Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
That or cineform would be a great idea.
Rumor: Canon 4k super35 camera
- Thread starter Postmaster
- Start date
Michael Olsen
Veteran
I agree. An open compressed RAW format would be great.
But you asked "Why not?"
I think the answer is that compressing 4K (or 5K, if you want to resolve 4K) RAW to a visually lossless or mathematically lossless compressed RAW format in real time with a virtually 0% failure rate takes a LOT of computing power. And that computing power is expensive. And it gets even more expensive when you have to miniaturize it. And then you have to figure out a way to cool all that processing inside a little box down. So I think if Canon does decide to do a Thunderbolt CompressedRAW module, it'll probably be about a 6x6x6 inch box (or equivalent). And it will have a fan.
Doing 2K RAW from a 2K chip makes sense right now - there's no costly hardware needed for compression, and the data rates can be managed with faster SSDs. Storage, of course, gets hefty.
Doing 4K RAW from a 4K chip is a lot harder. Remember it's not twice the pixels, it's four times as many. That ends up being about 17GB/min or 290MB/sec or 2320Mb/sec (based on the F65 'True RAW' specs). Best of luck with media costs, there.
Doing 4K compressed RAW from a 4K chip also make sense, now, depending upon the compression. We end up, effectively, with 4-8 times less media and less data rate for virtually exactly the same image. It's just a more expensive camera to begin with.
--
I think if Canon goes the 4K route with their 5D MKIII in any meaningful sense (i.e., the output file is visually lossless and actually resolves a low-aliasing low-moire progressive 4K image with a decent lens) it'll essentially cease to be useful as an HDSLR. The small form factor and light weight would be gone. The low cost of initial purchase will be gone, and media prices will inflate as well, especially if we are talking about anything more than 4K at 24/25/30. It'll really just be a modular camera, similar to the SI2K where you have the camera "head" and then processing and media somewhere else on a tether. I'm not saying that this will make the camera useless or bad - far from it. But I'm just saying I don't think we can expect a 5DMKIII that does all that and still manages to exist like the 5DMKII in terms of price, size, weight, media costs, etc.
--
Another question - if Canon wants to get 4K out of their camera, how are they going to do it? The current camera has a 21MP 5,616 x 3,744 pixel sensor - or 5.6K horizontally. Everything I have read points to an increase in pixel count for the 5D MarkIII. So they will either have to crop their sensor (good bye, Full Frame 35...) or do even more processing in the camera to properly scale the image from ~6K to 4K. Either that or they will surprise everyone and probably give several cadres of their photographer users cerebral hemorrhages when they release a ~12.5MP camera that is natively 4K. Great for what we want...but I don't think many of the photographers would care for that.
But you asked "Why not?"
I think the answer is that compressing 4K (or 5K, if you want to resolve 4K) RAW to a visually lossless or mathematically lossless compressed RAW format in real time with a virtually 0% failure rate takes a LOT of computing power. And that computing power is expensive. And it gets even more expensive when you have to miniaturize it. And then you have to figure out a way to cool all that processing inside a little box down. So I think if Canon does decide to do a Thunderbolt CompressedRAW module, it'll probably be about a 6x6x6 inch box (or equivalent). And it will have a fan.
Doing 2K RAW from a 2K chip makes sense right now - there's no costly hardware needed for compression, and the data rates can be managed with faster SSDs. Storage, of course, gets hefty.
Doing 4K RAW from a 4K chip is a lot harder. Remember it's not twice the pixels, it's four times as many. That ends up being about 17GB/min or 290MB/sec or 2320Mb/sec (based on the F65 'True RAW' specs). Best of luck with media costs, there.
Doing 4K compressed RAW from a 4K chip also make sense, now, depending upon the compression. We end up, effectively, with 4-8 times less media and less data rate for virtually exactly the same image. It's just a more expensive camera to begin with.
--
I think if Canon goes the 4K route with their 5D MKIII in any meaningful sense (i.e., the output file is visually lossless and actually resolves a low-aliasing low-moire progressive 4K image with a decent lens) it'll essentially cease to be useful as an HDSLR. The small form factor and light weight would be gone. The low cost of initial purchase will be gone, and media prices will inflate as well, especially if we are talking about anything more than 4K at 24/25/30. It'll really just be a modular camera, similar to the SI2K where you have the camera "head" and then processing and media somewhere else on a tether. I'm not saying that this will make the camera useless or bad - far from it. But I'm just saying I don't think we can expect a 5DMKIII that does all that and still manages to exist like the 5DMKII in terms of price, size, weight, media costs, etc.
