Coming Tech & More [CR2]

[Rocky]

About DR:
Here's what I'd do: add two new colors to the bayer pattern, white (clear) and black (nd), and move from the current RGGB to something like RGGBWWWKK with a 3x3 basic structure. This should deliver both clean shadows (thanks to W) and safe highlights (thanks to K)

I've always wondered if you couldn't just have staggered RGGBs, if their size was small enough and bias their exposures so one set is giving you an offset exposure at the same time as the other set.  That would mean then that you would need 20 or 30mpx to get effectively 10mpx. So if you have a tech that offers super high density with decent noise performance, you could effectively take two or three photos at once with offset exposures that would be merged in camera to a lower res shot with high DR, right?  Am I nuts?  Did I just give away a patent idea?  ;-)

Fujifilm digital camera with EXR sensor is just doing that. They stagger two pixel of the same color sensitivity next to each other. So it is RR GG GG BB. In HDR mode, one pixel is over exposed while the other one is under exposed. Then they are comined to give us HDR. Also they can be independent of each other to give us high resolution or they can combine two pixel of the same color(next to each other ) to become a larger pixel  to give us low noise.

[NotABunny]

take two or three photos at once with offset exposures that would be merged in camera to a lower res shot with high DR, right?  Am I nuts?  Did I just give away a patent idea?  ;-)

Don't worry. It has been talked about right here, and both RED and Fuji already have working sensors that work in a similar way. But these are for kids (= only two exposures are taken), they are just the tip of the iceberg. Canon and Sony have more resources to pull this off in a complete / consumer way by using multi-ISO readings.

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2011/06/09/red-epic-5k-and-hdrx/

[gene_can_sing]

You shouldn't really worry about that since 1080p on Canon cameras is "fake 1080p" and in reality closer to 720p. Lets just wait if they can come up with a real 1080p first.

Care to explain that?

I would also like an explanation of the 'closer to 720p' part.  Is the 'p' part fake?  With Canon camcorders, when you record at 30p or 24p, it's really recording at 60i but outputing 30p/24p.  But you're still getting the full 1920x1080 resolution, so I have no idea where the 720 statement comes from.

1080p is only a format... the actually resolved detail of the "1080p file" the Canon DSLRs record is only around 720p. This is actually fairly common in video cameras though... most video cameras that RECORD 1080p, come up short from the mark. If you get a chance to... go shoot with a GH2. I've got one along with my 7D and the difference in detail is INSANE!!! The GH2 is true and fully-resolved 1080p... it has nearly double the detail when viewing full-screen. If Canon can do this with their 4:2:2 50mb/s codec and a FF sensor... then they are going to seriously dominate. I'll probably buy two of the MarkIII's if it's true.

The funny thing is to do fully resolved 1080p is not hard at all to do, as Panasonic and Sony have already shown. Canon could have done it with Digic 4, but choose not too probably because of the added expense.

But yeah, if they do release a true 1080p camera with 4:2:2 on a full frame (which should not be hard at all, especially with Digic 5), the competition will be TOAST.

They just need to release the camera someday.

[AG]

Err, you're both talking nonsense. Firstly there's no such thing as an OLED back light. OLED displays do not have backlights.  Apple use LED backlights in their LCD monitors.

Secondly, OLED is relatively new tech and only available cheaply in small sizes, so is "as far back as [you] can remember" only 1-3 years? Apple have never been "anti" OLED, the tech just isn't mature enough yet. Apple is eager to use OLED, what with their multiple patents needing them.

On-topic, for those who actually know what an OLED display is, it's a great feature to look forward to on Canon cameras.

OLED has been around since the late 60's in some format. It was not until the early 2000's that manufacturers like Samsung started claiming that they were able to produce 50" OLED screens on mass (2004) for the television market.

So saying that its "new tech" is blatantly wrong.

Sure it may be fine when used in mobile phone screens but for pure resolution LED LCD still beats it. This may change in the future as the tech develops.

The link that you provide is from a web site called "OLED info" of course they are going to say things to talk up their product of choice. And basing such claims on a patent listing from Feb 2011 means that Apple have looked into doing this but there is nothing to say that they have decided to stick with the idea.

Geez if you want to actually read what patents are being listed daily for Apple products you may want to check http://www.patentlyapple.com/ then you can see that a LOT of what is filed for never comes to fruition.

