Why not higher resolution video?
- Thread starter Tristan944
- Start date
- Status
Well, lets parse through the BS here. The camera was announced almost exactly a year ago at NAB with availability in July. So the wait, at most, has been 9 months for anyone. As they have been very open about, they had issues with the sensor manufacturer that they have gotten taken care of, and they have also been very open any other issues and how they are fixing them. Since it was a Gen 1 camera doing something nobody else really was, that's understandable. If the EOS-M is any indication, making a product perfect the first time isn't as easy as it looks.AG said:
They have also been great about adding new features people ask for. Meanwhile, Canon still won't tell us if they are ever updating certain mistakes on their end, and we have to rely on Magic Lantern to get basic firmware features.
Moreover, they've made it pretty clear they learned from that mistake and are gonna be ready with stock in July for the new cameras. If they fail to deliver, then it'd be fair to criticize them as someone who can't deliver. Especially when Canon and other companies never fail to deliver their stuff on time.
Upvote
0
Pixel binning is a form of resizing, so yes If I took an 18 or 22mp still and resized it to 2 mp, I am pretty sure it would look better and crispier than if I paused a 1080p feed. Maybe I did not explain myself better before.
Upvote
0
There are a couple of reasons why a single frame from 1080p won't look as good as a 2mp still, and I'm pretty sure a lack of resolution doesn't come into it.K-amps said:
First of all, the video will be compressed very differently from a jpeg - its not just lossy compression of areas of the image, but between frames too. Secondly, when set optimally, the shutter speeds will be very different between the two. Typically with moving subjects, in a photo you'll want them free of motion blur - in a video, to avoid that stuttering effect, a slow shutter speed is needed (because of the slow frame rate) to allow motion to flow from one frame to the next.
The two really can't be compared, but if video ever gets to the point that NHK were on about - 120fps, higher shutter speeds on each individual frame will be optimal, further narrowing the difference between video and stills. However, current broadcast TV is 25 or 30 fps, so no optimally recorded 1080p broadcast TV will be able to freeze frame to create a still image as good as an optimally taken 2mp photo.
Upvote
0
rs said:
Thanks for the explanation.
What would be the comparison of a static scene (disregarding motion).
Upvote
0
The major point has been made: the hardware/ software demands of pulling 4K footage of a large sensor are pretty high.
That said, there are a couple other angles:
-- Canon clearly has the technology to do 4K-- e.g. the 1D-C. A high-end stills camera such as the 5D Mark III or the 1D-X could have been bestowed with the same powers (or at least smarter compression and downscaling of the 1080p image)-- but Canon chose not to. Why? Well, from their perspective, the real question is "Why should we?" When the 1D-C came out, it was the cheapest option for real, large-sensor 4K. It was also absolutely unique in its form factor and its ability to record 4K to CF cards. Yes, the Scarlet's out there too, but getting that camera in workable shape isn't cheap. It has some features that outclass the 1D-C (frame rates, RAW workflow), but unless you're making money off of these additional capabilities, the 1D-C offered the lowest TCO when it became available. 4K, from Canon's perspective, is something that enthusiasts want but that only professionals really need. As Sony and potentially Nikon and Panasonic get more aggressive in the stills/motion hybrid space, and as competitors such as Black Magic enter the cinema camera space, Canon might be persuaded to change its strategy. But Canon often looks at market transitions and waits until the last minute to make the change. Sometimes they wait too long (e.g. EOS-M) but their strategy is clearly to wait until a disruption is happening at a large scale, not to usher in the disruption themselves. Canon might still hold off on 4K below $10,000 for a while, given how obstinately the company has resisted 60 fps at 1080p-- but I can see where Canon is coming from when it basically says, "You want 4K? Are you a working media professional? No? Then what's the rush?"
2) The "consumers don't have 4K TVs" argument is a little dodgier. On the one hand, yes, it's true, if no one has the equipment to watch 4K content, then it's silly for Canon users (excluding certain professionals) to clamor for the feature. On the other hand, 4K TVs have become semi-affordable (e.g. you merely need to be well-off now, whereas you would have needed to be a top-1% earner to afford one back in January). Computer monitors and laptop/tablet screens are also pushing the resolution limit-- the 2.5K-ish Retina-level monitors are getting more ubiquitous, and all the chipmakers point out that their next-gen processors can handle 4K on multiple monitors. A lot of these computer resolution upgrades have to do with specialized industries--e.g. a stock trader who uses multiple monitors during work. At sub-50 inch screen sizes, the difference between 4K and 1080p can be hard to detect. Nevertheless, as 4K displays become commoditized over the next few years, the "you're a consumer and don't really need 4K" argument (which Canon has made) could become tougher to sustain.
