arrestthisman
Well-known member
Hello all, I know this has been talked about some, but I haven't found a thread that really dives deep into what we can realistically expect from the next generation of video from these wonderful new HDSLR cameras.
There has been rumor of a Raw recording module from Canon. While that would be a dream come true for filmmakers, the storage and speed required for this at a sustained rate makes it an unlikely endeavor. Even with sRAW, unless Canon employs an amount of compression previously unheard of in their RAW format, I just don't see it happening. That said, I hope it DOES happen, but to the point. Realism...
I began thinking to myself, after taking a series of 8mpix JPEGs for some time-lapse, that the footage after downscaling to 1080p looked far "cleaner" and sharper than most 1080p camcorders. Well, of course, we're talking .8 to 1.3mb per frame. So even at 8-bit 4:2:0, MJpeg at something like 1mb per-frame would look great, and is within the ability of CF cards. 24mb/sec for 24p. Megabyte, not megabit.
Then I began thinking about Jpeg 2000. Or I guess Motion-jpeg2000. And did a little reading on it. You'd get 10-bit, and 4:2:2 (I think you can get 4:4:4 too). (I also think you can do better than 8-bit on regular JPEGs.)
These are just my thoughts, but I bet the seasoned out there would know much better. That's what I'm interested in hearing.
I think the idea is, though, RAW is great, but my experience is that extremely low compression yields footage almost as mailable as RAW. And I've found uncompressed "baked in" footage to hold up better in CC than compressed RAW.
Plus, Canon originally put the video feature in there for photojournalists. I don't think they want to give up that segment, and I doubt journalists have the time for processing RAW in motion. On the other hand, if you can add a compression scheme that works well-enough with small bitrates, but can scale it up to master quality bandwidth (even if it isn't the BEST codec) with a simple setting in the camera, you can please both filmmakers and journalists without the need for two separate products.
Lastly, I don't think it matters how cumbersome the video is. Look at the hoops filmmakers have jumped through to get the "look" from these cameras.
With the 7d, Canon upped the bitrate, not a ton, but some. Maybe that's what we are to expect? Nothing radical, but simply as much bandwidth dedicated to video as possible.
Lastly, if they could simply get an image sequence of Jpegs (even without a container) from a camera running 24fps that would be great. What would be even better is if they could give us much more than 1080p with those. Like my old rebel, which is 8 megapixels. If I could get 24 Jpegs/sec from that*, which is 3800 x 2300 or something like that. I could transcode that nicely into pro res 4444, or even just HQ, and I bet the quality would be amazing.
*obviously I don't expect Canon to make my rebel do this. I mean in a new product, which would probably have many more pixels, but if they could get between 5 and 12 megapixels in a simple image sequence, that would do a lot for filmmakers, I think.
Alright, so am I insane, on to something, trivial, or redundant?
There has been rumor of a Raw recording module from Canon. While that would be a dream come true for filmmakers, the storage and speed required for this at a sustained rate makes it an unlikely endeavor. Even with sRAW, unless Canon employs an amount of compression previously unheard of in their RAW format, I just don't see it happening. That said, I hope it DOES happen, but to the point. Realism...
I began thinking to myself, after taking a series of 8mpix JPEGs for some time-lapse, that the footage after downscaling to 1080p looked far "cleaner" and sharper than most 1080p camcorders. Well, of course, we're talking .8 to 1.3mb per frame. So even at 8-bit 4:2:0, MJpeg at something like 1mb per-frame would look great, and is within the ability of CF cards. 24mb/sec for 24p. Megabyte, not megabit.
Then I began thinking about Jpeg 2000. Or I guess Motion-jpeg2000. And did a little reading on it. You'd get 10-bit, and 4:2:2 (I think you can get 4:4:4 too). (I also think you can do better than 8-bit on regular JPEGs.)
These are just my thoughts, but I bet the seasoned out there would know much better. That's what I'm interested in hearing.
I think the idea is, though, RAW is great, but my experience is that extremely low compression yields footage almost as mailable as RAW. And I've found uncompressed "baked in" footage to hold up better in CC than compressed RAW.
Plus, Canon originally put the video feature in there for photojournalists. I don't think they want to give up that segment, and I doubt journalists have the time for processing RAW in motion. On the other hand, if you can add a compression scheme that works well-enough with small bitrates, but can scale it up to master quality bandwidth (even if it isn't the BEST codec) with a simple setting in the camera, you can please both filmmakers and journalists without the need for two separate products.
Lastly, I don't think it matters how cumbersome the video is. Look at the hoops filmmakers have jumped through to get the "look" from these cameras.
With the 7d, Canon upped the bitrate, not a ton, but some. Maybe that's what we are to expect? Nothing radical, but simply as much bandwidth dedicated to video as possible.
Lastly, if they could simply get an image sequence of Jpegs (even without a container) from a camera running 24fps that would be great. What would be even better is if they could give us much more than 1080p with those. Like my old rebel, which is 8 megapixels. If I could get 24 Jpegs/sec from that*, which is 3800 x 2300 or something like that. I could transcode that nicely into pro res 4444, or even just HQ, and I bet the quality would be amazing.
*obviously I don't expect Canon to make my rebel do this. I mean in a new product, which would probably have many more pixels, but if they could get between 5 and 12 megapixels in a simple image sequence, that would do a lot for filmmakers, I think.
Alright, so am I insane, on to something, trivial, or redundant?
