master quality codec for the 7d or 7d mkII

[arrestthisman]

Hey all. Just curious. This is total speculation of course, but who thinks we may see a separate recorder or a firmware update to record video in a master quality codec.

Like AVC-I, Pro Res 422 HQ, Cineform, or whatever.

I know there was rumor of a RAW recorder from Canon.

I'm also aware of the nanoflash.

It'd just be so cool to be able to get 35mm sensor 1080p footage in a codec that can hold up on the bigscreen.

Cheers.

 

[Barry_Green]

Barlow's already tried the Nano, and said it really isn't worth the hassle. The existing 7D isn't putting out an image that demands a master quality recording format anyway. Perhaps we'll see an upgraded codec system when the "7D Mk II" or "1DS Mk IV" show up, with proper video hardware scaling, which should dramatically improve the image and therefore require a better codec...

 

[arrestthisman]

Thanks for the info Barry. As always!

I'm starting to get the idea that, for the most part, codecs are generally matched to the image any given camera system is capable of. I've seen uncompressed versus compressed stuff, and in some scenarios it's great, but it's not nearly the type of IQ gain you'd think one would get for all that extra storage real estate and computing power needed.

That, plus post is getting really good at eliminating or at least, reducing compression artifacts.

It seems that (and this is so obvious it shouldn't even need to be said, but tech-heads such as myself tend to get lost in specs...) the most important thing is simply the image. Does it look good?

I saw some GH1 footage recently that made my jaw drop and I kept thinking to myself, how the hell can it look this good with 17/mbits!?!?! It was so clean it was eerie.

That said, I think it's a comfort thing. For me, shooting critical stuff I may only have one shot at, or anything really... It feels nicer to have high bandwidth, master quality codecs to work with for post. Options are always great, it's freedom. It's always great to know you have the option to really push in post. But hey, if a codec takes up 1/10th the space, and you can push it 70% as much, that's not a bad trade-off.

I'm looking forward to jumping on the HDSLR bandwagon, but I don't want to do it until there's a big enough jump in IQ from my HMC150 that I can justify the purchase, knowing I'll be keeping both.

 

[commanderspike]

I saw some GH1 footage recently that made my jaw drop and I kept thinking to myself, how the hell can it look this good with 17/mbits!?!?! It was so clean it was eerie.

That 17/mbits is fine for static scenes, even scenes with a lot of movement within a static frame, but the computing power in the GH1 isn't enough to handle a lot of camera movement at that bit rate. In order to do a low bit rate really well it needs a few CPU-intensive tricks up it's sleeve.

I am always hard pressed to tell the difference with GH1 or 5D footage between the various transcoding formats on my Mac, but of course the Mac has a lot more computing power available to it so is always going to encode footage at a much higher level than the camera. The camera is not only a portable computing device like a mobile phone, it has battery considerations and speed in mind. It has to encode in real time. Corners have to be cut dramatically.

Therefore, to me I think it's best just to use Pro Res LT in the quickest and dirtiest way possible.

Having said that has anyone who's been able to play raw AVCHD or H.264 footage on their PC (I'm out of luck on the Mac for that) been able to tell any difference between that and the encoded footage to Pro Res LT or Apple Intermediate codec?