3) Does anyone remember the alleged "30 fps burst mode" in a recent set of rumored 7D Mark II specs? I wonder if that's something similar to what the Nikon mirrorless cameras can do, and that the Panasonic m43 cameras do at reduced resolution. If the rumor is correct, I assume that AF would be disabled while this is going on, and that some sort of global shutter technology is being employed, which could have a few usability implications. Moreover, you certainly couldn't shoot a 4K feature in one-second increments. But still, if the rumor is correct, it would mean RAW 4K+ video, which, for a camera aimed at sports shooters, is pretty cool. It would also suggest nice things about Digic 6, and what it might be capable of. If the camera can manage 18-24MP bursts at high frame rate, then surely it could manage sustained 4K shooting for longer periods. The technical limitations would no longer be an excuse, so Canon's decision to include or withhold advanced video functions would come down to market positioning.
So, long story short, Canon isn't implementing true HD (let alone 4K) because it doesn't think it needs to yet. The technical challenges are undeniable yet nonetheless conquerable, so Canon's decision has been to milk the new tech in high-margin products, rather than to implement it at scale. It'll change that attitude when it thinks it needs to- and then the question will be, did Canon judge the market's dynamics correctly?
That said, there are a couple other angles:
-- Canon clearly has the technology to do 4K-- e.g. the 1D-C. A high-end stills camera such as the 5D Mark III or the 1D-X could have been bestowed with the same powers (or at least smarter compression and downscaling of the 1080p image)-- but Canon chose not to. Why? Well, from their perspective, the real question is "Why should we?" When the 1D-C came out, it was the cheapest option for real, large-sensor 4K. It was also absolutely unique in its form factor and its ability to record 4K to CF cards. Yes, the Scarlet's out there too, but getting that camera in workable shape isn't cheap. It has some features that outclass the 1D-C (frame rates, RAW workflow), but unless you're making money off of these additional capabilities, the 1D-C offered the lowest TCO when it became available. 4K, from Canon's perspective, is something that enthusiasts want but that only professionals really need. As Sony and potentially Nikon and Panasonic get more aggressive in the stills/motion hybrid space, and as competitors such as Black Magic enter the cinema camera space, Canon might be persuaded to change its strategy. But Canon often looks at market transitions and waits until the last minute to make the change. Sometimes they wait too long (e.g. EOS-M) but their strategy is clearly to wait until a disruption is happening at a large scale, not to usher in the disruption themselves. Canon might still hold off on 4K below $10,000 for a while, given how obstinately the company has resisted 60 fps at 1080p-- but I can see where Canon is coming from when it basically says, "You want 4K? Are you a working media professional? No? Then what's the rush?"
2) The "consumers don't have 4K TVs" argument is a little dodgier. On the one hand, yes, it's true, if no one has the equipment to watch 4K content, then it's silly for Canon users (excluding certain professionals) to clamor for the feature. On the other hand, 4K TVs have become semi-affordable (e.g. you merely need to be well-off now, whereas you would have needed to be a top-1% earner to afford one back in January). Computer monitors and laptop/tablet screens are also pushing the resolution limit-- the 2.5K-ish Retina-level monitors are getting more ubiquitous, and all the chipmakers point out that their next-gen processors can handle 4K on multiple monitors. A lot of these computer resolution upgrades have to do with specialized industries--e.g. a stock trader who uses multiple monitors during work. At sub-50 inch screen sizes, the difference between 4K and 1080p can be hard to detect. Nevertheless, as 4K displays become commoditized over the next few years, the "you're a consumer and don't really need 4K" argument (which Canon has made) could become tougher to sustain.
3) Does anyone remember the alleged "30 fps burst mode" in a recent set of rumored 7D Mark II specs? I wonder if that's something similar to what the Nikon mirrorless cameras can do, and that the Panasonic m43 cameras do at reduced resolution. If the rumor is correct, I assume that AF would be disabled while this is going on, and that some sort of global shutter technology is being employed, which could have a few usability implications. Moreover, you certainly couldn't shoot a 4K feature in one-second increments. But still, if the rumor is correct, it would mean RAW 4K+ video, which, for a camera aimed at sports shooters, is pretty cool. It would also suggest nice things about Digic 6, and what it might be capable of. If the camera can manage 18-24MP bursts at high frame rate, then surely it could manage sustained 4K shooting for longer periods. The technical limitations would no longer be an excuse, so Canon's decision to include or withhold advanced video functions would come down to market positioning.
