October 30, 2014, 11:16:21 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - LetTheRightLensIn

Pages: 1 ... 126 127 [128] 129 130 ... 263
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 06, 2013, 02:29:08 PM »

I am guessing that getting the new 18 micron process thang is not going as well as they would like... The 7D mk II will probably be the first to be released using the new process, somewhere around 24 MP with ISO up to 102,400... probably the new 3200 ISO will be as good as the old 400 ISO...

That is not how it works. They are way too close to max efficiency. It's low ISO DR there the new process might help many stops, not mid-tone gray SNR at high ISO (although it might perhaps, if they have some new fancy thing, extend high ISO DR, if not mid-tone SNR, but that is not so easy, we will see).

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 06, 2013, 02:26:56 PM »
Wow, they're really milking the 18mp sensor huh ?

I think they sat around too long and are now scrambling to catch up again with sensor tech and are now getting bitten a bit by their conservative game of the milk the cows.

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 06, 2013, 02:25:45 PM »
Hopefully it means they are holding off the big ones for a new process that won't get stomped by Exmor.

oh that will make some people unhappy.....

but maybe all this points to a 180µm process in 2014...
the big MP camera and the 7D MK2 both with a new sensor design made with a new manufacturing process.

prototypes could be out... but for mass manufacturing canon needs to build new factorys or update existing ones. and that takes some time.

The same source does say “several lenses will be coming in 2013″.

well can he be a bit more vague?
what lenses?

EOS Bodies / Re: Why not higher resolution video?
« 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???)

EOS Bodies / Re: Why no crop mode on 5d mkiii 1dx
« on: May 05, 2013, 11:58:15 PM »
Hi Pete,

if you really need it so bad there is only one solution to get it. Buy a 1D C .
I got mine last week and don´t regret it and it gives you 1,3 crop for 4k and 1,5 crop for Super35 mode.
with the 1,3 crop on 4k you can feel free to crop it down to 1080P in CS6. this should be enough cropping factor.
And this with a good video quality and C-Log features. If you are after Video this will be the way to go and I don´t think Canon will bring anything close in the next year for less money because of the lack of competition.

That´s the thing with Canon, they know what they got and they know what the can charge the customers for it.
The same with the lenses in the past 2 years, they get more expensive but if I have a look at my 600 II compared to Nikon I can see why.

And if you really need this cheaper than the 1D C go and buy a Nikon with a few lenses like a lot of people do.
They got 2 Systems at home. For me it was cheaper to pay more for the body and get additional the EF 8-15 to keep my wide angle with the crops.

OP, here's the answer to your perfectly valid question. Canon wants you to buy a 1DC...


And how many xxD and 5 series users will get a 1DC? A handful? And look out for Black Magic....

EOS Bodies / Re: Why no crop mode on 5d mkiii 1dx
« on: May 05, 2013, 11:54:30 PM »
the t3i lower end canon has a video crop mode. the crop mode worked great for macro video becuase it did not change the dof. Now i know this is just a firmware upgrade.  canon why not do it. its a freebee .add it to the marketing.

 model      Cropmode

T3i               3x-10x 1080hd
60d              7x  640X480 only boo
7d                nada
5dmkiii         nope
60da            now come on brand new model $600 for a new lowpass filter no new firmware thumbs down
1dx              none

d800             1.5x
d4                 2.7x

Gimmie Chuck Westfalls number so he can explain why canon left out this feature.
Maybey the same reason canon is the only lens company that does not include lens hoods with their standard lens.

Anyone have an aswer for this?           

Yeah it's very annoying. I bet the 5D3 could even do 1920x1080 at 1.6x crop too if they read 2x2 blocks, no aliasing or line skipping and probably sharper than the FF. And why no deeper crop?

With 5D3+1.2.1 you can record the 5x zoom mode over HDMI on something like a Ninja2, I guess it is sort of DVD resolution though, but if you get a Ninja 2 and go through that bother you can get some sort of a crop mode from it. Why nothing like T3i and why not internally for the 5x??

All they do is cripple stuff on purpose or don't bother to take advantage of their own hardware fully.

Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM
« on: May 03, 2013, 08:27:58 PM »
Great shots. Love that shot with all of the painted (?) turtles and the snapper in the water is pretty cool.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Picture Profiles for 422 on the 5D3
« on: May 03, 2013, 12:27:37 PM »
I have been unable to try it with an external recorder yet. Would you say there's a big jump in resolution/ overall quality?

would love to see some sample footage if you have any.

Cheers !!

On static stuff, for most things, I basically see absolutely zero jump in resolution compared to IPB internal.

If the entire frame is moving all over and especially when focus is nearly but not quite in focus on some detailed area of a frame and the whole frame is moving and focus changing the external has wayyyy less compression artifacts than IPB (however, that might not be the case compared to all-i, didn't test that yet). Frame by frame it's a huge difference for some frames. That said, in real time, at least on a 24" screen (even sitting really close), the differences all sort blur much more together to the eye and you have to really keep your eyes peeled like an eagle.

