Canon Developing 8K Cinema EOS Camera, 120mp DSLR & 8K Display

[ahsanford]

Re: Canon Developing 8K Cinema EOS Camera, 120mp DSLR & 8K Display

It's almost disgusting that movies are still published and displayed at 2K resolution in professional movie theaters.

My wife and I go to a lot of movies. I can't recall ever walking out of a theater and thinking: that movie would have been great if it had higher resolution.

Don't you see a difference between IMAX and normal movies?

Yes the 70mm Imax films where amazing now its all that digital 2k projection bull crap they still call IMAX
35mm 21.95mm x 18.6mm vs IMAX 70mm 70mm x 48.5 That's a big difference but now they shoot with 2k/4k cameras and then display the film with 2k projectors and call it IMAX ya right.

Further, non-dedicated IMAX feature films ask for extra money at the theaters but only feature (say) 10-15 minutes of actual IMAX footage throughout the film. Christopher Nolan was fond of sprinkling it into his films, which was weird to watch as you'd go from anamorphic widescreen to something nearly square, but in fairness, he's very clever at hiding some of those transitions.

- A

 

[Meatcurry]

Re: Canon Developing 8K Cinema EOS Camera, 120mp DSLR & 8K Display

So is this announcement tied to this from 2010? http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/news/120_megapixel_apsh_format_cmos_sensor.do

 

[thepancakeman]

Re: Canon Developing 8K Cinema EOS Camera, 120mp DSLR & 8K Display

It's almost disgusting that movies are still published and displayed at 2K resolution in professional movie theaters.

My wife and I go to a lot of movies. I can't recall ever walking out of a theater and thinking: that movie would have been great if it had higher resolution.

Don't you see a difference between IMAX and normal movies?

Yes the 70mm Imax films where amazing now its all that digital 2k projection bull crap they still call IMAX
35mm 21.95mm x 18.6mm vs IMAX 70mm 70mm x 48.5 That's a big difference but now they shoot with 2k/4k cameras and then display the film with 2k projectors and call it IMAX ya right.

Exactly. I saw the new Mission:Impossible movie in "IMAX" and from my seat in about the center of the theater I could see every freaking pixel. Pretty much ruined the movie for me (which I otherwise enjoyed.)

 

[ahsanford]

Re: Canon Developing 8K Cinema EOS Camera, 120mp DSLR & 8K Display

Further, non-dedicated IMAX feature films ask for extra money at the theaters but only feature (say) 10-15 minutes of actual IMAX footage throughout the film. Christopher Nolan was fond of sprinkling it into his films, which was weird to watch as you'd go from anamorphic widescreen to something nearly square, but in fairness, he's very clever at hiding some of those transitions.

- A

Totally OT, but every time I see Christopher Nolan's name mentioned, it makes my blood boil. That greedy jerk made me lose my job along with 60 other people in the entertainment industry. Just so he could pocket a couple extra million dollars from one of his films.

My fault. Bringing him up was OT in the first place. Sorry about that.

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

Re: Canon Developing 8K Cinema EOS Camera, 120mp DSLR & 8K Display

Further, non-dedicated IMAX feature films ask for extra money at the theaters but only feature (say) 10-15 minutes of actual IMAX footage throughout the film. Christopher Nolan was fond of sprinkling it into his films, which was weird to watch as you'd go from anamorphic widescreen to something nearly square, but in fairness, he's very clever at hiding some of those transitions.

- A

Literally just watched this video on aspect changes during films.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R26_F7pecqo

 

[ahsanford]

Re: Canon Developing 8K Cinema EOS Camera, 120mp DSLR & 8K Display

Further, non-dedicated IMAX feature films ask for extra money at the theaters but only feature (say) 10-15 minutes of actual IMAX footage throughout the film. Christopher Nolan was fond of sprinkling it into his films, which was weird to watch as you'd go from anamorphic widescreen to something nearly square, but in fairness, he's very clever at hiding some of those transitions.

- A

Literally just watched this video on aspect changes during films.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R26_F7pecqo

Before I hit play on your link (thanks -- never noticed that Life of Pi broke the frame like that), I knew Grand Budapest Hotel would be an example. It had to be. I live in Southern California, and I happened to see GBH in an ArcLight Hollywood filled with cinephiles, entertainment industry folks, etc. -- in short, it's one of 2-3 places in the LA area that the guys/gals who crush film trivia tend to dwell.

