the people that are purchasing this camera and their wealth.
> 
> It's more to do with the fact that canon has priced this camera at the point it has to not hurt sales of their other products like the 1DX and the C100 (both of which retail for around $7k).
> 
> ...



Indeed they could've made a 5D3 perhaps too that would've flow off the shelves in a way that made the 5D2 look like it never sold a copy, instead they are not just one of many and no longer own the very market they had created. It's not the way to become a huge, dominant company. I guess it is the way to be ultra-conservative and slug along just being one in the crowd though and getting some intense profits per copy at low copy sales though.

The only reason they even created the revolution to begin with is because they didn't even have a clue. The second they get a clue they kill it off. I was afraid once we first heard rumors about C cams and C100s it was over.

But who knows maybe going this conservative route gets them more money in the end. Or maybe not. Anyway they have made their decision.


----------



## syder (Jan 9, 2013)

coutts said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > And changing some flags in the 1dx firmware via ml probably wouldn't be illegal either, Canon doesn't make you sign a contract "no 3rd party firmware allowed" when selling the camera. But as it is, even targeting a whole department of lawyers on a single person might have some impact :-o
> ...



I hope this announcement will be enough to make people leave us alone about hacking the 1D 
[/quote]

There's a big difference between what corporations put in end user license agreements (ie what they wish to happen) and what is actually legal.

For example Apple said much the same thing about all iOS devices in their EULAs - however when they went to the US library of congress to ask to have iOS jailbreaking formally declared to be an illegal act, their case was thrown out as it was decided that once a consumer has purchased a device they are free to install whatever (legally created and obtained) software they wish. That doesn't stop Apple releasing firmware updates which patch the methods by which jailbreaks occur, and Canon could certainly do this, but simply saying it's illegal to install software on devices which own isn't true.

I would imagine that in the US at least this would set a very strong legal precedent should Canon actually decide to go after anyone for writing custom firmware for a 1DX


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jan 9, 2013)

coutts said:


> actually, when you download any canon firmware update you agree to these terms:
> [quote author=Canon U.S.A.]
> You shall not alter, modify, disassemble, decompile or otherwise reverse engineer the Software and you also shall not have any third party to do so.



I hope this announcement will be enough to make people leave us alone about hacking the 1D 
[/quote]

Easy to write, not so easy to enforce.

E.g. John could ask Peter to download the firmware for him. Peter did not ask John to do anything with the firmware, and John did not agree to the terms. John doesn't even have to name John, so Canon would have to prove in court that Peter downloaded the firmware himself.


----------



## japhoto (Jan 9, 2013)

The price aside, this thing could make an epic long exposure tool if the sensor cooling works also for stills...


----------



## dolina (Jan 9, 2013)

If Apple Inc cannot bring the jailbreakers to justice what hope of Canon Inc? They have better luck stiffing the grey market imports.

4K video should not cost that much!


----------



## NormanBates (Jan 9, 2013)

dolina said:


> 4K video should not cost that much!



And it won't. It's just that it won't be Canon selling the cameras.


----------



## max (Jan 9, 2013)

http://www.cinevate.com/blog/canon-1d-c-motion-image-photography
Amazing what they can extract from a video! 8MP images... imagine what can be done!
All those almost pics that you would get!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 9, 2013)

dolina said:


> If Apple Inc cannot bring the jailbreakers to justice what hope of Canon Inc? They have better luck stiffing the grey market imports.
> 
> 4K video should not cost that much!



The real danger, as some have said, is that they could start encrypting firmwares in future bodies and make it 10x more difficult to make ML for say the 5D4 or 7D2 and so. So many believe it is best to let sleeping dogs lie. 1DX/C doesn't get publicly unlocked and Canon doesn't make it a true mess to code for future non-1 series bodies.


----------



## Portrait_Moments_Photogra (Jan 9, 2013)

they would “bring the might of its legal team” to anyone that attempts to modify at the software level,

DEAR CANON

leave your customers alone - we bought your over priced camera - let us do what we want with it.
besides - it did not cost you anything for ML to do their work.

~ we can sue you too you know - you have no business what we do with our cameras.


