16 bit color anyone?

[RedEye]

If the technology has improved and the sensor pix count the same, is there any chance that it goes 16 bit color similar to many medium formats?  Is a neat idea and the colors and contract could be stunning .

[CrimsonBlue]

Jumping to 14-bit was a nice improvement, but for super-fast cameras, the amount of extra data passing through would reduce FPS without some other compensatory technology. 

Medium format doesn't usually have more than a frame or two per second so it can process more data and not have to worry about filling/emptying a buffer. 

The upcoming 4K DSLR could incorporate that if it were designed as a medium format and/or video competitor. 

[psolberg]

Jumping to 14-bit was a nice improvement, but for super-fast cameras, the amount of extra data passing through would reduce FPS without some other compensatory technology. 

Medium format doesn't usually have more than a frame or two per second so it can process more data and not have to worry about filling/emptying a buffer. 

The upcoming 4K DSLR could incorporate that if it were designed as a medium format and/or video competitor.

16bit color video @ 4K.. yeah, not happening.

[Neeneko]

Jumping to 14-bit was a nice improvement, but for super-fast cameras, the amount of extra data passing through would reduce FPS without some other compensatory technology. 

Medium format doesn't usually have more than a frame or two per second so it can process more data and not have to worry about filling/emptying a buffer. 

This is a good example of why I have been grumpy at Canon lately.  With the increased focus on framerate and video features, they are moving away from making stuff like this feasible.  I would MUCH rather have a 16 bit camera then something designed for speed (AF,framerate,video,etc).

[psolberg]

Jumping to 14-bit was a nice improvement, but for super-fast cameras, the amount of extra data passing through would reduce FPS without some other compensatory technology. 

Medium format doesn't usually have more than a frame or two per second so it can process more data and not have to worry about filling/emptying a buffer. 

This is a good example of why I have been grumpy at Canon lately.  With the increased focus on framerate and video features, they are moving away from making stuff like this feasible.  I would MUCH rather have a 16 bit camera then something designed for speed (AF,framerate,video,etc).

I agree. canon has been busying converting its customers into videographers...like it or not. I support a split. Put competitive video but focus on stills. go chase RED away from me.

[Neeneko]

I agree. canon has been busying converting its customers into videographers...like it or not. I support a split. Put competitive video but focus on stills. go chase RED away from me.

This is kinda the cost of a 'runaway success'.. the 5D2 was so successful as a multimedia device, now anyone who wants to get funding for their department in any DSLR manufacturer has to explain how their design fits in to the 'obvious wisdom' of marketing.

Part of the problem though is customers tend not to realize just how much additional cost this type of feature ads I commonly here 'but you are getting video for free, just don't use it'.  If more professional clients complained about the opportunity cost of the feature, Canon might listen more.

[kubelik]

I wouldn't mind if the video were still 14-bit, but getting 16-bit stills would be awesome.

[mitchell3417]

I think if they were going to put 16 bit in the 5DX then they would have put it in the 1DX. If that tech was available they would have done it already. IMHO

Obviously bitrate is the biggest issue here. At 6.9 fps I don't see them squeezing 16 bits into the next 5d.

Someday though we will have 16 bit color. Just not this round.

[sjprg]

YES! YES! 1 FPS is fine.

[RedEye]

This is a good example of why I have been grumpy at Canon lately.  With the increased focus on framerate and video features, they are moving away from making stuff like this feasible.  I would MUCH rather have a 16 bit camera then something designed for speed (AF,framerate,video,etc).

I agree. canon has been busying converting its customers into videographers...like it or not. I support a split. Put competitive video but focus on stills. go chase RED away from me.
[/quote]

+1 for each of you, I agree.  There needs to be a body that remains in the camera still photo business. 

[DavidRiesenberg]

I eagerly await true in-camera-HDR 32bit images. 

[Neeneko]

I eagerly await true in-camera-HDR 32bit images. 

Actually, I am thinking about getting MaxMax's B&W Canon just so I can do multi-shot pictures and combine them for nice bitdepth ^_^

[marekjoz]

Is 14 bit only also not because of the noise? As I remember two lowest bits are just simply cut off because they are not useful in current dslr sensor technology - they are not able to provide 16 bits resolution.

[Yoshiyuki Blade]

What else is bit depth good for other than simply increasing the amount of possible colors? More wiggle room to do fancy PP? It seems that 14-bit is quite overkill when monitors are in the 8-bit range, with high end pro monitors at 10 bit. And AFAIK, printed media don't reproduce a whole lot of color either. I mean, take a look at how much more color there is when you add 2 bits successively:

6-bit: 262K colors
8-bit: 16.7M colors
10-bit: 1.07B colors
14-bit: 4.40T colors
16-bit: 281T colors

If I understand correctly, bit depth increases the number of "steps" of color in a particular colorspace, but doesn't increase the breadth of colors (which depend on the colorspace itself). So you can have 16-bits of color in a tiny sRGB colorspace, which would be kind of worthless. However, for 16 bits in Adobe RGB, the steps are slightly larger and more dispersed well outside the range of sRGB. Is Adobe RGB even big enough to notice banding at 14 bits (since banding is the result of huge, perceptible steps of color in a color space due to insufficient colors)? Hard to know, that's for sure!

I think its too early to start talking about 16 bits considering how little we've actually seen beyond 8 bits lol

[wickidwombat]

This is a good example of why I have been grumpy at Canon lately.  With the increased focus on framerate and video features, they are moving away from making stuff like this feasible.  I would MUCH rather have a 16 bit camera then something designed for speed (AF,framerate,video,etc).

I agree. canon has been busying converting its customers into videographers...like it or not. I support a split. Put competitive video but focus on stills. go chase RED away from me.

+1 for each of you, I agree.  There needs to be a body that remains in the camera still photo business.
[/quote]

Canon have proved they can make high res sensors, and have stated they can respond quickly to the D800 if needed although a little cryptic. I guess there must be a high res or two prototype banging around.
While I would be suprised if a high res camera that isnt the 1D would have 16 bit while the 1D does not who knows what they will do. Since ultra high res has no video benefit this high MP camera would be the perfect platform to forget about video and concentrate on stills the good ol 3D rumour a high MP high dynamic range body with 1D build, no integrated battery grip low FPS super high quality low iso it will tick all the studio and landscape photographers boxes.
A camera that is totally stills oriented would be refreshing and a high MP beast targeted at studio and landscape might just be the vehicle to deliver it. If they do i I just hope it doesnt have the integrated grip.

but what if canon made it and priced it at $5000? 1D build quality 2 or 3 fps 50MP super DR at iso 100 max iso 3200? then we would be flooded by crys of "how can canon do this to me its too expensive!" never mind that is half the price of a pentax 645D and can use all the canon glass you already have.

just some things to consider...