The usher gave the usual ArcLight spiel on 'we go to great lengths to give you the optimal picture and sound', but also added a scripted speech to the effect of: "Wes Anderson often changes aspect ratio by design in this film, so please do not complain to us that the projector is messed up when the aspect ratio changes."

I'm so OT it's comical. Apologies.

- A

 

[deleteme]

Re: Canon Developing 8K Cinema EOS Camera, 120mp DSLR & 8K Display

Don't you see a difference between IMAX and normal movies?

I have seen a few IMAX movies in the past and was wowed by the image, however it was impressive because of its enormous size and the strategy of employing stadium seating in such manner that the audience were all much closer than in a typical theater presentation.

I have been looking closely of late to digital projection presentations and have to admit that I can not see a disadvantage. What I do notice is a lack of density and color change when reels changed and the absence of dirt and scratches near the end of a reel.

Films today also expend a lot of PP effort in grading for low saturation darker images, short, rapid cuts that emphasize action and altogether too much handheld camera work to show of any sharpness or lack thereof.
I also note in journals such as American Cinematographer, that there is endless discussion about lens choice with many filmmakers claiming to opt for older lenses because of their softness and lower contrast that helps them emulate film.

In the end I scarcely notice things like sharpness as I notice framing, lighting and editing. Grand Budapest Hotel was a wonderful film to watch just because of its filmmaking excellence. I assume I saw it on a 2K projector but I have no way of knowing for certain as the fact was not advertised at the theater I was visiting whereas my local theater proudly advertises its Christie projectors.
Moreover, if the film sucks, THAT is what I will remember.

 

[Woody]

Re: Canon Developing 8K Cinema EOS Camera, 120mp DSLR & 8K Display

My wife and I go to a lot of movies. I can't recall ever walking out of a theater and thinking: that movie would have been great if it had higher resolution.

Agreed.

I am curious whether there is a need for better technology in digital films.

Consider all the flak that Peter Jackson received for filming The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in 3-D 48 fps (as opposed to the standard 24 fps):

"HD has the unfortunate effect of turning every film into what appears to be a documentary about a film set, not just warts-and-all but carefully supplying extra warts where a wart has no right to be." – The New Yorker

"There are scenes when it causes the images to be crisper and brighter but, especially in instances of high CGI content, it creates a non-cinematic picture. That may be the primary reason why isolated moments feel like video game outtakes." – ReelViews

"Couple that with 3D and the movie looks so hyper-real that you see everything that's fake about it, from painted sets to prosthetic noses. The unpleasant effect is similar to watching a movie on a new HD home-theater monitor, shadows obliterated by blinding light – yikes! – reality TV." – Rolling Stone

"The rest of us will be reminded of high-definition television — better known, in my household, as a reason to avoid viewing films on TV, unless they contain characters named Woody and Buzz." – The New Yorker

"The immediacy of the ­actors is startling, but the background is weirdly foreshortened, the fakeness of the sets and makeup an endless distraction. Staginess does nothing for a ­fantasy-film epic ... the grandeur of the Lord of the Rings trilogy having been replaced by something that resembles tatty summer-stock theater." – David Edelstein, New York

"At 48 frames, the film is more true to life, sometimes feeling so intimate it's like watching live theater. That close-up perspective also brings out the fakery of movies. Sets and props look like phony stage trappings at times, the crystal pictures bleaching away the painterly quality of traditional film." – Associated Press

from http://www.vulture.com/2012/12/critics-on-the-hobbits-high-frame-rate.html#

 

[TeT]

Re: Canon Developing 8K Cinema EOS Camera, 120mp DSLR & 8K Display

Further, non-dedicated IMAX feature films ask for extra money at the theaters but only feature (say) 10-15 minutes of actual IMAX footage throughout the film. Christopher Nolan was fond of sprinkling it into his films, which was weird to watch as you'd go from anamorphic widescreen to something nearly square, but in fairness, he's very clever at hiding some of those transitions.

