canon rumors FORUM

Rumors => EOS Bodies => Topic started by: Tristan944 on April 25, 2013, 11:51:04 PM

Title: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: Tristan944 on April 25, 2013, 11:51:04 PM
High definition video is approximately 2 megapixels. Most of Canon SLRs are 18 megapixels or more. 4k video is 8.3 megapixels. Why don't all the current body's feature 4k or higher video resolution?
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: pdirestajr on April 26, 2013, 12:39:07 AM
I'm not a tech guy, but just think about how many fps your average DSLR shoots stills, then think about how many are needed for video..
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: ahab1372 on April 26, 2013, 12:40:42 AM
Because it is not trivial to process the larger amounts of data per second. Processors need to be fast enough and be able to dissipate the heat.
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: Tristan944 on April 26, 2013, 01:06:49 AM
Because it is not trivial to process the larger amounts of data per second. Processors need to be fast enough and be able to dissipate the heat.

I can see that, but the new GoPro does 4k.
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: rs on April 26, 2013, 01:11:04 AM
All the reasons above, plus how many people have TV's which are 4k or above? How any TV stations can broadcast at such resolutions?

While 4k might become mainstream at some time, it is pushing the boundaries at the moment, so not many cameras record it, and not many monitors/TV's can display it.

Ps - the new GoPro does 4k at just 15fps - no where near fast enough to create the illusion of smooth video.
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: ahab1372 on April 26, 2013, 01:22:16 AM
Because it is not trivial to process the larger amounts of data per second. Processors need to be fast enough and be able to dissipate the heat.

I can see that, but the new GoPro does 4k.
True, but I don't think it takes 18MP stills. I'm not an engineer, but often you have to optimize for one or the other. Both at the same time is difficult.
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: dr croubie on April 26, 2013, 01:22:58 AM
Filpside: Why higher resolution video?

Am I the only one still using a CRT TV bought new (by my parents) in 1986? I watch it so seldomly, and with only half-attention when I do, that any expense on buying a new one is pointless. Money better spent on lenses, film, and travelling to photogenic spots.
Maybe if there were something worth watching on TV nowadays, I'd be inclined to watch it more. Even if they're already broadcasting in 1080p, it might be technically 'better' than an analogue TV, but the stories sure as hell aren't. And even if the stories were worth watching, how much do more pixels add to the plot?

[/oldmanrant]
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: Jesse on April 26, 2013, 01:39:27 AM
Get a 1DC if you want that. It's only $15k.
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: Lawliet on April 26, 2013, 02:07:51 AM
Why don't all the current body's feature 4k or higher video resolution?
4k@30fps are ~250MP/s, or about the same rate as 18MP at 14fps. Coincidently the max. framerate as the still frame counterpart to the 1Dc manages. Which in turn is the fastest still cam you can buy.
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: Rienzphotoz on April 26, 2013, 02:41:59 AM
High definition video is approximately 2 megapixels. Most of Canon SLRs are 18 megapixels or more. 4k video is 8.3 megapixels. Why don't all the current body's feature 4k or higher video resolution?
a. AFAIK there are no TV's that can play "18 megapixels or more" video resolution
b. The processing power required for shooting "18 megapixels or more" video resolution will be so huge that it would:
Simply put it is not economically viable for manufacturers to produce such a camera.[/list]
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: Nishi Drew on April 26, 2013, 02:48:35 AM
There's still major stations broadcasting at upscaled 720P, and considering how TVs have gotten massive and a lot more affordable, simultaneously a vast majority have migrated to portable devices that one can't even perceive HD on. Yes Pixel density counts but even 720P I think is overkill for handheld devices. But that doesn't stop the world from wanting 4K, and speaking of broadcast, Japan's NHK is working on 8K cameras!
Though more resolution really begins to make sense when it comes to editing, higher bit rates and better color spaces all help with grading and creating an image you like, but for cropping or any fine edits the higher the resolution the better indeed. Then again, did more MPs in our photographic cameras mean much? At that point where it became more than enough (when we broke 10MP?) it's not like anyone's pictures got that much better, yeah there's more detail and you can print a lot larger, even save a too-far shot by cropping more and more.

For now it's a big boys game where full out production companies can show off their muscle of 4K against the poor indie film shooters who can't go past 1080P when on a budget, like when 3D was all the rage (haha what on earth happened to all that?) it was meant to be a feature that only Hollywood & friends could touch so would protect them, and the marketing gets them back enough anyways, like all the views an incredibly boring video gets just because it has a 4K tag
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: Rienzphotoz on April 26, 2013, 02:54:48 AM
I can see that, but the new GoPro does 4k.
Because Go Pro Hero 3 can only shoot 4K video at 15 fps
The sensor size of Go Pro Hero 3 is a puny 1/2.3" ... now compare that with a cropped frame 18 MP DSLR sensor size which is  22.3 x 14.9 mm 
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: Rienzphotoz on April 26, 2013, 03:11:46 AM
I can see that, but the new GoPro does 4k.
Because Go Pro Hero 3 can only shoot 4K video at 15 fps
The sensor size of Go Pro Hero 3 is a puny 1/2.3" ... now compare that with a cropped frame 18 MP DSLR sensor size which is  22.3 x 14.9 mm
Just to put sensor sizes in perspective see the below pic for comparison between the Go Pro 3 sensor size and an 18 MP DSLR sensor (as well as the full frame) ... now think of the processing power & costs required to make an 18 MP DSLR do 4K video let alone 8K or higher:
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: Canon-F1 on April 26, 2013, 03:38:32 AM
High definition video is approximately 2 megapixels. Most of Canon SLRs are 18 megapixels or more. 4k video is 8.3 megapixels. Why don't all the current body's feature 4k or higher video resolution?

4k it´s pretty useless for most and would make the cameras more expensive.


Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: LostBoyNZ on April 26, 2013, 03:40:49 AM
Blackmagic Design recently announced a 4k camera for $4,000 with a Super 35 sized sensor (similar to APS-C sized) that has an EF mount:

http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicproductioncamera4k/ (http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicproductioncamera4k/)
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on April 26, 2013, 04:53:44 AM
I bought a Sony fx1 in 2005 when you only really saw 1080 tv's at trade shows.

It was coming we were told, and so we bought fx1s and z1s in our droves.

I usually shot at 1080 hdv and downscaled to dv for most clients, so I always had the hdv master.

In my time of using the camera nobody really asked me for hd.

Since shooting on eos cameras i still shoot hd, and it looks great played on my 1080 telly through a brd player, but its not fall off my chair great (i have a puny 40", difference from sd is barely apparent) when viewed at an event on a 20 ft screen the difference is very obvious.

We put up with .4mp for television for years because the motion blur masked the low resolution (interlacing played a part too) and is partly why on smaller screens there isn't a massive jump.

Forget the camera processing power, think more about our brain processing power.

4k is on it's way.  But like trying to edit hdv in 2005, present consumer gear isn't up to it, and for most folk watching on even 50" tellys, the difference isn't all that obvious.

When we have an entire wall of our living room as a tv then 4k might be worth it, but what would the viewing distance be?

Sure if you are shooting for projection, as I do for work, then 4k might make some sense, but be prepared to budget for make up.  Be prepared to budget for much sharper lenses.

Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: AG on April 26, 2013, 04:59:02 AM
Blackmagic Design recently announced a 4k camera for $4,000 with a Super 35 sized sensor (similar to APS-C sized) that has an EF mount:

http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicproductioncamera4k/ (http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicproductioncamera4k/)

Black Magic also announced 2 years ago that it would deliver their products on time.
Some people are STILL waiting for their Gen 1 products when they are out announcing their Gen 3 versions.

What good is a $4000 camera if you have to wait for 18 months + to use it?
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: Don Haines on April 26, 2013, 08:10:58 AM
Because it is not trivial to process the larger amounts of data per second. Processors need to be fast enough and be able to dissipate the heat.

I can see that, but the new GoPro does 4k.

Processing power depends a lot on the algorithm used. The GoPro HEAVILY compresses it's video.... that's why it fits hours of video onto a microSD card. Also, the goPro shoots 4K video at 15FPS..... that's the same data rate as 2K video at 60FPS. Also, the GoPro is a VIDEO camera..... hardware is optimized for shooting VIDEO, as opposed to a DSLR which is optimized for shooting stills.


I don't have it with me to check file sizes, but on Sunday I shot a 55 minute long video (one continuous recording) on a GoPro..... compare that to a Canon DSLR where you can reach the 4G file size limit in about 2 minutes....

With such a lossy algorithm, you skip on trying to conserve the smallest details, so you need a lot less cpu power.... if Canons provided poor quality, they could speed up too
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: K-amps on April 26, 2013, 08:37:55 AM
The other question to ask is why does the current 1080p video frame look so infinitely crappier than the equivalent  2mp still?  If they can give me broadcast quality or better 1080p, people would not be waiting for 4k as much as they are.....
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on April 26, 2013, 08:49:02 AM
The other question to ask is why does the current 1080p video frame look so infinitely crappier than the equivalent  2mp still?  If they can give me broadcast quality or better 1080p, people would not be waiting for 4k as much as they are.....

Have you taken a 2MP still on your camera to compare it with a 1080p video grab? (and I mean taken the image at 2MP, not resized in PS)

That's the only fair way to compare because of pixel binning etc.  Oh and at JPEG as well.  And at 1/50th or 1/60th shutter too.

And for complete parity can you also enlarge the 2MP print of your still to the size of your TV screen?  Remember to keep everything sRGB for equivalence.

As I alluded to earlier, we put up with 400k resolution tv pictures for decades because the illusion of motion and the motion blur caused by the relatively slow shutter (not to mention the interlacing) was all too much for our lowly brain power to handle and so it looked all crisp and sharp and detailed and that.  We only see each image for 1/25th or 1/30th of a second, so our brain is filling in a lot of the gaps at quite a rate.  A bit like temporal compression in reverse.

Why isn't my tractor as fast as my coupe on the motorway?  Why can't I plough a field with my bike?  All similar questions.

And if it's not broadcast quality how come I've been getting stuff on telly shot on my 7D, 550D and 600D for the last few years? 
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: rs on April 26, 2013, 09:21:16 AM
And if it's not broadcast quality how come I've been getting stuff on telly shot on my 7D, 550D and 600D for the last few years?
Sounds great... what sort of programmes do you do?
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: preppyak on April 26, 2013, 09:35:43 AM
Black Magic also announced 2 years ago that it would deliver their products on time.
Some people are STILL waiting for their Gen 1 products when they are out announcing their Gen 3 versions.

What good is a $4000 camera if you have to wait for 18 months + to use it?
Well, lets parse through the BS here. The camera was announced almost exactly a year ago at NAB with availability in July (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57415376-1/blackmagic-cinema-camera-aims-to-make-pro-video-more-affordable/). So the wait, at most, has been 9 months for anyone. As they have been very open about, they had issues with the sensor manufacturer that they have gotten taken care of, and they have also been very open any other issues and how they are fixing them. Since it was a Gen 1 camera doing something nobody else really was, that's understandable. If the EOS-M is any indication, making a product perfect the first time isn't as easy as it looks.

They have also been great about adding new features people ask for. Meanwhile, Canon still won't tell us if they are ever updating certain mistakes on their end, and we have to rely on Magic Lantern to get basic firmware features.