So, long story short, Canon isn't implementing true HD (let alone 4K) because it doesn't think it needs to yet. The technical challenges are undeniable yet nonetheless conquerable, so Canon's decision has been to milk the new tech in high-margin products, rather than to implement it at scale. It'll change that attitude when it thinks it needs to- and then the question will be, did Canon judge the market's dynamics correctly?
Upvote
0
AG said:
They claim to have solved this issue. The problem was with who was making their sensors. They had plenty of bodies ready to go but without sensors inside them. They're using a different manufacturer this time around, who they say will be able to make enough to support demand.
Upvote
0
Yes, you can compress it to death and be lucky to get anything viewable, if you actually have a 4K TV.Tristan944 said:
Upvote
0
paul13walnut5 said:
If the 1Dx had an option for 1920x1280 I'm sure it would look substantially better (even at the highest JPEG compression level) than a single frame of a static scene on a good, heavy tripod. The reason I say that - 4:2:0 encoding.
I would venture to say a Canon D30 (2160 x 1440) or Nikon D1/D1H (2000 x 1312) using the same tripod placement and lens in Large-JPEG-Normal (or even Small-JPEG-Normal at 1440 x 960 for the D30) would probably meet or exceed the resolution of any modern DSLR shooting 1080p of a static subject in good light (obviously the modern cameras would win hands-down in high ISO situations). The reason I say that is softening and loss of detail caused by 4:2:0 encoding and H.264 compression.
I think if someone has a modern camera and an old D30 laying they should compare them and see if 1080p can stand up to a 13 year-old DSLR. I would be very interested in the results.
Upvote
0
We don't need higher resolution, we just need something other than the Youtube codec. Magic Lantern discovered yesterday that the Canon cameras store in the buffer RAW 14 bit 4:2:2 DNG files until it is converted to H.264, you can see the difference.
Ideally it would be nice to have a compressed RAW DNG file like the one that's found on both the new Black Magic Cinema and Pocket camera, or have the compressed RAW as an option and the H.264 or AVCHD as a second option.
Ideally it would be nice to have a compressed RAW DNG file like the one that's found on both the new Black Magic Cinema and Pocket camera, or have the compressed RAW as an option and the H.264 or AVCHD as a second option.
Upvote
0
crazyrunner33 said:
The 4K-spec tell something about that. Which means that we can get 4K-sized video, but finding a camera that also can meet the 4:4:4 requirement is...troublesome. If you stick w. bayer-pattern sensors you'd need 39.3MP (Wouldn't that be a nice resolution for a 1Dxs? ;D)
Upvote
0
There's plenty of reasons why we haven't got 4K video in (non "C") Canon DSLR's yet.
- They want to keep that as a high-end feature, to keep selling the 1DC at $12000.
- Most people don't need it yet, and very few really want it too badly (keeping in mind most DSLR owners don't even care if their camera has a video mode at all)
- It requires more expensive hardware = lower profit margins or higher cost for the consumer.
- They are primarily still cameras - they are not built from the ground up with 4K video in mind.
- The negative feedback would be a PR disaster - look at GoPro's situation as an example. They've delivered quasi-4K video, 2.7K video, and 120fps video in a consumer device, but have copped all sorts of complaints from people who do not own a fast enough micro-SD cards, or whose computer is too slow to even play back the footage. The same would happen if Canon started delivering 4K video to customers who do not yet understand the demands of 4K video.
- Very few CF cards can handle the demands of 4K video (see previous point).
And, most importantly:
- They are selling more cameras that anybody else is right now. Why change what's already working? When sales drop, they lose sales to a competitor who is offering 4K video in DSLR's, then perhaps they will too.
Personally, I would rather see the video improved so that they offer proper 1920x1080 video (or perhaps even 2K - for that little bit of extra res for slight framing adjustments). The C100 footage is a whole lot sharper, as is the GH2 - especially hacked - and I wish Canon would at least attempt to get their DSLR footage up to this level. It is just frustrating that, aside from the moire-free (albeit softer) video of the mkIII, Canon has done absolutley nothing to actually improve the processing and image quality of their DSLR video performance since the mkII came out all those years ago.