- A

Literally just watched this video on aspect changes during films.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R26_F7pecqo

THanks for the link, that was a great "informative" clip

 

[Policar]

Re: Canon Developing 8K Cinema EOS Camera, 120mp DSLR & 8K Display

C300 Mk II is specially designed to meet the HDR next-gen specs (15 stops, rec2020, etc.). As well as 4k.

13 stops is fine and on par with everything but the Alexa (and soon C300 Mk II) but doesn't meet HDR spec. And there's no real push for 8k exhibition anywhere.

Odd. Cool, I guess.

 

[jarrodeu]

Re: Canon Developing 8K Cinema EOS Camera, 120mp DSLR & 8K Display

My wife and I go to a lot of movies. I can't recall ever walking out of a theater and thinking: that movie would have been great if it had higher resolution.

Agreed.

I am curious whether there is a need for better technology in digital films.

Consider all the flak that Peter Jackson received for filming The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in 3-D 48 fps (as opposed to the standard 24 fps):

"HD has the unfortunate effect of turning every film into what appears to be a documentary about a film set, not just warts-and-all but carefully supplying extra warts where a wart has no right to be." – The New Yorker

"There are scenes when it causes the images to be crisper and brighter but, especially in instances of high CGI content, it creates a non-cinematic picture. That may be the primary reason why isolated moments feel like video game outtakes." – ReelViews

"Couple that with 3D and the movie looks so hyper-real that you see everything that's fake about it, from painted sets to prosthetic noses. The unpleasant effect is similar to watching a movie on a new HD home-theater monitor, shadows obliterated by blinding light – yikes! – reality TV." – Rolling Stone

"The rest of us will be reminded of high-definition television — better known, in my household, as a reason to avoid viewing films on TV, unless they contain characters named Woody and Buzz." – The New Yorker

"The immediacy of the ­actors is startling, but the background is weirdly foreshortened, the fakeness of the sets and makeup an endless distraction. Staginess does nothing for a ­fantasy-film epic ... the grandeur of the Lord of the Rings trilogy having been replaced by something that resembles tatty summer-stock theater." – David Edelstein, New York

"At 48 frames, the film is more true to life, sometimes feeling so intimate it's like watching live theater. That close-up perspective also brings out the fakery of movies. Sets and props look like phony stage trappings at times, the crystal pictures bleaching away the painterly quality of traditional film." – Associated Press

from http://www.vulture.com/2012/12/critics-on-the-hobbits-high-frame-rate.html#

This is in reference to the higher frame rate which has nothing to do with resolution. Sometimes it is called the soap-opera effect.

Jarrod

 

[jarrodeu]

Re: Canon Developing 8K Cinema EOS Camera, 120mp DSLR & 8K Display

Don't you see a difference between IMAX and normal movies?

Yes the 70mm Imax films where amazing now its all that digital 2k projection bull crap they still call IMAX
35mm 21.95mm x 18.6mm vs IMAX 70mm 70mm x 48.5 That's a big difference but now they shoot with 2k/4k cameras and then display the film with 2k projectors and call it IMAX ya right.

Exactly, some people call it LIE-MAX. It's hard to find true IMAX theatres that show feature films. Considering that real film IMAX has up to 18k resolution, there is a big difference but the new laser projectors should help.

Jarrod

 

[9VIII]

Re: Canon Developing 8K Cinema EOS Camera, 120mp DSLR & 8K Display

I am utterly enthused that anyone is working on an 8K Cinema pipeline.

It's almost disgusting that movies are still published and displayed at 2K resolution in professional movie theaters. My home theater from 2009 still looks better than 90% of the box office theaters out there (and that bulb has been running like a freight train for 6 years now in economy brightness mode).

And 8K is even something that we can use right now.
Everyone knows downsampling is great for their pictures, and the same applies to movies. 4K mastered movies still improve image quality on a 2K display, 8K mastered movies are going to look better than 4K movies on a 4K display. This production pipeline actually has practical value right now.

Just curious, have the projections changed on 4K television penetration? I recall an article from earlier this year claiming that 4K will still not hit 50% in the US for another few years (I believe it was 2020).

I recognize the people making content benefit from / need to stay well ahead of the home consumer, but I was just curious how quickly 4K was becoming the norm in households.

