Canon announcements coming at the end of August [CR2]

[Stereodude]

This is such bull. Not one person alive can tell the difference between 24p displayed at 3:2 at 60Hz and 24p displayed at 5:5 at 120Hz, not one.

Just because you can't see 3:2 cadence judder doesn't mean other people can't. The different is very obvious and apparent. Just keep your head in the sand of ignorance. Everything is going to be okay.

That whooshing sound was the point sailing over your head. p24 doesn’t look like p24 when it’s interpolated up to 60/120/240 fps.

p24 displayed with a 5:5 cadence is not interpolated. Each p24 frame is displayed for five p120 frames. There are no new frames (unless someone turns that processing feature on too). Just a tip, you really should educate yourself about the stuff you pretend to be an expert about so you can at least appear to have even a basic understanding of them.

 

[stevelee]

What pulldown are our brains accustomed to for a cinematic look? Is that approximated by a 60pTV?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Just a tip, you really should educate yourself

That’s probably why several people asked you to provide information on the topic. But you chose to withhold it, probably in some vain attempt to feel superior. Instead, it just made you look like an ass...an observation you continue to reinforce.

 

[privatebydesign]

Just because you can't see 3:2 cadence judder doesn't mean other people can't. The different is very obvious and apparent. Just keep your head in the sand of ignorance. Everything is going to be okay.

If that was how it was computed and what I was suggesting then sure, you might have a point, but that isn't what I was suggesting.

10x3 : 15x2 is not the only way to cadence 25p to 60Hz, the traditional source of judder impacted frame rate shifting, just as 3:2 24p into 60Hz isn't.

You are conflating 24p output to TV/monitor footage cadenced to replay on 60Hz, to 25p shot footage output to anything you want.

Nowadays much smarter techniques and algorithms can be used to achieve better results of converting native 25p into 60Hz playback environments even when accurate run times are demanded and audio pitch control needed.

I am talking about shooting in 25p then outputting to a suitable output for the relevant playback, this is done much more effectively and judder free than simple playback mismatched 3:2 or 10x3 : 15x2.

Everything would be OK if you got off your high horse and walked around with the plebs a bit.

 

[privatebydesign]

5:5 into 120Hz will work great when 120Hz reaches much broader acceptance, at the moment, like 4k and 8k, it is just another segment.

But this is all still missing my original point, I'd still like to find anybody that can detect any difference between footage shot at 24p or 25p and then exported/rendered specifically for a 60Hz playback. And that was my first question, again I am not talking about playback of mismatched output files on devices, I am specifically talking about playback of editing program output files specified for the relevant playback device while maintaining a 'cinematic look' having been shot in 24p or 25p.

 

[Stereodude]

What pulldown are our brains accustomed to for a cinematic look? Is that approximated by a 60pTV?

Real film in a theater was generally projected at either 48Hz or 72Hz. The bulb would flash behind each film cell either 2 or 3 times. It's not approximated by a 60Hz TV. A 60Hz TV alternates between 3 and 2 for every other frame and it gives motion an uneven pattern.

Digital projectors in commercial theaters operate at a multiple of 24. I think most are 72Hz, but I could be wrong.

That’s probably why several people asked you to provide information on the topic. But you chose to withhold it, probably in some vain attempt to feel superior. Instead, it just made you look like an ass...an observation you continue to reinforce.

Oh, that's rich. You're lecturing someone else about a behavior you've mastered and exude in every single post. The projection is strong with this one. Every time you lose an argument on a technical fact or facts you revert to calling the other person names. You make a technically incorrect post, get corrected, and then start with the name calling. It's very becoming.

If that was how it was computed and what I was suggesting then sure, you might have a point, but that isn't what I was suggesting.

10x3 : 15x2 is not the only way to cadence 25p to 60Hz, the traditional source of judder impacted frame rate shifting, just as 3:2 24p into 60Hz isn't.

You are conflating 24p output to TV/monitor footage cadenced to replay on 60Hz, to 25p shot footage output to anything you want.

Nowadays much smarter techniques and algorithms can be used to achieve better results of converting native 25p into 60Hz playback environments even when accurate run times are demanded and audio pitch control needed.

I am talking about shooting in 25p then outputting to a suitable output for the relevant playback, this is done much more effectively and judder free than simple playback mismatched 3:2 or 10x3 : 15x2.