Sometimes if you have something like white text surrounded by solid block of color, the white text can be a touch crisper and sharper with the external recording (but there is, oddly, that MORE noticeable transition band on the left hand vertical sides of it though which is kinda....). Not sure if that is a Ninja thing, prores thing, PP CS6 thing, 5D3 thing or something I'm doing wrong.

I could swear that ALL output, internal or external, with 1.2.1 is a bit crisper and more detailed than before though, same shadow detail but things have a touch more contrast/detail/pop in general and areas of low contrast detail don't turn quite as waxy as before it seems. Still not like C300 or anything though or like some of those 'raw' DNG frames people are posting.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Picture Profiles for 422 on the 5D3
« on: May 03, 2013, 12:22:38 PM »
I was planning on doing a short test sometime next week.  I would say there is a noticeable difference in the details of the grain.  You won't notice a huge image quality difference, but you WILL see a big improvement in the color.

ProRes 422 (HQ) will have much more detail in the color space, and in-camera footage will look "darker" with less color information.

I'd like to start a dialogue about Picture Profiles though - as I feel those are very important when detailing with the new color space.

But doesn't the brighter external signal clip highlights faster? I didn't carefully test it, but it seems to and in a side by side someone posted the external recordings seemed to clip a lamp shade worse than the internal.

Also while some transitions are smoother without chroma jaggies, did anyone notice that (at least with Ninja 2, ProResHQ, Premiere Pro CS6) black to pink and red to white and red to yellow transitions get a much more noticeable band than they do on the internal recorder?!? (going the opposite direction those transitions have a little bit less of a band as do vertical transitions, but for some reason that one set, going on direction from L to R across the screen seem a lot heavier on external recording?!?).

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Adding XLR connections to a 5D3
« on: May 03, 2013, 12:18:23 PM »
Use a JuicedLink RM333, and turn the in-camera audio setting to 1 click above off!

It is the best sound quality I have ever gotten... from ANY camera!

I'm using the JL DT414 (looks like the new RM series are more compact which is nice though).

Yeah all these sorts of things radically improve the sound quality recorded on the internal recorder.

Oddly but going to external recording seems to give LESS highlight lattitude, they clip faster seemingly. But need to look into things more.

And of course somehow they apparently decided to toggle OFF audio over HDMI for the final release. Grrrrreat move Canon.


I got the new firmware upgrade that will let me record clean hdmi to an "external device".

I'm windows based, and I would like to record if possible to an external hard drive.  I've got a few of them with 1TB and 2TB capacity.

But they have USB 3.0 inputs.

So what can I do to take advantage of my cheap external hard drives?

Perhaps an hdmi to usb 3.0 adapter?    Or do I have to route something through a laptop to the hard drive?  MY laptop has hdmi out but not hdmi in.  USB 3 out, however.

Any thoughts about this?



There is no such thing as a USB to HDMI adapter. You need something that can capture raw HDMI streams. Stuff like Ninja 2 and various other devices.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon 5D Mark iii HDMI Clean Output?
« on: May 02, 2013, 01:19:56 PM »
I still don't know why they didn't give the 5D3 high quality cropped modes for wildlife and stuff and 2x2 block modes. They had so many years and such a market to conquer and dominate and it seems they got all side tracked in going other ways and maximizing profit margin and internal segmentation and this and that instead, so conservative too.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon 5D Mark iii HDMI Clean Output?
« on: May 02, 2013, 01:12:46 PM »
this is an excellent article on the ML hacks which although not related to the firmware in question, it does answer why the quality improvements are minor at best.

apparently the 5DmkIII internal processing before encoding pretty much degrades the image quality while preparing it to exit the camera either via the h264 encoding engine or hdmi. In other words, this dashes all hopes to improve on the soft output via HDMI recording. It's a hardware limitations problem.

There must be some hook to send stuff over the HDMI since it has to send the degraded stuff out, if one can find the hook and access that directly. Unless there is some direct hardware path to HDMI and to cards from the buffer that is forced into a certain pathway of manipulations that are hard locked and can't be adjusted enough either.

But if that buffer is where even normal images get sent before they get sent to the card then that seems odd since it doesn't debayer CR2 before writing to the card or convert them to jpg or anything.

It's a shame Canon didn't release full pipelines, OS, DIGIC documentation. Sooo mcuh more could be accomplished sooooooooo much more easily. hah.

I'm confused about why he talks about the DNG getting slowly debayered in the buffer and then written to the card and talk of still being in bayer format at 1931x1080 when the sensor is 22MP Bayer and 4:4:4 when Bayer files are not truly 4:4:4. And if it gets slowly debayered before being written to the card why are some claiming the DNG files on card are in bayer format (although it has seemed unlikely to me).

I don't understand.  4:2:2 and 8bit are forms of image compression,  and I don't think these HDMI ports can't produce higher color depth or sub-sampling than that.

All HDMI does 4:4:4 no sweat.

Higher levels of HDMI do deep color. I think starting with HDMI 1.2 10bit and even 12bit are supported. It's certainly possible that the 5D3 has an older HDMI maybe 1.1 or such and doesn't support above 8bits.

