July 19, 2018, 01:41:53 PM

Author Topic: What's Next from Canon?  (Read 121454 times)

Rocky

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 825
Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #150 on: February 16, 2014, 06:01:21 PM »
I keep saying similar things (IE use an slr body type, with an EF mount - so no one has to use silly lens adaptors or wait while each and every lens ever made gets resigned to fit the current mirrorless mold).  But, this is where mirrorless has its downfall, it seems like the biggest proponents for mirrorless want their cake and want to eat it too.  All the bells and whistles of an slr, in a package smaller than the A7, but smaller with smaller lenses and of course, a magical battery compartment that can fit 2 1dx batteries...

when it comes down to it...it really is about form factor.  there was another post somewhere here showing the first digital camera's, goofy looking things, the first idea was that cause it's new it should look radically different...high tech...result, they looked like a joke and weren't taken seriously until digital camera's started to look like regular cameras. 

which is why i feel that mirrorless may just be a cool for now, trendy product.
+1
You can't ignore ergonomics.... Why was 35mm so popular back in the days of film???? We had a lot of standard film sizes to choose between. Myself, I seem to have used from tiny scraps of film in instamatics to a friend's 8x10....

35mm was the sweet spot.... it was the combination of ergonomics that made it a good size to hold, yet allowed a range of lens sizes with reasonable image quality... yes, you could go bigger (I did hump around an 8x10 :) ) but by going bigger you needed insanely large lenses to get a decent field of view with animals, birds, and other distant objects.... There is a very good reason why Ansel Adams shot landscapes and not BIF :)  35 mm was a good general purpose balance point.

So now we have gone digital. People are still the same, so the ergonomics remain the same... the laws of optics are the same, so other than better materials and more precise manufacturing, lens are essentially the same.... The sweet spot for size remains the same...

Put a 50 year old SLR and a brand new DSLR on the table. It is obvious that they are both cameras, and with the exception of a preview screen on the back and the relocation of a few controls, they are not really that much different..... ergonomics strikes again!
Total agree. However, I would like to add "Form (size, weight)", "Function" and "Econonics (price)" also play a very important part.  In the film days,  35mm full frame SLR is not the most propular camera. Small view finder 35 mm camera was the most popular camera. That is due to lower  price and easier to carry ( small size and light weight) even with limited functioality. There is no doubt that the Leica  M series is the best 35mm film camera. But for functionality, It cannot complete with SLR unless expensive and  clumsy attachments are used. Therefore it became a limited production camera for certain user. Rolleiflex is an excellent camera. With waist level finder and shutter release at the front of the camera to give the photographer the perfect angle for full length body shot. Due to higher price and fixed lens it just cannot survive. Hasselblad is a 6X6 SLR. Again, high price and heavy weight limits it to become a specialty camera. The examples can keep on going. So I will stop  here

canon rumors FORUM

Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #150 on: February 16, 2014, 06:01:21 PM »

Lee Jay

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2028
Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #151 on: February 16, 2014, 06:04:55 PM »
... (rather than 8-bit JPEG DR, which tops out at 8 stops at best).

Straying a bit off topic here; but I thought the DR of a JPEG image was a function of the tone curve / colour space of the image file.

It is.

Quote
I thought the JPEG format was quite capable of recording 12 or more stops - the main problem with having 8 bits per channel is banding (and compression artefacts of course).

Phil.

Correct, but most out-of-camera JPEGs are 8 stop or less because camera makers like them to "pop" which means high global contrast and thus lots of crushed blacks and clipped highlights.

You can put 30 stops into a JPEG, and I've seen it done.  But camera makers don't do that.

9VIII

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1843
Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #152 on: February 16, 2014, 06:31:08 PM »

The live view is normally done at 30 frames per second, except in low light when the camera will lower the refresh rate to capture more light per frame.

I was wondering about that.
As much as I love high refresh rates, if you can't see anything there's not much point. Hopefully future cameras let the framerate go really low, a half second exposure lets you see a lot in the dark.


... (rather than 8-bit JPEG DR, which tops out at 8 stops at best).

Straying a bit off topic here; but I thought the DR of a JPEG image was a function of the tone curve / colour space of the image file.

It is.

