4k DSLR doesn't make sense

deltoidjohn said:
if I want to use a Nikon 80-200 on the AF100, I would probably need to setup rails and a lens support, as both the lens and the camera are too heavy to leave dangling off the lens mount unsupported. With a DSLR though, I can put a big lens straight onto the tripod and leave the DSLR body dangling off the back - quick, easy and cheap..
Click to expand...

That's an excellent point, esp. since I prefer shorter rigs for stability and ease of handling. But If you are going to rig, you'll likely be adding an external audio recorder, shotgun (for run n gun), battery, maybe a micpre/XLR mixer and by then, you've really got an FS-700 or AF100 anyway. The nice thing about the DSLRs is you can just handhold them and shoot wedding stills to pay for your video add-ons ;)

I'm leaning towards the FS-700 after seeing the control array and overall feature mix. Hey... even shoots 8MP Stills ;)
 
latyshev said:
1. Acquisition. DSLRs are yet to master 1080p. Although new MkIII and D800 are very impressive, they still have some issues. They overheat. They are 8bit. Compressed. Line skipped. Etc. None can do 1080/60p, and those who can fall apart badly. So how in the light of this can you expect anyone to make 4k DSLR?
Click to expand...

Given how poorly dslrs do 1080p (they make really good 720p cameras when shot at 1080p mode ;) ), if they did 4k then we could downsize for really detailed clean 1080p. Sounds nice to me.

Do I think Canon will do it? Probably not in their non Cinema line. Nikon? I wish, since they don't have a broadcast market to protect. Panasonic? maybe, seems that the lumix division has no problems trumping the broadcast division.

Of all people, I would almost think that Sony might be the first to do it, they seem to really pack the features in these large sensor interchangable cameras. But unfortunatly the image quality will be terrible with rolling shutter, poor codec and probably won't resolve anywhere near 4k ... lol
 
Well, from the press release they aren't downsampling anything for the 4k output, it's a straightforward MJPEG stream from the 4k "H"-crop. The only question is, will they use a high enough bit rate to do the job properly.

Remember, this isn't a stills-first video-second DSLR, it's an optimised movie machine from the CINE division, aimed at the cine industry who expect things to be done right (As Canon did with the C300 sensor), therefore it behoves Canon not to compromise *anything* in it's movie output.
 
I was part of the wave that pushed 1080P HDTV over 70% market penetration in 2011 (yes, it's still only at about 70% penetration) when I finally bought one about 6 months ago. My SD TV finally crapped out. I doubt I'll be getting a 4K TV anytime soon.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
I was part of the wave that pushed 1080P HDTV over 70% market penetration in 2011 (yes, it's still only at about 70% penetration) when I finally bought one about 6 months ago. My SD TV finally crapped out. I doubt I'll be getting a 4K TV anytime soon.
Click to expand...

You do understand that one of the main points of >1080p acquisition is mainly to just make awesome 1080p footage, right?

To start with... "1080p" cameras don't really resolve true 1080p. Then they add stupid sharpening to make it look like they do. Which in turn gets even more over-sharpened by your TV. And that's in luma. Chroma performance is even worse. Then... often lots of shots need slight blowups or repos to fix camera shake, VFX reasons, etc. Basically, you want to work in something that's technically a little bit better. It's the same thing for mastering sound. Most sound engineers don't work at 44khz / 16bit.

joesiv said:
Given how poorly dslrs do 1080p (they make really good 720p cameras when shot at 1080p mode ;) ), if they did 4k then we could downsize for really detailed clean 1080p. Sounds nice to me.
Click to expand...

Yes! This!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Yes, of course. I hope to be able to shoot on a 2K or 4K camera in the near future. Either because they become more accessible or my budget level rises (preferably the latter). My main focus is narrative film where you want it to look as good as possible for theatrical projection.

Just my standard response anytime people start talking about 3D TV or 4K TV. We don't even have 75% penetration of HD TV yet. The idea that things would begin to have to be shot in 4K because of 4K TVs is several year away minimum.
 
2K is basically 1080.

4K+ is very important regardless of if people see the benefits in acquisition or not.
 
Well, as you are fond of pointing out, I'm not even REALLY shooting 1080P right now (5dmk2).

Sure, it's preferable, but as a requirement, we're several years away for TV. Hell I still see commercials in a fair sized media market shot in SD.
 
mcgeedigital said:
Researching, designing testing and manufacturing a camera that does what the Scarlet does does not happen in a week.

This stuff takes time.
Click to expand...
Sure, it takes time for a small company like Red. But I'm inclined to believe a company like Canon has already done their homework and could make this happen much faster.
 
Ian-T said:
But I'm inclined to believe a company like Canon has already done their homework and could make this happen much faster.
Click to expand...
A company like Canon takes three years to upgrade an XLH1 to an XLH1s(!) Canon took three and a half years for the incremental improvements to go from the 5D Mark II to the 5D Mark III.

Designing a brand-new product from scratch that fills a new market slot, would take a large company like Canon a lot longer than a simple improvement from one model to the next.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
Well, as you are fond of pointing out, I'm not even REALLY shooting 1080P right now (5dmk2).

Sure, it's preferable, but as a requirement, we're several years away for TV. Hell I still see commercials in a fair sized media market shot in SD.
Click to expand...

Haha. Well, for your personal interests (knowing them at the time), anything above 720 might be too resolute for you, anyway. The difference between shooting a well compressed 4k into 1080/2K stream versus what you shoot now is drastic.

Very.. very drastic.

It's not about the 4K, it's about the 4K going down to 1080/broadcast. Even if 4K television isn't set for a number of years, HD is here now, and HD derived from a true 4K sensor or Image will be a technically superior image. That's the point Bruce was making, and the reason why 4K is important...

But, for those that don't like resolute images then it won't matter.
 
Last edited:
What I find interesting is that Sony's new FS700 is designed to output 4K, priced lower than it's 1080p F3. It seems that Canon is following suit by releasing this 4K C-DSLR (supposedly) priced in the same range as the FS700 while their 1080p C300 is in F3 territory.

I'm curious what the logic is here. Obviously resolution isn't everything and the FS700 does need an additional recorder for 4K. But it's interesting all the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top