It is true that those are forms of image compression, I was referring to motion compression though, like h.264/mpeg2/etc. sort of compression.

  When Canon says "uncompressed" they mean no frame or resolution compressions, but there is still chroma compression.

Yeah, that is what I meant. No motion/frame compression.

Your HDMI signal from a computer is most likely compressed, since HDTVs use rec.709 which is 8bit and there is no point in an 8bit DNG.

I don't think REC709 has anything to do with bit depth. It just sets tone transfer functions and primary locations AFAIK. Most HDTV don't quite match REC709 primaries, most undershoot at least some of the primaries a bit, although it is the assumed goal that they will be at least somewhat reasonably close.

And setting the tone response curve part of the spec to REC709 TRC on the set itself looks awful since they process the movies assuming the destination space will actually be more like Gamma 2.2.

Virtually no HDTV or monitors are more than 8bit displays (although some have up to at least 14bits color engines inside so you have room to calibrate without banding and the fancy ones with 3D 4bit LUTs and stuff that are wide gamut can even shift around color spaces and primary locations and so on and you get it all done while retaining perfect saturation curves and everything) are there are few that internally dither to 10bits if sent 10bit signal (such as NEC PA series I believe, some claim that some of them may be 100% true 10bits though, not sure, I don't have a 10bit video card to test it) and a very few that I think actually truly can show 10bits (HP Dreamcolor maybe?? not sure). I think some super fancy scientific and perhaps broadcast ones may be true 10bit or even 12bit, very esoteric monitors, not sure.

Most video cards don't put out more than 8bits so nothing is getting compressed even in a bit depth sense on HDMI out and all these monitors support full chroma resolution. HDMI does 4:4:4 so nothing gets compressed over that (unless you specifically set the computer to compress that). In regular modes many HDTV take the 4:4:4 input and chop it to 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 though. Lots of them have PC modes and such where you can get around that and they retain 4:4:4 pathways.

When I say CR2 I mean RAW which is not de-bayered in camera. sRAW and mRAW are not really raw, they have been de-bayered and sub-sampled at 4:4:4 in camera then to a smaller resolution by averaging the formed 'pixels' and then losslessly compressed with CR2 but information has already been lost compared a pure CR2 raw file.  You may be right that the same process might have already been used for these 1931 x 1088 14bit RAW images Magic Lantern found, but it is unlikely.

They have to have something done to them because we have 22MP Bayer sensor and yet these are 1931x1088 and we know that the FOV of them is way wider than a huge crop factor would be so there is no way they can be untouched. At the least they would have to have been debayered insome sense and then rebayered I'd think, which would seem strange. I haven't looked inside the files though to see what is there yet.

Also if that 1931x1088 is in Bayer format then it's not really a true 4:4:4 you can get out of it anyway since Bayer format is not full chroma resolution by definition.

The images require a program that applies de-bayering to view them and most people agree that video resolutions are achieved by line skipping (Canon has even admitted to it) or in this case combining 'sensel' data in 3x3 blocks before any processing (de-bayering) is done. 

Well the non-5D3/1DX cameras certainly do a ton of line skipping. The 5D3 does vastly less or none and thus it gets that near 2 stops SNR boost over the 5D2 from that alone, it is not tossing away all those extra samples.
Combing the blocks and matching to adjacent is processing and taking the initial bayer setup and doing all sorts of stuff to it.

Also Panasonic has admitted that they "bind their pixels in 2x2 block before any processing is done" then (like the sRAW files) they process them into YCrCb and down to the appropriate resolution before sending it to the h.264 encoder.

I think Canon said the C100 series uses 2x2 blocks too.

You might have to clip off the left and right side junk and send an offset address so it starts reading it below the top junk. You wouldn't even have to do that if the HDMI accepts an offset to get to each new lines address. I have no idea how it is setup, it might have something like that so no clipping is needed at all. COnsidering how many modes it can put out that might very well be the case.

hmm, my point is that HDMI (especially the one's in these Canon DSLRs) don't support resolutions over 1920 x 1080 so the 2K image needs to be down-resed or cropped and positioned (like the Canon official firmware already does)

Yeah you can't send the full DNG straight over HDMI but you might not need to clip off the top/bottom/sides and then rewrite to the buffer and then send. The top and bottom don't matter since you could just give it the address of where the image part starts instead of the address at the top left and it will end at 1080 and won't read the bottom junk. The left and ride sides, might need to be clipped. But it is quite possible that there is an offset value that says jump so and so many bytes to get to the next line and it could be adjusted to automatically skip over the left and right junk. If you have programmed graphics hardware at the register level such things may be familiar. I don't know how the system is setup in this case.


Ah you're right, a lot of the sharpness will be held in the luminance (duh) but not even the C100 and C300 support 10bit HDMI so I doubt they included a 10bit HDMI port here.

Very probably true (although it's not impossible they use HDMI 1.2 parts since so much stuff these days does, maybe it's mostly what is even made these days and they get better deals on big batches??? no clue, quite possible not though).

Pages: 1 ... 126 127 [128] 129 130 ... 263