I'm not conflating anything. I'm still waiting for you to explain how you can convert p25 to 60Hz and get a smooth cadence. You keep talking about these advanced techniques and algorithms, but can't explain even at a basic level what these techniques are supposedly doing instead.

p24 content is converted to 720p60 with a 3:2 cadence and p24 content is converted to 1080i60 with a telecine. Where are these advanced techniques and algorithms? How come they're not used for any broadcast programming? It's exported specifically for playback at a different framerate yet doesn't use any of these advanced techniques and algorithms that you keep mentioning. Maybe they just don't know about them?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Oh, that's rich. You're lecturing someone else about a behavior you've mastered and exude in every single post. The projection is strong with this one. Every time you lose an argument on a technical fact or facts you revert to calling the other person names. You make a technically incorrect post, get corrected, and then start with the name calling. It's very becoming.

Let’s review, shall we? I posted a question, you didn’t reply. I then re-posted it:

But I’m not a video guy, so I’ll pose the question again: in the context of viewing footage at home, what are the advantages of shooting in p24 and what can be done that is impossible to achieve with another frame rate?

That time, you did reply:

You really need to up your trolling game if this is the best retort you've got. Other frames rates don't look like p24, which why you shoot at p24.

So yeah, you look like a sweet little forum angel there, don’t you?

Enjoy your day, I see no further need to respond to your inanity.

 

[stevelee]

Real film in a theater was generally projected at either 48Hz or 72Hz. The bulb would flash behind each film cell either 2 or 3 times. It's not approximated by a 60Hz TV. A 60Hz TV alternates between 3 and 2 for every other frame and it gives motion an uneven pattern.

Digital projectors in commercial theaters operate at a multiple of 24. I think most are 72Hz, but I could be wrong.

So you are shooting video to be shown on digital projectors in commercial theaters. OK, I see now. I don't do that with my G7X II, and am no more likely to do it with the III. I don't even do that with my DSLR. I wonder how many folks do. Enough that it will affect sales noticeably? Really?

As for a cinematic look on TV, that comes from the 3:2 pulldown, right? I think there are also filters that soften contrast, add grain, and maybe even add subtle scratches. Shooting handheld in black-and-white can give a cinéma verité effect that was popular with French film makers. But I don't think that works as well any more. People were accustomed to seeing newsreels in theaters, so imitating their style gave verisimilitude to those familiar with that. I'm barely old enough to remember seeing them when I was small, so I would expect the effect to be lost on everybody younger than I.

 

[Aussie shooter]

Hey. Any constructive discussion about what's coming at the end of august? Or do we have to continue to wade through page after page of pointless debate? Asking for a friend.

 

[Stereodude]

Enjoy your day, I see no further need to respond to your inanity.

Finally... Hopefully you stick to it. I'm pretty sure you won't be able to overcome your nature though.

So you are shooting video to be shown on digital projectors in commercial theaters. OK, I see now. I don't do that with my G7X II, and am no more likely to do it with the III. I don't even do that with my DSLR. I wonder how many folks do. Enough that it will affect sales noticeably? Really?

No, I didn't say that. That's an odd assumption to make. Regardless of whether it's actually displayed correctly or not, if you want to shoot video that has the same look on your display of choice as commercially produced cinematic (p24) content you need to be able to shoot at p24.

As for a cinematic look on TV, that comes from the 3:2 pulldown, right?

No. First you can't really get a true cinematic look on a 60Hz TV. The 3:2 cadence is a deviation from that. This is why for 10+ years good flat panel TVs have had the ability to show p24 content at a refresh frequency that's a multiple of 24 instead of plain old 60. People did the same with some CRT based displays before this. This multiple of p24 refresh rate allows an accurate representation of the cinematic look that you see in theaters to be achieved at home.

Second the 3:2 cadence is not responsible for the cinematic look. If it was, an actual theater wouldn't have the cinematic look because they don't display p24 content with a 3:2 cadence. The slow shutter speeds, lower framerate, and perhaps duplicated frames are.

Hey. Any constructive discussion about what's coming at the end of august? Or do we have to continue to wade through page after page of pointless debate? Asking for a friend.

Do you have new information to discuss? We're discussing the value of a likely missing feature from what's coming at the end of August. It might not be of interest to you, but it is relevant to the topic.

