Canon announces development of 8K Cinema EOS camera and 120MP DSLR

[TheRenaissanceMan]

Media will certainly converge, but purpose-built devices will always outperform swiss army knives.

[Emanuel]

Codecs will have to follow that, as well; as same as for example, H.265 is a fair improvement of the predecessor. And not forget it is a delivery tool, no more no less.

Specialized tools always existed and ruled when we have the need of them. Except when they are not needed... : D That said, I hope HFR will never win the race. But, I guess high pixel density will. a7RII is the ultimate proof of it. No surprise so many people bash it. It happened the same with RED. Anyone here has memory of the reaction on the specialized forums? People hated it when started to see newcomers to take place. Today, 4K is norm at prosumer level acquisition. Funny, to say the least. HFR will never be, though! : P

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

I was under the impression the lens was just a mock-up existent CN-E with a 4K badge but it's actually a true existent Canon 8K s35 Cine lens with servo capability (notice the connection cable), actually the body might not be a mock-up too, perhaps it is a C300II shaped like the C500 was. 

[Orangenz]

Thought I'd better mention that I've started some development work on faster then light travel. Will keep you updated every few years. Gonna be great. 

[Xavier Plagaro Mussard]

Behind the pixel wars I think there is Sandisk and Western Digital!!! ;-DD

[Emanuel]

Don't you see sports? Market is avid for breaking boundaries, more than settle them. Manufacturers need to make numbers. Numbers appeal. Otherwise, the guiness book would be history. Future is their game.

[tupp]

Convergence includes form factor, sarcasm is acceptable too ; )

Hybrid concept will rule at any try of a more conservative scope anyway.

Certainly, the scope of the convergence of form factor and hybrid concepts will synergistically target future-proof users and compellingly empower technically sound bandwidth to optimize superior functionalized systems and streamline value-added catalysts for heightened verticals.

[Emanuel]

Certainly, the scope of the convergence of form factor and hybrid concepts will synergistically target future-proof users and compellingly empower technically sound bandwidth to optimize superior functionalized systems and streamline value-added catalysts for heightened verticals.

LOL Good one, man :-**

 

PS:

In any case, that post above-mentioned was written after hours, let's not forget it : D 

[Emanuel]

 

Now seriously:

Context is key. There's one everywhere any time. My post follows the rule.

The question is there's no "my argument overcomes yours". Both are worthy and able to bring some light to the discussion. Irrelevant the weight of each, irrelevant to quantify it.

[Emanuel]

 

Tomorrow and Friday, there will be Canon Expo... so let's be tuned, even though I believe the essential has already been told by them.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?340096-New-camera-announcements-from-Canon&p=1986574911&viewfull=1#post1986574911

(another thread on topic out there where I and Ebrahim, we've also participated)

[tugela]

Diffraction's going to be the biggest issue. The 5DS already shows diffraction losses at f/8, so not only will you be pushing your lenses to their limit, but you'll also be shooting them at apertures no smaller than f/2-2.8. 

We're reaching the point of diminishing returns. SD to HD was a quantum leap in quality. HD to 4K was small but noticeable--more useful for post than anything. Most theaters still use 2K projectors, and almost all films are only mastered in 2K. Most DPs even consider 4K too much resolution to shoot people without using diffusion to offset the harshness. The Epic Dragon with its 6K resolution was crazy. Luckily, RED was smart enough to use a bit of diffusion in the filter stack and digital pipeline, so we still had enough detail to downsample or crop down for a nice crisp 4K delivery. They also touted it as a way to shoot world-class video and still simultaneously, but it hasn't really worked that way in practice due to the lack of flash support and the fact that good video and sharp stills require completely different shutter speeds. Besides, 4K was more than enough for magazine covers as it was. 

I don't see the point of 8K. To me, the resolution race is over. We have far, far more than we need. I can see one or two 8K cameras for special cases/effects; they'll be for resolution what the Phantom Flex is for slo-mo. But to act like this will be anything like the leap from SD to HD is asinine, because there's only so much detail the human eye can resolve. And guess what? We've already reached that point! At 8-12 feet (the average distance a viewer sits from their TV), the difference between 1080p and 4K is so insignificant that you're basically guessing as to which is which. Contrast ratio, motion rendering, and color gamut/accuracy will make a far bigger difference. In the theater, you're limited by the display resolution, ambient conditions, and how well the projector is maintained. My theater has all 4K projectors, but half of them have a misaligned color panel. Even if it's only off by a couple pixels, there goes your resolution advantage right there.

So if home viewers can't resolve it and most theaters won't benefit, what is the value of higher-than-4K resolution? You have bigger file sizes, more cost in post, a more limited selection of suitable lenses, and a boost to your ego. What's the point? 

Manufacturers need to work on color, ease of use, workflow, heat management, bit depth/tonality, and compression. Resolution is at the bottom of the list. The Alexa's already proven it.

