C500: Canon Development Announcement! 8K Cinema EOS, 120 MP DSLR

also they dont say it will be exactly c500.... so maybe something new in line. but that drop from 15 stops in c300II to 13 seems odd..... maybe its a typo?
 
Resolution wars. Meh, does nothing good for anyone. I just wrote an article on Dolbyvision, much more interesting than pointless increases in resolution to sell more gear rather than actual imaging advances and the storytelling made possible by them. Love Canon, but boy are they on the "Me too!" bandwagon the past few years. Sure would be nice of they recruited soemone from Arri, BMD or RED to jazz up their line and innovation practices. It feels like they are a giant, rich, rudderless ship, caught up in the Detroit Big Three thinking of the 60s, incremental "improvement", low to no innovation or exploration.
 
I keep wondering when Apple will join the race with a Cinema cam that approaches things in a completely different way. I would love to see a company rethink the way a camera works...and not invest time into resolution beyond what the human eye can ingest.
 
Jeez. 8K? Why? 4K is already overkill in almost every category. Can't begin to imagine the hassle involved with an 8k workflow. And for what? Also -- what are you going to watch your 8k footage on?
 
I don't think it's so much "resolution wars", as much as we have been born in a transition time to digital.

It's pretty obvious SD, HD, 2K, UHD & 4K were just stepping stones and technical HD quality is probably starting to level out now with the availability of 444 12+bit >60p at high bit rates.

It's inevitable that it will get better, until such time that consumers can't be bothered upgrading because there really is no point, which might be 8K. It won't be less because manufacturers and broadcasters are already moving on it.

As content producers we'd probably still like some wiggle room for reframing and stabilisation so 10K or 12K cameras might not be out of the question.
 
Video cameras are still playing catch up with still cameras in terms of resolution. A 6K Red Dragon for $40,000 captures less resolution than a 5D at $2500. I never hear a still photographer complaining that their 22 megapixel camera has too many pixels and they'd rather be shooting in 4K (8 megapixels) or 2K (2 megapixels).

Aside from current technological limitations with processors speeds and storage space that make high resolution video cameras more expensive and cumbersome, the only real advantage to lower resolution is to have larger photosites such as the A7s to allow more light in, but as cameras are also becoming better in low light with better processing that problem should be able to be solved with technology too, in which case eventually there won't be any reason left not to film at 20-200 megapixels.
 
jthabel said:
Jeez. 8K? Why? 4K is already overkill in almost every category. Can't begin to imagine the hassle involved with an 8k workflow...
Click to expand...
It's definitely not for a single shooter ... yet. But folks covering important events with massive production budgets want the best equipment that they can lay their hands on. I mean, I go back to the time the instant replay was introduced and I thought that was too cool to be real.

Eric Coughlin said:
Video cameras are still playing catch up with still cameras in terms of resolution...
Click to expand...
And they always will.
 
Last edited:
David Shapton is a lot more bullish on this camera than I think most of us are. He reads into the political and marketing implications of Canon's moves while we are more focused on the user/owner experience. 8k for 4k delivery. Yes, gives you a lot of re-framing possibilities. But the storage and throughput requirements in post will be ridiculous for quite a while into the future. It seems that the Japanese cannot comprehend that increased resolution is not the be-all, end-all for image acquisition. Expanded dynamic range, better, more accurate and vivid color and a reduction in heat, moire, jellovision and hey, here's a thought, REAL audio circuitry and mic pre-amps in a pro camera? I posit that adding a $2,000.00 premium audio package to the C300 MKIII/C500MKII, adding in two more XLRs, two more audio channels, mic-preamps by Apogee Electronics, better, real segmented metering and a few other audio tweaks, purely for audio quality, would add MUCH, MUCH more value to the camera than stupid 4k, 8K, 12k and whatever other ridiculous resolutions they will eventually add. Many sound mixers deliver external audio recording mainly because the audio sections in almost all cameras are horrendously bad. Plenty of sound mixers and editors would be much more content if in-camera audio was actually high quality. I'm not saying there isn't a reason for external recorders, of course there is. But a LOT of production that is shot could totally suffice with four channels of high quality 48Khz 24 bit audio, IF the camera could record as high quality as a mid range Sound Devices recorder mixer. I love Sound Devices recorders but in an ideal world, external recording would be the exception, rather than the rule. With locked time code, matching up audio is a breeze but it does add time and therefore, expense to the post process.