Personally I would love to see proper, clean 1080p at 50/6060 & proper, clean720p at 100/120fps in h.264 format (with increased bitrates to accommodate the extra frames), and an option for 24/25p 2K recorded to a better codec like Cineform RAW or Cinema DNG. That would offer a significant increase in IQ, while still keeping it well within realistic confines of the average persons recording/editing/playback workflow.
- They want to keep that as a high-end feature, to keep selling the 1DC at $12000.
- Most people don't need it yet, and very few really want it too badly (keeping in mind most DSLR owners don't even care if their camera has a video mode at all)
- It requires more expensive hardware = lower profit margins or higher cost for the consumer.
- They are primarily still cameras - they are not built from the ground up with 4K video in mind.
- The negative feedback would be a PR disaster - look at GoPro's situation as an example. They've delivered quasi-4K video, 2.7K video, and 120fps video in a consumer device, but have copped all sorts of complaints from people who do not own a fast enough micro-SD cards, or whose computer is too slow to even play back the footage. The same would happen if Canon started delivering 4K video to customers who do not yet understand the demands of 4K video.
- Very few CF cards can handle the demands of 4K video (see previous point).
And, most importantly:
- They are selling more cameras that anybody else is right now. Why change what's already working? When sales drop, they lose sales to a competitor who is offering 4K video in DSLR's, then perhaps they will too.
Personally, I would rather see the video improved so that they offer proper 1920x1080 video (or perhaps even 2K - for that little bit of extra res for slight framing adjustments). The C100 footage is a whole lot sharper, as is the GH2 - especially hacked - and I wish Canon would at least attempt to get their DSLR footage up to this level. It is just frustrating that, aside from the moire-free (albeit softer) video of the mkIII, Canon has done absolutley nothing to actually improve the processing and image quality of their DSLR video performance since the mkII came out all those years ago.
Personally I would love to see proper, clean 1080p at 50/6060 & proper, clean720p at 100/120fps in h.264 format (with increased bitrates to accommodate the extra frames), and an option for 24/25p 2K recorded to a better codec like Cineform RAW or Cinema DNG. That would offer a significant increase in IQ, while still keeping it well within realistic confines of the average persons recording/editing/playback workflow.
Upvote
0
It's not just the TVs, it's the lack of widely-adopted distribution format. Networks can't broadcast 4k, you can't get 4k via cable or satellite, you can't burn a 4k Blu-Ray disc, etc. For enthusiast-shot 4k material, how would you distribute it to your audience?ITshooter said:
If the viewer has a 4K TV connected to a home media PC, you could hand them a portable hard drive with 4K material and maybe they could play it after updating all their codecs and software. That would be required for *each* viewer of your 4K material.
For professional use there's a better argument for producing in 4k so the material will have longer shelf life, much like filming color TV shows in the mid-1960s when few people had color TV.
Upvote
0
Hmm, I don't think many people participating in this thread to much cinematography. For everyone who has talked about 4K not being broadcast, or 4K TV's not being mainstream, etc. as resons why we don't have it in our everyday and even high end DSLRs...I think you are generally missing the point of high resolution video capture. It really isn't about the way you stream the video to your customers. It's about capturing as much detail as possible initially, for a number of reasons.
For one, 4k video, even 8k video, and 16k video if/when it ever arrives...is usually DOWNSCALED in post processing. Just like taking a high resolution still photo, and scaling it down 2x or 4x, you mitigate problems with the original video. You reduce noise, you improve sharpness, you eliminate artifacts (hot pixels, frame tearing, etc.)
Second, having more pixels to work with gives you more "room" to work with, provided you frame adequately. With 4k video, or even better in the future 8k video...you can frame out a bit, adding a buffer for a variety of post-process corrections. This might be smoothing hand-held panning, stabilizing jittery hand-held video, just plain old simple cropping to cut out something that ended up in the corner or edge of a scene that shouldn't have been there, etc.
In the end, the ultimate goal is still to produce a 1080p final video product...regardless of whether you have 2k, 4k, or 8k RAW video source. In addition to that goal, though, is to have crisper, clearer, less noisy, stabilized, extremely smoothly panning video of unparalleled detail and sharpness...AT 1080p.
