Tzedekh

I'm hoping Panasonic releases a 4K camera with improved dynamic range. I'd also like to see raw support and higher bit depths (10- or 12-bit). And for Pete's sake, please have 4K up front at below $10K, instead of the Sony promise of an upgrade that will, between the firmware update and the recorder, probably double the cost.

One minor correction: the AVC-Intra segment of the AVC-Ultra family of codecs supports up to [i]12[/i]-bit 4:4:4 in 4K.

I can envision Blackmagic Design announcing a Hyperdeck Shuttle 4K for less than $1,000. The difference would be a 3G-SDI connector rather than an HD-SDI. SSD speeds already seem sufficient for 4K. Now, if there were only a good codec.

Has it been ascertained whether HDMI and SDI are greater than 8-bit?

[quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=494.msg3233#msg3233 date=1333117364] [quote author=Tzedekh link=topic=494.msg3230#msg3230 date=1333115715] If the FS700 records 4K but only at 8-bit, that would be really stupid. [/quote] I'm all for this opinion, but you must say why and not just say that it is stupid... [/quote] It matters in color grading. I can't see so drastically improving resolution and letting color stagnate. Even Panasonic has seen the light with AVC-Ultra longG. If there were no need -- and no one can do anything with it -- why develop it?

If the FS700 records 4K but only at 8-bit, that would be really stupid.

[quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=477.msg3079#msg3079 date=1332875524] 8 bit is fine. Most people's displays are 8 bit. The C300 is 8 bit and that is $16,000! So you can hardly blame Sony for not putting it in a $5000 camera. [/quote] Panasonic plasmas aren't 8-bit, although Blu-ray still is. Sony put 8-bit in the FS100 in part not to cannibalize F3 sales. The F3, which is priced comparably to the C300, could always do 10-bit out -- it's only recently that Sony has decided to throw in the 4:4:4 S-log upgrade for free.

Scarlet was never billed as 4K for $4K. It was 3K for under $3K. Regarding the FS100, it's already about a year old. It's 8-bit and lacks built-in ND filters and HD-SDI. I certainly hope that any manufacturer would be aiming higher with a $5-6K camera in 2012. And I hope that all of them start thinking about 4K (or at least QuadHD) in that price range. Geez, if JVC can do it, so can Sony.

Joe, is there any way to add HDMI out for the purpose of color monitoring on a higher-res LCD-based EVF (e.g., Zacuto, Cineroid)? How about an SSD (other than the internal one) for recording?

[quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=372.msg2344#msg2344 date=1331206890] What trick would you say the GH2 has up her sleeve to get the video resolution it does from a 18MP native chip? What is the next step up from 3x3 binning? My guess is that the GH2's processor is reading out a 4MP or even 8MP 4K image from the sensor and downscaling intelligently to 2MP on the image processor itself. I cannot think of any other way it would be better than so many cameras that do binning on the sensor like the NEX 7, 5D Mark III, Nikon D800, etc.[/quote] If the GH2 could read out 8 MP -- in effect, QuadHD (3,840 x 2,160) -- and then downscale on the fly to 1080p, wouldn't it be able to skip the downscale and output QuadHD directly? The JVC HMQ10 can do 4K2K at 60p at a data rate of 144 Mbps, well within the rate the Driftwood hack proved possible. That 144 Mbps comprises four 36-Mbps streams, which is roughly the midpoint of Panasonic's AVC-Ultra LongG range (25-50 Mbps) for 10-bit 4:2:2. Multiply that by 4 to get QuadHD and you get 100-200 Mbps. So, if properly encoded, 144 Mbps should theoretically be enough to handle 3,840 x 1,920 at 10 bits and 4:2:2.

I'm impressed. I hope that the improvements in the T4i are comparably impressive, with a high-data-rate I-frame-only profile. I wish Canon had added 60p so that the Magic Lantern folks could get 48 and 50 fps for their 24p/50p HDR magic, assuming the 5Dmk3 and T4i are even hackable.

I hope Sony isn't myopic enough to trot out another maximally 1080p camcorder. I think QuadHD "4K" capable at 10 to 12 bits and 4:2:2 would be good (heck, the FS100 supposedly can do 4:4:4, but only at 8 bits). I don't care about the form factor so much, as long as it can be kitted out for whatever configuration you need. With technology developing as quickly as it is, I think a sub-$4K price is reasonable. And I am interested in log profiles, since they tend to improve dynamic range (which, at this point should minimally be in the 12- to 14-stop range).

[quote author=Liszon link=topic=221.msg1555#msg1555 date=1327688658] Hot, indeed. I dont think that Canon will put this into a DSLR this year (it would almost completely kill the C300) but this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship! [/quote] I wouldn't be at all surprised if Canon updated the C300 to support 4K and higher bit rates as well as raw. They may have released it as a 1080p, 8-bit camera to get it out the door while they developed these improvements rather than waiting a year to release a large-sensor video camera.

HDMI 1.4 supports QuadHD, but only up to 30p, not 60p, so you would still need multiple connections. And, as far as I know, HD-SDI -- even 3G-SDI -- doesn't support 4K (or QuadHD) with one connection, either. There are rumors that HDMI 1.5 will be announced later this year and will support 4K up to 60p, but devices with HDMI 1.5 probably wouldn't show up until next year. Then there's the codec, and 8-bit, 4:2:0, 144-Mbps H.264 won't cut it. And if this camera supports the same color depth as the HMQ10's, it'll be only 8-bit, even over HD-SDI (remember, the Panasonic AF100's HD-SDI port is only 8-bit).

This is virtually the same camera as the prototype shown at the 2011 CES and rumored to be projected to sell for about $2K ("[url=http://www.eoshd.com/content/498/meet-the-prosumer-camcorder-which-is-4k-for-2k][u]Meet the prosumer camcorder which is 4K for $2K[/u][/url]"). At that price it would have been a no-brainer.

"This is in April and with Canon showing off a 4K DSLR it is unlikely other companies (most notably Sony) will let Canon have all the 4K limelight to themselves." So, what about the other cameras with 4K video? You don't mention any specifically. I suspect that the manufacturers are up to their typical tiered, incremental BS again. There's probably no reason they couldn't do a consumer-priced, 4K, global-shutter camera -- except then they couldn't milk the technology or gouge consumers.

[quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=59.msg677#msg677 date=1323561466] Global shutter does reduce high ISO noise performance and dynamic range . . . [/quote] Not necessarily. If the global-shutter circuitry can be implemented on the back side of the sensor, it needn't reduce the photosite size (and therefore the light-gathering capability) of the sensor.