--
Another question - if Canon wants to get 4K out of their camera, how are they going to do it? The current camera has a 21MP 5,616 x 3,744 pixel sensor - or 5.6K horizontally. Everything I have read points to an increase in pixel count for the 5D MarkIII. So they will either have to crop their sensor (good bye, Full Frame 35...) or do even more processing in the camera to properly scale the image from ~6K to 4K. Either that or they will surprise everyone and probably give several cadres of their photographer users cerebral hemorrhages when they release a ~12.5MP camera that is natively 4K. Great for what we want...but I don't think many of the photographers would care for that.
Last edited:
Canon is a conglomerate - unlike Red - it's not owned by one person. For them it's all about the profits, no ego's involved. They won't try to take out Red unless it's affecting profits in some way.
Cineform RAW on a 5dMKIII, that would be happy days.
I'm not disagreeing here, but just remember (I work in the tech industry)....we're buying Terabyte drives for well under 100usd. Just 3 years ago that was unthinkable. The DSLR revolution is about 3 years old, and what was "a challenge" then (from a hardware and resource standpoint) is old news now. For example, people keep saying how "robust" 1080/60P is and how cams like the GH2 simply "can't handle" the draw on resources. But the HX9 compact cam does it without breaking a sweat. What gives? I can tell you that the same thing was purported with the GH1. "Oh, that mud is caused by the fact that it doesn't have enough resources." Uh.....we found that was total crap. It has PLENTY Of resources (and it's 3 years old!!!) So as a tech industry professional (NOT cam specific mind you..and I openly acknowledge that)....Meh....they either have enough hardware resources RIGHT NOW to do RAW video, or we're less than 3 years away from that point.
NOW....whether or not they deem this the investment or direction that they want to go.....that's an ENTIRELY different question. And I'm NOT saying that they will or want to.
To be honest, I'm trying to temper my expectations for Canon's annoucement. I think its fun to say, "What if".....kinda like when I was a kid and it was Christmas......but in the end, I'm actually just expecting underwear and a pair of socks. lol.
Disclaimer: Actually my parents were the GREATEST! My brother woke up on Christmas morning and had a HORSE in a corral. And no, we weren't farmers or ranchers. Another Christmas we woke up and had ice skates. "If only you had some where to skate!" (My father had used his construction company equipment and had actually MADE an Ice skating pond ...Bigger than a hockey rink... on a corner lot 100 yards from our home.) So I guess, I'm saying that we'd all better hope that Canon is as good at Christmas as my parents!!!!
Mad love to DVXUsers everywhere!!!
Last edited:
OH...BTW. If I were Canon, here's why I WOULD do RAW video (and I'd do it on the 5D Mark II if I could).
If I'm Canon, I know that one of my money makers is catering to Photogs with Cameras, Lenses and such.
Adding video to the 5D has been called "a revolution" since then. (Agree or disagree with the categorization and/or who is saying it, it has been call that by many)
Now, I really don't have a piece of the "Hollywood" pie, and I truly don't need it. HOWEVER....it sure has been fun to SHAKE THINGS UP. In fact, this has been some of the BEST ADVERTISING FOR CANON in the company's ENTIRE HISTORY. (The DSLR revolution)
So, if I'm Canon, I'd absolutely MAX OUT everything that I could get out of the 5DIII, NOT for the PROFITS, NOT for the MARKET SHARE....but for the on-going advertising, attention, brand building, heck....even for the fun of it. The 5DII was one of the biggest "disputers" in the history of moving images. (like it or not) I'd keep the ball rolling by standing on the "hallowed" ground for movie making and drop an even BIGGER BOMB on the industry.
"RAW VIDEO from Canon for under 5K!!!"
I'm NOT saying that's what ***THEY WILL DO***.....I'm sitting in the cheap seats saying, "That's what I would do, if I were king for a day." (at Canon) Cheers!
ps....like I said, I know that IT ITS SELF isn't what Canon needs and 5DII sales are driven by Photos 10 to 1 (guess) than by Cinematogs, no question. I'm just saying that the ATTENTION/ADVERTISING for their brand is ***MUCH*** more valuable than both combined!!!! Anywho....
If I'm Canon, I know that one of my money makers is catering to Photogs with Cameras, Lenses and such.