Quote
I thought the JPEG format was quite capable of recording 12 or more stops - the main problem with having 8 bits per channel is banding (and compression artefacts of course).

Phil.

Correct, but most out-of-camera JPEGs are 8 stop or less because camera makers like them to "pop" which means high global contrast and thus lots of crushed blacks and clipped highlights.

You can put 30 stops into a JPEG, and I've seen it done.  But camera makers don't do that.

I think most of the problem is that computer monitors don't have that much range. I'm assuming that professional printing services use RAW?

Now I'm wondering if there isn't some substance to all the hype about Fuji JPEGs.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2014, 06:38:46 PM by 9VIII »

9VIII

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1843
Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #153 on: February 16, 2014, 06:35:17 PM »
Go to your live view settings, you get to chose between exposure simulation and stills display, in exposure simulation it will only show you what the exposure will look like, in stills display it adjusts for lighting just like your eyes do.

I know, but which setting increases the DR of the sensor to the ~20 stops my eye can see through an OVF?   ::)

You only see 10-14 stops at any given time. That 20 stops of dynamic range is a post processed HDR image combining multiple exposures.

Even if this were to be true (which, in a way it is, the only reason I am saying it like this is because there is clean, natural HDR and then there is the what the hell happened HDR)....which is the better, faster processing engine...your brain or the camera?  And, which one will produce a natural image, your brain or the camera?

I'm not actually sure that your eyes are going to adjust as fast as the camera, I certainly can't say that they're in different leagues.
Most of my point is the information you see through the viewfinder has no affect on the final image. I'm sure your brain is far superior, but it won't matter until you get an SD card slot installed.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2014, 06:43:09 PM by 9VIII »

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6968
  • posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #154 on: February 16, 2014, 06:46:11 PM »
Go to your live view settings, you get to chose between exposure simulation and stills display, in exposure simulation it will only show you what the exposure will look like, in stills display it adjusts for lighting just like your eyes do.

I know, but which setting increases the DR of the sensor to the ~20 stops my eye can see through an OVF?   ::)

You only see 10-14 stops at any given time. That 20 stops of dynamic range is a post processed HDR image combining multiple exposures.

Even if this were to be true (which, in a way it is, the only reason I am saying it like this is because there is clean, natural HDR and then there is the what the hell happened HDR)....which is the better, faster processing engine...your brain or the camera?  And, which one will produce a natural image, your brain or the camera?

I'm not actually sure that your eyes are going to adjust as fast as the camera, I certainly can't say that they're in different leagues.
Most of my point is the information you see through the viewfinder has no affect on the final image. I'm sure your brain is far superior, but it won't matter until you get an SD card slot installed.
SD is passé... go for cFast or a real wireless link.
The best camera is the one in your hands

tron

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3431
Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #155 on: February 16, 2014, 07:24:50 PM »
Go to your live view settings, you get to chose between exposure simulation and stills display, in exposure simulation it will only show you what the exposure will look like, in stills display it adjusts for lighting just like your eyes do.

I know, but which setting increases the DR of the sensor to the ~20 stops my eye can see through an OVF?   ::)

You only see 10-14 stops at any given time. That 20 stops of dynamic range is a post processed HDR image combining multiple exposures.

Even if this were to be true (which, in a way it is, the only reason I am saying it like this is because there is clean, natural HDR and then there is the what the hell happened HDR)....which is the better, faster processing engine...your brain or the camera?  And, which one will produce a natural image, your brain or the camera?

I'm not actually sure that your eyes are going to adjust as fast as the camera, I certainly can't say that they're in different leagues.
Most of my point is the information you see through the viewfinder has no affect on the final image. I'm sure your brain is far superior, but it won't matter until you get an SD card slot installed.
SD is passé... go for cFast or a real wireless link.
I don't think there is yet a brain interface controller for either card ...  ;D

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #156 on: February 16, 2014, 07:31:36 PM »
... (rather than 8-bit JPEG DR, which tops out at 8 stops at best).

Straying a bit off topic here; but I thought the DR of a JPEG image was a function of the tone curve / colour space of the image file.
I thought the JPEG format was quite capable of recording 12 or more stops - the main problem with having 8 bits per channel is banding (and compression artefacts of course).

