September 23, 2014, 08:24:56 AM

Author Topic: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?  (Read 7993 times)

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3738
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« Reply #60 on: July 05, 2014, 12:58:37 PM »
Well we can only judge on what we can buy  :)

As for the patents, Canon have been very aggressive patent registerers for a very long time, which is comical when you examine their early history, but that aside, patents do not products make, we have had rumours of hundreds of them over the years here and few see the light of day, we all know Canon are innovative and do a lot of R&D but most of the time companies patent to cock block anybody else.

They have struggled to make DO lenses work from the word go, they seem to be convinced there is something there and won't let it die but we are not there yet, the 70-300 DO is the biggest piece of $1,400 crap ever, I'd love to know sales figures for the 400 DO.

I still don't see how DPAF helps SLR stills shooters.

As for AF and metering, well they introduced the 45 point AF back in 2000, so it isn't like they didn't have time to put a bit more thought into it, though it isn't "radically" different is it? Dedicated processor and all but the same contrast detect chip behind a sub mirror arrangement since in body AF started. Nikon have had colour sensitive metering for years, and not just in the one top of the line body.

As for the 7D MkII having potential, I must, respectfully, disagree, even if it bests the D7100 in sensor metrics by a half stop or so, so what? That makes it slightly worse on overall image IQ than the 6D.

Don't get me wrong, I am not picking a fight and I am not out to bash Canon, I just see the last few years developments with my eyes wide open, stills are not the driving force they were even five years ago when the 7D made such an impact. In my opinion stills are not seen to be the future by Canon.

If the products haven't landed on a shelf yet then all the R&D in the world is no use to me.

The other truth is that stills are a very mature market, the quality and capability we have now vastly out strip most users needs, the 5D MkIII is probably the most complete stills shooters camera ever and Canon clearly don't believe in much higher MP, DR, blah blah sensor specs at this point. I believe we are on a technology plateau with no signs of the next BIG thing.

For me personally, put the 5D MkIII sensor in the 1Dx MkII, get me those TS-E lenses and I don't care, I'll be retired before my customers or I need more than that.

Very true, patent's don't make a product. My point was only that there is an R&D budget for still photography at Canon, and money is clearly being spent there. Patents do need to actually make their way into a product on a shelf to be meaningful, though...your dead-on there.

I really wonder why Canon doesn't bring more of their innovations into being...almost smacks of Nokia a few years ago...they had a MASSIVE patent library, but it was just IP...they didn't wield it and make competitive products with that technology...and look where they are now... Guess that's the most concerning thing about Canon. They have some amazing technology...but they aren't using it...so it isn't making money.

I still don't see how DPAF helps SLR stills shooters.

I can see it being very useful for focusing landscape shots, which I've always focused manually in live view. DPAF could automate that process.


The other truth is that stills are a very mature market, the quality and capability we have now vastly out strip most users needs, the 5D MkIII is probably the most complete stills shooters camera ever and Canon clearly don't believe in much higher MP, DR, blah blah sensor specs at this point. I believe we are on a technology plateau with no signs of the next BIG thing.

I don't know if I agree with that. DR is obviously a VERY important thing to photographers these days. It is single-handedly the most controversial and common subject when it comes to Canon vs. the others. Even if it isn't as important as many individuals and certain organizations seem to insist, it's clearly a sticking point, and clearly a perception issue between Canon and their customers. I have a hard time believing Canon doesn't know that...not after the last two years and all the debates and conversations and reviews and videos that cover the topic of how much better Nikon/Sony DR is than Canon's.

For Canon to ignore that, and release ANOTHER product without an improvement in that area....well, I think we could actually see some REAL brand migration over the next few years if the 7D II (and worse, the 5D IV/1D X II) hit the streets without a DR improvement. It may not actually matter in most cases, but it matters perceptually...and I think the companies reputation would actually finally be hurt by them not showing any real interest in their sensor IQ. I've seen Canon respond directly to the loudest demands from their customer base in the past. The 1D X and 5D III are exemplary examples of that, in multiple ways. Canon can't ignore the demand for better DR. It would be reputation damaging...

(My words above certainly don't mean Canon is actually going to do anything about it...I guess there is a very good chance they won't...but I do indeed believe it would be damaging to their reputation in the long run if they ignored the single most important demand of their customers after so many years of having that demand levied.)

