Will there ever be RAW codec for Canon HDSRLs

T

tackyattack

Active member
Do you think Canon will ever make their HDSLRs RAW video codec capable? Is it even possible? Could it be done with a firmware update? How long do you think before they do that, if even possible? Lots of questions, what do you guys think will happen?
 
no, I seriously doubt it. For a couple of reasons:

1) the price point of the cameras isn't high enough to warrant it.
2) the memory cards and data throughput required to record RAW to a memorycard at 24 or 30 frames per second isn't there on these cameras.
 
In short.. No. The only way we could record such high bitrates would be through an external recorder like a nanoflash or something or incredibly huge CF cards. Also, the sensor would overheat very fast. These cameras already have a problem with overheating at normal bitrates, if they were shooting raw it would melt.. With the advances in video these cameras have given to the consumer market, I think a lot of people have forgotten that these are after all still DSLR cameras. I just took mine off the video mode for the first time in like 2 months myself. But these cameras are not video cameras. And with the closing release of the Scarlet, Sony's F3, and a few others, for so much cheaper than the typical film or high end digital cameras people won't be wanting RAW on their DSLRs they'll want a scarlet. It's possible that Canon is looking into the prosumer market with the dslrs (Rodney Charters seemed to know a bit about it when I saw him last summer) but whatever it is, it won't happen for a while.
 
twotonepunkkid said:
These cameras already have a problem with overheating at normal bitrates, if they were shooting raw it would melt
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, no. The sensor always shoots raw. It is later down the line that it is compressed to JPEG or MPEG or whatever. Compression, by the way, takes more, not less, chip activity.

On the other hand, CF cards with fast enough buses is a bottleneck. But you could, if you were dead set on it, make a DSLR with, say, a 1.8" SATA flash drive, which would handle the bit rate no prob. The problem is, the manufacturers are not dead set on it. Rather, they are set on keeping things set, for as long as possible, to milk as much money out of a technology as they can. Not that I entirely blame them. It may only cost a few dollars per chip to crank them out of the factory, but tens of millions of dollars were spent to get to the blueprints for those chips.

I'm all for capitalism as far as it goes, but too often on these boards I see ourselves shoot our own foots. "No, there's no possible way a manufacturer could do that for less than $100,000."
 
+1 for nope, neva, sorry, totally different market/equipment/it's fortunate we got what we have in HDSLRS, prepare for the future, starting with the af100
 
No, but it goes beyond milking the product. Raw images means uncompressed. The amount of storage you would actually need for that would be ridiculous and not really worth it. It would be very difficult to edit on most machines, and the majority of users, by a huge margin, would have no idea what to do with it. After trying to turn on this feature, after hearing that it makes better movies, they would find the codec too much to handle and would probably complain to customer service. That's why I say it won't happen; wrong crowd. A lot of us are using these for higher end work, but it's really built for and used by the casual video taker.

As for price point, the reason cameras with low compression and excellent codecs cost more is because they tend to include a lot of other features, from monitoring to durability. The right market for low or no compression is also the market for all those other things; otherwise it would be a waste. There's no reason for cynicism, it's just a logical decision.

A better codec would be a realistic thing to aim for, however.
 
I wonder if switching to x264 codec could yield better results? Would Magic Lantern be able to switch the codec?
 
Nikita said:
I wonder if switching to x264 codec could yield better results? Would Magic Lantern be able to switch the codec?
Click to expand...

Doubt it as ML works with the ARM CPU, it has nothing to do with the DIGIC 4 processor where all the encoding and frame rate goodies are.
 
There is no way to switch codec ,its in hardware ,any other codec would be software and too slow to use,never would work.
 
Nikita said:
I wonder if switching to x264 codec could yield better results? Would Magic Lantern be able to switch the codec?
Click to expand...

most DSLRs are already using x264, and magic lantern can't reprogram the digic IV processor so won't change the codec (or resolution, or part of the image that is recorded, or anything like that)

as for the original question: no way with current cameras, but it surely will come around in the future (as of now, I'd bet on 2013, which is "about two generations down the road", or "hardware that is starting its design process now")
 
7D currently shoots 4k 8 fps raw with a mechanical shutter. Seems they're already getting close and its less a question of the hardware being there(soon), than Canon deciding there's a market for 24p raw in a DSLR body.
 
The honest truth is that no one should attempt to shoot Transformers on a DSLR, and in that sense, there's many things about these cameras that need improvement beyond anything to do with the codec. Moire, sharpness, light sensibility differences, better in-camera tools, better exposure modes, ect ect there's plenty of things that would benefit every single DSLR shooter, even the casual home-video market, rather than the companies focusing on RAW. After a dozen video DSLR's that still have all these stone-age issues (T1i, T2i, 50D, 60D, MKII, ect ect) you'd have thought they'd have put some effort into the 60d, as opposed to filling it up with filler features. After 6 cameras in a row, there's no reason whatsoever that issues like moire should still exist, they really should have invented a work-around by now.
 
I'd say "it depends".

As I understand it, even RED shoots "compressed RAW", so RED doesn't really shoot RAW in the sense that Canon still images are RAW.

I think the moire is a more pressing problem. I know different people have different needs, but if I could get it to remove audio altogether in favor of a better picture, that's a bargain I would take. Dual system sound rules!