Moreover, they've made it pretty clear they learned from that mistake and are gonna be ready with stock in July for the new cameras. If they fail to deliver, then it'd be fair to criticize them as someone who can't deliver. Especially when (http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/05/canon-eos-1d-x-delays-cr2/) Canon (http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/07/canon-ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii-delayed-again/) and other companies (http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/03/sigma-120-300-f2-8-dg-os-hsm-delayed/) never fail (http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/10/canon-eos-m-to-ship-today-in-north-america/) to deliver their stuff on time.
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: K-amps on April 26, 2013, 09:44:32 AM
Pixel binning is a form of resizing, so yes If I took an 18 or 22mp still and resized it to 2 mp, I am pretty sure it would look better and crispier than if I paused a 1080p feed. Maybe I did not explain myself better before.
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: rs on April 26, 2013, 10:30:03 AM
Pixel binning is a form of resizing, so yes If I took an 18 or 22mp still and resized it to 2 mp, I am pretty sure it would look better and crispier than if I paused a 1080p feed. Maybe I did not explain myself better before.
There are a couple of reasons why a single frame from 1080p won't look as good as a 2mp still, and I'm pretty sure a lack of resolution doesn't come into it.

First of all, the video will be compressed very differently from a jpeg - its not just lossy compression of areas of the image, but between frames too. Secondly, when set optimally, the shutter speeds will be very different between the two. Typically with moving subjects, in a photo you'll want them free of motion blur - in a video, to avoid that stuttering effect, a slow shutter speed is needed (because of the slow frame rate) to allow motion to flow from one frame to the next.

The two really can't be compared, but if video ever gets to the point that NHK were on about - 120fps, higher shutter speeds on each individual frame will be optimal, further narrowing the difference between video and stills. However, current broadcast TV is 25 or 30 fps, so no optimally recorded 1080p broadcast TV will be able to freeze frame to create a still image as good as an optimally taken 2mp photo.
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on April 26, 2013, 11:02:17 AM
And if it's not broadcast quality how come I've been getting stuff on telly shot on my 7D, 550D and 600D for the last few years?
Sounds great... what sort of programmes do you do?

Adverts for trinity mirror newspaper group titles and insert vts for award ceremonies such as pride of britain, young scot awards, scottish sport awards.
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: K-amps on April 26, 2013, 12:33:40 PM
Pixel binning is a form of resizing, so yes If I took an 18 or 22mp still and resized it to 2 mp, I am pretty sure it would look better and crispier than if I paused a 1080p feed. Maybe I did not explain myself better before.
There are a couple of reasons why a single frame from 1080p won't look as good as a 2mp still, and I'm pretty sure a lack of resolution doesn't come into it.

First of all, the video will be compressed very differently from a jpeg - its not just lossy compression of areas of the image, but between frames too. Secondly, when set optimally, the shutter speeds will be very different between the two. Typically with moving subjects, in a photo you'll want them free of motion blur - in a video, to avoid that stuttering effect, a slow shutter speed is needed (because of the slow frame rate) to allow motion to flow from one frame to the next.

The two really can't be compared, but if video ever gets to the point that NHK were on about - 120fps, higher shutter speeds on each individual frame will be optimal, further narrowing the difference between video and stills. However, current broadcast TV is 25 or 30 fps, so no optimally recorded 1080p broadcast TV will be able to freeze frame to create a still image as good as an optimally taken 2mp photo.

Thanks for the explanation.

What would be the comparison of a static scene (disregarding motion).
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: Rienzphotoz on April 26, 2013, 03:05:42 PM
 
Why isn't my tractor as fast as my coupe on the motorway?  Why can't I plough a field with my bike?  All similar questions.
:D :D :D ... Good one!
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: ITshooter on April 26, 2013, 03:43:16 PM
The major point has been made: the hardware/ software demands of pulling 4K footage of a large sensor are pretty high.

That said, there are a couple other angles:

-- Canon clearly has the technology to do 4K-- e.g. the 1D-C. A high-end stills camera such as the 5D Mark III or the 1D-X could have been bestowed with the same powers (or at least smarter compression and downscaling of the 1080p image)-- but Canon chose not to. Why? Well, from their perspective, the real question is "Why should we?" When the 1D-C came out, it was the cheapest option for real, large-sensor 4K. It was also absolutely unique in its form factor and its ability to record 4K to CF cards. Yes, the Scarlet's out there too, but getting that camera in workable shape isn't cheap. It has some features that outclass the 1D-C (frame rates, RAW workflow), but unless you're making money off of these additional capabilities, the 1D-C offered the lowest TCO when it became available. 4K, from Canon's perspective, is something that enthusiasts want but that only professionals really need. As Sony and potentially Nikon and Panasonic get more aggressive in the stills/motion hybrid space, and as competitors such as Black Magic enter the cinema camera space, Canon might be persuaded to change its strategy. But Canon often looks at market transitions and waits until the last minute to make the change. Sometimes they wait too long (e.g. EOS-M) but their strategy is clearly to wait until a disruption is happening at a large scale, not to usher in the disruption themselves. Canon might still hold off on 4K below $10,000 for a while, given how obstinately the company has resisted 60 fps at 1080p-- but I can see where Canon is coming from when it basically says, "You want 4K? Are you a working media professional? No? Then what's the rush?"

2) The "consumers don't have 4K TVs" argument is a little dodgier. On the one hand, yes, it's true, if no one has the equipment to watch 4K content, then it's silly for Canon users (excluding certain professionals) to clamor for the feature. On the other hand, 4K TVs have become semi-affordable (e.g. you merely need to be well-off now, whereas you would have needed to be a top-1% earner to afford one back in January). Computer monitors and laptop/tablet screens are also pushing the resolution limit-- the 2.5K-ish Retina-level monitors are getting more ubiquitous, and all the chipmakers point out that their next-gen processors can handle 4K on multiple monitors. A lot of these computer resolution upgrades have to do with specialized industries--e.g. a stock trader who uses multiple monitors during work. At sub-50 inch screen sizes, the difference between 4K and 1080p can be hard to detect. Nevertheless, as 4K displays become commoditized over the next few years, the "you're a consumer and don't really need 4K" argument (which Canon has made) could become tougher to sustain.

