He seems to be too optimistic though. Sounds like 12-14fps may be the max. (unless they can find a way to feed a 1920x1080 cropped version of those DNGs into the compressor engine and the engine doesn't clip to 8bits even if it did that at least it might maintain much better details)
But man I just don't get why Canon seemingly left so much on the table. Sure uncompressed is too much for the HW to handle but why in the world could they not have written out a compressed file with original DR left intact and not utterly massacred and with a few more bits? And what on earth are they doing to reduce the beautiful crisp 1920x1080 the fancy sensor the engineers developed for them and then turning it to utter mush! It's not the compression engine because using the HDMI out with ProRes HQ doesn't really seem to bring back any extra detail all (certainly not static detail). It just seems like they left a ton of ability on the table. They would've had an utter revolution if they had not mushed down the resolution that it is actually capturing and written it out with more bits and less DR compression done and put out a really crips compressed file with lots of DR room.
Maybe this DNG thing is not what they are able to use to drive the compression engine and some crappier source must be used?? I don't get it otherwise.