The current crop of DSLR cameras can do short bursts (full quality 18MP RAW images at 8 FPS), but they can only sustain that until they run out of buffer RAM and the card can no longer keep up. I don't know about the camera internals, but the storage medium is certainly at least one bottleneck.

Even if they didn't go full RAW, I'd be most happy if they fixed the moire issues. That also would take more CPU power. Never say never when it comes to digital technology though, at least if we're talking about future unreleased technology.

It seems like they could probably move from 8-bit depth to 10-bit depth without a whole lot of extra difficulty though. The sensors certainly support that and more. Getting a couple of extra stops in h.264 would be neat, and I think probably a large part of what people would want out of a RAW codec. I guess white balance would be the other main one.

As always, it will be interesting to see what the future brings. Who would have guessed a few years ago that we'd be shooting great looking videos on still cameras?
 
DSLR video was an afterthought that came from live view - "hey, we're sending a lot of pixels to the LCD, can we capture it?". Every advance in DSLR video since has been scotch-taping more stuff to that idea. 1080/24p seems about the only real advance that's come along. Maybe 720p/60. Obviously nobody has decided it was time to improve the compression or aliasing or any of the trouble spots - if someone is working on it, as yet nobody has decided it's financially advantageous to implement. Nobody at Nikon or Canon thought these would be used for features and broadcast spots, nobody predicted it would create a new market.

I've yet to hear a single figure as to the size of that market though; how many people bought a DSLR (and OEM accessories) just because of this feature? Enough to justify a major R&D push or create a new product line? I have not the slightest idea.

I keep hearing rumblings that Canon will be doing something next-gen with the tech, but if the market doesn't support a video-centric cinema camera - with all the tooling and R&D that would involve - we may at least see one or more of their DSLRs improve in one or more of the problem areas, like compression, moire or audio.

If I were directing an R&D team? I'd explore the idea of something like a grip that improves these issues (processing power & speed for compression, storage speed, audio inputs and pres, cooling), and price it high enough to be profitable. Keep the camera a still cam for the stills market, and market an accessory that amps up the video side and charge separately for it.
 
draven4 said:
I'd be happy with just an XLR input and good audio. Forget the RAW.
Click to expand...

Won't happen either.

The target market for DSLRs is, wait for it, STILL PHOTOGRAPHERS!

Video will always come 3rd or 4th in the feature set.

Look, Canon is selling a buttload of DSLRs where video is just an add-on.

They have no reason to put professional xlr connectors or HD-SDI or any of that stuff on a DSLR.

It's not going to happen.
 
(edit: changed some stuff down there, got the bayer stuff wrong, there's 3x less photosites on the sensor than I thought)



I'm a bit bored, and this "will this come" discussion is not cutting it for me (eventually, it will come, it's just a matter of when), so let's look at the more interesting side: what would it take?

a RAW still from my 550D is around 25MB, which is about 200Mbits/frame

that is 3:2, if I can discard the top and bottom bits and live with 16:9, I'd get around 169Mbits/frame

that's with a 18MPix sensor; say I want 1080p and I want to bin together every 9 pixels, using a nice algorithm that will avoid aliasind and moire (you're welcome): I'll build myself a 22Mpix sensor, just for fun

with those extra pixels, I'm at 208Mbits/frame, with 5760x3240 frames; when I bin and run my debayer, I'm at 69Mbit/frame, with 1920x1080 frames and 3 colors per pixel (the original bayer has just one color per pixel, this is what I've corrected)

at 24fps, that means 1664 Mbps, or 208MB/s; some sensor magic and some digic-magic could make that possible, and a solid state drive should be able to handle that, but I need 12.5GB for every minute, 5 minutes on a 64GB drive

I can save a bit on the bitrate if I go 10bit instead of 14bit (1200Mbps), or go 2.35:1 (1260Mbps), or both (900Mbps, 112MB/s)

edit: and I can save a lot more if I add lossless (or nearly-lossless) inter-temporal compression over the RAW stream, but this probably requires a lot more processing power

I still bet on 2013 (after redoing the math, maybe that's optimistic, but there's my bet anyway)
 
Last edited:
2013. Nah. Don't think so. They wouldn't put raw video on a DSLR anytime soon or maybe not at all. The reason I say is because if they get to the point where it's raw then they'll just make it into a full fledged movie camera like the RED and it'll be at a price range that won't fit it in the DSLR price range. It'll be in a high end movie camera range or at least higher than a DSLR.

What percent of their DSLR market base has the ability and infrastructure to take in uncompressed HD files, store all that footage on their computer and edit (or even with proxies still the space is needed) Then for the final outputs.

Most people aren't even dealing with the proper infrastructure with their HD editing like they are on SD systems, not bothering to use raids and complaining that it takes too long to copy and play the files.

The point of a DSLR is that it's build in a price range to satisfy a cheaper filmmaker, simply us who don't have a ton to spend. Otherwise we might all be running around with Reds and such or something similar. But we are not because DSLR is reachable. Even teens are shooting on youtube making things that look now like big budget feature films.
 
24fps RAW STILLS is going to happen long before RAW video.
Of course, it might be impossible to get the exact desired framerate and it would be in short burst modes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top