YEAH no more H.264 for us...

morgan_moore said:
hey you might be able to expect that over the years

get the spec from a $100k IBM corporate computer from 1990 and compare it to your $1000 laptop

I bet that laptop looks pretty much like a 1990 corporate computing solution

IBM needed to canibalize or die - I cant remember which happened

S
Click to expand...

Yes, but the market for cinema-ready cameras is a helluva lot smaller than for personal computing.

Right now Canon is putting out the 7d which creates an incredible HD image for the amount it costs. Yet, now all the pixel counters are clamoring for a true HD competitor to the Red or an F35! I guess it's a brave new world.
 
I still say Get a bunch of us together and we Manufacture what we want ! I bet we could even get Govt Funds for it and call it a Cooperative(socialism in the work place we all get rich), And We Call it the BLUE ONE. 4k no aliasing no roilling shutter, easy codec, and exchangeable Lense Mounts.. **** I used to work in the Space Industry back 10 years Ago, I know for a fact we can Do things on LOW budgets an get a Product Produced that is Usable. Who's IN?
 
speedjunkie said:
I still say Get a bunch of us together and we Manufacture what we want ! I bet we could even get Govt Funds for it and call it a Cooperative(socialism in the work place we all get rich), And We Call it the BLUE ONE. 4k no aliasing no roilling shutter, easy codec, and exchangeable Lense Mounts.. shi* I used to work in the Space Industry back 10 years Ago, I know for a fact we can Do things on LOW budgets an get a Product Produced that is Usable. Who's IN?
Click to expand...

I believe that you can develop a product from scratch and have it on the market before it gets out dated!

"Optimist: Day-dreamer more elegantly spelled"
-Mark Twain

But really, taking a red one camera and having someone make a knock off is what I consider "stealing". Look at the older redrock gear and zacuto stuff getting "knocked off" by that company in India... touchy subject and I'm sure we could all debate music copyright infringement all day too.

Yah, the work flow for editing the H264 files sucks right now, but like Barry said, just thing how compressed it is right now... in theory you could cram more info in H264 at 50mbps than you could for MPEG II (if I'm not mistaken) and the results would be amazing! If the camera companies, software developers, and hardware developers all got a long and lived in the same house we would have some really amazing stuff. A great camera that has files that can be edited on a computer that decodes H264 like a hot knife through butter is all we want... how hard could it be :)
 
Boy@ Some of you guys have gotten really spoiled. I bought a 7D to use as my primary camera. I shoot shorts and do VFX. I needed a DSLR that I could shoot on set with, as well as an affordable HD video camera. The 7D was a great deal.

So far the workflow is more like working with a film camera than a video camera. I love the fact that my takes are all seperate files. I love the fact I don't have to digitize an inch of tape. I love the interchangable lenses. That feature alone saved me a couple of grand on a lens adapter.

H.264. My only problem with it was it's color space was 4:2:0 and that my keys would be difficult to pull. I shoot a flat image when I'm recording. As per Stu M. I set the contrast and sharpness to zero and turn the saturation down.

There's a little noise in my image but once I get those images through a 16-bit color grading session and add a little grain I get an image I can use. I have every intention of shooting a feature with this camera. It's not as good as a Red but Phillip Bloom is using it to shoot narrative and really the 7D with it's H.264 is good enough for HD.
 
Ryan Farnes said:
Is the h.264 implementation in the 7D limited by internal camera processing power?
Click to expand...
I don't know specifically. I do know that it doesn't take advantage of the full range of tools that h.264 offers, in that it doesn't employ "B" frames, and that 21 megabits of AVCHD is far more robust than the 50 megabits of h.264 that the 7D uses.

The 7D's implementation isn't bad, it's about as good or a little better than HDV, it just takes a whole lot of space to do it (50 megabits).

I wouldn't be surprised if your supposition is correct, and that processing power would be the reason for the limits, but there's no real way for us to know.
 
This new codec announced by Canon looks suspiciously identical to the Sony XDCAM 50Mbs 4:2:2 MPEG codec which has been out for some time and is supported in most, if not all NLE progams as well as one of the many codecs used in the NanoFlash.

And I would agree that this codec will most likely show up in a camcorder type unit with an APS-C sized CMOS sensor - just my guess since Canon has been a bit behind the curve in the camcorder area lately.
 
ZumaDog said:
since Canon has been a bit behind the curve in the camcorder area lately.
Click to expand...
Canon is *always* behind the curve in the camcorder area. That is how they work, that's how they like it. They've said as much. They let everyone else go first, and they will always be last to the party.

50mbps of 4:2:2 mpeg-2 is a good solid choice. It is also certainly not cutting-edge, but it's well supported.
 
Technically, we never had h.264. Legally speaking, that is:

http://bemasc.net/wordpress/2010/02/02/no-you-cant-do-that-with-h264/
Maybe the best example comes from the Final Cut Pro license:
To the extent that the Apple Software contains AVC encoding and/or decoding functionality, commercial use of H.264/AVC requires additional licensing and the following provision applies: THE AVC FUNCTIONALITY IN THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED HEREIN ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (i) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AVC STANDARD (“AVC VIDEO”) AND/OR (ii) DECODE AVC VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND/OR AVC VIDEO THAT WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO. INFORMATION REGARDING OTHER USES AND LICENSES MAY BE OBTAINED FROM MPEG LA L.L.C. SEE HTTP://WWW.MPEGLA.COM.
​
The text could hardly be clearer: you do not have a license for commercial use of H.264. Call it “Final Cut Pro Hobbyist”. Do you post videos on your website that has Google Adwords? Do you edit video on a consulting basis? Do you want to include a video in a package sent to your customers? Do your clients send you video clips as part of your business? Then you’re using the encoder or decoder for commercial purposes, in violation of the license.
 
natxbrotha said:
I believe that you can develop a product from scratch and have it on the market before it gets out dated!

"Optimist: Day-dreamer more elegantly spelled"
-Mark Twain

But really, taking a red one camera and having someone make a knock off is what I consider "stealing". Look at the older redrock gear and zacuto stuff getting "knocked off" by that company in India... touchy subject and I'm sure we could all debate music copyright infringement all day too.

Yah, the work flow for editing the H264 files sucks right now, but like Barry said, just thing how compressed it is right now... in theory you could cram more info in H264 at 50mbps than you could for MPEG II (if I'm not mistaken) and the results would be amazing! If the camera companies, software developers, and hardware developers all got a long and lived in the same house we would have some really amazing stuff. A great camera that has files that can be edited on a computer that decodes H264 like a hot knife through butter is all we want... how hard could it be :)
Click to expand...

Absoluty, I would Only Use the RED as an example and Better the Product, After all CMOS chips are Dirt Cheap to Produce the Rest is RD
 
speedjunkie said:
Absoluty, I would Only Use the RED as an example and Better the Product, After all CMOS chips are Dirt Cheap to Produce the Rest is RD
Click to expand...

The folks at RED have and undoubtedly would again publicly disagree with the fact that their CMOS chips are "dirt cheap".

R&D is definitely part of it, but there are real manufacturing and sourcing costs in there as well, not to mention the processors and other bits of gold and silicon which make the whole thing tick. It's a LOT more than just a cheap sensor in a pretty aluminum box with a cool lens mount on the front.

I would be very surprised to see anyone produce a "Blue" that equals the RED at a significantly lower price point. I really think they are cutting the profit margin pretty low, especially in comparison to the rest of the industry - Varicam, CineAlta, D-2x.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top