+1

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« Reply #60 on: July 05, 2014, 12:58:37 PM »

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3738
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« Reply #61 on: July 05, 2014, 12:59:20 PM »
Well we can only judge on what we can buy  :)

As for the patents, Canon have been very aggressive patent registerers for a very long time, which is comical when you examine their early history, but that aside, patents do not products make, we have had rumours of hundreds of them over the years here and few see the light of day, we all know Canon are innovative and do a lot of R&D but most of the time companies patent to cock block anybody else.

They have struggled to make DO lenses work from the word go, they seem to be convinced there is something there and won't let it die but we are not there yet, the 70-300 DO is the biggest piece of $1,400 crap ever, I'd love to know sales figures for the 400 DO.

I still don't see how DPAF helps SLR stills shooters.

As for AF and metering, well they introduced the 45 point AF back in 2000, so it isn't like they didn't have time to put a bit more thought into it, though it isn't "radically" different is it? Dedicated processor and all but the same contrast detect chip behind a sub mirror arrangement since in body AF started. Nikon have had colour sensitive metering for years, and not just in the one top of the line body.

As for the 7D MkII having potential, I must, respectfully, disagree, even if it bests the D7100 in sensor metrics by a half stop or so, so what? That makes it slightly worse on overall image IQ than the 6D.

Don't get me wrong, I am not picking a fight and I am not out to bash Canon, I just see the last few years developments with my eyes wide open, stills are not the driving force they were even five years ago when the 7D made such an impact. In my opinion stills are not seen to be the future by Canon.

If the products haven't landed on a shelf yet then all the R&D in the world is no use to me.

The other truth is that stills are a very mature market, the quality and capability we have now vastly out strip most users needs, the 5D MkIII is probably the most complete stills shooters camera ever and Canon clearly don't believe in much higher MP, DR, blah blah sensor specs at this point. I believe we are on a technology plateau with no signs of the next BIG thing.

For me personally, put the 5D MkIII sensor in the 1Dx MkII, get me those TS-E lenses and I don't care, I'll be retired before my customers or I need more than that.

Very true, patent's don't make a product. My point was only that there is an R&D budget for still photography at Canon, and money is clearly being spent there. Patents do need to actually make their way into a product on a shelf to be meaningful, though...your dead-on there.

I really wonder why Canon doesn't bring more of their innovations into being...almost smacks of Nokia a few years ago...they had a MASSIVE patent library, but it was just IP...they didn't wield it and make competitive products with that technology...and look where they are now... Guess that's the most concerning thing about Canon. They have some amazing technology...but they aren't using it...so it isn't making money.

I still don't see how DPAF helps SLR stills shooters.

I can see it being very useful for focusing landscape shots, which I've always focused manually in live view. DPAF could automate that process.


The other truth is that stills are a very mature market, the quality and capability we have now vastly out strip most users needs, the 5D MkIII is probably the most complete stills shooters camera ever and Canon clearly don't believe in much higher MP, DR, blah blah sensor specs at this point. I believe we are on a technology plateau with no signs of the next BIG thing.

I don't know if I agree with that. DR is obviously a VERY important thing to photographers these days. It is single-handedly the most controversial and common subject when it comes to Canon vs. the others. Even if it isn't as important as many individuals and certain organizations seem to insist, it's clearly a sticking point, and clearly a perception issue between Canon and their customers. I have a hard time believing Canon doesn't know that...not after the last two years and all the debates and conversations and reviews and videos that cover the topic of how much better Nikon/Sony DR is than Canon's.

For Canon to ignore that, and release ANOTHER product without an improvement in that area....well, I think we could actually see some REAL brand migration over the next few years if the 7D II (and worse, the 5D IV/1D X II) hit the streets without a DR improvement. It may not actually matter in most cases, but it matters perceptually...and I think the companies reputation would actually finally be hurt by them not showing any real interest in their sensor IQ. I've seen Canon respond directly to the loudest demands from their customer base in the past. The 1D X and 5D III are exemplary examples of that, in multiple ways. Canon can't ignore the demand for better DR. It would be reputation damaging...

(My words above certainly don't mean Canon is actually going to do anything about it...I guess there is a very good chance they won't...but I do indeed believe it would be damaging to their reputation in the long run if they ignored the single most important demand of their customers after so many years of having that demand levied.)

  As a birder, and having shot with the latest Sony APS-C sensor. I am waiting for the next crop sensor camera from Canon.
  I am just blow away with the new sensors. It really is amazing.
  With the way I shoot. Shooting with the new sensors has given me so much exposure leeway, and increased ISO performance. It has increased my keeper rate dramatically. 
 
