Canon 4K/60p+ prototype

[Postmaster]

I wrote something similar in my blog, after I saw the camera on Philip`s site and I totally agree with Stu.
It looks like Canon never looked in anyone of the forums. 24P, robust RAW codec, interchangeable lenses and usable audio features and inputs is what sales cameras. If they want to compete with RED, they have to come up with something better than this.

And I definitely don´t work for RED (I wish I would thou - so I could get my hands on all the goodies there much sooner).

Frank

 

[snowleopard]

Thanks for posting Stu. Sorry for alluding anything regarding a connection to Red. I was flat out wrong. I'm still just a little puzzled why you compared this camera to the Red One. Also a bit confusing going after Canon and DSLRs in the same blog, as I recall in the past you had high praise for the HV20, for example. I guess that's why it's a blog, and not the gospels...

Actually, I don't get why anyone thinks this camera is going to be released like this aimed at videographers, or is a prototype of a future camera to compete with Red. We merely get a rare glimpse of what they have in progress as far as technology goes. No one here seriously thinks they are going to release a camera like this to the film/video people that looks like this, do we?

What I really don't understand is why we the people aren't putting pressure on Canon to just release the guts of a 5d or 1d Mark IV into the body of a XL-H1? Every logical indication is that they have the technology and ability to make it happen, but they don't. Why not? Because of some flaws? Like the 5d isn't "flawed" for filmmaking? We use it anyway. And if it's because they have a quiet partnership with Sony with lenses and such, then when do we ask why Nikon doesn't do it? Some say I am overestimating the market. But I don't think I am, if anyone recalls how well the DVX100 sold...

 

[egproductions]

That thing looks like a hair dryer. And a 2/3 sensor?

And what is this?

It's a 7D prototype.

 

[cowpunk52]

Actually, I don't get why anyone thinks this camera is going to be released like this aimed at videographers, or is a prototype of a future camera to compete with Red. We merely get a rare glimpse of what they have in progress as far as technology goes. No one here seriously thinks they are going to release a camera like this to the film/video people that looks like this, do we?

This. Exactly this. This is why Stu's rant just sounded arrogant and idiotic. Canon creates imaging technology for a variety of industrial, medical & military applications that have absolutely nothing to do with digital cinema. The idea that everything Canon researches and developes has to be for videographers & cinematographers is so incredibly ignorant it I can hardly comprehend it. It's pretty clear, to me at least, that this is technology development is aimed squarely at alternative applications besides entertainment, applications where ultra-high resolution are very important.

And the idea that we should be upset because they're spending R&D on technology with little use for digital cinematographers, but of great use to the medical industry - how does someone get so deluded with self-importance? If this technology helps save lives, helps ease pain, helps advance our medical ability, then I'm happy to sacrifice having a large-sensor 24p HD camcorder for a little while.

Stu, I spent some time reading through your blog, and you clearly know what you're talking about on a lot of subjects, and for the most part I like and/or agree with what you have to say, or I at least can understand where you're coming from. Which makes this rant on Canon's 4K camera that much more disappointing, because it doesn't look like you thought about it at all.

Sometimes the inability of people to see past their own nose really baffles my mind. It seems like some people would be upset if Canon released a copier that couldn't print at 24p.

 

[cowpunk52]

What I really don't understand is why we the people aren't putting pressure on Canon to just release the guts of a 5d or 1d Mark IV into the body of a XL-H1? Every logical indication is that they have the technology and ability to make it happen, but they don't. Why not? Because of some flaws? Like the 5d isn't "flawed" for filmmaking? We use it anyway. And if it's because they have a quiet partnership with Sony with lenses and such, then when do we ask why Nikon doesn't do it? Some say I am overestimating the market. But I don't think I am, if anyone recalls how well the DVX100 sold...

Trust me, the pressure is there and Canon is well aware of it. The professional video division is very interested in releasing a camera that works the way it's meant to, and works very well, at a price point that makes sense. That means that certain technological hurdles have to be overcome first. But trust me, they are working on it. Canon's corporate philosophy has always maintained that they were not interested in necessarily releasing technology first, but doing it the best.

The fact that we use DSLR video features with its flaws, for applications it wasn't originally meant for, is our problem, not theirs.

 

[Isaac_Brody]

Sometimes the inability of people to see past their own nose really baffles my mind. It seems like some people would be upset if Canon released a copier that couldn't print at 24p.

wow, what an incredibly stupid, arrogant & short-sighted opinion fluff piece. remind me to never go to that blog again.

You're entitled to your opinion, but the tone and delivery is verging on personal attack territory. Please tone it down. Stu can say whatever he wants on his blog, it's his soapbox. We like to keep our soapbox here polite and respectful. Thanks.

 

[Ian-T]

There's a much better way of disagreeing without those types of labeling I think.

 

[cowpunk52]

You're entitled to your opinion, but the tone and delivery is verging on personal attack territory. Please tone it down. Stu can say whatever he wants on his blog, it's his soapbox. We like to keep our soapbox here polite and respectful. Thanks.

Fair enough - I do apologize for my tone if it come across too harsh. I was only responding to the tone & delivery of the article, but I do recognize that this is not necessarily the place for that type of content.

 

[Rick Burnett]

I won't buy one unless those speakers on the side are detachable AND when you open the LCD at the top, it has to open slowly! You know, like those awesome boomboxes from the 80s!

