Canon files patent for RAW video recording

mcgeedigital said:
No, it shoots 300fps at 2k.

Big difference.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I got confused with the Scarlet... too many specs!

Anyway, 2K Epic might as well be 1K... not really good enough in my opinion. I've dealt with a lot of 2K RED footage and it's very often super soft and noisy and REDCODE compression issues.

Like their 120fps 5K much better :)

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
NormanBates said:
this patent seems to be great for high fps footage

but for regular footage, I'd like to see standard wavelet compression, like with Cineform RAW, instead of this multiple-subsampling-stream thing

on the SI-2K, with Cineform RAW, the 2048x1152, 10-bit, 24fps stream ends up at 114 Mb/s (14.25 MB/s) (i.e. 5:1 compression ratio)
for a 4096x2048, 12-bit, 24fps stream, you'd end up at 496 Mb/s (60 MB/s), which sounds pretty nice (although it means only 18min on a 64 GB card)

it's when you start cranking up the fps when you get into deep trouble, and there this canon thing could be helpful

in any case, it's nice to see them looking into this
Click to expand...

I think that they could always combine this multi-resolution RAW thing with light compression as well?

NormanBates said:
edit:
do we really really need 4K? I'd rather go RAW first, then 4K
at 2500x1400 (nice Bayer pattern for final 2K images), 12-bit, 24fps, Cineform RAW compression at 5:1 would lead to 126 Mb/s (25 MB/s, 42 minutes per 64 GB card)
push that to 48fps and it's still pretty manageable
Click to expand...

Well, the sensor on the C300 is at 4K 60fps already... so why not?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
kylevant said:
Doesn't Red already own patents to RAW recording? I'm just thinking about how messy something like this can get, especially with the current onslaught of patent wars between companies like Apple, Motorola, HTC, Google, and even Kodak.
Click to expand...

canon has been shooting raw stills for a long time. this will just be shooting 24 of them a second and combining them into a single stream. no big whoop.
 
Yes, it's only 300 @$#%-ing FPS at 2K resolution raw - that sucks!

Geez, we get used to things too quickly these days. If I said that to you 3 years ago you wouldn't have believed it.
 
steventimothy said:
Yes, it's only 300 @$#%-ing FPS at 2K resolution raw - that sucks!

Geez, we get used to things too quickly these days. If I said that to you 3 years ago you wouldn't have believed it.
Click to expand...

Well, I've been shooting on Phantom for years, which could do higher than 300fps. And before that we used film - Photosonics, etc.

So actually yes... RED EPIC 2K 300fps is not great, compared to previous slow motion setups.

Cheaper, yes... but the problem is that now people think they can get away with less and that only costs more in post later.

BTW I am currently fixing Twixtor slowdowns and retimes/ramps of Alexa footage for a major movie trailer... taking about 6-8 hours per shot to manually paint in all the fixes. When you have people doing stunts, going in front of detailed, textured backgrounds, layers of complex motion... Twixtor really breaks down. Even with masking fg layers, track points, etc. Man, I wish they had shot the whole film at 48fps! Or yes, if they had used this Canon RAW thing... would be nice!

Some of the other shots are shot high speed 35mm film and scanned at 4K. Those require considerably less work because they're shot properly high speed to start with. Just wire paint-outs, etc. And they contain far more detail than a RED Epic 2K 300fps shot would have.

Anyone else looking forward to 2014? A "high end" C series camera from Canon that does 4K 300fps RAW... a Sony F65 successor... new stuff from RED (whatever comes after Monstro?)?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
bruceallen said:
Some of the other shots are shot high speed 35mm film and scanned at 4K. Those require considerably less work because they're shot properly high speed to start with. Just wire paint-outs, etc. And they contain far more detail than a RED Epic 2K 300fps shot would have.
Click to expand...

Well that depends on a lot of factors. I've seen scanned and just shot regular 24fps 35mm film that looked really bad compared to another recent Epic shoot.
 
maarek said:
Well that depends on a lot of factors. I've seen scanned and just shot regular 24fps 35mm film that looked really bad compared to another recent Epic shoot.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not being hypothetical. I'm using a concrete example.

What I am saying is that:

The footage that's on my screen right now (shot high speed on film, scanned at 4K)...

Looks much better than anything I've ever seen that has ever been shot on a Epic at 300fps 2K.

Very likely better than anything the Epic is capable of shooting at 300fps 2K.

In not just one but all of the following categories:
- color
- resolution / detail / sharpness
- latitude
- lack of CMOS wobble.

Helpful?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
I think we can all expect 2K bayer footage to be outshone by half-decent 35mm footage. That's the whole point behind shooting 4K (or really, 5+K for 4K delivery), anyway. It better matches the detail of 35mm film. Heck, even looking at optimistic efficiency numbers, 2K bayer won't resolve 1080p.

And yes - if you are going to shoot high speed, and need it to look perfect, best to just do it right. Rent a proper camera and save the time, money, hassle, and resulting artifacts of having to twixtor everything. And then fixing twixtor when it breaks down on details or unpredictable motion.

The idea of using a 240fps stream seems like an improvement, but it's still tricking with pixels. And I think we all know - if a "like film" result is desired, pixel tricking should be minimized. Shoot 24 frames a second. Not 25, not 30, and don't muck about with pulldowns or conversions. Shoot progressive - actual progressive. Shoot high resolution - not upscaled, or binned, or pixel-shifted. Just my .02.
 
Thank you maarek - oh - and I agree with you too, Mr Olsen.

And here I am, at midnight on Sunday... finished up an 84-hour work-week fixing Twixtor artifacts on some shots for a trailer for a really big budget movie.

Because the brilliant DP did not expect the shot to be slowed down by the mad trailer editor.

Actually the trailer editor in question a genius and a good friend.

But yeah... I wish that in the future there was some kind of mad Canon RAW high-framerate data in every shot... even if it was low res.

I for one am shooting my entire film at no lower than 48fps, haha! Thanks to all this overtime, I might even be able to afford it!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
J Bellari said:
...
Sony and Arri have UNcompressed RAW, which explains why Sony F65 uses 1TB media while maximum Red media is 256GB
and ships Epic-M with 128GB SSD...
Click to expand...

I believe that the F65 is lightly compressed, not uncompressed, RAW. I was told this by a Sony engineer at the F65 launch at the DGA theatre in LA.
 
J Davis said:
at what shutter angle ?
Click to expand...
I think around 270 degress, most of the time - isn't that what Peter Jackson is doing with The Hobbit? Which (if you take out ever 2nd frame) will translate to 135 degrees at 24. I figure that should be enough to make a nice herky-jerky 24fps version for the film lovers... and slightly-too-much-motion-blur-but-good-looking 48fps stereo version for normal people. And then if I want to do slow-mo, I just double print each frame.

Everts said:
Love that site !
Click to expand...
Thank you :) I promise to update the JPEG sometime this year in your honor.

BobbyMurcerFan said:
I believe that the F65 is lightly compressed, not uncompressed, RAW. I was told this by a Sony engineer at the F65 launch at the DGA theatre in LA.
Click to expand...
Correct - "F65RAW is 16-bit linear raw (all 17.7 or 18.7 million photosite values, unprocessed), with 3.2:1 wavelet compression"
http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/quick_look_sony_f65_4k_digital_cine_camera/

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top