----------



## Area256 (Jan 9, 2013)

syder said:


> There's a big difference between what corporations put in end user license agreements (ie what they wish to happen) and what is actually legal.
> 
> For example Apple said much the same thing about all iOS devices in their EULAs - however when they went to the US library of congress to ask to have iOS jailbreaking formally declared to be an illegal act, their case was thrown out as it was decided that once a consumer has purchased a device they are free to install whatever (legally created and obtained) software they wish. That doesn't stop Apple releasing firmware updates which patch the methods by which jailbreaks occur, and Canon could certainly do this, but simply saying it's illegal to install software on devices which own isn't true.
> 
> I would imagine that in the US at least this would set a very strong legal precedent should Canon actually decide to go after anyone for writing custom firmware for a 1DX



I think if someone unlocked code features in the firmware of the 1DX to let it do 4K, than Canon would have a case - it would be like using software you didn't pay for. If, however, someone writes 3rd party software, like ML, to do 4K video without using hidden Canon code, than they have less of a case in the US (based on the above ruling). Although it's possible that like nVidia's graphics cards, they have some kind of hardware switch that will make it impossible to access the required bits of hardware.


----------



## jondave (Jan 9, 2013)

dolina said:


> If Apple Inc cannot bring the jailbreakers to justice what hope of Canon Inc? They have better luck stiffing the grey market imports.
> 
> 4K video should not cost that much!



Really? Let's see you learn programming and crack the firmware yourself. 



Portrait_Moments_Photogra said:


> they would “bring the might of its legal team” to anyone that attempts to modify at the software level,
> 
> DEAR CANON
> 
> ...



Really, sue Canon? Is that the advice you gave to George Hotz vs. Sony?

Honestly, I don't expect the ML team to break this. It would take too much work to benefit a small few. Plus they know the implications of possibly pissing off Canon. It's not impossible for Canon to lock out ML on ALL cameras, would you honestly want that to happen?

Seriously, some people just have no respect for IP.


----------



## Dark Reality (Jan 10, 2013)

One of the differences mentioned was a heat sink in the 1dc, so even if ml or someone figured out a way to do 4k video on the 1dx, might it just overheat?


----------



## AG (Jan 10, 2013)

Dark Reality said:


> One of the differences mentioned was a heat sink in the 1dc, so even if ml or someone figured out a way to do 4k video on the 1dx, might it just overheat?



It might, BUT this was why i mentioned before that if Canon has a camera that has a gen 1 heatsink and the same camera with the advanced gen 2 heatsink . Wouldn't it make sense to just put the advanced heatsink on both and save money only having to produce 1?


----------



## AG (Jan 10, 2013)

jondave said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > If Apple Inc cannot bring the jailbreakers to justice what hope of Canon Inc? They have better luck stiffing the grey market imports.
> ...



Who is to say that the ML team will be the ones that break anything?

What if someone worked out a way to "flash" the 1DC firmware directly onto a 1DX via a 3rd party software plugin of some form.
That way they are not tampering with the firmware at all, they are just loading a legit copy of the firmware onto a similar body. (basically the firmware itself isn't touched so no ability to sue, only the method for loading the firmware onto the camera).

BTW George Hotz modified the firmware of the PS3, so he DID break their EULA, If on the other hand the PS3 was just a PS2 with say new funky controllers and all he did was work out a method of flashing the PS3 firmware onto a PS2 without modifying it at all, so you could play all the PS3 games with the PS2 controllers, that would be a different argument.


----------



## coutts (Jan 10, 2013)

*we REFUSE to modify, or assist in the modification, of any 1D camera.*

It would jeopardize the entire project and years of work from many developers (including myself). Not worth the risk.


----------



## matt2491 (Jan 10, 2013)

No worries coutts, someone besides ML will do it.


----------



## jondave (Jan 10, 2013)

AG said:


> BTW George Hotz modified the firmware of the PS3, so he DID break their EULA, If on the other hand the PS3 was just a PS2 with say new funky controllers and all he did was work out a method of flashing the PS3 firmware onto a PS2 without modifying it at all, so you could play all the PS3 games with the PS2 controllers, that would be a different argument.



So you're a lawyer now? You willing to bet your life savings to pay for the lawyer defending the idiot who'll crack Canon's 1DX firmware?



matt2491 said:


> No worries coutts, someone besides ML will do it.



Ha, easy for you to say, you're not the one getting your hands dirty. I dare you to find someone who will.

What some here don't understand is that this is not about what's legally binding or not. Canon can bring you to court anytime of the day. They don't have to win the case, they just need to waste your time and money defending yourself.

So tell me, why would someone with the expertise to break Canon's 1DX firmware waste his time and effort giving away his work for free to a small number of 1DX users, at the risk of Canon's bloodhounds chewing him up until he's bankrupt?