  I really have my fingers crossed and hope Canon will deliver. If not? I personally will start seriously looking for alternatives.  But, I don't want to. Come on Canon....

 

 

+1

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4597
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« Reply #62 on: July 05, 2014, 01:15:51 PM »
... Guess that's the most concerning thing about Canon. They have some amazing technology...but they aren't using it...so it isn't making money. ...

I just want to comment this. You assume that they have some amazing technology. How do you know it is amazing? If it really was amazing and they could make money on it, it should make it's way out into real products. If it doesn't we can only assume it doesn't perform competitively. Maybe they patent ideas in case they may be used in the future if they manage to overcome some hurdles which make them infeasible today.

Like the demoed 120mp sensor we read about earlier, does anyone outside Canon actually know how it performed? Seems like many just assume it was great, for all I know it could have been terrible.

I'm not assuming. I know for a fact. How? Because I've READ the patents. Canon DOES have some really amazing technology. Many of Canon's patents are similar (but not identical to) patents from Sony and Aptina. The only real difference, as far as I can tell, is Sony and Aptina are actually turning their patents into actual products. Canon...well, so far at least, they seem to just sit on them. I'm hoping that changes with the 7D II.

One of the ones I hope they actually implement is their Dual-Scale CP-ADC patent, as based on the patent it sounds like the closest thing to the Sony Exmor design I've found. If Canon can bring Exmor-like technology to their own cameras, even if it isn't quite as good, it will still be better than what they have.

I also believe that patent is the same technology that Canon used in the 120mp APS-H prototype sensor. We actually know how that performed as well, because Canon published a press release describing it's performance. They described the architecture of the sensor, which clearly stated some kind of hyperparallel on-die processing (i.e. CDS, ADC, etc.) That is exactly what CP-ADC is. The thing operated at 9.5fps, and it really doesn't matter if it had small pixels, because fundamental IQ is related to total sensor area and Q.E., not pixel area. It would have been at least as good as the 1D IV at the time, and any APS-H sensor will have better IQ than an APS-C sensor in identical framing situations. At 120mp, the thing cranked out more resolution than any larger format sensor on the planet...until and since.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

msm

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« Reply #63 on: July 05, 2014, 01:38:47 PM »
... Guess that's the most concerning thing about Canon. They have some amazing technology...but they aren't using it...so it isn't making money. ...

I just want to comment this. You assume that they have some amazing technology. How do you know it is amazing? If it really was amazing and they could make money on it, it should make it's way out into real products. If it doesn't we can only assume it doesn't perform competitively. Maybe they patent ideas in case they may be used in the future if they manage to overcome some hurdles which make them infeasible today.

Like the demoed 120mp sensor we read about earlier, does anyone outside Canon actually know how it performed? Seems like many just assume it was great, for all I know it could have been terrible.

I'm not assuming. I know for a fact. How? Because I've READ the patents. Canon DOES have some really amazing technology. Many of Canon's patents are similar (but not identical to) patents from Sony and Aptina. The only real difference, as far as I can tell, is Sony and Aptina are actually turning their patents into actual products. Canon...well, so far at least, they seem to just sit on them. I'm hoping that changes with the 7D II.

One of the ones I hope they actually implement is their Dual-Scale CP-ADC patent, as based on the patent it sounds like the closest thing to the Sony Exmor design I've found. If Canon can bring Exmor-like technology to their own cameras, even if it isn't quite as good, it will still be better than what they have.

I also believe that patent is the same technology that Canon used in the 120mp APS-H prototype sensor. We actually know how that performed as well, because Canon published a press release describing it's performance. They described the architecture of the sensor, which clearly stated some kind of hyperparallel on-die processing (i.e. CDS, ADC, etc.) That is exactly what CP-ADC is. The thing operated at 9.5fps, and it really doesn't matter if it had small pixels, because fundamental IQ is related to total sensor area and Q.E., not pixel area. It would have been at least as good as the 1D IV at the time, and any APS-H sensor will have better IQ than an APS-C sensor in identical framing situations. At 120mp, the thing cranked out more resolution than any larger format sensor on the planet...until and since.

Do these patent descriptions quantify the real performance?

msm

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« Reply #64 on: July 05, 2014, 01:44:10 PM »
Also you said you know the 120mp sensor performed great because of a press release. A press release written by who,  toward what public and for what purpose?

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4597
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« Reply #65 on: July 05, 2014, 01:53:05 PM »
... Guess that's the most concerning thing about Canon. They have some amazing technology...but they aren't using it...so it isn't making money. ...

