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

[gunship01]

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

They are "developing" a 120MP camera.

WHEN will this see the light of day? I'll be 100 years old in 2060 so I am not thinking I have a great deal of time to work with this camera which will cost $568,554.00 (with free shipping I'm sure).

 

[TeT]

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

They are "developing" a 120MP camera.

WHEN will this see the light of day? I'll be 100 years old in 2060 so I am not thinking I have a great deal of time to work with this camera which will cost $568,554.00 (with free shipping I'm sure).

Let's see at 568K, whats another $47 for shipping. I think you will probably have to pay the shipping...

 

[moreorless]

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

You could say I spose that Canon are quite well setup for a 120 MP camera with there tilt/shift lenses(seems likely we'll get 45mm and 90mm updates as well) as tilt would as with view camera become a big issue when looking to maximise that kind of resolution, shooting at F/8 for example is already taking a bit of the edge off of 36-50 MP via diffraction.

 

[Ozarker]

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

They are "developing" a 120MP camera.

WHEN will this see the light of day? I'll be 100 years old in 2060 so I am not thinking I have a great deal of time to work with this camera which will cost $568,554.00 (with free shipping I'm sure).

Maybe they'll give us a discount and an attending nurse at release time if we pre-order today? ;D

 

[RGF]

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

They are "developing" a 120MP camera.

WHEN will this see the light of day? I'll be 100 years old in 2060 so I am not thinking I have a great deal of time to work with this camera which will cost $568,554.00 (with free shipping I'm sure).

I suspect that the 120MP camera is a specialized camera for bragging rights. Sort like the 1200-1700 (is this correct range) zoom lens. No bought it but Canon had bragging rights!

 

[Respinder]

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

three-dimensional texture, feel and presence of subjects, making them appear as if they are really before one’s eyes

Could this possibly be the announcement of the legendary Canon EOS 3D?

 

[Jack Douglas]

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

I read CR for the humour!

Jack

 

[romanr74]

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.

thank you for the avatar example. to me this is the biggest crap ever produced but people flocked to cinemas and were impressed with the 3d effect. that is betrayal on the consumer. i'd rather watch good old disney pocahontas.

 

[syder]

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.

Basically no. We're used to watching film at 24 fps with the motion blur that you get from that, whereas we're used to watching 50/60 fps (interlaced) tv and 60+ fps video games, which give a very different type of motion. HFR cinema has a closer frame rate to video games and cheap looking video than film which is why most people thought it looked cheap and bad. The way that motion and blur are rendered has nowt to do with spatial resolution.

 

[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.

Basically no. We're used to watching film at 24 fps with the motion blur that you get from that, whereas we're used to watching 50/60 fps (interlaced) tv and 60+ fps video games, which give a very different type of motion. HFR cinema has a closer frame rate to video games and cheap looking video than film which is why most people thought it looked cheap and bad. The way that motion and blur are rendered has nowt to do with spatial resolution.

"Too much detail" was the primary complaint against increased framerate. "It looks funny" is a matter of conditioning, people are conditioned to watch 24fps and as soon as you replace that audience with one that is conditioned differently the problems vanish.
Except that the studio still has to increase production standards because the image is objectively clearer.
Higher resolution revealing more defects is the same problems as increased framerate right now. The solutions are the same. Standards have to go up.

 

[tvexecutive]

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

Canon can't get an 18MP 1DX to work right and we're here talking about 120MP???? INSANITY!!!!

Featuring a resolution of approximately 120 effective megapixels, the SLR camera now being developed will incorporate a Canon-developed high-pixel-density CMOS sensor within the current EOS-series platform, which will realize compatibility with the Company’s diverse interchangeable EF lens lineup.3 The high-resolution images that the camera will be capable of producing will recreate the three-dimensional texture, feel and presence of subjects, making them appear as if they are really before one’s eyes. The camera will facilitate a level of resolution that is more than sufficient for enlarged poster-sized printout while also enabling images to be cropped and trimmed without sacrificing image resolution and clarity.

source: http://www.canon.com/news/2015/sep08e2.html

 

[privatebydesign]

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

Canon can't get an 18MP 1DX to work right and we're here talking about 120MP???? INSANITY!!!!

Featuring a resolution of approximately 120 effective megapixels, the SLR camera now being developed will incorporate a Canon-developed high-pixel-density CMOS sensor within the current EOS-series platform, which will realize compatibility with the Company’s diverse interchangeable EF lens lineup.3 The high-resolution images that the camera will be capable of producing will recreate the three-dimensional texture, feel and presence of subjects, making them appear as if they are really before one’s eyes. The camera will facilitate a level of resolution that is more than sufficient for enlarged poster-sized printout while also enabling images to be cropped and trimmed without sacrificing image resolution and clarity.

source: http://www.canon.com/news/2015/sep08e2.html

I think, judging from your hyperbolic posts so far it is you that is more likely the problem, not your Canon gear. There are many people doing work like you with Canon gear and they are quite happy, wonder why?

 

[scyrene]

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

Canon can't get an 18MP 1DX to work right and we're here talking about 120MP???? INSANITY!!!!

Featuring a resolution of approximately 120 effective megapixels, the SLR camera now being developed will incorporate a Canon-developed high-pixel-density CMOS sensor within the current EOS-series platform, which will realize compatibility with the Company’s diverse interchangeable EF lens lineup.3 The high-resolution images that the camera will be capable of producing will recreate the three-dimensional texture, feel and presence of subjects, making them appear as if they are really before one’s eyes. The camera will facilitate a level of resolution that is more than sufficient for enlarged poster-sized printout while also enabling images to be cropped and trimmed without sacrificing image resolution and clarity.

source: http://www.canon.com/news/2015/sep08e2.html

What's wrong with the 1Dx?

 

[meywd]

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

Canon can't get an 18MP 1DX to work right and we're here talking about 120MP???? INSANITY!!!!

Featuring a resolution of approximately 120 effective megapixels, the SLR camera now being developed will incorporate a Canon-developed high-pixel-density CMOS sensor within the current EOS-series platform, which will realize compatibility with the Company’s diverse interchangeable EF lens lineup.3 The high-resolution images that the camera will be capable of producing will recreate the three-dimensional texture, feel and presence of subjects, making them appear as if they are really before one’s eyes. The camera will facilitate a level of resolution that is more than sufficient for enlarged poster-sized printout while also enabling images to be cropped and trimmed without sacrificing image resolution and clarity.

source: http://www.canon.com/news/2015/sep08e2.html

I think, judging from your hyperbolic posts so far it is you that is more likely the problem, not your Canon gear. There are many people doing work like you with Canon gear and they are quite happy, wonder why?

He is correct, with the amount of photos this forum has, coming from the crappy 1D X and the crappier lower end cameras like the 5D III, you would wonder how anyone is still shooting with a Canon camera, especially those at major sports events, or those doing BIF, I am sure this photo sucks because my camera is too crappy to shoot at low light