As for your last comment i for one DEFINITELY do not want an OLED screen on my Canon camera. I would prefer a "retina" style resolution LED LCD instead. But then again thats why they invented EVF's for video, making the screen just for previews not detail.

[pedro]

@Rocky:

how likely is it, that canon implement the forementioned sensor type in one of their next bodies? I'd love to see a 40+MP 5Diii / iv then, providing near perfect ISO 100k. or if that is too much of wishful thinking: ISO 51200 ;-)

[Super Mario]

I would also like an explanation of the 'closer to 720p' part.  Is the 'p' part fake?  With Canon camcorders, when you record at 30p or 24p, it's really recording at 60i but outputing 30p/24p.  But you're still getting the full 1920x1080 resolution, so I have no idea where the 720 statement comes from.

Others answered already, but the 1080p stops resolving information after 720p. It's basicly upscaled 720p. If you take any 720p video and upscale it to 1080p, the video is 1080p but it only has the information of the original 720p video.

[Rocky]

@Rocky:

how likely is it, that canon implement the forementioned sensor type in one of their next bodies? I'd love to see a 40+MP 5Diii / iv then, providing near perfect ISO 100k. or if that is too much of wishful thinking: ISO 51200 ;-)

I have no idea. However, My guess is that it might never happen. I am sure that Fuji is having the pattern right on the EXR sensor and its implementation. Fuji may not even want to licience it to anyone else.

[NotABunny]

As for your last comment i for one DEFINITELY do not want an OLED screen on my Canon camera. I would prefer a "retina" style resolution LED LCD instead. But then again thats why they invented EVF's for video, making the screen just for previews not detail.

I take it you've never seen SGS2 side by side with an iPhone4, showing an aRGB photo (indoors). The SAMOLED+ wipes the floor with the LCD in terms of black level, gamut and sharpness, even though it's significantly bigger. Why sharpness? Maybe it's just the percevied sharpness caused by the different contrasts, maybe it's because of the filters put in front of the LCD, maybe it's just the software viewer (which only shows that differences are given by software, not hardware, so the hardware is not so important).

Of course, only Canon knows what their OLED looks like.

[gkreis]

Fujifilm digital camera with EXR sensor is just doing that. They stagger two pixel of the same color sensitivity next to each other. So it is RR GG GG BB. In HDR mode, one pixel is over exposed while the other one is under exposed. Then they are comined to give us HDR. Also they can be independent of each other to give us high resolution or they can combine two pixel of the same color(next to each other ) to become a larger pixel  to give us low noise.

Wow...  I need to read up on that...  sounds sweet.

[senduran]

OLED has been around since the late 60's in some format. It was not until the early 2000's that manufacturers like Samsung started claiming that they were able to produce 50" OLED screens on mass (2004) for the television market.

All of which is irrelevant. Perhaps I should have said "recently commercialised tech". The point being, you can't have thought a company was "anti" a tech just because it wasn't yet commercially viable and wasn't being using by anybody.

It's like claiming Canon are anti-fuelcells because a) they haven't used them in any of their products, and b) the concept has been around for over 100 years. Well, no. When fuel-cells are commercially viable for small electronics, Canon may well use them.

The link that you provide is from a web site called "OLED info" of course they are going to say things to talk up their product of choice. And basing such claims on a patent listing from Feb 2011 means that Apple have looked into doing this but there is nothing to say that they have decided to stick with the idea.

Geez if you want to actually read what patents are being listed daily for Apple products you may want to check http://www.patentlyapple.com/ then you can see that a LOT of what is filed for never comes to fruition.

All of which is also irrelevant. I've proven that they've at least considered OLED, so they are either neutral or "pro" OLED. All you have is your completely unsupported claim that they are "anti" OLED. Since your reply consisted of multiple paragraphs or irrelevant non-argument, I'll go ahead and assume you were just making that claim up. Hint: the only way to win your argument is to link a statement by Apply that says something negative about OLED.

As for your last comment i for one DEFINITELY do not want an OLED screen on my Canon camera. I would prefer a "retina" style resolution LED LCD instead.