I just want to comment this. You assume that they have some amazing technology. How do you know it is amazing? If it really was amazing and they could make money on it, it should make it's way out into real products. If it doesn't we can only assume it doesn't perform competitively. Maybe they patent ideas in case they may be used in the future if they manage to overcome some hurdles which make them infeasible today.

Like the demoed 120mp sensor we read about earlier, does anyone outside Canon actually know how it performed? Seems like many just assume it was great, for all I know it could have been terrible.

I'm not assuming. I know for a fact. How? Because I've READ the patents. Canon DOES have some really amazing technology. Many of Canon's patents are similar (but not identical to) patents from Sony and Aptina. The only real difference, as far as I can tell, is Sony and Aptina are actually turning their patents into actual products. Canon...well, so far at least, they seem to just sit on them. I'm hoping that changes with the 7D II.

One of the ones I hope they actually implement is their Dual-Scale CP-ADC patent, as based on the patent it sounds like the closest thing to the Sony Exmor design I've found. If Canon can bring Exmor-like technology to their own cameras, even if it isn't quite as good, it will still be better than what they have.

I also believe that patent is the same technology that Canon used in the 120mp APS-H prototype sensor. We actually know how that performed as well, because Canon published a press release describing it's performance. They described the architecture of the sensor, which clearly stated some kind of hyperparallel on-die processing (i.e. CDS, ADC, etc.) That is exactly what CP-ADC is. The thing operated at 9.5fps, and it really doesn't matter if it had small pixels, because fundamental IQ is related to total sensor area and Q.E., not pixel area. It would have been at least as good as the 1D IV at the time, and any APS-H sensor will have better IQ than an APS-C sensor in identical framing situations. At 120mp, the thing cranked out more resolution than any larger format sensor on the planet...until and since.

Do these patent descriptions quantify the real performance?

The actual physical prototype 120mp APS-H sesnor that Canon actually produced, tested, and gathered data for quantify the real performance.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4597
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« Reply #66 on: July 05, 2014, 02:09:56 PM »
Also you said you know the 120mp sensor performed great because of a press release. A press release written by who,  toward what public and for what purpose?

From the horses mouth:

Quote
Canon successfully develops world's first APS-H-size CMOS image sensor to realize record-high resolution of 120 megapixels
TOKYO, August 24, 2010—Canon Inc. announced today that it has successfully developed an APS-H-size*1 CMOS image sensor that delivers an image resolution of approximately 120 megapixels (13,280 x 9,184 pixels), the world's highest level*2 of resolution for its size.

Compared with Canon's highest-resolution commercial CMOS sensor of the same size, comprising approximately 16.1 million pixels, the newly developed sensor features a pixel count that, at approximately 120 million pixels, is nearly 7.5 times larger and offers a 2.4-fold improvement in resolution.*3

With CMOS sensors, while high-speed readout for high pixel counts is achieved through parallel processing, an increase in parallel-processing signal counts can result in such problems as signal delays and minor deviations in timing. By modifying the method employed to control the readout circuit timing, Canon successfully achieved the high-speed readout of sensor signals. As a result, the new CMOS sensor makes possible a maximum output speed of approximately 9.5 frames per second, supporting the continuous shooting of ultra-high-resolution images.

Canon's newly developed CMOS sensor also incorporates a Full HD (1,920 x 1,080 pixels) video output capability. The sensor can output Full HD video from any approximately one-sixtieth-sized section of its total surface area.

Images captured with Canon's newly developed approximately 120-megapixel CMOS image sensor, even when cropped or digitally magnified, maintain higher levels of definition and clarity than ever before. Additionally, the sensor enables image confirmation across a wide image area, with Full HD video viewing of a select portion of the overall frame.

Through the further development of CMOS image sensors, Canon will break new ground in the world of image expression, targeting new still images that largely surpass those made possible with film, and video movies that capitalize on the unique merits of SLR cameras, namely their high mobility and the expressive power offered through interchangeable lenses.

*1   The imaging area of the newly developed sensor measures approx. 29.2 x 20.2 mm.
*2   As of August 20, 2010. Based on a Canon study.
*3   Canon's highest-resolution commercial CMOS sensor, employed in the company's EOS-1Ds Mark III and EOS 5D Mark II digital SLR cameras, is equivalent to the full-frame size of the 35 mm film format and incorporates approximately 21.1 million pixels. In 2007, the company successfully developed an APS-H-size sensor with approximately 50 million pixels.