- A

Sorry, I don't follow statistics like that.
But I do know the first Ultra HD Bluray compatible displays are just coming out. I feel sorry for anyone who has already bought a 4K TV. The ability of this industry to coordinate the release of new technology is spectacularly terrible.

 

[9VIII]

Re: Canon Developing 8K Cinema EOS Camera, 120mp DSLR & 8K Display

My wife and I go to a lot of movies. I can't recall ever walking out of a theater and thinking: that movie would have been great if it had higher resolution.

Agreed.

I am curious whether there is a need for better technology in digital films.

Consider all the flak that Peter Jackson received for filming The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in 3-D 48 fps (as opposed to the standard 24 fps):

"HD has the unfortunate effect of turning every film into what appears to be a documentary about a film set, not just warts-and-all but carefully supplying extra warts where a wart has no right to be." – The New Yorker

"There are scenes when it causes the images to be crisper and brighter but, especially in instances of high CGI content, it creates a non-cinematic picture. That may be the primary reason why isolated moments feel like video game outtakes." – ReelViews

"Couple that with 3D and the movie looks so hyper-real that you see everything that's fake about it, from painted sets to prosthetic noses. The unpleasant effect is similar to watching a movie on a new HD home-theater monitor, shadows obliterated by blinding light – yikes! – reality TV." – Rolling Stone

"The rest of us will be reminded of high-definition television — better known, in my household, as a reason to avoid viewing films on TV, unless they contain characters named Woody and Buzz." – The New Yorker

"The immediacy of the ­actors is startling, but the background is weirdly foreshortened, the fakeness of the sets and makeup an endless distraction. Staginess does nothing for a ­fantasy-film epic ... the grandeur of the Lord of the Rings trilogy having been replaced by something that resembles tatty summer-stock theater." – David Edelstein, New York

"At 48 frames, the film is more true to life, sometimes feeling so intimate it's like watching live theater. That close-up perspective also brings out the fakery of movies. Sets and props look like phony stage trappings at times, the crystal pictures bleaching away the painterly quality of traditional film." – Associated Press

from http://www.vulture.com/2012/12/critics-on-the-hobbits-high-frame-rate.html#

This is in reference to the higher frame rate which has nothing to do with resolution. Sometimes it is called the soap-opera effect.

Jarrod

I would like to see the full 120fps 8K standard across all cinema... But I'm a tech junkie as much as anything.

I'm not blind to the fact that 8K won't make a bad movie good, tech demos rarely are, but stuff like Avatar already are glorified tech demonstrations and I'd like to see them be the best they can be.

The best conclusion I've read about how fake movies look as recording standards increase is just that movie production standards need to be raised to adapt. CGI, makeup, everything. And that sounds to me like we're getting better looking movies.
Not that the new standards apply to all genres, but if you are going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars just filling the screen with explosions, I don't see much reason not to display it in the highest quality possible.

 

[expatinasia]

Re: Canon Developing 8K Cinema EOS Camera, 120mp DSLR & 8K Display

Why do people keep talking about what they need?!

All this new tech has nothing to do with what you need, Canon is a business pure and simple.

Don't like phones with 4K displays? Get used to it. Don't think we need cameras with more megapixels? Get used to it.

A lot of new tech, we probably do not need, but we will be getting it (eventually) anyway.

It is very clear which direction tech is moving, and it has to move otherwise we would never buy anything new. Whether we need it, or not.

 

[Tinky]

Re: Canon Developing 8K Cinema EOS Camera, 120mp DSLR & 8K Display

Why do people keep talking about what they need?!

All this new tech has nothing to do with what you need, Canon is a business pure and simple.

Don't like phones with 4K displays? Get used to it. Don't think we need cameras with more megapixels? Get used to it.

A lot of new tech, we probably do not need, but we will be getting it (eventually) anyway.

It is very clear which direction tech is moving, and it has to move otherwise we would never buy anything new. Whether we need it, or not.

I agree almost whole-heartedly.
Sometimes it seems though that a step forward in one way is to the detriment of something else, i.e. jumps in resolution, but slower frames, or higher noise, or aperture limited diffraction...

