EOS-1D X Mark III
- Jan 29, 2011
There's 8K (as consumers see it, i.e. 7680x4320) and DCI 8K, which is 8192x4320. DCI 8K, like DCI 4K (which is 4096x2160) is a studio mastering and digital projection format that is used in movie theaters. In the home, it FullHD, UHD, and 8K, each at 1920x1080, 3840x2160, and 7680x4320.
Why would Canon call a 90 million photodiode sensor a 45 million pixel sensor if that was how they were looking at it?What is your question? I didn't see one on the post I responded to.
Probably because to date, all raw processing software (at least that I know of) only sees Bayer arrays, and that would be Canon's default output. Even now, with being able to save dual pixel raw, Canon only uses that info so you can do AF micro adjustments after the fact, not actually generate a file with more resolution from the two sub-pixels.Why would Canon call a 90 million photodiode sensor a 45 million pixel sensor if that was how they were looking at it?
A 21mp quad sensor would have 84 million photodiodes but according to Canon themselves, in it's current format/definition, would still only be a 21mp sensor.
Like I have said across threads now it isn't me that is splitting hairs on the terminology but we are going to have a whole load more threads on this if that is what they are doing.
Personally I never fully appreciated the distinction Canon have made, but they have, so now we might be looking at an interesting time of backpedaling and re-education on the finer points and definitions of pixels vs photodiodes.
You can always limit the number.This is no toy, its primary market is the pro sports/media outlets primarily so I'd expect it to be a reasonably hefty price like the 1dx mkiii was, although $8500 might be a bit out of reach for many in the current climate. In terms of specs it may well increase the MP to 40 but I see no reason why anyone would want or needs more than 20 fps, particularly in media work. I know a few media colleagues who have experimented with using the R5/R6 for sports and whilst they do work well, they struggle with so many frames to scroll through to tag images for editing. Very easy to hold the shutter button down when its completely silent and then realise you've taken 50 pics in a few short bursts. When you're working under time pressures in the field you don't need this. Be interesting to see what eventually appears, but I'd expect many of the increases in MP and FPS to be incremental and not mindblowing.
Quad Bayer array sensors have been available for years.Probably because to date, all raw processing software (at least that I know of) only sees Bayer arrays, and that would be Canon's default output. Even now, with being able to save dual pixel raw, Canon only uses that info so you can do AF micro adjustments after the fact, not actually generate a file with more resolution from the two sub-pixels.
Going to quad pixel AF still allows very easy bayer output, and if done, does allow very easy spatial resolution bumps by not combining the sub pixels, but does significantly bump up the post processing requirements. I suspect part of the reason why canon went to the CR3 file format over the CR2 format is to make it easier to store non-standard pixel arrays. You can save dual pixel raw files in CR2 files (like the 5DIV does), but it basically stores it as two bayer array images in sub-chunks. The CR3 format stores each color discretely in it's own chunk and the raw processor has to then read each color chunk, then combine it into a bayer array, then demosaic it. The CR3 format is a pretty big deviation to how Canon stores its sensor data over the CR2 format.
I also suspect Canon has very good reason to go quad pixel AF because it allows them to have more than 2 output gains. This is how they were able to get the DR increases and noise improvements in recent dual pixel bodies. Each sub-pixel is actually 1 stop different than the other one. The way they store it in CR2 files, again, is less than ideal, as they store the first bayer array as they normally would with both sub pixels combined, and the second bayer array with just the output of the second sub-pixel. With a quad pixel array, they'd have pretty good reason to store each sub-pixel by itself if saving quad-pixel files as it would mean a lot more flexibility when generating a full color image. That, and they could have quad gain structure where each sub pixel had 1 stop more gain than the next, giving a combined 4 stop spread between the sub pixels with which to generate an image from. This would be how they could get to 15.5+ stops (if outputting a ~24MP bayer array where all the sub pixels are combined). They could keep a 12 or 14 bit AD, and have 4 gain outputs. If they stored each sub pixel separately, they don't even have to store 16 bits per pixel, they could still do 12 or 14 bits, then when generating the full color image after the fact in their DPP software, store the full resulting RGB as a 16 bit TIFF file. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it was just a straight 12 bit ADC (for speed), and they just use the multi-gain to get the DR.
This would be an example of talking out of the side of your neck.Without an OVF very few professionals are going to make the investment in multiple bodies and glass.
Canon might want to go after sports that use a gimbal in not so bright light where there is less erratic movement. OVF and EVF hybrid?
Indeed.This would be an example of talking out of the side of your neck.
Quad Pixel sensors have been available for years in phones, the resolution gains so far have proven to be minimal, the true advantages are in noise calculations (that's a turn around from the old days of small pixels are noisy pixels isn't it?) and the ability to digitally 'zoom' particularly for video where pixel numbers are a key factor.At first, this whole 21mp and 85mp makes no sense, but when you start thinking, it kind of does.
Let me explain.