And if they made an OLED with the same pixel density as a retina display? As I quite accurately pointed out, OLED is still relatively (compared to LCD) new tech, but it's perfectly capable of catching up with LCD on resolution (or rather, cost) if someone invests the money. In all other respects (other than lifetime, which isn't a limiting factor for a DSLR camera screen) it is inherently superior to LCD, and the better contrast and lack of need for glass frontage and subsequent anti-reflective coating should easily make it a better bet for usage in outdoor sun.

[catz]

422 video with real 1080p without aliasing/moire would be really nice. Based on my personal testing, the 5D resolves significantly more than the 7D, but still it is not true 1080p. This is also evident on the recent Zacuto test.
http://www.zacuto.com/the-great-camera-shootout-2011/episode-two

The problem for Canon is though that the cinematography folks are already buying Sony FS100 and Sony F3 and leaving Canon behind - the ideal release time for 5D mk III with this would have been early this year and not early next year. And from technological standpoint should have been feasible target for some big corporation like Canon. The Zacuto test kind of illustrates how ridiculously low the resolution really is on the Canon DSLR video compared to a competition with cinematography cameras. I think the low resolution, aliasing and moire are the biggest problems in Canon DSLR video at the moment.

Well, at least I may buy the 5D mark III then if it lives to the hype in video quality because I am not in financial situation at the moment to both purchase FS100 or F3 and then also possibly replace my lens collection at the same time. I rather want EF-mount version and I am hoping it someday arrives. But Canon has succeeded to disappoint before, like 1D MKIV has really poor resolution compared to 5D mk II video and it came after 5D mk II. The aliasing is more severe and the resolution is barely SD. You can also see that by yourself in Zacuto test (link above). In other words it got worse. What guarantee there is that it does not get worse again with the 5D mark III if they treat the video as worthless add-on feature where consumer grade is ok and no professional quality is required.

And also I want to shoot still photographs and video with the same camera because I could not carry around when traveling both. I am already exceeding the limits of carry-on luggage in airlines. Last time it was quite tricky, they almost forced me to put expensive and fragile camera equipment to check-in luggage (where they would have been got destroyed most likely as a freelance/hobbyist I do not have heavy-duty camera cases for this purpose, and even if I did, what guarantee there would be that they would arrive undamaged and I would not anyway have more allowance for check-in luggage than the 20kg limit (44 lbs) - on my last travel they had opened my check-in bag possibly because they saw the steadicam and rig in the X-ray, if bag gets inspected, what guarantee there is that it is properly packed again and there will be no damage to fragile glass and the interiors are carefully inspected rather than just thrown back). I can barely get the 5D with lenses in the check-in luggage but it would be about impossible with the size and weight of Sony F3 (or Canon equivalent, if such camcorder would surface). I would prefer the DSLR form factor, otherwise the agility will be greatly reduced and I would no longer be able to document my travels even if I could make perfect video with it at home. A EF-mount DSLR which would do 422 or even better 444 video with real 1080p would be excellent replacement for my 5d MK II. If it had HDMI output with clean 444 it would be even better, then I would use Atomos Ninja to record the stream and I would get ProRes files directly without time consuming transcoding from h264 to ProRes before editing. Then if this camera would have higher video resolutions than 1080p, it would be nice of course. With 4K one can shoot exceptionally perfect and sharp 1080p, even if the 4K had some aliasing problems etc., the delivery format being 1080p would mask the problems that can be seen on 4K monitor.

What it comes to OLED: cinematography people are using external monitors anyway. The internal monitor being OLED would be nice, but it is not a killer feature that would make to buy the camera. There are many high resolution OLED displays out already in Samsung and Nokia phones (like Nokia N9 MeeGo phone) and it would be quite possible for such display to be on a camera. However, end results are most important from camera and for manual focus pulls in video a bigger monitor is very much necessary, for me it is almost indifferent if the display was OLED or not. Also the still pictures from the current 5D mark II are about good enough and even if there was some room for improvement, it does not make me to do urgent upgrade. If the still section would upgrade, but video section would remain the same or get worse (like in the case of 1D MK IV happened), that would not make me to do upgrade. Perhaps I would need to start considering the plastic ugly GH2 and go for M42 despite of the drawbacks of the smaller sensor then. I would dislike that, but if Canon would not upgrade video for 422 + no aliasing/moire + real 1080p resolution (resolving full 540 line pairs vertically and 960 line pairs horizontally), it would be like a message from Canon "We don't want you. Go for Panasonic now and put the hack on it to make it a proper video camera".