This is one of many a few press releases, actually. There is another one that describes some of the more technical aspects, describing on-die processing and the like. I haven't found that one yet. To break out the important parts:


Quote
With CMOS sensors, while high-speed readout for high pixel counts is achieved through parallel processing, an increase in parallel-processing signal counts can result in such problems as signal delays and minor deviations in timing. By modifying the method employed to control the readout circuit timing, Canon successfully achieved the high-speed readout of sensor signals. As a result, the new CMOS sensor makes possible a maximum output speed of approximately 9.5 frames per second, supporting the continuous shooting of ultra-high-resolution images.

The technology Canon developed to increase readout was even increased parallelism. The description used at the time this was first announced, as well as the subsequently granted patent for DS-CP-ADC, describe something VERY similar to Sony Exmor, which uses one ADC unit per pixel column, which is different than past sensor designs, which used one ADC unit per group of columns. For example, in a camera with 8 readout channels, and 4000 columns of pixels, every ADC would be responsible for processing 500 columns of pixels, which when you factor in the row count, is hundreds of thousands to millions of pixels per ADC. With column-parallel ADC, each ADC unit is only responsible for processing a few thousand pixels. With the ADC units on the sensor, the distance between pixel and ADC unit is greatly shortened, which allows them to solve the timing issues. Thanks to hyperparallelism, each ADC unit has to do less work, so you can actually achieve faster readout at a lower frequency, this improving readout performance without hurting IQ.

Quote
Images captured with Canon's newly developed approximately 120-megapixel CMOS image sensor, even when cropped or digitally magnified, maintain higher levels of definition and clarity than ever before.

Even if each pixel itself was noisier than Canon's 16mp APS-H sensor, it doesn't matter. Noise is related to total sensor area, quantum efficiency, and in small part to read noise (that only affects the deep shadows). Ignoring dynamic range for a minute (there is no information about the DR of the 120mp APS-H sensor, so I honestly cannot speak to it), if you downsample a 120mp APS-H image to the same dimensions as a 16mp APS-H image, the per-pixel noise is going to average out. Since the two sensors have the same total area, there is unlikely to be any measurable differences. Given the 120mp sensor used a better readout system, I'd be willing to bet good money that it actually had the better noise characteristics. And there is absolutely no question it would have much sharper, clearer details.

I'll see if I can find one of the other press releases, the more technical one, and share it. I'm not trying to mislead anyone. I really try not to assume, whenever possible everything I say is based on some fact or piece of official data somewhere. I have a bit more depth of knowledge than just what this one press release offers because I've read everything there is to read about things like Canon's 120mp APS-H sensor (and plenty more from other sensor manufacturers), so I have a larger body of knowledge to draw from.

I really honestly do believe that Canon's 120mp APS-H sensor, which does actually exist in prototype and uses some of Canon's still photography patents, could be one hell of a powerhouse for IQ. Not necessarily greatly reducing noise...but massively increasing detail and sharpness, either allowing photographers to print really large without having to upsample, or by allowing significant improvements in overall IQ simply by downsampling.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« Reply #66 on: July 05, 2014, 02:09:56 PM »

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2949
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« Reply #67 on: July 05, 2014, 02:24:31 PM »
...
The thing operated at 9.5fps, and it really doesn't matter if it had small pixels, because fundamental IQ is related to total sensor area and Q.E., not pixel area.

Except that the more rows and columns that are present, the more space is lost to the barriers in-between. If they can keep the area covered by pixels constant whilst reducing the pixel size to provide more pixels then yes, you're right. This comes down to manufacturing process where Canon have been using a larger process.  Canon is an using old .5 µm process, while Sony and Toshiba have advanced to .25 µm and .18 µm processes. See the chipsworks site for more info.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4597
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« Reply #68 on: July 05, 2014, 02:38:29 PM »
...
The thing operated at 9.5fps, and it really doesn't matter if it had small pixels, because fundamental IQ is related to total sensor area and Q.E., not pixel area.

Except that the more rows and columns that are present, the more space is lost to the barriers in-between. If they can keep the area covered by pixels constant whilst reducing the pixel size to provide more pixels then yes, you're right. This comes down to manufacturing process where Canon have been using a larger process.  Canon is an using old .5 µm process, while Sony and Toshiba have advanced to .25 µm and .18 µm processes. See the chipsworks site for more info.