Phil.

I get what your saying, but technically speaking, reality would be a bit different. The raw data before being saved to JPEG can have a tone curve applied. That tone curve, if designed correctly, could compress the real dynamic range of the camera (say 12- to 14- stops) into the 8-stop dynamic range allowed by 8-bit data. But you don't still have 12 or 14 stops of DR. You compressed the original dynamic range into a smaller space, meaning you discarded some of that original information.

With an actual RAW, you can push the exposure around in a tool like lightroom and recover information that doesn't fit within the dynamic range of your computer screen (which is also likely 8 bits). When you first load up a raw, it might appear that the highlights are blown and the blacks are crushed...even if you apply say the Canon Neutral camera profile (the initial tone curve), that is still likely to be the case in a high DR photo. You can recover those highlights and shadows, though, because the underlying RAW has enough bit depth to preserve all that information.

With a JPEG, the tone curves applied by the camera are usually more likely to clip highlights and crush blacks. The most preservative "Picture Style" in Canon cameras is neutral or standard, however neither are actually capable of preserving the full original 14 stops of dynamic range. All those tone curves are doing is shifting a greater precision of information into a space capable of less precision. No matter how you slice it, your loosing some information. When the JPEG is saved, you have 8 stops of dynamic range. Clipped highlights are clipped, permamently, there is no recovery. Crushed blacks are black, there is no lifting them. Furthermore, because JPEG is a lossy compression format, you lose EVEN MORE information.

While the camera, if it's using a standard picture style rather than say landscape or faithful or something like that, can indeed preserve some of the original dynamic range, it's still doing so by discarding some of the information that already fit in that 8 bits of data anyway (i.e. the high shadows, midtones and lower highlights). You don't have 12 or 14 stops of editing latitude...you have at most 8 stops of editing latitude (however, because the 8 bit pixel information already fits within the confines of your 8 bit computer screen, there really isn't any NEED for that editing latitude.)

Bits and stops, in a digital image signal, are synonymous in many ways. Both are base 2/power of 2, in that for every additional bit, you double the digital number space for storing light level information. That corresponds directly with every additional stop. If you have one bit, you can store one stops of luminance information. If you have two bits, you can store two stops of luminance information. Since stops are power of two, moving up to two stops means you are sensitive to four times the range of light. That too, corresponds to having two bits...00, 01, 10, 11. Bit depth implicitly limits the dynamic range of the information stored in the file. Even if you are using a tone curve to compress a larger dynamic range into that smaller bit depth, the dynamic range of a JPEG once saved is 8 stops, your editing latitude is limited to 8 stops, and any information you discarded in order to pack the additional stops into that 8-stop range is lost forever, it is not recoverable.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #156 on: February 16, 2014, 07:31:36 PM »

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6968
  • posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #157 on: February 16, 2014, 07:59:15 PM »
I'm not actually sure that your eyes are going to adjust as fast as the camera, I certainly can't say that they're in different leagues.
Most of my point is the information you see through the viewfinder has no affect on the final image. I'm sure your brain is far superior, but it won't matter until you get an SD card slot installed.
SD is passé... go for cFast or a real wireless link.
I don't think there is yet a brain interface controller for either card ...  ;D
That's what they want you to think.... It's time to break out the aluminum foil and make hats :)
The best camera is the one in your hands

Woody

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1065
Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #158 on: February 16, 2014, 08:24:36 PM »
Actually, there's a very simple solution for this problem as stated by you ... only I don't work for Canon (or Nikon), so they can go figure it out for themselves ...  8)
??
No dice. It's my idea and Canon (or Nikon) ain't gettin' it for free.  :-X

One of the lamest cop outs I have ever read on the internet. Wow. Just Wow. Sounds like something one expects to hear from a 5 year old kid.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2014, 09:03:33 PM by Woody »

wsmith96

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 893
  • Advancing Amateur
Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #159 on: February 16, 2014, 08:54:31 PM »
I'm not actually sure that your eyes are going to adjust as fast as the camera, I certainly can't say that they're in different leagues.
Most of my point is the information you see through the viewfinder has no affect on the final image. I'm sure your brain is far superior, but it won't matter until you get an SD card slot installed.
SD is passé... go for cFast or a real wireless link.
I don't think there is yet a brain interface controller for either card ...  ;D
That's what they want you to think.... It's time to break out the aluminum foil and make hats :)