To be honest, I am rather certain that little in the way of mainstream broadcast 4k TV content when 4k becomes commonplace mainstream will actually be shot at 4k, even if the camera bins 8, 16, or 32 megapixels to produce it. I suspect that quality 4k programming will ultimately be shot with high end 8k cinematography equipment, for the same reasons we all want 4k video in our DSLRs now.
I think there are two fundamental reasons why we don't have 4k video in our DSLRs: For one, it is kind of a high end, prestegious thing, and it makes sense for companies competing in that arena to protect it. If we are really complaining about a $7000 camera not having 4k, then it isn't too much of a stretch to think someone could pick up a CinEOS that does 4k for $15k...one has to figure if your spending seven grand in the first place, you aren't just fooling around unless you are independently wealthy...so...$7k, $15k...whats the diff?
Second, it DOES take fairly high speed equipment to process 4K video frames at 30fps, let alone at any higher speed. A pair of DIGIC5+ could handle the input, but you would have to REQUIRE high speed writeout as well. That complicates the issue...creates a tech support nightmare for those who don't read manuals and don't understand nor care that the camera wasn't designed to support 4K video with a cheap 200x CF card from five years ago.
One also has to figure continuous high speed processing is going to produce high heat. That has a whole host of implications...the need for better passive cooling or even active cooling of most electronic components. The potential for additional noise to creep in over time at all ISO settings unless the sensor is actively cooled. Conforming to the various regulations around the world regarding battery design, power consumption, even limitations on allowed features in products of certain classes that lead to additional import or export taxes when those limitations are ignored, etc. etc.
I would put "The ability of TV broadcast stations to deliver 4K content" DEAD LAST on my list of reasons why we haven't seen 4k 30fps video in our DSLRs yet!
For one, 4k video, even 8k video, and 16k video if/when it ever arrives...is usually DOWNSCALED in post processing. Just like taking a high resolution still photo, and scaling it down 2x or 4x, you mitigate problems with the original video. You reduce noise, you improve sharpness, you eliminate artifacts (hot pixels, frame tearing, etc.)
Second, having more pixels to work with gives you more "room" to work with, provided you frame adequately. With 4k video, or even better in the future 8k video...you can frame out a bit, adding a buffer for a variety of post-process corrections. This might be smoothing hand-held panning, stabilizing jittery hand-held video, just plain old simple cropping to cut out something that ended up in the corner or edge of a scene that shouldn't have been there, etc.
In the end, the ultimate goal is still to produce a 1080p final video product...regardless of whether you have 2k, 4k, or 8k RAW video source. In addition to that goal, though, is to have crisper, clearer, less noisy, stabilized, extremely smoothly panning video of unparalleled detail and sharpness...AT 1080p.
To be honest, I am rather certain that little in the way of mainstream broadcast 4k TV content when 4k becomes commonplace mainstream will actually be shot at 4k, even if the camera bins 8, 16, or 32 megapixels to produce it. I suspect that quality 4k programming will ultimately be shot with high end 8k cinematography equipment, for the same reasons we all want 4k video in our DSLRs now.
I think there are two fundamental reasons why we don't have 4k video in our DSLRs: For one, it is kind of a high end, prestegious thing, and it makes sense for companies competing in that arena to protect it. If we are really complaining about a $7000 camera not having 4k, then it isn't too much of a stretch to think someone could pick up a CinEOS that does 4k for $15k...one has to figure if your spending seven grand in the first place, you aren't just fooling around unless you are independently wealthy...so...$7k, $15k...whats the diff?
Second, it DOES take fairly high speed equipment to process 4K video frames at 30fps, let alone at any higher speed. A pair of DIGIC5+ could handle the input, but you would have to REQUIRE high speed writeout as well. That complicates the issue...creates a tech support nightmare for those who don't read manuals and don't understand nor care that the camera wasn't designed to support 4K video with a cheap 200x CF card from five years ago.
One also has to figure continuous high speed processing is going to produce high heat. That has a whole host of implications...the need for better passive cooling or even active cooling of most electronic components. The potential for additional noise to creep in over time at all ISO settings unless the sensor is actively cooled. Conforming to the various regulations around the world regarding battery design, power consumption, even limitations on allowed features in products of certain classes that lead to additional import or export taxes when those limitations are ignored, etc. etc.
I would put "The ability of TV broadcast stations to deliver 4K content" DEAD LAST on my list of reasons why we haven't seen 4k 30fps video in our DSLRs yet!
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