Canon used a smaller process for this. From what I recall about either a press release or some other specs listed somewhere, they sensor was actually stitched together from separately manufactured parts. (A lot of Canon's prototype sensors are actually made that way, by stitching multiple separate fabricated parts into a single device. Their ultra high sensitivity 0.1 Lux large format sensor, for example, is manufactured that way as a simple matter of necessity.) I suspect they fabricated it with the same fab they produce their small form factor sensors with. Chipworks verified years ago that Canon has had a 180nm copper interlink process, one even capable of producing sensors with light pipes, for a while now.

So yes, you are correct, Canon's current APS-C and FF sensors are built on a 500nm process, which wouldn't support a sensor like this (well, it could...it's just that the photodiodes would be really tiny and therefor the fill-factor, the total actual light-sensitive area, of the sensor would be lower than an identically sized sensor with larger pixels). However there was a rumor not long ago that Canon was revamping its fabs, moving to larger wafers. Either they are repurposing some of their existing fabs for the small form factor stuff, or they are building new fabs to expand their 180nm fab capacity.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

CarlMillerPhoto

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« Reply #69 on: July 05, 2014, 02:54:51 PM »
My fear is that the 4k it delivers will be marginally better than 5D3 ML RAW and that ML RAW for 1080p won't be possible on the new 5D4.

I hope they notice that as soon as ML RAW came out the 5D3 prices, which had been sinking a lot, shoot right back up to MSRP at most stores for some time. And stop crippling everything to pieces. It's a joke how much better ML gets out of the 5D3 than the Canon firmware alone.

I partitulary hate how Canon has pushed DIGIC processing more and more to the DNR everything to mush that a few studios sadly use on blu-rays at times. As soon as an area doesn't have brightness and extreme contrast DIGIC just turns things to 100% mush. But even in the crisp areas I don't know what they are doing. Sometimes I swear Canon marketing literally had them add a minor Gaussian blur filter in the video output stage. But it might just well be that DIGIC video processing is THAT bad. Maybe it is, there must be some reason they suck with old Canon video processing chips for the C100 and all instead of using any of the much newer DIGICs to read the sensor and do basic processing.

Anyway one would hope they are smart and give the 5D4 1080p RAW out natively and 4k compressed, but a good quality 4k and not low color and not mush and hopefully 10bits. Giving it all the hardware can do is the way to take the world by storm again. Video world moves fast and the film guys don't get into fanboy nonsense and unless Canon pushes max fast they won't ever make a big splash in low to mid-end again.

+10. ML really did save the Mark III for video shooters.

However, I doubt Canon will put Raw functionality into the Mark IV, and in my opinion they don't have to. If they give it clean and detailed 4k internal recording, 10bit 4:2:2 output, and non-mushy 1080p with at least 60p that's all it will take. They could leave ISO performance the same (Mark III blows the Gh4 out of the water in that area) and leave the stills features untouched (although they'll obviously have to update something to make it viable). Heck, if they don't make things impossible to hack they wouldn't even have to bother adding focus peaking/zebras/etc. and could just assume ML would do that work for them (and maybe that could be the way they "protect" their cinema line). Raw is awesome, but the workflow and storage requirements make it less appealing, especially if you have 4k and 10 bit 4:2:2 output as an option.

Whatever they do, I hope they keep the LP-E6 battery and at least one CF (dual CF preferred, though).

I just can't see Canon being 'daring' or smart enough to 'dare' put 10bit internal recording though or fixing up DIGIC so that it doesn't go all plasticky on everything. But what you suggest would be VERY nice, 10bits 4:2:2 4k that is crisp and keeps the fine detail and noise and doesn't do the nasty stuff that digic does even at ISO100.

I  hope Canon is "smart enough;" they certainly need to be at this point in the game. They're losing so many to the Gh4 and A7s, and those still holding out for Canon's "answer" are going to jump ship if it doesn't deliver. But, like you, I wouldn't be remotely surprised if Canon fails epicly. 

Conversely, they could just make the 1D C $3,500. That video set at that price point is what they need to give. The problem is that on the stills side, it's the 1d X. I'd be all for Canon dumbing down a 1D C on the stills side (to more of mark-III capabilities, maybe even less), and then rebranding it as a baby 1d C. Or, better yet, put it into a 5d body and call it the 5D C. I honestly don't need any new tech than what is already in the 1d C. 
« Last Edit: July 05, 2014, 03:00:25 PM by CarlMillerPhoto »
My photography equipment goes here, apparently.

Lee Jay

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 971
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« Reply #70 on: July 05, 2014, 02:58:46 PM »
Even 180nm is, what, 8 generations ago?