3) Does anyone remember the alleged "30 fps burst mode" in a recent set of rumored 7D Mark II specs? I wonder if that's something similar to what the Nikon mirrorless cameras can do, and that the Panasonic m43 cameras do at reduced resolution. If the rumor is correct, I assume that AF would be disabled while this is going on, and that some sort of global shutter technology is being employed, which could have a few usability implications. Moreover, you certainly couldn't shoot a 4K feature in one-second increments. But still, if the rumor is correct, it would mean RAW 4K+ video, which, for a camera aimed at sports shooters, is pretty cool. It would also suggest nice things about Digic 6, and what it might be capable of. If the camera can manage 18-24MP bursts at high frame rate, then surely it could manage sustained 4K shooting for longer periods. The technical limitations would no longer be an excuse, so Canon's decision to include or withhold advanced video functions would come down to market positioning.

So, long story short, Canon isn't implementing true HD (let alone 4K) because it doesn't think it needs to yet. The technical challenges are undeniable yet nonetheless conquerable, so Canon's decision has been to milk the new tech in high-margin products, rather than to implement it at scale. It'll change that attitude when it thinks it needs to- and then the question will be, did Canon judge the market's dynamics correctly?
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: Jesse on April 26, 2013, 04:49:43 PM
Blackmagic Design recently announced a 4k camera for $4,000 with a Super 35 sized sensor (similar to APS-C sized) that has an EF mount:

http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicproductioncamera4k/ (http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicproductioncamera4k/)

Black Magic also announced 2 years ago that it would deliver their products on time.
Some people are STILL waiting for their Gen 1 products when they are out announcing their Gen 3 versions.

What good is a $4000 camera if you have to wait for 18 months + to use it?

They claim to have solved this issue. The problem was with who was making their sensors. They had plenty of bodies ready to go but without sensors inside them. They're using a different manufacturer this time around, who they say will be able to make enough to support demand.
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: Mt Spokane Photography on April 26, 2013, 04:52:04 PM
Because it is not trivial to process the larger amounts of data per second. Processors need to be fast enough and be able to dissipate the heat.

I can see that, but the new GoPro does 4k.
Yes, you can compress it to death and be lucky to get anything viewable, if you actually have a 4K TV.
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: KyleSTL on April 26, 2013, 05:18:34 PM
The other question to ask is why does the current 1080p video frame look so infinitely crappier than the equivalent  2mp still?  If they can give me broadcast quality or better 1080p, people would not be waiting for 4k as much as they are.....

Have you taken a 2MP still on your camera to compare it with a 1080p video grab? (and I mean taken the image at 2MP, not resized in PS)

That's the only fair way to compare because of pixel binning etc.  Oh and at JPEG as well.  And at 1/50th or 1/60th shutter too.

And for complete parity can you also enlarge the 2MP print of your still to the size of your TV screen?  Remember to keep everything sRGB for equivalence.

As I alluded to earlier, we put up with 400k resolution tv pictures for decades because the illusion of motion and the motion blur caused by the relatively slow shutter (not to mention the interlacing) was all too much for our lowly brain power to handle and so it looked all crisp and sharp and detailed and that.  We only see each image for 1/25th or 1/30th of a second, so our brain is filling in a lot of the gaps at quite a rate.  A bit like temporal compression in reverse.

Why isn't my tractor as fast as my coupe on the motorway?  Why can't I plough a field with my bike?  All similar questions.

And if it's not broadcast quality how come I've been getting stuff on telly shot on my 7D, 550D and 600D for the last few years?

If the 1Dx had an option for 1920x1280 I'm sure it would look substantially better (even at the highest JPEG compression level) than a single frame of a static scene on a good, heavy tripod.  The reason I say that - 4:2:0 encoding.

I would venture to say a Canon D30 (2160 x 1440) or Nikon D1/D1H (2000 x 1312) using the same tripod placement and lens in Large-JPEG-Normal (or even Small-JPEG-Normal at 1440 x 960 for the D30) would probably meet or exceed the resolution of any modern DSLR shooting 1080p of a static subject in good light (obviously the modern cameras would win hands-down in high ISO situations).  The reason I say that is softening and loss of detail caused by 4:2:0 encoding and H.264 compression.

I think if someone has a modern camera and an old D30 laying they should compare them and see if 1080p can stand up to a 13 year-old DSLR.  I would be very interested in the results.
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: limit on April 26, 2013, 05:27:48 PM
If 30fps burst mode in 7dm2...
30x5(?)Mb=150Mb/sec.  ::)
I don't want 4k, i want 120fps 1080p (or 240fps 720p) video in 7dm2 :)
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: crazyrunner33 on April 27, 2013, 10:27:13 AM
We don't need higher resolution, we just need something other than the Youtube codec.  Magic Lantern discovered yesterday that the Canon cameras store in the buffer RAW 14 bit 4:2:2 DNG files until it is converted to H.264, you can see the difference. 

(http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/5d-cinema-dng-dr-660x370.jpg)

Ideally it would be nice to have a compressed RAW DNG file like the one that's found on both the new Black Magic Cinema and Pocket camera, or have the compressed RAW as an option and the H.264 or AVCHD as a second option. 
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: Lawliet on April 27, 2013, 12:20:16 PM
We don't need higher resolution, we just need something other than the Youtube codec. 