The manufacturers don't seem to realize that many of us DPs who shoot people for a living are already comsiderably softening, optically, electronically even just 1080, to be kind to talent. 4K is brutal on talent, set designers, prop masters, hair and makeup artists and many other positions. If you think about it, increasing resolution past 1080 actually adds considerable costs. All of those departments just suck it up and make it work, but doing so comes at a cost, adding new problems in production, taking more time to fix said problems, which ultimately adds production costs. My ultimate point being, the camera industry, for the most part, is clueless about what is really important in camera design. They are giving us what they think we want, while ignoring what we really need, which certainly isn't 8k, 12k and beyond image acquisition.
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
here's a thought, REAL audio circuitry and mic pre-amps in a pro camera? I posit that adding a $2,000.00 premium audio package to the C300 MKIII/C500MKII, adding in two more XLRs, two more audio channels, mic-preamps by Apogee Electronics, better, real segmented metering and a few other audio tweaks, purely for audio quality, would add MUCH, MUCH more value to the camera than stupid 4k, 8K, 12k and whatever other ridiculous resolutions they will eventually add. Many sound mixers deliver external audio recording mainly because the audio sections in almost all cameras is horrendously bad. Plenty of sound mixers and editors would be much more content if in-camera audio was actually high quality. I'm not saying there isn't a reason for external recorders, of course there is. But a LOT of production that is shot could totally suffice with four channels of high quality 48Khz 24 bit audio, IF the camera could record as high quality as a mid range Sound Devices recorder mixer. I love Sound Devices recorders but in an ideal world, external recording would be the exception, rather than the rule. With locked time code, matching up audio is a breeze but it does add time and therefore, expense to the post process.
Click to expand...
I spend about half of my time crewing as a sound recordist. Honestly, I think the fact that the newer cameras have four channels is a great thing. It will allow most small corporate shoots to have sound go straight to camera. But I really don't think high quality preamps and 24bit recording are all that important. I have four different sound devices mixers, but I almost always just use the preamps on my C100 when I only need one or two channels of sound. I don't think the minimal difference in audio quality is worth the extra weight to carry around a mixer, but I'm also not interested in integrating all of the weight into the camera. I find that the main problem with idea of relying on multiple preamps on a camera is that it would mean that either the camera op would be monitoring levels and sound for four channels or a sound mixer would be standing beside the camera monitoring sound and fiddling with what ever knobs would be on the camera to check and adjust inputs. It's just much easier to have a separate preamp so that the sound recordist can be separated from the camera, and that point all you really need is a decent A/D converter on the camera or, better yet, and AES input. Regarding bit depth, 24bit sound is really only useful if somebody really screws up sound levels or you are working on really high scale narrative shoots and I can't imagine that any high scale narrative shoot is going to want the camera tethered to a mixer.

Basically, what I am saying is that I don't think the demand for high quality preamps and 24bit recording are nearly as high other demands like resolution. Or course, the thing that really draws me to the C300 Mkii is the autofocus system and most people don't think that is important, so I might have different priorities than most. Also, the four channels would be really nice to have on the C300 II, but I would really only want them for corporate shoots with multiple speakers and I would still prefer running a mixer and a couple of break away cables to the camera rather than having everything onboard the camera.
 
eric@provideo said:
Here's an interesting article on this future 8K camera that gives some good insight on why Canon made this announcement now.

Click here for the link
Click to expand...
...

I don't see this announcement as being important in the sense that it brings a lot to those with small budgets. You could say that the comment above is a bit like saying "Why can't I have an Aston Martin for £10,000/$15,000?". The answer is "because it's an Aston Martin". Alternatively you might ask "Why Can't I have an ARRI Alexa for £4000/$6000?". It might just be that ARRI have no interest in producing cameras for the mass market.
Click to expand...

He basically contradicts himself ... mildly. He's correct about the trick-down of technology in time. And he's also correct about ARRI never making anything destined for Best Buy. But one usually gets the quality, if not the label, down the road.

As to Aston Martin - the late-80's-early-90's Virage had 330 HP and had a 0-60 MPH acceleration in 6.5 seconds. Vantage added a supercharger up to 550 HP and lowered the 0-60 to 4.6s. Nowadays, these are times achievable by cars priced under $40,000.

puredrifting said:
The manufacturers don't seem to realize that many of us DPs who shoot people for a living are already comsiderably softening, optically, electronically even just 1080, to be kind to talent. 4K is brutal on talent, set designers, prop masters, hair and makeup artists and many other positions. If you think about it, increasing resolution past 1080 actually adds considerable costs...
Click to expand...
Look at 8K like David Lean would have. Some cameras are made for great vistas; some for intimate closeups. 8K will definitely be great for the former. The rest can have the rest.
 
I can see where you are coming from too. That's why I said make it a $2k option. Those who don't need or want it just get what they are getting now but for those who do a lot of interviews, press junkets, budget challenged docs without a sound mixer, that $2k premium would be wll worth it. I agree, for narrative work, not optimal because of the tethering issue, although wireless is getting pretty good so perhaps tethering isn't as necessary as it used to be? It definitely saves time and money in post was my thought.

cpreston said:
I spend about half of my time crewing as a sound recordist. Honestly, I think the fact that the newer cameras have four channels is a great thing. It will allow most small corporate shoots to have sound go straight to camera. But I really don't think high quality preamps and 24bit recording are all that important. I have four different sound devices mixers, but I almost always just use the preamps on my C100 when I only need one or two channels of sound. I don't think the minimal difference in audio quality is worth the extra weight to carry around a mixer, but I'm also not interested in integrating all of the weight into the camera. I find that the main problem with idea of relying on multiple preamps on a camera is that it would mean that either the camera op would be monitoring levels and sound for four channels or a sound mixer would be standing beside the camera monitoring sound and fiddling with what ever knobs would be on the camera to check and adjust inputs. It's just much easier to have a separate preamp so that the sound recordist can be separated from the camera, and that point all you really need is a decent A/D converter on the camera or, better yet, and AES input. Regarding bit depth, 24bit sound is really only useful if somebody really screws up sound levels or you are working on really high scale narrative shoots and I can't imagine that any high scale narrative shoot is going to want the camera tethered to a mixer.

Basically, what I am saying is that I don't think the demand for high quality preamps and 24bit recording are nearly as high other demands like resolution. Or course, the thing that really draws me to the C300 Mkii is the autofocus system and most people don't think that is important, so I might have different priorities than most. Also, the four channels would be really nice to have on the C300 II, but I would really only want them for corporate shoots with multiple speakers and I would still prefer running a mixer and a couple of break away cables to the camera rather than having everything onboard the camera.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top