DIGIC V [CR1]

[Canon Rumors]

<strong>New Processors</strong>

Over at <a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_rumours.html">NL</a> they received information that DIGIC V would show up in 2011. The 1Ds replacement would utilize the new processor. As you can expect, better image quality, movie quality and throughput should be expected.</p>
<p><strong>More DIGIC V</strong>

I was told a little while ago that there would be 2 versions of DIGIC V. It wasn’t explained as to what the different versions would be. I file this under really big grain of salt.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong>

 

[planetMitch]

Well, it makes some good sense to me... if we want some new features (like full HDMI out or RAW video) then it would seem to me that a new processor might be required to make those things happen.

 

[Stuart]

The rest of the electronics industry is releasing new processors, and ideas like fulltime AF, global shutter, in camera processing/ filtering/ HDR etc are all going to need more processing power to its bound to come - but March only canon knows?
Also Camera's will in time need Wifi/3g to upload photo's direct to social networking sites and the like.

 

[bvukich]

The rest of the electronics industry is releasing new processors, and ideas like fulltime AF, global shutter, in camera processing/ filtering/ HDR etc are all going to need more processing power to its bound to come - but March only canon knows?
Also Camera's will in time need Wifi/3g to upload photo's direct to social networking sites and the like.

Who do I have to blow to get built in GPS? Discrete GPS chips are under $5 in quantity these days, there is no good reason not to.

 

[spam]

I was told a little while ago that there would be 2 versions of DIGIC V. It wasn’t explained as to what the different versions would be. I file this under really big grain of salt.

Of course there will be more than one version, there are always more than one version. Canon use the same name on the high end dSLR processor as the cheapest digicam. They obviously have somewhat different needs when it comes to power requirements, thruput requirements etc.

I'm no hardware expert, but I'd assume that they have a common core set of functions supporting typical image processing functions, but a 1D-series camera obviously need the best noise reduction, best JPG-generation etc and that will take a faster processor able to use better algorithms than an Ixus. Anyway, Canon really need to add CA-removal and that applies to all levels.

 

[Ivar]

Interesting and so general that absolutely no doubt: better IQ, more power for data processing, better movie.

I'm pretty sure that the same Digic 5 is designed also having the 1D MK5 in mind, no way the resources are wasted. This should also give a hint about the potential MP count for the 1D MK5 (assuming 10fps is retained).

 

[max]

why not a digic V and a digic Vx2 like a dual digic V but in one chip...??

 

[Edwin Herdman]

Canon's lineup is diverse enough that a one-size-fits-all Digic V doesn't seem to make sense. Actually I've long been suspicious of the "Digic" label suggesting that in fact all camera Digic chips are the same (there is a variant for semipro and professional camcorders which I think is not part of the discussion, as I don't see canon's DSLR video replacing the functions and specific rationale of camcorders and their processors, though the new DIGICs for still cameras are getting pretty decent in the video area).

If it has actually been the case that there is indeed just a single DIGIC part used for multiple product lines (with perhaps different clock rates dependent on the model of camera) you can likely chalk it up to the costs of custom microprocessor production, or perhaps to ease of designing the models (differentiating by physical features independent of the CPU, like AF points, form factor, and software features changed relatively inexpensively in software - going to avoid opening the AF microadjustment debate again).

But if they have a very powerful 30MP+ camera coming out (and I think it's safe to assume they are at least planning for it in their successor to the Digic IV), trying to create a two-processor system that is still efficient makes less sense than creating a powerful enough single CPU in the first place. With two chips, you don't get the full advantage of the VSLI method - fewer components on the board, resulting in less costs in various steps of production (part production and board assembly, i.e. two CPUs with a given area vs. one chip that will have at least slightly less area than the two combined because of duplicated functions), space saved, and probably lower energy use as well. Right now it seems very wasteful to have two identical chips trading processing tasks (in the 7D, for instance) for burst rates when at least a portion of those chips are redundant - and considering that you now have the added problems of multiprocessor design, not the least splitting memory and the data bus between those processors, a single-chip alternative looks much better. I imagine power management would be slightly simplified too (depends on whether the DIGIC IV is in a ready state soon enough to catch the second frame of a burst for processing from a dormant, unpowered state, but in any case the best desktop CPUs have gotten pretty sophisticated about power usage, and even ~10 year old chips by obscure manufacturers had some power throttling capabilities).

