July 28, 2014, 03:41:14 AM

Author Topic: Why not higher resolution video?  (Read 8664 times)

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2676
    • View Profile
Re: Why not higher resolution video?
« Reply #15 on: April 26, 2013, 04:15:28 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?

Because they're not fast enough.

When you play back a BluRay video on your computer, how hard does it have to work?
Or if you don't have a BD-ROM drive in your computer, if you download a 1080i/1080p video, how much of your computer's CPU goes into decoding that video to display on your screen?
And how many GHz does your computer have in order to do that?

Encoding and decoding of video are CPU intensive tasks. Even with offloading of certain parts of the workload, there is a lot of data to move around and through the computer.

Note that when you go from 2k (BluRay or 1080i/1080p) video to 4k video, the amount of video doesn't double, it quadruples.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why not higher resolution video?
« Reply #15 on: April 26, 2013, 04:15:28 AM »

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: Why not higher resolution video?
« Reply #16 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.

« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 06:39:14 AM by paul13walnut5 »

AG

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
    • View Profile
Re: Why not higher resolution video?
« Reply #17 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/


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?
Yes, i shoot video on a DSLR.

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2806
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: Why not higher resolution video?
« Reply #18 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
The best camera is the one in your hands

K-amps

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1502
  • Whatever looks great !
    • View Profile
Re: Why not higher resolution video?
« Reply #19 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.....
EOS-5D Mk.iii 
Sigma 24-105mm F4 ART; EF 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; EF 100mm L F/2.8 IS Macro, 50mm F/1.8ii;  TC's 2x Mk.iii; 1.4x Mk.iii

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: Why not higher resolution video?
« Reply #20 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? 
« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 08:54:38 AM by paul13walnut5 »

rs

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
    • View Profile
Re: Why not higher resolution video?
« Reply #21 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?
5D II | 24-70 II | 70-200 II | 100L | 40 | Sigma 50/1.4 | 40D | 10-22 | 17-55 | 580 EX II | 1.4x TC II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why not higher resolution video?
« Reply #21 on: April 26, 2013, 09:21:16 AM »

preppyak

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 747
    • View Profile
Re: Why not higher resolution video?
« Reply #22 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. 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 Canon and other companies never fail to deliver their stuff on time.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 09:37:14 AM by preppyak »

K-amps

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1502
  • Whatever looks great !
    • View Profile
Re: Why not higher resolution video?
« Reply #23 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.
EOS-5D Mk.iii 
Sigma 24-105mm F4 ART; EF 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; EF 100mm L F/2.8 IS Macro, 50mm F/1.8ii;  TC's 2x Mk.iii; 1.4x Mk.iii

rs

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
    • View Profile
Re: Why not higher resolution video?
« Reply #24 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.
5D II | 24-70 II | 70-200 II | 100L | 40 | Sigma 50/1.4 | 40D | 10-22 | 17-55 | 580 EX II | 1.4x TC II

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: Why not higher resolution video?
« Reply #25 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.

K-amps

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1502
  • Whatever looks great !
    • View Profile
Re: Why not higher resolution video?
« Reply #26 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).
EOS-5D Mk.iii 
Sigma 24-105mm F4 ART; EF 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; EF 100mm L F/2.8 IS Macro, 50mm F/1.8ii;  TC's 2x Mk.iii; 1.4x Mk.iii

Rienzphotoz

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3320
  • Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
    • View Profile
Re: Why not higher resolution video?
« Reply #27 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!
Canon 5DMK3 70D | Nikon D610 | Sony a7 a6000 | RX100M3 | 16-35/2.8LII | 70-200/2.8LISII | 100/2.8LIS | 100-400LIS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 600EX-RTx2 | ST-E3-RT | 24/3.5 T-S | 10-18/4 OSS 16-50 | 24-70/4OSS | 55/1.8 | 55-210 OSS | 70-200/4 OSS | 28-300VR | HVL-F43M | GoPro Black 3+ & DJI Phantom

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why not higher resolution video?
« Reply #27 on: April 26, 2013, 03:05:42 PM »

ITshooter

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Why not higher resolution video?
« Reply #28 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?
Cameras - 5D Mark III, 60D, EOS-M; Primes - Canon EF-M 22mm f/2, Canon 40mm f/2.8, Canon 50mm f/1.4, Canon 85mm f/1.8, Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro; Zooms - Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Canon 70-200 f/4 L

Jesse

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
    • Flickr
Re: Why not higher resolution video?
« Reply #29 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/


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.
5D3, 8-15 f/4 L, 24-70 f/2.8 II L, 50 f/1.4, 70-200 f/4 IS L, 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2.8 L, 600EX-RT x2, CS6, LR5

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why not higher resolution video?
« Reply #29 on: April 26, 2013, 04:49:43 PM »