Lee Jay

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 971
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« Reply #71 on: July 05, 2014, 03:37:05 PM »
Even 180nm is, what, 8 generations ago?

msm

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« Reply #72 on: July 05, 2014, 04:06:09 PM »
jrista, I don't see how this press release quantify performance. It says nothing about SNR or DR etc, it doesn't even try to claim that the sensor is competitive in those regards. It may also require hardware around it which is not feasible nor practical in todays cameras. For instance to read out and process all that data would require a lot more readout channels and processing power than what you see in a 1DX today.

Press releases may also typically be written by PR or marketing personnel written for other purposes than to scientifically describe their findings.

As for patents, I don't read them but they don't actually give any data about how well actual their actual implementations perform do they? Without that data we can not tell if its awesome or not. What seems great on paper might be bad in practice.

For instance Foveon sensors seem like a great technology on paper does it not? No CFA wasting away 2/3rds of the light and no demosaic algorithm interpolating data and making images soft in 100% view. Yet in real life Foveon is outperformed by standard CFA sensors, it gives the resolution but does not perform well in other aspects. Real life performance is what counts and Foveon sensors don't have it (yet, would like to see that change).
« Last Edit: July 05, 2014, 04:08:42 PM by msm »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« Reply #72 on: July 05, 2014, 04:06:09 PM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4597
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« Reply #73 on: July 05, 2014, 04:15:37 PM »
Even 180nm is, what, 8 generations ago?

Not really. You have to take it in proper context. For large sensors, APS-C and larger, I don't know of any that use a process smaller than 180nm. The ultra tiny form factors, the sensors that are a fraction the size of a fingernail, are the sensors that use very small fabrication processes, but even those aren't eight generations more advanced.  I think a 65nm process is used for sensors with 0.9µm and the upcoming 0.7µm pixel sizes. That would be three generations smaller transistor size (180nm: -> 130nm -> 90nm -> 65nm).

You also can't use CPU transistor fabrication technology as a basis of comparison. They are primarily on 22nm, with 14nm parts supposedly due this year (maybe they are already here, haven't looked into it.) But that is a whole entire different market. We know that Canon's DIGIC 5 used a 65nm process, manufactured by Texas Instruments I think. But that's still a processor. You can't mix that with sensor tech.

At the moment, I think 65nm is the current smallest fabrication process used for image sensors. The next step would be 45nm, and I've read a couple patents that describe sensors with 0.7µm (700nm) pixel sensors that would be fabricated with a 45nm process, but I haven't actually seen anything yet that indicates it's being done.  Even if there were sensors being manufactured with 22nm gates, that is six generations...not eight. Given that larger form factor sensors don't even remotely need a 65nm gate to be highly efficient, I wouldn't say that a 180nm process is out of date for APS-C and FF sensors. If it is out of date, it would only be out of date by one generation, 130nm.

I did read about some high sensitivity sensors recently called SPADs, or Single-Photon Avalanche Diodes, which are designed for specialized purposes (medical imaging and such like PET, FLIM, etc., scientific imaging, astrophotography, etc.) These are pretty bad-ass CMOS devices with ultra high sensitivity (basically photon counters). They have been fabricated on 180nm, 130nm and 90nm processes. They generally seem to be 130nm parts, are usually fairly small sensors (smaller than APS-C), with pixel sizes maybe a little bit smaller than current APS-C parts. They have a specialized pixel structure, but overall are not all that much different than your average CMOS sensor. These are CUTTING EDGE devices...really cutting edge. They do their job extremely well, and really don't need transistors smaller than 90nm. It actually seems smaller processes actually make it more difficult to fabricate these high end sensors than the larger processes.

So I really don't think that 180nm is old and out dated, not for the size of sensors were talking about.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4597
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« Reply #74 on: July 05, 2014, 04:45:40 PM »
jrista, I don't see how this press release quantify performance. It says nothing about SNR or DR etc, it doesn't even try to claim that the sensor is competitive in those regards. It may also require hardware around it which is not feasible nor practical in todays cameras. For instance to read out and process all that data would require a lot more readout channels and processing power than what you see in a 1DX today.

Press releases may also typically be written by PR or marketing personnel written for other purposes than to scientifically describe their findings.

As for patents, I don't read them but they don't actually give any data about how well actual their actual implementations perform do they? Without that data we can not tell if its awesome or not. What seems great on paper might be bad in practice.

SNR and DR aren't the epitome of sensor performance, though. They are only factors of sensor performance. Both are heavily affected by readout noise, and it's been demonstrated that column-parallel ADC designs produce less read noise, by at least two companies now (Sony and Toshiba, and I believe other high end sensor manufacturers have similar designs in the works as well). Canon described some kind of hyperparallel on-die ADC for the 120mp APS-H.