The 4K-spec tell something about that. Which means that we can get 4K-sized video, but finding a camera that also can meet the 4:4:4 requirement is...troublesome. If you stick w. bayer-pattern sensors you'd need 39.3MP (Wouldn't that be a nice resolution for a 1Dxs? ;D)
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: limit on April 28, 2013, 12:35:31 PM
We don't need higher resolution, we just need something other than the Youtube codec.  Magic Lantern discovered yesterday that the Canon cameras store in the buffer RAW 14 bit 4:2:2 DNG files until it is converted to H.264,

Ideally it would be nice to have a compressed RAW DNG file like the one that's found on both the new Black Magic Cinema and Pocket camera, or have the compressed RAW as an option and the H.264 or AVCHD as a second option.

completely agree!
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: Videoshooter on April 30, 2013, 02:15:36 AM
There's plenty of reasons why we haven't got 4K video in (non "C") Canon DSLR's yet.

- They want to keep that as a high-end feature, to keep selling the 1DC at $12000.
- Most people don't need it yet, and very few really want it too badly (keeping in mind most DSLR owners don't even care if their camera has a video mode at all)
- It requires more expensive hardware = lower profit margins or higher cost for the consumer.
- They are primarily still cameras - they are not built from the ground up with 4K video in mind.
- The negative feedback would be a PR disaster - look at GoPro's situation as an example. They've delivered quasi-4K video, 2.7K video, and 120fps video in a consumer device, but have copped all sorts of complaints from people who do not own a fast enough micro-SD cards, or whose computer is too slow to even play back the footage. The same would happen if Canon started delivering 4K video to customers who do not yet understand the demands of 4K video.
- Very few CF cards can handle the demands of 4K video (see previous point).

And, most importantly:

- They are selling more cameras that anybody else is right now. Why change what's already working? When sales drop, they lose sales to a competitor who is offering 4K video in DSLR's, then perhaps they will too.


Personally, I would rather see the video improved so that they offer proper 1920x1080 video (or perhaps even 2K - for that little bit of extra res for slight framing adjustments). The C100 footage is a whole lot sharper, as is the GH2 - especially hacked - and I wish Canon would at least attempt to get their DSLR footage up to this level. It is just frustrating that, aside from the moire-free (albeit softer) video of the mkIII, Canon has done absolutley nothing to actually improve the processing and image quality of their DSLR video performance since the mkII came out all those years ago.

Personally I would love to see proper, clean 1080p at 50/6060 &  proper, clean720p at 100/120fps in h.264 format (with increased bitrates to accommodate the extra frames), and an option for 24/25p 2K recorded to a better codec like Cineform RAW or Cinema DNG. That would offer a significant increase in IQ, while still keeping it well within realistic confines of the average persons recording/editing/playback workflow.
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: joema on May 02, 2013, 09:08:58 AM
...The "consumers don't have 4K TVs" argument is a little dodgier. On the one hand, yes, it's true, if no one has the equipment to watch 4K content, then it's silly for Canon users (excluding certain professionals) to clamor for the feature. On the other hand, 4K TVs have become semi-affordable...
It's not just the TVs, it's the lack of widely-adopted distribution format. Networks can't broadcast 4k, you can't get 4k via cable or satellite, you can't burn a 4k Blu-Ray disc, etc. For enthusiast-shot 4k material, how would you distribute it to your audience?

If the viewer has a 4K TV connected to a home media PC, you could hand them a portable hard drive with 4K material and maybe they could play it after updating all their codecs and software. That would be required for *each* viewer of your 4K material.

For professional use there's a better argument for producing in 4k so the material will have longer shelf life, much like filming color TV shows in the mid-1960s when few people had color TV.
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: bycostello on May 03, 2013, 08:20:25 PM
because you just don't need it
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on May 04, 2013, 04:00:11 AM
[quote author=joema link=topic=14478.msg264664#msg264664 date
For professional use there's a better argument for producing in 4k so the material will have longer shelf life, much like filming color TV shows in the mid-1960s when few people had color TV.
[/quote]

Which is also actually a good arguement for shooting on film!  Get a 4k scan today, then a 16k scan in five years when folks are having the same old arguement about why their rebel sl8 can't record at 16k at 120fps.
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: jrista on May 04, 2013, 11:37:58 PM
Hmm, I don't think many people participating in this thread to much cinematography. For everyone who has talked about 4K not being broadcast, or 4K TV's not being mainstream, etc. as resons why we don't have it in our everyday and even high end DSLRs...I think you are generally missing the point of high resolution video capture. It really isn't about the way you stream the video to your customers. It's about capturing as much detail as possible initially, for a number of reasons.

For one, 4k video, even 8k video, and 16k video if/when it ever arrives...is usually DOWNSCALED in post processing. Just like taking a high resolution still photo, and scaling it down 2x or 4x, you mitigate problems with the original video. You reduce noise, you improve sharpness, you eliminate artifacts (hot pixels, frame tearing, etc.)

Second, having more pixels to work with gives you more "room" to work with, provided you frame adequately. With 4k video, or even better in the future 8k video...you can frame out a bit, adding a buffer for a variety of post-process corrections. This might be smoothing hand-held panning, stabilizing jittery hand-held video, just plain old simple cropping to cut out something that ended up in the corner or edge of a scene that shouldn't have been there, etc.

In the end, the ultimate goal is still to produce a 1080p final video product...regardless of whether you have 2k, 4k, or 8k RAW video source. In addition to that goal, though, is to have crisper, clearer, less noisy, stabilized, extremely smoothly panning video of unparalleled detail and sharpness...AT 1080p.

To be honest, I am rather certain that little in the way of mainstream broadcast 4k TV content when 4k becomes commonplace mainstream will actually be shot at 4k, even if the camera bins 8, 16, or 32 megapixels to produce it. I suspect that quality 4k programming will ultimately be shot with high end 8k cinematography equipment, for the same reasons we all want 4k video in our DSLRs now.