I personally think it is silly looking. Just like I thought of the Aztec from Pontiac when it was released. Of course, it doesn't matter what you say here because from where I sit, it looks like they don't listen to what we want anyways

I hope this prototype gets the Red folks working a little faster. I want my S35

 

[Otis Grapsas]

Stu is not working for Red but that ProLost article makes Red extremely happy.

4K from Canon is something to laught at? What about 3K and 4K from red?

It's an atrocity of aesthetics and ergonomics even though it's just a concept/prototype demonstrating 4K imaging? It's just a sensor with bayer development and a link to a monitor. It's not supposed to be the look of a camera Canon might release on this. There is no recording or even control as far as I can see. That would only require very simple existing electronics from Canon, and a bunch of MPEG4 encoders btw. It's not likely that Canon will have any problem integrating a camera if they want to put one on the market. Canon could easily do it in 6 months and that's the problem. Canon could drop something like this on the market and leave the average consumer stunned. 4k to 2k will certainly look a lot sharper than 3k to 2k, and we know Canon have the upper hand in lenses and distribution. We also know consumers will take practicality over high quality any day. No professional would buy a 4K 2/3" sensor, but Canon don't give a damn for that market. The dSLR experiment went well. See the usual suspects having fun at the Canon booths? They are reduced to clowns but they do sell thousands of cameras.

A fixed 20x 2/3" zoom is not very special? What about the fixed zoom on the Red Scarlet? I think such a zoom is very special. It will probably have a reasonable aperture at 8x zoom.

The sensor is "only" 2/3"? What about the sensor on the Scarlet 2/3" and every single broadcast HD camera? Too small?

Canon engineers copied Red but they only visited Red's web site? That would be for stealing the specs? Canon have a massive engineering department, their 1/3" models probably use CMOS from this series using the same pixel size. If they don't have something on the market it's generally because they don't care yet. it has to be a commercial market of a certain magnitude. If you check the sales of the entry level dSLRs and where the market game is played you will see why. It's not like Canon spend their time thinking what this tiny affordable digital cinema market needs. They only care about consumers and consumers will choose the Canon brand, the Canon zoom (L series hm), and the practical low bitrate codec over anything else.

4K from Canon is just big numbers? What is 3K from Red then at the same sensor size? To me it sounds like an attempt to offer more than what everybody else has (1080p), so it's all about the numbers. The problem is that Canon actually went a little further than Red on this 2/3". And Red cannot have less of something, right?

Canon consumers should be worried about their money being spent on development, concepts and prorotyping? They should be happy about it IMHO.

This is "fake 4K"? Why? It is 4K and it is read as 4K, it doesn't need to skip lines so it will be free from line skipping artifacts/aliasing. Canon will not fix the aliasing in dSLRs because they are still cameras. If they fixed it, they wouldn't be proper still cameras and only a few people would buy them. Hardly worth the effort and trouble.

What is the comparison of the 1080p line skipping to the resampled multimegapixel full frame image supposed to show? That Canon are generally flawed? We know dSLRs have alias. Native 4K will not have this problem. Also, most photographers would probably think the two images are identical. The dynamic range is similar, the color is similar, nothing is special about the higher resolution image. They both look like a dSLR. On this shot even alias is not very visible. Only a pixel-peeping geek would think they are massively different. Alias is a problem, but compression is the real problem in dSLRs.

The 5.6K image reduced to 1080p is what is appropriate for a true HD image? I wouldn't say so, since that's hardly a measure for good HD. Even the latest digital cinema camcorders from Sony and Arri have far lower MTF. A 4K film scan resampled to 1080p has lower MTF also. That would make one think that only Red is good enough for HD, right?

This concept is a nightmare for Red. Even if it used a simple mpeg4 codec, it would absorb most of the Scarlet 2/3" market. The whole point of Scarlet is to commercialise Red with the 2/3" model, but Canon have been playing the consumer game for ages. Brand name, lenses, distribution, economy of scale, japanese girls dancing in trade shows.

Jim shouldn't worry though. The problem is not Canon, it's that consumers do not care for high bit rate cameras like Scarlet 2/3". Consumers want fast transfers and practical data rates.

 

[snowleopard]

You bring up some good comparisons. And it really does all depend on whether which camera will fit what needs. I agree on transfers and data rates. Most people see 4:4:4 over 4:2:2, but just barely. We hair-splitters maybe a bit easier. But a lot of this is somewhat moot, don't you think? Maybe because Scarlet will probably be released, maybe, by early next year. I wouldn't bet a penny on that, but they are saying EOY.

A Canon camcorder built into an ergonomic size akin to the XF series, but with these specs, may be months out, maybe well over a year. We just don't really know. Who knows what other prototypes and test cameras they all have in the labs locked up? None of us. It's like we all keep thinking we're about to look at apples and compare them, but we're looking at seeds and aren't even certain they'll all be apples!

I do have a feeling that seeing as Red laid all it's cards down on the table months ago for everyone to see, and everyone is aware of their delays, whenever Scarlet really does get released, and whatever it's working package price is ($7,000?) it won't be far behind that Sony, Panasonic, Canon and JVC will fill a void in the market left behind, with cameras with similar specs.

It is peculiar though how much gets compared to Scarlet, when it's been vapor for what, two years now? Their blow the world away specs Scarlet was supposed to do, is likely to be closely matched by the big name competitors in a year or so. The other problem Red faces I think is they are losing somewhat of their cachet with all their delays which are downright embarrassing, even by JJ's admission. They really are reaching the point where they MUST deliver, and soon. Canon doesn't really have that problem.