'See Impossible': Canon counts down to... something. *UPDATED*

Why is this kid smiling?

Because his playskool camera was just upgraded to 8K raw, with wireless feed to his Etch-A-Sketch!
 

Attachments

  • playskool camera.jpg
    playskool camera.jpg
    52.4 KB · Views: 0
Shenan said:
Regarding moiré on Canon 5d mk iii, my understanding is that they fixed it by making the video image pretty soft.
Click to expand...

It's just conjecture, but I believe that the 5D III's improved moire performance comes directly from it's sensor pixel count of 22.3MP - when that 3:2 sensor is cropped to a 16:9 aspect ratio of 5760 x 3240, you have a perfect 3x scale from HD video. That likely has a lot to do with how well the video compressor can avoid aliasing and moire since it doesn't have to do any complex averaging in it's conversion to HD video. Other sensors with pixel counts that don't fit so well in a 1920x1080 scale don't fair nearly as well at mitigating those image issues.

The h.264 video resolution of the 5D III is pretty much on par with every other Canon DSLR; that is to say, a bit soft compared to the true HD resolution - but that has sort of become part of the Canon DSLR "look" I think. Not that I wouldn't want it to be a bit more detailed, but there is something nice about the softer video for faces and interviews. It can make cutting it with more advanced HD cameras a bit challenging sometimes.

The 7D II has a 2.85x scale of it's 16:9 aspect ratio sensor from HD resolution to it's native pixel count, but perhaps their scaling and compression algorithm & processing is more advanced and can do the slightly more complex averaging required to avoid moire and aliasing. Time will tell.
 
Last edited:
R Hudson said:
Now onto 5DMKIII,

I am glad to hear...
Click to expand...

As you've confirmed here, you have no first hand, real world experience with the latest generation Canon gear - which was my point exactly. You just like to hear yourself speak, regurgitating internet hearsay.

You came into the thread bashing Canon, now you backpedal - yet you've lost none of your indignation. About how I expected this to go, although I didn't expect the reversing so soon.
 
Thanks Brian, what you said about the sensors makes sense, and I also think your analysis of the video softness perfectly summarizes most of what I've read. It's just that the magic lantern raw sharpness makes one wonder why the detail is not there in the video from the factory firmware, but perhaps the additional processing power that is needed to compress the video precludes them from being able to do so. It still seems a bit odd.
 
IndyFilmPhreak2013 said:
As you've confirmed here, you have no first hand, real world experience with the latest generation Canon gear - which was my point exactly. You just like to hear yourself speak, regurgitating internet hearsay.

You came into the thread bashing Canon, now you backpedal - yet you've lost none of your indignation. About how I expected this to go, although I didn't expect the reversing so soon.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I'm out.

My apologies to everyone for the side-step. I have a gig to get to so.............peace :)
 
Last edited:
IndyFilmPhreak2013 said:
And yet C300s keep working and making money, imagine that. It's almost as if specs and numbers don't matter, and picture quality is what really counts - surely it can't be!
Click to expand...

I will say this....I own plenty of Canon and Canon EOS Mount glass and I even own a couple of Canon DSLR bodies but I don't use the bodies for much video, only occasionally. I was recently at a large international expo which is in an industry that is HIGHLY visual needless to say there was probably in the neighborhood of about 20 +/- mobile video crews on the expo floor, maybe more. I was floored at the number of C300's and even C100's being used. I don't particularly feel that either of the aforementioned cams are good value but there is no mistaking how much they are being used. I don't necessarily believe or think the Canon's have 'the best picture quality' per se but the entire package (i.e. ergonomics etc..) is clearly considered superior to people shooting these kinds of events.

Among other cams, I also own a GH4 and an FS700. I think I may have seen one GH4 and not a single FS700.
 
C300 seemed to be the industry TV standard for most shows I've seen shot. Lots of HD Tv, that is what they have been Tooled for. Nothing wrong there. They are both (c100 with atomos) Great Broadcast/Doc Cameras. now since the F55 and F5 hit the market I see those alot more now.
 
Bassman2003 said:
5d MKIII RAW is amazing but we can not give all the credit to Canon. If Canon would just encode or make jpegs from the Magic Lantern discovered RAW stream the image quality would be leaps better than the native video recording.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that the raw recording that Magic Lantern enabled couldn't even be possible when the 5D3 was first released because there were no cards that could record it. It's a little unfair to say that Canon hobbled the camera, or could have used a different method to get magical results. Unlike some other manufacturers, Canon will not release beta products. When you buy a Canon you know that it will do what it is spec'd to do and will be solid. As an extension of this, you'll notice that Canon products aren't going to be pushing themselves to the very edge of their physical limits in regular use. The 7D got a firmware update after a couple years that increased its raw stills from the original 6 or 7fps up to 10fps. "OMG! Canon intentionally hobbled the camera to keep people buying their more expensive ones!" Nope. They kept the 7D shooting what they knew it could safely support with the technology and programming available. I'm guessing it might even be possible for the C100 to record 4k to both cards, but it would be really sketchy and not work all the time. So Canon won't do it, but if the C100 was made by another company that notoriously misses their release dates maybe that would be an available feature even if it wasn't 100% reliable. For people buying unproven gear that want to live on the edge to milk that capability that's fine, but Canon considers it a non starter to release something that isn't going to be completely reliable. I'm ok with that too. I tinker with ML on my 5D3 and like what it can do, but when it's crunch time and I have to get the shot and ML shows the slightest hiccup it's out.
 
I think you are being a bit too sensitive on this topic. I did not say or imply that RAW video is something Canon held back or hobbled the camera with. I was making the point that RAW video showed how detailed the camera's image really is. If Canon could create the h.264 encode with this level of detail the camera would be a different animal. No super fast CF cards needed, just non-mushy h.264.
 
Bassman2003 said:
I think you are being a bit too sensitive on this topic. I did not say or imply that RAW video is something Canon held back or hobbled the camera with. I was making the point that RAW video showed how detailed the camera's image really is. If Canon could create the h.264 encode with this level of detail the camera would be a different animal. No super fast CF cards needed, just non-mushy h.264.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I should have made it more clear that I was talking about "internet commenters" and not just you. But the greater point still stands...that Canon is not the kind of company that will take risks with the reliability of their products. Its a little like the difference between the guys that tinker with turbos and nitrous in their Honda Civics vs aircraft manufacturers. That souped up Honda is going to eek out every little bit of added potential until it blows up or breaks down on the side of the track, while that airplane is designed to not break down even if the pilot pushes it beyond its listed limits. Canon is safe. The safer option was to add in VAF and have less work for the encoder than to push the processor to the edge with a sharper image or more processor intensive codec. No doubt that Canon wants their camera to produce the best image, but they won't release it if it's not 100% reliable.
 
Hitler's been busy lately. Reviewing every camera on the market practically.

In any case, C-100 MK II is obviously a stop-gap solution. They'd have to update/replace/consolidate their entire C-line soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top