Guess you don't have a 4K set. The difference between 4K and HD is pretty clear on my 65" screen. HD is not good enough. End of story.

[TheRenaissanceMan]

Guess you don't have a 4K set. The difference between 4K and HD is pretty clear on my 65" screen. HD is not good enough. End of story.

I sold TVs for two years, and conducted several tests with co-workers and customers. With a 55" screen, only 58% or so could tell which was which. 

Most consumers watch Youtube at reduced resolution to improve load times. Netflix still streams 99% of its content in 720p. More than half the customers I've dealt with still buy DVDs. Cable companies still provide mostly SD and 720p content. There's no 4K disk format available yet. We're years away from widespread gigabit internet, so streaming 4K is still a chore (hell, Netflix/Amazon Prime 1080p already shows compression problems).

Now if you're watching a larger TV fairly close, 4K makes more sense. It makes sense for larger computer monitors. It also makes sense for projectors, although my 1080p DLP resolves just fine (sitting 9 feet from my 120" screen). 

Believe me, this is not driven by bottom-level consumers. 4K sets are driven by marketing machines. 

The 1080p OLED display in our store has been mistaken for 4K by almost every customer I've ever dealt with. Why? Great color depth, perfect black levels, great motion rendering, and 178 degree viewing angles. Unless you buy top of the line, which most consumers can't or won't do, LCDs still suffer from motion blur (best case scenario you're resolving 400 lines during moving shots), poor blacks, blooming (on sets with poor local dimming), limited color gamut, flashlighting, cloudy blacks, and poor viewing angles. If I had a choice between a 1080p OLED panel or a 4K LCD, I'd choose 1080p every time. 

Like I said: 4K is nice, but it's way at the bottom of the priorities list.

[Emanuel]

Most consumers watch Youtube at reduced resolution to improve load times. Netflix still streams 99% of its content in 720p. More than half the customers I've dealt with still buy DVDs. Cable companies still provide mostly SD and 720p content. There's no 4K disk format available yet. We're years away from widespread gigabit internet, so streaming 4K is still a chore (hell, Netflix/Amazon Prime 1080p already shows compression problems).

C'mon, this is not valid to begin with. One thing is you, me, we claim for better IQ whatever resolution is. The other thing is to claim because whoever has no dollars to throw around or consume, that product or technology has no place. More or less, the point of this argument.

Reminds me the philosophy behind communism. Go to deep East Europe (Ukraine for example) and you'll see what this still means for the grandchildren of those people who tried a similar idea on their path.

[TheRenaissanceMan]

C'mon, this is not valid to begin with. One thing is you, me, we claim for better IQ whatever resolution is. The other thing is to claim because whoever has no dollars to throw around or consume, that product or technology has no place. More or less, the point of this argument.

Reminds me the philosophy behind communism. Go to deep East Europe (Ukraine for example) and you'll see what this still means for the grandchildren of those people who tried a similar idea on their path.

I'm not advocating for no growth. I'm advocating for growth in a direction other than resolution, because those areas are already more lacking than resolution is and matter more to overall IQ. 

[tugela]

I sold TVs for two years, and conducted several tests with co-workers and customers. With a 55" screen, only 58% or so could tell which was which. 
Most consumers watch Youtube at reduced resolution to improve load times. Netflix still streams 99% of its content in 720p. More than half the customers I've dealt with still buy DVDs. Cable companies still provide mostly SD and 720p content. There's no 4K disk format available yet. We're years away from widespread gigabit internet, so streaming 4K is still a chore (hell, Netflix/Amazon Prime 1080p already shows compression problems).

Now if you're watching a larger TV fairly close, 4K makes more sense. It makes sense for larger computer monitors. It also makes sense for projectors, although my 1080p DLP resolves just fine (sitting 9 feet from my 120" screen). 

Believe me, this is not driven by bottom-level consumers. 4K sets are driven by marketing machines. 

The 1080p OLED display in our store has been mistaken for 4K by almost every customer I've ever dealt with. Why? Great color depth, perfect black levels, great motion rendering, and 178 degree viewing angles. Unless you buy top of the line, which most consumers can't or won't do, LCDs still suffer from motion blur (best case scenario you're resolving 400 lines during moving shots), poor blacks, blooming (on sets with poor local dimming), limited color gamut, flashlighting, cloudy blacks, and poor viewing angles. If I had a choice between a 1080p OLED panel or a 4K LCD, I'd choose 1080p every time. 

Like I said: 4K is nice, but it's way at the bottom of the priorities list.

You are missing the part where I said that I have a 65" 4K screen and can see the difference. HD is inadequate, it is pretty damned obvious if you look at the thing.

As for what people are watching, that is irrelevant and not an argument for opposing improved video. The main reasons they buy DVDs and watch SD content are (A) they don't know any better, and (B) that is what people like you have decided they want and what they will get.

How is the field supposed to move forward when the people generating content are taking such a backward looking attitude?