Of course, it remains to be seen if the new CPUs will be fully unlocked on lower-end models - well, that depends on where they put the line for multiple CPUs, but they may still make enough money to justify not using the whole potential of a chip. Plus, there are probably other areas where they would save money on cheap cameras that would legitimately cripple the performance of a DIGIC, like a slower data bus, less memory in the buffer, etc. I'm assuming that compacts have used Digics, and this would suggest that the "little brother" DIGIC would go into cheaper cameras with lower throughput. Or perhaps compacts can stick to Digic IV a little while longer. Lots of questions, no clear answers (it is a rumor, after all).

 

[x-vision]

Good analysis, Edwin.

Canon indeed has a separate Digic for video, which is different from the one for stills.
Going forward, though, it makes sense to merge these two separate Digic lines into a single line.
At the sensor/ electronics level, the boundary between video and stills has all but disappeared.

OTOH, different cameras have different price/performance requirements, so it does make sense to have multiple versions of the Digic as well – each tailored for its intended application.

Don’t know. This is all speculation.

One interesting coincidence (?) that I cannot help noticing is that a 50mp sensor with 5 fps frame rate will require a Digic processor with ~250 mp/s throughput, which is (about) the same throughput required for 4K video at 30 fps.

And at Canon EXPO this year, Canon had prototypes of both a 4K video camera and a 50mp stills camera.
Note that this throughput is also good for 30mp stills at 8 fps.

 

[scalesusa]

Good analysis, Edwin.

Canon indeed has a separate Digic for video, which is different from the one for stills.
Going forward, though, it makes sense to merge these two separate Digic lines into a single line.
At the sensor/ electronics level, the boundary between video and stills has all but disappeared.

OTOH, different cameras have different price/performance requirements, so it does make sense to have multiple versions of the Digic as well – each tailored for its intended application.

Don’t know. This is all speculation.

One interesting coincidence (?) that I cannot help noticing is that a 50mp sensor with 5 fps frame rate will require a Digic processor with ~250 mp/s throughput, which is (about) the same throughput required for 4K video at 30 fps.

And at Canon EXPO this year, Canon had prototypes of both a 4K video camera and a 50mp stills camera.
Note that this throughput is also good for 30mp stills at 8 fps.

Where did you confirm this??

When Canon announced Digic IV in 2008, it included video capability. While it did not preclude minor differences for different cameras, the intent was to make them the same.

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20080922/158348/

 

[Edwin Herdman]

If you're asking him about the split between video and stills DIGIC, he was referring to (and I was as well) the DIGIC DV, which is up to at least version III now. Speaking of which - Canon Europe points to (V)LSI here as "the unfair advantage" of Canon over some other makers of video equipment.

If you're asking about those throughput numbers I don't know, but it doesn't seem too strange to me. The only thing I would caution is that both stills and video have some processing requirements (even for RAW if you turn on an auto lighting optimizer I'd bet) so you may not reach those theoretical throughput numbers...but I bet you end up in the same ballpark. Impossible for me to guess which would be the "faster" application; I'm sure Canon does its best to optimize each application.

Looking forward, I think we all agree that the new stills DIGIC line may end up being useful for camcorder applications, which would likely help their bottom line for the reasons I mentioned before.

 

[x-vision]

Looking forward, I think we all agree that the new stills DIGIC line may end up being useful for camcorder applications, which would likely help their bottom line for the reasons I mentioned before.

That's my thinking too.

Nothing has been confirmed yet. These are just educated guesses based on the latest info and rumors.

 

[timblundell]

What I am really wondering is if the new DIGIC processor will mark a noticeable improvement in image quality. Increasingly I feel Canon is trying to sell us camcorders not photo cameras. The sensor in the new Nikon D7000 (and Pentax K5) has demonstrated much cleaner shadows and thus probably optimized signal path for readout. Not to mention banding certainly seems to be a problem affecting Canon cameras more than other manufacturers, which tells me Canon has optimized readout for speed, not image quality.
While this is my first post here, I am NOT trying to stir up trouble, simply trying to figure out what lies ahead for Canon given I would like to invest more in lenses IF they are serious about improving image quality and not just more pixels.