Adding video to the 5D has been called "a revolution" since then. (Agree or disagree with the categorization and/or who is saying it, it has been call that by many)
Now, I really don't have a piece of the "Hollywood" pie, and I truly don't need it. HOWEVER....it sure has been fun to SHAKE THINGS UP. In fact, this has been some of the BEST ADVERTISING FOR CANON in the company's ENTIRE HISTORY. (The DSLR revolution)
So, if I'm Canon, I'd absolutely MAX OUT everything that I could get out of the 5DIII, NOT for the PROFITS, NOT for the MARKET SHARE....but for the on-going advertising, attention, brand building, heck....even for the fun of it. The 5DII was one of the biggest "disputers" in the history of moving images. (like it or not) I'd keep the ball rolling by standing on the "hallowed" ground for movie making and drop an even BIGGER BOMB on the industry.
"RAW VIDEO from Canon for under 5K!!!"
I'm NOT saying that's what ***THEY WILL DO***.....I'm sitting in the cheap seats saying, "That's what I would do, if I were king for a day." (at Canon) Cheers!
ps....like I said, I know that IT ITS SELF isn't what Canon needs and 5DII sales are driven by Photos 10 to 1 (guess) than by Cinematogs, no question. I'm just saying that the ATTENTION/ADVERTISING for their brand is ***MUCH*** more valuable than both combined!!!! Anywho....
Last edited:
GaryinCalifornia
Veteran
Was just thinking wasn't the hair dryer shown at NAB and it actually worked... then something about it just being a prototype... then something about it not seeing the light of day...
Just did a search... interesting... the memory still works some times... found the link...
http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/02/canons-4k-multipurpose-camera-concept-weakens-knees-shoots-vid/
Just did a search... interesting... the memory still works some times... found the link...
http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/02/canons-4k-multipurpose-camera-concept-weakens-knees-shoots-vid/
squig
Veteran
Great just what I need, a 2/3" hair dryer. If RED and Canon both announce 2/3" 4k cameras I'm going to LMFAO. I'd rather live with moire and aliasing than go back to 2/3" and a lighting truck. 4k might excite cinematographers but I'm a screenwriter/director/producer/cinematographer and I have to say 4k doesn't excite me at all. The Alexa, F3, and FS100 have enough resolution to tell any great story. Even the 5D, GH2, and NEX-5N are usable. Only a handful of cinemas project in 4k. Here in Australia we've only just recently discovered 2k. 4k might impress big budget Hollywood but for the indie filmmaker it's a failure not an enabler.
If I was a paranoid stoner conspiracy theorist I'd say this is all part of a Hollywood conspiracy to kill off this indie anomaly of telling great stories with high production value using $600 cameras by making 4k a required format for delivery. Then Hollywood can get on with doing what it does best: flog characters and stories that are as plastic as the cameras they're shooting them with.
Last edited:
Kevin Marshall
Active member
Why would the lighting truck be specific to 2/3"? How does sensor size relate to the amount of lighting equipment you need?
It's true that lighting is necessary to get the right shot. It seems that squig is referring to HOW MUCH light. (AKA "a truck load") ...even on simple shots. With a larger sensor (as I'm sure you're aware), you need as **MANY** or some number of lights, they just don't have to be as large/intense/powerful.
Kevin Marshall
Active member
Maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't see how you need *more* light for a smaller format. That's assuming that any sub-35mm format is significantly less sensitive to light than their larger counterparts. I'm aware of larger pixels theoretically offering better sensitivity (combined with the downsampling inherent with DSLRs and similar, but that's another story), but it's not the whole story. I think any *new* 2/3" offerings would likely offer comparable (though maybe not identical) sensitivity to 4/3" and S35 sensors.
And for that matter, the whole obsession with shallow depth of field would lend itself to *wider* apertures, meaning possibly *less* light.
Point being, I don't think a 2/3" sensor vs. a S35 or FF35 sensor is gonna mean the difference between a hatchback/SUV/van and a truck for a lighting package.
Fair enough, Kevin. That's a reasonable idea.
Here is some food for thought. I have 2 cameras from the EXACT same generation. They were released within months of each other. Both are great cameras BTW. (HX9 vs NEX5N) So, the smaller sensor camera is SIGNIFICANTLY LESS light sensitive. Even though they are "same generation" technology. With a F3.3 lens on both, the camera with the smaller sensor gets DESTROYED. (The NEX5N has an S35 sensor)
Now, I know that the HX9 does NOT have a 2/3 sensor, but the fact remains that "all things being equal".....the camera with the larger sensor has superior light gathering leverage. (I know that smaller pixels play a role and other factors, etc)
But a consideration here is the scientific FACT that a larger "bucket" to collect light = superior light gathering ability (if all things are equal). Cheers!
Last edited:
combatentropy
Veteran
I keep getting disappointed by camera announcements, so I'll post my wish list just in case Canon or Panasonic or Red or whomever is reading this.