 

[stevelee]

No, I didn't say that. That's an odd assumption to make. Regardless of whether it's actually displayed correctly or not, if you want to shoot video that has the same look on your display of choice as commercially produced cinematic (p24) content you need to be able to shoot at p24.

OK, then I'm puzzled.

No. First you can't really get a true cinematic look on a 60Hz TV. The 3:2 cadence is a deviation from that. This is why for 10+ years good flat panel TVs have had the ability to show p24 content at a refresh frequency that's a multiple of 24 instead of plain old 60. People did the same with some CRT based displays before this. This multiple of p24 refresh rate allows an accurate representation of the cinematic look that you see in theaters to be achieved at home.

Second the 3:2 cadence is not responsible for the cinematic look. If it was, an actual theater wouldn't have the cinematic look because they don't display p24 content with a 3:2 cadence. The slow shutter speeds, lower framerate, and perhaps duplicated frames are.

OK, then we are operating from different ideas of what constitutes a "cinematic look." I'm an old guy, and I grew up watching old movies on CRT TVs. Generally the look people supposedly want to avoid is the "soap opera effect" from higher frame rates. Slow shutter speeds and frame rates are one cure.

We could open even more cans of worms with the differences between drop frames and such. When is 30fps actually 30fps; and for that matter, when is 24fps really 24fps? Is it just a matter of color vs. black and white?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Is it just a matter of color vs. black and white?

Things just haven’t been the same since this whole fad of talkies started.

 

[Aussie shooter]

[QUOTE



Do you have new information to discuss? We're discussing the value of a likely missing feature from what's coming at the end of August. It might not be of interest to you, but it is relevant to the topic.
[/QUOTE]

No. This discussion is relevant to the topic of the Rp in which that feature is known to be missing. Even better. Start a thread entitled 'benefits of 24fps'. There you could discuss it in complete relevance to your hearts content.

On the actual subject though, is the sensor touted for the m62 likely to be the same sensor in the '90d' if that is what it will be called?

 

[Joules]

On the actual subject though, is the sensor touted for the m62 likely to be the same sensor in the '90d' if that is what it will be called?

There has been some talk of a new 24 MP design. But I guess that was either for lower end models or just misinformation. It would be weird if the M6 got a better sensor than the 80D.

The 32.5 sensor in the 80D successor seems to be pretty much guaranteed in my eyes. Canon has registered a DSLR with such a sensor quite a while ago:

Canon registers a 32.5mp APS-C DSLR in Taiwan

Last month we posted that a 32.5mp APS-C sensor was on the way and it looks likes that information has been confirmed through a Taiwanese certification agency. Code Names K437 & DS126801 APS-C DSLR…

www.canonrumors.com

I'm still sceptical about those supposed M6 specs. So maybe we will see that new 24 MP sensor in the M6, while M5 and 80D successor get the 32.5 MP one.

 

[Aussie shooter]

There has been some talk of a new 24 MP design. But I guess that was either for lower end models or just misinformation. It would be weird if the M6 got a better sensor than the 80D.

The 32.5 sensor in the 80D successor seems to be pretty much guaranteed in my eyes. Canon has registered a DSLR with such a sensor quite a while ago:

Canon registers a 32.5mp APS-C DSLR in Taiwan

Last month we posted that a 32.5mp APS-C sensor was on the way and it looks likes that information has been confirmed through a Taiwanese certification agency. Code Names K437 & DS126801 APS-C DSLR…

www.canonrumors.com

I'm still sceptical about those supposed M6 specs. So maybe we will see that new 24 MP sensor in the M6, while M5 and 80D successor get the 32.5 MP one.

Oh. Definitely skeptical about the m62 specs but if they are even close i will be impressed .

 

[Joules]

Oh. Definitely skeptical about the m62 specs but if they are even close i will be impressed .

I am optimistic about the sensor though.

We have heard numerous times now that the new APS-C cameras will shoot 4k without any additional crop. That alone points to Canon having made a big step in the right direction. And it could make those high Framerate claims somewhat realistic.

Also,why would talk about a new 24 MP sensor have come up at all? That only makes sense if the tech changed a good bit. Nobody but Canon refers to sensors as new if we've already seen ones with similar performance in previous models.