On a normal 20 mp sensor, you have 20 million diodes. each pixel is covered with the bayer pattern which identifies every single pixel as either green, blue or red.
Since canon introduced dual pixel technology, we effectively had 40 million diodes on a "20mp" bayer sensor. That is 2 diodes hiding behind each green, blue or red screen. The 2 diodes have made the dual pixel focusing possible calculating the micro-contrast between each set of 2 diodes for a global "phase difference". Hence the name "dual pixel" because indeed it's 2 pixels effectively behind each bayer piece.
Now, since those dual pixels (diodes) were arranged in such a way that they were twice as tall as they are large, it didn't make sense to read them as separate pixels for purposes of resolving the image. Pixels would have been twice as high as they are large.
View attachment 196136
This would have caused visible "stepping" or aliasing problem. Their only purpose was for focusing. So a 40 million diode sensor was still 20mp since each bayer piece was counted as 1 pixel. In other words, the input information of the 2 diodes were combined into 1 output pixel to keep everything square and proper.
But now, with introduction of quad pixel technology which further improves focusing, we solve the problem we had bafore with only 2 diodes behind each bayer screen. You effectively have 4 diodes (pixels) behind each green, blue or red bayer screen. This is a 2 by 2 square. Each diode being the same size. This means that you have 2 options of how you can read the information. You have a total of 80 million diodes. Either you read them as a 20mp sensor - 4 diodes behind each red, green, blue screen constitute one pixel - or your read each diode (so 80 million of them) as an indivudual pixel and simply modify your debayering algorithms.
Now, these debayering calculations would be way more complex and more taxing on the processor (I think up to 16 times) if you decided to use all 80 million diodes as pixels instead of using only the 20mp resolution, but it's possible. Hence, shooting 20 mp at 30 frames seems reasonable, but 20 frames at 80 mp seems a little sketchy. I think 10 fps at 80pm would be quite the achievement with the processing power involved. Unless they throw 2 current X processors into the R1, who knows how much processing power that actually is... maybe enough for 20 fps at 80mp despite the heavy processing needed.
They don't say the R5 is a 90MP sensor because they don't output 90MP. They output 45. The reason they do that is that with dual pixel, there's little image quality benefit to double the horizontal resolution but interpolate the vertical resolution. I said as much on my last reply to you. Whether you consider it an answer is up to you. You can ask the same question about the Canon C100. It has a 4K sensor, but only outputs full HD, and Canon describes it as an HD video camera, not a 4K camera. Why don't they call it a 4K camera? It doesn't output 4K. Same with dual pixel sensors. It's not that complicated.Quad Bayer array sensors have been available for years.
Of course it makes sense for AF as at a very minimum, depending on how Canon algorithms are written it will vastly improve detect for horizontal and vertical lines regardless of the camera orientation.
But none of your technicalese, that if you had looked at my previous postings on Dual Pixel Sensors would have shown you I already knew, addresses the only question I had. If Canon differentiate between a photodiode and a pixel under their own definition the R5 is a 45mp camera NOT a 90mp camera. Canon state unequivocally it is a 45mp camera with 90million photodiodes. Similarly an 84 million photodiode quad sensor would have 21 million pixels.
The R5 does illustrate the fact that Canon can already process images with 90 million photodiodes 20 times a second so DIGIC capacity for an R1 series should be capable of 84 million photodiodes at 40 times a second without issue.
I'm not confusing anything.
MOST people don't want to spend the cash that recording in 8K requires.
Most people wouldn't know something was rendered from 8K unless you told them and explained what they should look for to tell - ESPECIALLY if they are streaming it via normal means onto a large 4K television. If they even have a 4K television - as of 2018, only around 31 percent households had a 4K HDTV.
Less 1 in 3.
On Amazon - which is a huge streaming service, you're lucky to get 720P clean, much less 1080P. 4K is like a striped unicorn unless you want to watch flowers bloom or a waterfall or one of their original 'woke' productions..
On my 4k TV I don't see a difference between them when played locally, but in a few weeks when there are more bugs around I am going to try recording everything macro in 8k so I can crop to hopefully-more-than 4k.[..]
Record in 8K on the R5, then render it to 4K, then go record in 4K HQ and play them all side by side and tell me that in today's world, with streaming solutions what they are, that it makes any sense at all.[..]
They are only $6,000 if you already own the lenses, batteries, media, cage, monitor, mattebox, NDs, follow focus, proper audio inputs etc. They play the same game as Black Magic when it comes to concealing true cost of ownership.Ok. There you go. I thought they were far more than that. I stand corrected. In that case what is holding the rest back then?
By design the phase pixels (be them dual- or quad-) register the phase information (that is, a shift between H/V half images). The shift is null only if the corresponding part of the image is in focus.With quad pixel AF, they can double both directions, so, IF they were to go that route, I described one possible way they could and extract more resolution at little to no cost. We're talking about a CR0, so how it goes is anybody's guess.
Jesus Christ, Tony Northrup took the bait and spreads this "leaked info" as factual (and I'm afraid he won't be the only one)