 

[TheRenaissanceMan]

You are missing the part where I said that I have a 65" 4K screen and can see the difference. HD is inadequate, it is pretty damned obvious if you look at the thing.

As for what people are watching, that is irrelevant and not an argument for opposing improved video. The main reasons they buy DVDs and watch SD content are (A) they don't know any better, and (B) that is what people like you have decided they want and what they will get.

How is the field supposed to move forward when the people generating content are taking such a backward looking attitude?

 

Hey, woah, no need to get aggressive. It's just a difference of opinion.

I stare at 1080p and 4K screens for hours and hours every day. I'm not sure what content you're watching--4K downloads, Blurays, Cable, streaming, etc--but at normal viewing distances, it's a small upgrade. http://i.i.cbsi.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2013/01/27/resolution_chart.jp 

Viewers' perception of "sharpness" is actually more based on contrast and color differentiation. Our brains use the shadow areas to see depth, so deep blacks make the image pop and the detail stand out. The reason a lot of current 4K sets look better to consumers is because they're packed with all the manufacturer's best tricks (local dimming, good processing, great color accuracy/saturation, etc), not just because of the extra pixels. As more and more low-end 4K sets are released, I think people will start to realize that it isn't the holy grail these marketing departments have led them to believe. 

The kind of content people own and appreciate is absolutely relevant and a reason to oppose 4K for 4K's sake.  The reason people buy DVDs instead of Blurays--because I tell them to buy Blurays and ask why they're not--is generally because "I can't see the difference," "it's more expensive," or "I don't have a Bluray player." It's nothing to do with salespeople telling them to stick with DVD. What kind of sense does it make for a salesperson to push customers to buy the less expensive option? 

I'm not "looking backward" or trying to impede progress or something. I just think compression, color, dynamic range/contrast ratio, viewing angles, refresh rates, and larger screen sizes are bigger upgrades than resolution. (When it comes to TVs, that is. Projectors and computer monitors are a different story.) Avatar was shot in 1080p, and I don't remember anyone complaining. Ditto for all the Marvel films, Drive, and the myriad other Alexa films that were shot with the specific reason of forgoing 4K for more important factors. 

Finally: I don't know how closely you read my above post, but I actually advocated for 4K as the most we'll ever need. I actually don't begrudge people their 4K screens. I think it's a small upgrade, but it's an upgrade nonetheless. It's resolutions above that I think are unnecessary...at least for traditional video. VR? Now that's a whole different bag of possums. 

[Mattias Burling]

(A) they don't know any better, and (B) that is what people like you have decided they want and what they will get.

C) they don't see the difference (I don't believe for a second that you could on a youtube stream since no one else can).

D) they don't care (forum nerds like us are a minority).

E) There is no 4k content, 720p is still king or not yet implemented. 

F) TVs are expensive and there is nothing wrong with their current set.

G) There is more to life than TV resolution. For the absolute majority of the population, resolution is probably at the very bottom of the priority list. 

Viewers' perception of "sharpness" is actually more based on contrast and color differentiation.

This. 

In an interview I heard recently with the head of tech at our largest network he was very clear.

"We don't talk about 4K at all. The difference would be so small compared to the investment. We focus on bitrate and color depth. Because that's going to look much sharper and clearer."

[tupp]

"We don't talk about 4K at all. The difference would be so small compared to the investment. We focus on bitrate and color depth. Because that's going to look much sharper and clearer."

While I am solidly in the greater DR and bit depth camp (I'd rather shoot with an Alexa or a Sony F35 than a Red Epic or Canon's 8K), it is important to play the "devil's advocate" at this juncture in the thread and remind all that color depth actually consists of part bit depth and part resolution.  So, the higher the resolution, the greater the color depth.

 

In fact, you could have a system with a bit depth of "1" and, with enough resolution (and ignoring banding in capture), have the same degree of color depth as a 12-bit, 444 system.

 

The formula for color depth in digital, RGB imaging systems is:

Color Depth = (Bit Depth x Resolution)3

[kaylee]

In fact, you could have a system with a bit depth of "1" and, with enough resolution (and ignoring banding in capture), have the same degree of color depth as a 12-bit, 444 system.

 

The formula for color depth in digital, RGB imaging systems is:

Color Depth = (Bit Depth x Resolution)3

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

A friend sent this to me (saying it's from a Convergent Design source not Canon, so not 100% legit)

http://i.imgur.com/R1lFpxA.jpg

It does look legit, the 8K yellow badge (same as development picture) ''Body is identical to C300II but it records externally using an intermediate module then to Four Odyssey 7Q+ 4K recorders (Four 4096×2016 signals making up DCI 8K) up to 60p''

-Makes sense, nothing records 8K now so 4 4K recorders is logical (and hideously impractical for anything other than I-MAX type features, which is probably what it's meant for. Perhaps a single 8K recorder could be built soon too so it would work like a C500.