I think there are two fundamental reasons why we don't have 4k video in our DSLRs: For one, it is kind of a high end, prestegious thing, and it makes sense for companies competing in that arena to protect it. If we are really complaining about a $7000 camera not having 4k, then it isn't too much of a stretch to think someone could pick up a CinEOS that does 4k for $15k...one has to figure if your spending seven grand in the first place, you aren't just fooling around unless you are independently wealthy...so...$7k, $15k...whats the diff?

Second, it DOES take fairly high speed equipment to process 4K video frames at 30fps, let alone at any higher speed. A pair of DIGIC5+ could handle the input, but you would have to REQUIRE high speed writeout as well. That complicates the issue...creates a tech support nightmare for those who don't read manuals and don't understand nor care that the camera wasn't designed to support 4K video with a cheap 200x CF card from five years ago.

One also has to figure continuous high speed processing is going to produce high heat. That has a whole host of implications...the need for better passive cooling or even active cooling of most electronic components. The potential for additional noise to creep in over time at all ISO settings unless the sensor is actively cooled. Conforming to the various regulations around the world regarding battery design, power consumption, even limitations on allowed features in products of certain classes that lead to additional import or export taxes when those limitations are ignored, etc. etc.

I would put "The ability of TV broadcast stations to deliver 4K content" DEAD LAST on my list of reasons why we haven't seen 4k 30fps video in our DSLRs yet! :P
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: Axilrod on May 05, 2013, 02:53:32 PM

I can see that, but the new GoPro does 4k.

LOL have you actually seen the 4K from the GoPro?  Or even the 2.7K?  While it looks good for a GoPro, neither looks better than even the cheapest DSLR.  Data rates, sensor size, there are so many variables.  I mean an Arri Alexa is 4K also, but that doesn't mean the GoPro is just as good.  The 15FPS 4K on the GoPro is pretty much worthless, they only added it so they could put "4K" on the box and hope that people see "oh it's 4K, it must be the greatest camera ever" and buy it. 
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: that1guyy on May 05, 2013, 03:19:04 PM
Why are you talking about 4k? Let's talk about HD. Canon DSLRs do not even shoot true 1080p while their competition does. In short, the answer the original poster's question is that Canon managers are greedy old men who do not care about the customer at all. Prove me wrong.
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: dr croubie on May 05, 2013, 05:41:48 PM
This thread is hilarious, watching everyone make mountains out of anthills (not even big enough to be a molehill).

Consider this. In South Australia, we just switched off our analogue TV signals for good. No more. Digital only. New TV or a Set-top box only. So I went with my mum to a shop to buy a new TV for the kitchen, that she listens to while she cooks. The old one was so old it didn't even have a Composite Video input, Aerial only, so it was set-top box plus VCR or something else to modulate the video to rf, or a new tv, and a new tv was cheaper.
Anyway, we get to the shop. We start looking at the cheapest in a decent size. We see a nice Teac, 32" half price for only $300. So I read the specs. "Full HD 1080i" it claims. I ask the salesman how it can be both "Full HD" and "1080i" at the same time. He explains that's how people market it, "full hd" just means 1080 lines, p or i.
Anyway, further down the spec list I read "1344 x 768 Pixel Screen". Again, I ask the salesman, how it can be "Full HD 1080, i or p" and only have "1344x768 pixels". He did look a bit sheepish for a minute, but came back with "well, the digital receiver can tune in to 1080i signals, but downscales it to 768 to put onto the screen. If you wanted to you could use an HDMI out to another screen for true 1080i display".
You know what? We bought it anyway. It was cheaper than anything else, beat her old tv by miles, and she wouldn't notice the difference anyway.

So who cares if Canon's $15k camera can do 4k video, but their $500 one can't, or even their $3k one? Can you play it anyway? If you could, do you have the editing power to edit it into something watchable? And then, can you distribute it on anything other than huge USB sticks or portable HDDs? And I'm not sure what's meant by "canon dslrs cannot even shoot true 1080p", is that because they use 442242 compression instead of 442444 or 444224? People can hardly tell the difference between 768 and 1080i and 1080p. If you ask them, they'll say that 1080p is better than 1080i, the ads have conditioned them to know that. Ask them to explain why or what it means, even pick between the two side-by-side, they won't know. I couldn't pick the 1344x768 screen from a 'real' 1080p screen next to it.
Here's a tip: Joe Public can't tell the difference either. Joe Public doesn't care. Joe Public just wants some pretty pictures to flash on a shiny box to distract him while he shovels nachos into his face. And the company that can deliver that to him easiest is the company that wins. Canon is that company, and Canon is winning, 10 years in a row it has been winning. If you're already winning a race, why stop and change your shoes?
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: Videoshooter on May 05, 2013, 07:30:20 PM
This thread is hilarious, watching everyone make mountains out of anthills (not even big enough to be a molehill). And I'm not sure what's meant by "canon dslrs cannot even shoot true 1080p", is that because they use 442242 compression instead of 442444 or 444224?

No, it is about the bad downscaling. The 1080p video files have a true sharpness that is a lot lower - closer to 700 lines of resolution or roughly what proper 720p is (and less than that HDTV's downscaled Full HD can display). Improved processing could no doubt get these cameras to deliver some extremely sharp 1080p video, and I think that is far more of a priority than 4K

Look at 1080p from a 5dmkIII side by side with 1080p from a Canon C100 and you will see what is meant by "canon dslrs cannot even shoot true 1080p."

You say that it all doesn't really matter because consumers just want to see flashy images - while I agree that audiences are often easily impressed, and that they have incredibly short attention spans - they are not the only people you have to impress. Clients, marketing managers, producers, broadcasters - all sorts of people along the production pipeline scrutinise your image quality to the highest degree, and if it doesn't pass their test, then your easily impressed audience will never get to see it anyway, which equates to lost income.