Here you go!
What I do today is important because I am exchanging a day of my life for it.
60D | 80D | 5D | 10-22 | Rokinon 14 2.8 | 35 IS | 17-55 | 24-105L | 50 1.4 | 60 Macro | 85 1.8 | 100 2.8L Macro | 70-200 2.8L Mk II | 100-400L Mk II | 430EX II x 3 | ST-E2 | 270EX | 1.4 Extender III

ajfotofilmagem

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2232
Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #160 on: February 16, 2014, 09:24:39 PM »
Go to your live view settings, you get to chose between exposure simulation and stills display, in exposure simulation it will only show you what the exposure will look like, in stills display it adjusts for lighting just like your eyes do.
I know, but which setting increases the DR of the sensor to the ~20 stops my eye can see through an OVF?   ::)
You only see 10-14 stops at any given time. That 20 stops of dynamic range is a post processed HDR image combining multiple exposures.
Even if this were to be true (which, in a way it is, the only reason I am saying it like this is because there is clean, natural HDR and then there is the what the hell happened HDR)....which is the better, faster processing engine...your brain or the camera?  And, which one will produce a natural image, your brain or the camera?
I'm not actually sure that your eyes are going to adjust as fast as the camera, I certainly can't say that they're in different leagues.
Most of my point is the information you see through the viewfinder has no affect on the final image. I'm sure your brain is far superior, but it won't matter until you get an SD card slot installed.
SD is passé... go for cFast or a real wireless link.
I don't think there is yet a brain interface controller for either card ...  ;D
Problem solved. ??? We no longer need to spend fortunes cameras, lenses and accessories. :o Just do a surgery to implant a card slot in the skull, and we have images with the same quality as the human eye. ;D And with 20 stops of dynamic range. :P

philmoz

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 126
Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #161 on: February 16, 2014, 09:38:25 PM »
Go to your live view settings, you get to chose between exposure simulation and stills display, in exposure simulation it will only show you what the exposure will look like, in stills display it adjusts for lighting just like your eyes do.
I know, but which setting increases the DR of the sensor to the ~20 stops my eye can see through an OVF?   ::)
You only see 10-14 stops at any given time. That 20 stops of dynamic range is a post processed HDR image combining multiple exposures.
Even if this were to be true (which, in a way it is, the only reason I am saying it like this is because there is clean, natural HDR and then there is the what the hell happened HDR)....which is the better, faster processing engine...your brain or the camera?  And, which one will produce a natural image, your brain or the camera?
I'm not actually sure that your eyes are going to adjust as fast as the camera, I certainly can't say that they're in different leagues.
Most of my point is the information you see through the viewfinder has no affect on the final image. I'm sure your brain is far superior, but it won't matter until you get an SD card slot installed.
SD is passé... go for cFast or a real wireless link.
I don't think there is yet a brain interface controller for either card ...  ;D
Problem solved. ??? We no longer need to spend fortunes cameras, lenses and accessories. :o Just do a surgery to implant a card slot in the skull, and we have images with the same quality as the human eye. ;D And with 20 stops of dynamic range. :P

Puts a whole new spin on the concept of a 'pop up flash' :)

Phil.

Lee Jay

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2028
Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #162 on: February 16, 2014, 10:23:05 PM »
The EVFs are showing what is in essence the out-of-camera JPEG, with about 1 stop clipped from each end.  And as we all know, the out-of-camera JPEG contains several stops less DR than is available in the raw data.

Interesting. So the camera is essentially generating 60 or more JPEG images per second, plus adding overlay data to it. Amazing.

Not even close, at least on Canon P&S cameras.

For live view (either on the LCD, or EVF), the sensor image is converted to an 8 bit, 4:1:1 YUV image.
This has a luminance (Y) resolution of 720 x 240 pixels on most Canon cameras; but only 180 x 240 resolution for each of the chrominance channels (U & V).

Some cameras, such as the G12 & G1X, double the vertical resolution to 480 lines.