- VG20 body
- 2 XLR inputs
- 4/3 or S35
- 2K
- 60 FPS
- global shutter
- 12 f-stops of latitude
- 10-bit log
- 4:2:2
- records to commodity media (which is SD or CF cards)
- $5,000 or less
I have tried really hard to make my request reasonable. All these features are found in the market now, just not all at once. I also think it would please most people most of the time.
- VG20 body
- 2 XLR inputs
- 4/3 or S35
- 2K
- 60 FPS
- global shutter
- 12 f-stops of latitude
- 10-bit log
- 4:2:2
- records to commodity media (which is SD or CF cards)
- $5,000 or less
I have tried really hard to make my request reasonable. All these features are found in the market now, just not all at once. I also think it would please most people most of the time.
Last edited:
squig
Veteran
I was exaggerating a bit but the smaller the sensor the less sensitivity in general. Compare the light gathering ability of the 5D vs the 7D for instance. The 5D has more than twice the sensitivity of the 7D and even more over the GH2. I've lit 5D scenes with an 8 watt CFL and a dimmed 30 watt LED @ 1250 ISO and they look gorgeous. I don't have any need for blondies or redheads with the 5D. I want a camera that's even more sensitive like the FS100 or the D3s. It's highly unlikely a 2/3" sensor is going to beat the 5D in low light. Dynamic range is also lower on smaller chip cameras.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
Well, the size of the sensor is one factor in sensitivity, in an "All things being equal" comparison, but without knowing the final specs on any of theses speculative cameras, it is just way too early to write off a possible RED 2/3" camera as not being good in low light. They have been doing some pretty good work with HDR development for the EPIC series. Maybe that development has impacted the design of their Scarlet cameras. I am no where near any kind of RED fanboy, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt until the cameras are released.
squig
Veteran
We have no idea whether they're 2/3", S35, or full frame. I haven't played with an EPIC but the RED ONE is no low light king. My little NEX-5N destroys the RED ONE in low light and I doubt whether any 2/3" sensor could beat it. The NEX-5N is the first APS-C sensor that can compete with full frame DSLRs in low light. The S35 F3 and FS100 are of-course fantastic in low light with their lower 3.4 megapixel density.
Sure there's a market for 2/3" but every shooter I know wants S35 of full frame.
Pietro Impagliazzo
Well-known member
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
I am just saying that we don't know what either company is going to announce and when they do, totally writing off the RED camera, if it has a 2/3" sensor, might be a mistake. I recently purchased a FS100 and won't be buying either a new Canon or the new RED or any other camera, for a while, but I am definitely interested in camera advancements. Let's just see what they come out with.
Well, I do kind of take that back. I have been looking at the NEX 5n, and think I may pick up one of those for back up and a good walking around camera. Thanks for the endorsement of it. But let's not thread jack.
Speaking about narrative work one should not forget about DOF. To be able to pull focus (achieve DOF greater than two inches) one need to stop down the FF lens more, which, in turn, requires more wattage for proper exposure. This might limit the benefits of larger sensor for many shots.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
We really need to realize that pure sensor sensitivity in not the end all and be all in regards to the lighting gear requirements needrd to shoot with a specific camera system. Sensor sensitivity, plus the noise, or lack there of, of increases in gain (Or ISO) MUST be measured against the dynamic range of the camera system. A camera that can make clean images up to an ISO of, let's say 6400, but only has a 5 or 6 stop range, is pretty pathetic and would still take a sh*t load of lights to balance out the luminance range of the shoot. With the FS100 I regularly shoot at Gain up of +15, which, per Abel Cine, is the equivalent of an ISO of 3200. At that gain setting, I get images that have barely perceptible noise. Through in the fact that the FS100 has a very usable DR of at LEAST 10 stops, and you see the low light capabilities of the camera. To me, the saving grace, lighting wise is not JUST the high sensitivity but the wide DR.
If any of the new cameras can pull off usable ISOs of 1000 or maybe a little bit more, with a high DR, without regard to their sensor size, they will be embraced by the professional community, if the other specs are spot on.
If any of the new cameras can pull off usable ISOs of 1000 or maybe a little bit more, with a high DR, without regard to their sensor size, they will be embraced by the professional community, if the other specs are spot on.
David W. Jones
Veteran
IMHO, Canon could care less about releasing a camera that stomps the Epic or Alexa as some have speculated. Canon knows where their bread is buttered, just like Apple. The high end professional market is just a drop in the bucket compared to the money they make from the lower end consumer market. That's where the big money is!