Assuming the silicon process was the same generation as the cameras of the time it was released, it's logical to assume it has the same fundamental characteristics as the 1D IV. The 1D IV had around 45% Q.E. and the same DR limitations as all Canon cameras (due to read noise). I see no reason to assume this sensor would be significantly different in those fundamental statistics at worst, better if their highly parallelized readout offers similar improvements as Sony and Toshibas. Canon silicon hasn't really changed much over the years...the most significant improvements each generation are a few percent jump in Q.E.

Your also misunderstanding the point of using a column-parallel ADC. You actually DON'T need as much processing horsepower to read out more pixels faster when you hyperparallelize the ADC units. The problem with having too few units is each unit MUST be high powered enough to handle the hundreds of thousands or millions of pixels they have to process. That means higher frequency, and it also means more attention must be paid to the design of those units to limit the amount of noise they add to the signal (and even then, they are noisy parts because of the high frequency).

By using one ADC unit per column, each ADC can operate at a lower frequency. The lower frequency immediately offers a benefit in terms of read noise. Other techniques, such as moving the clock and driver off to a remote area of the die (like Exmor), you can reduce noise even further (Exmor took it one step farther, and used a digital form of CDS, which they claim was better than using analog CDS...however ironically they added analog CDS back into the mix with later version of Exmor for video cameras...now they do both analog and digital CDS). You trade die space for the ability to operate at a lower frequency and power. With a 180nm process, that's a no brainer. This HAS BEEN DONE...both Sony and Toshiba have working CP-ADC designs built into their CMOS sensors that are actually used in consumer products. Sony has a number of technical documents that explain how they achieved exactly what Canon describes in their 120mp APS-H papers and patents...low power high speed readout of high resolution sensors via hyperparallel ADC.

So, even though Canon's 120mp APS-H isn't in an actual consumer grade product that we can buy, it uses technology that mirrors products from other brands that we can buy, and that have been tested. The most telling are Sony security video cams that use Exmor sensors, which can operate at very high frame rates in very low light...they are not only doing high speed readout with very, very low noise and relatively high DR, they are also doing processing with image processors that are packaged to the bottom of the sensor, and wired directly to it.

To be strait, I am speculating a bit, but it's very educated speculation. It isn't like it's just 100% completely unfounded drivel. :P

For instance Foveon sensors seem like a great technology on paper does it not? No CFA wasting away 2/3rds of the light and no demosaic algorithm interpolating data and making images soft in 100% view. Yet in real life Foveon is outperformed by standard CFA sensors, it gives the resolution but does not perform well in other aspects. Real life performance is what counts and Foveon sensors don't have it (yet, would like to see that change).

As for Foveon, I think your incorrect in your assessment. Foveon only "fails" at ONE thing: resolving power. There have been debates in the past on these forums where Foveon fans claim that because it has a 100% fill factor for all colors, that it has as much or higher RESOLUTION than bayer sensors. Those claims are wrong, as bayer sensors get largely the full benefit of the raw sensor resolution in terms of luminance...they only really suffer in color resolution and color fidelity (both areas where Foveon excels).

For what Foveon is, at it's REAL spatial resolution, they are actually very good. Their red channels are a little nosier, but their blue channels are less noisy than bayer. No surprise, given the layering order of color photodiodes in the Foveon. Even though image dimensions/resolving power for Foveon is lower than in bayer sensors, those smaller images usually exhibit high quality. I do think that color fidelity with Foveon cameras is superior to what I get with my Canon DSLRs (I just like my resolution too much to give it up :P). So I think it's unfair to claim that the real-life performance of Foveon is bad or even poor. For what it is, it's real life performance is very good.

The only drawback of Foveon is it's resolving power...and I truly believe that Sigma has done Foveon a big disservice by trying to upsell it as having more resolution than it really does, or somehow claim that because it gathers full color information per pixel that upsampling it somehow beats bayer sensors for resolution and detail. Actual real-world examples that do exactly that have proven otherwise. Foveon's problem isn't that it's bad technology...it's that Sigma owns it, and Sigma doesn't have the marketing power nor the R&D budget to really make Foveon shine and become a highly competitive alternative. Sigma is much more a lens company than a camera or sensor company, IMO. I do believe it COULD be highly competitive in the hands of a wealthier corporation that could more richly fund it's development.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« Reply #74 on: July 05, 2014, 04:45:40 PM »