----------



## AG (Jan 10, 2013)

jondave said:


> AG said:
> 
> 
> > BTW George Hotz modified the firmware of the PS3, so he DID break their EULA, If on the other hand the PS3 was just a PS2 with say new funky controllers and all he did was work out a method of flashing the PS3 firmware onto a PS2 without modifying it at all, so you could play all the PS3 games with the PS2 controllers, that would be a different argument.
> ...



Ok firstly dude, relax. Your taking this way too personally.

Secondly if the end user is *NOT* modifying the firmware itself but instead has found a way of tricking the installer into loading the 1DC firmware onto a 1DX. How is that modifying the firmware? Its no different to people loading updates to their Android phones that are not standard or the old Modem firmware update hacks of years past.

The sky isn't falling.


----------



## jondave (Jan 10, 2013)

AG said:


> Secondly if the end user is *NOT* modifying the firmware itself but instead has found a way of tricking the installer into loading the 1DC firmware onto a 1DX. How is that modifying the firmware? Its no different to people loading updates to their Android phones that are not standard or the old Modem firmware update hacks of years past.



I'm pretty sure someone can do this. The question is if that someone has the balls to publish it for others to use.

You just don't get it do you? EULA's are not black and white, it's mostly gray. A big gray pool where high-priced lawyers swim in.


----------



## Speediakal (Jan 10, 2013)

I can't wait for someone to try and get 4K video on the 1D X and have it burn up in a torrent of fire. Then everyone will realize that heatsinks are important and there's a reason for the price difference.

Also, the 1D C is in a niche market, there is no other camera comparable to it.

BMCC? Only 2K.
RED? Fully loaded, costs $25K+ and is huge.
JVC and Sonys new 4K camera? No interchangeable lenses.


Are half the people in here that are whining about this camera even looking to use 4K video in the near future? You realize most people rent?


----------



## jondave (Jan 10, 2013)

Speediakal said:


> I can't wait for someone to try and get 4K video on the 1D X and have it burn up in a torrent of fire. Then everyone will realize that heatsinks are important and there's a reason for the price difference.



Only one way to find out - could the whiners here chip in and give me $12k? I'll buy a 1DC, open it up and take the heatsink off, shoot 4k video and see how long it can record til it melts down.

Wait, no one wants to cough up the dough? I thought so.


----------



## sanj (Jan 10, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> coutts said:
> 
> 
> > [quote author=Canon U.S.A.]
> ...


----------



## cinema-dslr (Jan 10, 2013)

sanj said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > coutts said:
> ...


----------



## jondave (Jan 10, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> coutts said:
> 
> 
> > [quote author=Canon U.S.A.]
> ...


what you do to your camera is your business you only loose your claim to any waranty.
The person that offers modified software/frmware could be sued when that person isn't some anonymous entity on the net.
[/quote]

You can do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING you can possibly want, no one is stopping you. Just don't get caught.


----------



## PeterJ (Jan 10, 2013)

jondave said:


> Honestly, I don't expect the ML team to break this. It would take too much work to benefit a small few. Plus they know the implications of possibly pissing off Canon. It's not impossible for Canon to lock out ML on ALL cameras, would you honestly want that to happen?
> 
> Seriously, some people just have no respect for IP.


Agree with you on the first point and being a non-profit group of volunteers even though legally I can't think of any leg Canon would have to stand on of course any lawsuit even without merit can cost stacks to defend.

But "no respect for IP" makes no sense at all to me. Even the DMCA which is pretty draconian in my opinion allows reverse engineering for the purpose of making one piece of software interoperate with another under section 1201(f). Under Australian law that 'no reverse engineering' stuff would probably be a borderline case of unconscionable conduct under consumer laws, of course once again if you had the money to defend it so I understand the stance of the ML team. But it doesn't exactly make Canon's stance either lawful or just.


----------



## matt2491 (Jan 10, 2013)

No worries jondave, someone will do it.


----------



## jlev23 (Jan 10, 2013)

i used and tested the 1d-C, nice camera, but i would never buy a camera for 12k that doesnt shoot raw, its ridiculous.
its a 6-7 thousand dollar camera at best.


----------



## neech7 (Jan 10, 2013)

I guess a bunch of people here ingested the naive pill this morning.


----------



## cayenne (Jan 10, 2013)

dolina said:


> If Apple Inc cannot bring the jailbreakers to justice what hope of Canon Inc? They have better luck stiffing the grey market imports.
> 
> 4K video should not cost that much!



I believe that there was an exception added to the DMCA that fully allows you to jailbreak your phone...I think it is semi-annually that the DMCA comes up for review and exceptions can be added or removed.

As for the camera..I think it comes down to if you wanted to put any firmware on the camera you wanted to...you can freely. I imagine you could sell it, or give it away free legally.