What If I said to you that most people are only viewing photos on the web at about 1200x800 pixels, therefore your DSLR's only need to shoot 1mp photos? Would you agree with that?

We can always use more resolution, for stills and video, and it is just a matter of finding the balance point between what is possible and what is necessary. At this stage, for most working professionals, proper 1080p is necessary, and for many consumers, who have bought the best TV they can afford, proper 1080p in these cameras will deliver a noticeable IQ difference at the ideal viewing distance. However, in the past 5 years Canon have not made any improvements to the soft video in their DSLR's.
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: jrista on May 05, 2013, 10:33:12 PM
This thread is hilarious, watching everyone make mountains out of anthills (not even big enough to be a molehill).

Consider this. In South Australia, we just switched off our analogue TV signals for good. No more. Digital only. New TV or a Set-top box only. So I went with my mum to a shop to buy a new TV for the kitchen, that she listens to while she cooks. The old one was so old it didn't even have a Composite Video input, Aerial only, so it was set-top box plus VCR or something else to modulate the video to rf, or a new tv, and a new tv was cheaper.
Anyway, we get to the shop. We start looking at the cheapest in a decent size. We see a nice Teac, 32" half price for only $300. So I read the specs. "Full HD 1080i" it claims. I ask the salesman how it can be both "Full HD" and "1080i" at the same time. He explains that's how people market it, "full hd" just means 1080 lines, p or i.
Anyway, further down the spec list I read "1344 x 768 Pixel Screen". Again, I ask the salesman, how it can be "Full HD 1080, i or p" and only have "1344x768 pixels". He did look a bit sheepish for a minute, but came back with "well, the digital receiver can tune in to 1080i signals, but downscales it to 768 to put onto the screen. If you wanted to you could use an HDMI out to another screen for true 1080i display".
You know what? We bought it anyway. It was cheaper than anything else, beat her old tv by miles, and she wouldn't notice the difference anyway.

So who cares if Canon's $15k camera can do 4k video, but their $500 one can't, or even their $3k one? Can you play it anyway? If you could, do you have the editing power to edit it into something watchable? And then, can you distribute it on anything other than huge USB sticks or portable HDDs? And I'm not sure what's meant by "canon dslrs cannot even shoot true 1080p", is that because they use 442242 compression instead of 442444 or 444224? People can hardly tell the difference between 768 and 1080i and 1080p. If you ask them, they'll say that 1080p is better than 1080i, the ads have conditioned them to know that. Ask them to explain why or what it means, even pick between the two side-by-side, they won't know. I couldn't pick the 1344x768 screen from a 'real' 1080p screen next to it.
Here's a tip: Joe Public can't tell the difference either. Joe Public doesn't care. Joe Public just wants some pretty pictures to flash on a shiny box to distract him while he shovels nachos into his face. And the company that can deliver that to him easiest is the company that wins. Canon is that company, and Canon is winning, 10 years in a row it has been winning. If you're already winning a race, why stop and change your shoes?

This post isn't any more intelligent or knowledgeable than the others.

Your notion that the public cannot tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, or between interleaved and progressive, is just flat out wrong. People can tell the difference. The average TV show is 720p, with a few channels broadcast in 1080i. The difference between 1080i and 720p is quite visible. Flip between both versions for the same sports channel (usually sent on different sub channel blocks), and the improvement with 1080i will be clear. Progressive scan is even better, and that is usually only realized with BluRay these days (although some in lucky areas might be able to get 1080p TV, not sure).

The quality of picture that you get out of a BluRay is unparalleled. That is also the primary reason why millions and millions of people every year spend big bucks to buy top-end BluRay players and high end Full HD (1920x1080 with progressive scan capability) TVs to the tune of thousands of dollars. People aren't just chasing a big TV...they are chasing crystal clear, razor sharp PICTURE. People know this, they talk about it on forums dedicated to it, and they constantly spend money upgrading TVs or other equipment year after year to maximize that quality. It isn't every one of the 140 million homes in the US doing this every year, but tens of millions of people do.

It's a JOKE to think people don't care about getting the kind of quality expect out of the expensive gear they pay for. A 4k capable video camera, paired with some 4k capable video editing software, goes a long way towards making better videos. The "average" person who just wants to shoot home videos will pick up a camcorder. The guy who wants to make awesome, professional quality sports videos of his buddies doing awesome tricks with their snowboards would LOVE to have 4k video for an affordable price!

Last, I've already said this in my last post, but I'll say it again. The point of having 4k video is not so you can BROADCAST 4k TV!! The point is just the same as the reason you want a high resolution 18-36mp camera to downscale your photos to .5mp Web Size: Image Quality. Downscaling normalizes noise, sharpens detail, eliminates small artifacts, hides cinematography "tricks" or chop...it enhances quality. It also gives you additional editing latitide, and the ability to use more advanced tools like Adobe Premier to perform post-process image stabilization, panning smoothing, etc. You don't buy 4k to broadcast it at 4k. You buy 4k for downscaling. You buy 4k to maximize video IQ, and improve your editing capabilities if you have the post-processing tools.

Might not want to shoot your mouth off until you really know what your talking about.
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: LetTheRightLensIn on May 06, 2013, 12:03:36 AM
This thread is hilarious, watching everyone make mountains out of anthills (not even big enough to be a molehill).