My understanding is this is done using a special read-out mode on the sensor; but I may be wrong there.

The live view is normally done at 30 frames per second, except in low light when the camera will lower the refresh rate to capture more light per frame.

There is no JPEG processing being done.

Phil.

Obviously there's no JPEG encoding as that would be pointless, but some processing is done because you can change it by changing things like contrast and saturation.  Further, I measured my SX50's lag by shooting 240fps video of both its output and of what it was looking at at the same time and I got right at 25ms in good light.  I don't see how this is possible if it's running at 30fps.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #162 on: February 16, 2014, 10:23:05 PM »

philmoz

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 126
Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #163 on: February 16, 2014, 10:56:08 PM »
The EVFs are showing what is in essence the out-of-camera JPEG, with about 1 stop clipped from each end.  And as we all know, the out-of-camera JPEG contains several stops less DR than is available in the raw data.

Interesting. So the camera is essentially generating 60 or more JPEG images per second, plus adding overlay data to it. Amazing.

Not even close, at least on Canon P&S cameras.

For live view (either on the LCD, or EVF), the sensor image is converted to an 8 bit, 4:1:1 YUV image.
This has a luminance (Y) resolution of 720 x 240 pixels on most Canon cameras; but only 180 x 240 resolution for each of the chrominance channels (U & V).

Some cameras, such as the G12 & G1X, double the vertical resolution to 480 lines.

My understanding is this is done using a special read-out mode on the sensor; but I may be wrong there.

The live view is normally done at 30 frames per second, except in low light when the camera will lower the refresh rate to capture more light per frame.

There is no JPEG processing being done.

Phil.

Obviously there's no JPEG encoding as that would be pointless, but some processing is done because you can change it by changing things like contrast and saturation.  Further, I measured my SX50's lag by shooting 240fps video of both its output and of what it was looking at at the same time and I got right at 25ms in good light.  I don't see how this is possible if it's running at 30fps.

An appropriate tone curve is applied to the raw sensor data based on your camera settings (contrast, saturation, etc). It also applies special effects such as the fish eye or 'miniature' mode some cameras have.

Without knowing more details of how you tested, it sounds like your measured 25ms lag was a result of the camera using a 1/40th second shutter speed during live view.
The time required to capture each live view frame will vary based on available light; but AFAIK the LCD / EVF refresh rate stays at 30 fps until the shutter speed needs to drop below 1/30th sec.

I'm happy to be proven wrong here because, unless Canon have radically redesigned the video hardware, the EVF for the G1XII will have the same characteristics (making the $300 asking price a bit high IMO).

Phil.

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6968
  • posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #164 on: February 16, 2014, 11:13:42 PM »
Obviously there's no JPEG encoding as that would be pointless, but some processing is done because you can change it by changing things like contrast and saturation.  Further, I measured my SX50's lag by shooting 240fps video of both its output and of what it was looking at at the same time and I got right at 25ms in good light.  I don't see how this is possible if it's running at 30fps.
Only 25ms? That's faster than I would have expected.... relatively minimal processing of the signal?

So you are seeing 6 frames delay at 240hz...... How do you know it's 6 frames? It could be anywhere from 5.1 to 6.9 frames delay, or a range from 21ms to 29ms....but yes, that's fast.

It does not rule out a 30hz refresh rate (33ms) as latency and refresh rate are different things. For example, say the refresh rate was 60hz.... you would get a new frame each 17ms....but if the latency was 25 ms, that means that every 17ms you get an updated frame from what happened 25ms before. if the refresh rate was 30hz, then every 33ms you would get an updated frame from what happened 25ms before.... the latency can be higher or lower than the refresh rate, the two are not inter-dependant.

If you film something changing quickly with the SX50 and shoot video of the back display of the SX50 at 240hz, how many frames of 240hz do you get per changed frame on the back of the SX50? If you got 8 frames the same on the 240hz recording, that would be a 30hz update rate, 4 frames would mean a 60hz update rate.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2014, 11:16:07 PM by Don Haines »
The best camera is the one in your hands

canon rumors FORUM

Re: What's Next from Canon?
« Reply #164 on: February 16, 2014, 11:13:42 PM »