You'd just better be VERY sure, that you document and actually do a *clean room* reverse engineering of the hardware.

Now..if there is any DRM in the hardware you have to 'break' to get functionality...that might be an area that is gonna need a DMCA exception.

IANAL, but from what I've read and seen on subjects like this in the past...this would seem to follow along.

So, if this hardware has the functionality, and you can figure how to use it, without using any Canon software (per their license), you would be free to do so,and free to release it..as that I'm guessing that there isn't any hardware locking or encryption in the hardware that would have to be bypassed or cracked to use....

That my $0.02,

cayenne


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 23, 2013)

jlev23 said:


> i used and tested the 1d-C, nice camera, but i would never buy a camera for 12k that doesnt shoot raw, its ridiculous.
> its a 6-7 thousand dollar camera at best.



Well a 1DX is a 6-7 thousand dollar camera, and the 1DC is literally the exact same thing + lots of other video options, so why wouldn't you expect it to cost the same price? Canon is a business, not a charity. And so far everyone is raving about how much they love the 1DC, so it must be worth it to some people. 

Regardless, it's still really cheap for 4K. Most cameras that shoot 4K take a lot of time/accessories to set up, but with the 1DC you can take it out of the box, put in batteries and CF cards and be shooting 4K in under a minute. It's seriously like all the advantages of shooting video on a DSLR but with the quality of a legit cinema camera. And the image quality is night and day better than any other Canon DSLR.

And all the people screaming about wanting RAW always seem to forget the fact that RAW files are massive and require lots of storage space (both for shooting and storing) and computing power. You can drop MJPEG files from the 1DC straight into Premiere and it will run without a hiccup. I mean it's nice to have raw, but even if I had a camera that did shoot it I'm sure I'd only use it a fraction of the time. 

When are people going to get that this isn't a prosumer camera at all? It's not in the same class as the 5D2/3 or 7D, wasn't made for that demographic. You think this is expensive? Look into other cinema gear. $200,000 sets of primes, $40k-$50k zooms, $60k-$80k bodies, $300k dollies and lots of motion control. The film industry pisses $12k before they even get to work, I mean that's nothing for a body compared to some of the other stuff they use. And at $12k at least the rentals will be reasonable, the majority of legit video production is done on rented equipment, no shame in it. Most of you already have great DSLR's, you don't need to have 4K video on tap all the time.


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 23, 2013)

dolina said:


> If Apple Inc cannot bring the jailbreakers to justice what hope of Canon Inc? They have better luck stiffing the grey market imports.
> 
> 4K video should not cost that much!



Why should 4K not cost that much? Name one other camera that shoots 4K for under $12k. And don't say the RED Scarlet, you'll spend $16,000 before you have a functional camera, you can't do a damn thing with a $8000 brain.


----------



## AG (Jan 23, 2013)

Axilrod said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > If Apple Inc cannot bring the jailbreakers to justice what hope of Canon Inc? They have better luck stiffing the grey market imports.
> ...



As much as i agree with everything that Axilrod is saying, there are 4K cameras out there for under $12k

For example:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/839193-REG/JVC_GY_HMQ10U_GY_HMQ10_4K_Compact_Handheld.html

Sure its not a great camera but it shoots 4K for under $5K and i think that that is what most people see when they think the 1DC is so expensive. 

But in all seriousness thats like someone complaining about the 1DX being $7K when a $150 PnS can take just as nice photos and can shoot HD 1080p video too. 

You get what you pay for. 

After playing around with some video files from a 1DC, that i sure as hell want one. 
I just need someone to buy this spare kidney i have laying around.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Jan 24, 2013)

Axilrod said:


> And all the people screaming about wanting RAW always seem to forget the fact that RAW files are massive and require lots of storage space (both for shooting and storing) and computing power. You can drop MJPEG files from the 1DC straight into Premiere and it will run without a hiccup. I mean it's nice to have raw, but even if I had a camera that did shoot it I'm sure I'd only use it a fraction of the time.



If you can spend $12K on a camera, then you can spend $3K on a computer setup that eats RAW video for breakfast. 

I agree that the 1D-C priced for novelty, because no other camera does quite what it can do. However, I think that 4K doesn't provide the same post production IQ potential as RAW. 4K does allow you to re-frame shots, but until people start watching things in 4K(or even then noticing the difference), the novelty of the 1D-C looks more like a gimmick.


----------



## dolina (Feb 7, 2013)

I see Canon consolidating a 4k-capable 1D camera in 3 years time for about 6-8k.


----------