Consider this. In South Australia, we just switched off our analogue TV signals for good. No more. Digital only. New TV or a Set-top box only. So I went with my mum to a shop to buy a new TV for the kitchen, that she listens to while she cooks. The old one was so old it didn't even have a Composite Video input, Aerial only, so it was set-top box plus VCR or something else to modulate the video to rf, or a new tv, and a new tv was cheaper.
Anyway, we get to the shop. We start looking at the cheapest in a decent size. We see a nice Teac, 32" half price for only $300. So I read the specs. "Full HD 1080i" it claims. I ask the salesman how it can be both "Full HD" and "1080i" at the same time. He explains that's how people market it, "full hd" just means 1080 lines, p or i.
Anyway, further down the spec list I read "1344 x 768 Pixel Screen". Again, I ask the salesman, how it can be "Full HD 1080, i or p" and only have "1344x768 pixels". He did look a bit sheepish for a minute, but came back with "well, the digital receiver can tune in to 1080i signals, but downscales it to 768 to put onto the screen. If you wanted to you could use an HDMI out to another screen for true 1080i display".
You know what? We bought it anyway. It was cheaper than anything else, beat her old tv by miles, and she wouldn't notice the difference anyway.

So who cares if Canon's $15k camera can do 4k video, but their $500 one can't, or even their $3k one? Can you play it anyway? If you could, do you have the editing power to edit it into something watchable? And then, can you distribute it on anything other than huge USB sticks or portable HDDs? And I'm not sure what's meant by "canon dslrs cannot even shoot true 1080p", is that because they use 442242 compression instead of 442444 or 444224? People can hardly tell the difference between 768 and 1080i and 1080p. If you ask them, they'll say that 1080p is better than 1080i, the ads have conditioned them to know that. Ask them to explain why or what it means, even pick between the two side-by-side, they won't know. I couldn't pick the 1344x768 screen from a 'real' 1080p screen next to it.
Here's a tip: Joe Public can't tell the difference either. Joe Public doesn't care. Joe Public just wants some pretty pictures to flash on a shiny box to distract him while he shovels nachos into his face. And the company that can deliver that to him easiest is the company that wins. Canon is that company, and Canon is winning, 10 years in a row it has been winning. If you're already winning a race, why stop and change your shoes?

This post isn't any more intelligent or knowledgeable than the others.

Your notion that the public cannot tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, or between interleaved and progressive, is just flat out wrong. People can tell the difference. The average TV show is 720p, with a few channels broadcast in 1080i. The difference between 1080i and 720p is quite visible. Flip between both versions for the same sports channel (usually sent on different sub channel blocks), and the improvement with 1080i will be clear. Progressive scan is even better, and that is usually only realized with BluRay these days (although some in lucky areas might be able to get 1080p TV, not sure).

The quality of picture that you get out of a BluRay is unparalleled. That is also the primary reason why millions and millions of people every year spend big bucks to buy top-end BluRay players and high end Full HD (1920x1080 with progressive scan capability) TVs to the tune of thousands of dollars. People aren't just chasing a big TV...they are chasing crystal clear, razor sharp PICTURE. People know this, they talk about it on forums dedicated to it, and they constantly spend money upgrading TVs or other equipment year after year to maximize that quality. It isn't every one of the 140 million homes in the US doing this every year, but tens of millions of people do.

It's a JOKE to think people don't care about getting the kind of quality expect out of the expensive gear they pay for. A 4k capable video camera, paired with some 4k capable video editing software, goes a long way towards making better videos. The "average" person who just wants to shoot home videos will pick up a camcorder. The guy who wants to make awesome, professional quality sports videos of his buddies doing awesome tricks with their snowboards would LOVE to have 4k video for an affordable price!

Last, I've already said this in my last post, but I'll say it again. The point of having 4k video is not so you can BROADCAST 4k TV!! The point is just the same as the reason you want a high resolution 18-36mp camera to downscale your photos to .5mp Web Size: Image Quality. Downscaling normalizes noise, sharpens detail, eliminates small artifacts, hides cinematography "tricks" or chop...it enhances quality. It also gives you additional editing latitide, and the ability to use more advanced tools like Adobe Premier to perform post-process image stabilization, panning smoothing, etc. You don't buy 4k to broadcast it at 4k. You buy 4k for downscaling. You buy 4k to maximize video IQ, and improve your editing capabilities if you have the post-processing tools.

Might not want to shoot your mouth off until you really know what your talking about.

+1 there is even more to add to that but I am too tired to bother right now

(actually most US channels are 1080i, only FOX,ABC and their related properties such as FX and ESPN are 720p AFAIK)

(and yeah the whole OMG unless you have a 70" set you can't tell 1080p from SD never mind 720P is utter garbage, even on a 24" monitor it is easy, heck why do you think games without AA look nasty even on a 1920x1200 monitor that is only 24"? because the eye can EASILY see blocky pixels at that res even on just a 24", after looking at a retina ipad for an hour, look at your 1920x1080/1200 monitor and it will suddenly look jaggy and blocky and lo-res as heck or look at some 24" prints, way sharper than your monitor, nobody argues, and yet the same people turn around and claim that even 1920x1200 is too much for a 24" screen???)
Title: Re: Why not higher resolution video?
Post by: Axilrod on May 06, 2013, 12:15:49 PM
Personally, I would rather see the video improved so that they offer proper 1920x1080 video (or perhaps even 2K - for that little bit of extra res for slight framing adjustments). The C100 footage is a whole lot sharper, as is the GH2 - especially hacked - and I wish Canon would at least attempt to get their DSLR footage up to this level. It is just frustrating that, aside from the moire-free (albeit softer) video of the mkIII, Canon has done absolutley nothing to actually improve the processing and image quality of their DSLR video performance since the mkII came out all those years ago.


Honestly I don't see how you can say that there are no improvements to the 5D3 over the 5D2, the footage is MUCH cleaner on the 5D3.  Sure it wasn't a tremendous jump, and probably not worth $1500 more than the 5D2 initially, but for $2300 refurbished I think the 5D3 is a huge step up from the 5D2 (on the stills side mainly).  The only real gripe about the 5D3 was the price really, but now that it's $2300-$2500 I don't think anyone can complain.  All I know is I'm much happier shooting video with the 5D3 than I was the 5D2, and neither have inhibited me from producing quality work.