People should be quite entitled to say that something else would suit their needs better.

In my experience such people tend to be professionals, not hung up on marketing or what the other guy is doing, more concerned about the tools they are using to do their work, and more concerned with the end result and getting paid than anything.

I laugh when I read about the Canon Conspiracy, and why doesn't an SL1 have SDi inputs and Canon disabling their cameras etc. etc. It's all about tools for the job. I don't want a half price half baked C camera. I want a camera that works. I need a camera that works.

What seems to perturb many on here is that Canon aren't wowing the trade shows, but what they are doing is serving the professional markets with the tools they need today.

So I would argue that 'need' does come into it at some level.

 

[expatinasia]

Re: Canon Developing 8K Cinema EOS Camera, 120mp DSLR & 8K Display

I hear you, Tinky.

I mean take USB 3.1 - I only ever download my images from my 1D X through USB.

Would I like USB 3.1, yes. Do I need it? Perhaps once I have enjoyed it, but realistically it is something I would desire.

Thankfully, Canon makes all sorts of camera for all sorts of professions. And like you say, some things are more important to some people, than others.

I think innovation is great, and frankly it made me proud to read about Canon this morning as I know they are looking to the future.

 

[Hector1970]

Re: Canon Developing 8K Cinema EOS Camera, 120mp DSLR & 8K Display

I am utterly enthused that anyone is working on an 8K Cinema pipeline.

It's almost disgusting that movies are still published and displayed at 2K resolution in professional movie theaters. My home theater from 2009 still looks better than 90% of the box office theaters out there (and that bulb has been running like a freight train for 6 years now in economy brightness mode).

And 8K is even something that we can use right now.
Everyone knows downsampling is great for their pictures, and the same applies to movies. 4K mastered movies still improve image quality on a 2K display, 8K mastered movies are going to look better than 4K movies on a 4K display. This production pipeline actually has practical value right now.

I love going to the cinema and I've very good eyesight thankfully.
When I go to the cinema I am happy with the picture quality.
Maybe it could be better but I'm not looking for it. I'd like the average movie to be better and I don't think 8K would make much difference there.
If I walk into a shop with LCD televisions I can't see the great improvement of 4K over a typical LCD television.
It's a sort of diminishing return.
A 120MP camera probably has the same outcome for most people. I personally love high resolution. I'd love to be able to zoom into a picture and see very precise things in the picture in focus. Realistically for an ordinary people I don't think they could detect the difference between 24MP and 120MP.
All these technology companies are in trouble.
They are improving their products but not inventing new ones.
Even Apple I'd say is running out of road. How are they going to convince people in 5 years time to upgrade their phones? They will find it hard to upgrate on the existing.
Canon are facing the sane problem.
In fairness they are trying to innovate.

 

[scyrene]

Re: Canon Developing 8K Cinema EOS Camera, 120mp DSLR & 8K Display

I would like to see the full 120fps 8K standard across all cinema... But I'm a tech junkie as much as anything.

I'm not blind to the fact that 8K won't make a bad movie good, tech demos rarely are, but stuff like Avatar already are glorified tech demonstrations and I'd like to see them be the best they can be.

The best conclusion I've read about how fake movies look as recording standards increase is just that movie production standards need to be raised to adapt. CGI, makeup, everything. And that sounds to me like we're getting better looking movies.
Not that the new standards apply to all genres, but if you are going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars just filling the screen with explosions, I don't see much reason not to display it in the highest quality possible.

I'm just not convinced that more is better, even in that sort of film. It could be. It probably will be sometimes. But I don't know that being bombarded with ever more lavish, high res, lurid imagery makes anything better. Mind you, I don't even watch blockbusters so I'm probably a curmudgeon

 

[Maiaibing]

Re: Canon Developing 8K Cinema EOS Camera, 120mp DSLR & 8K Display

Maybe you mean, "I say this because I cannot ever remember the Canons coming out and saying "We're developing a xxx DSLR" before they've even got a press release out with its name, etc. The 1Ds was a big surprise back in the day and when the Nikons whet FF, that was also a surprise."

Canon's Camera Division Chief has already announced that they are working on an all round successor camera to the 5DIII (in connection with the 5DS/R release).