***UNDERSTAND THIS*** ..and you will have less expectations!!

[Ketch Rossi]

you bought it up in this thread, so it becomes relevant.

The fact that your initial thread is based on guesswork and conjecture probably steared the topic in a different direction anyway. The idea that Canon will never release a dedicated cinema camera is pretty narrow minded.

How do you know is based on Guesswork, do you know what I know, to get to your conclusion? Or do you know how a sensor and processor is built in order to support Raw MOTION high speed recording? If you read more carefully you will read that I say it will never release such of what is asked of in their CURRENT models!

 

[Jim Retar]

You are talking about a current configuration.... what does that even mean... a DSLR based camera?

If so, then it is more than possible for them to get a raw feed out of the HDMI and into an external capture device.

You also talk about "it will not happen any time soon".... so that means that you ARE using guesswork and conjecture and ARE NOT talking about current models.

I imagine that 2010 will see the release of a DSLR capable of raw capture (possible via an external device) that records 1080p/24/25/30/60fps

I also think it will be released much the same time as normal people can get their hands on an epic/scarlett. I will probably buy a RED and a new DSLR.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Current means just that, current DSLR design and body structure, with Internal recording to CF media, just like the Scarlet/Epic will be, no external recording device needed for recording Raw data.

I'm currently using a Canon 1D III and a P1 MF camera, but will not wish to keep them once the Scarlet/Epic comes out, if I have one camera system that does all for me, will make no sense to continue to carry different camera systems, and this is an other reason which make RED more attractive to me.

Each will have their needs and choices, this is mine.

 

[David Rasberry]

You are talking about a current configuration.... what does that even mean... a DSLR based camera?

If so, then it is more than possible for them to get a raw feed out of the HDMI and into an external capture device.

You also talk about "it will not happen any time soon".... so that means that you ARE using guesswork and conjecture and ARE NOT talking about current models.

I imagine that 2010 will see the release of a DSLR capable of raw capture (possible via an external device) that records 1080p/24/25/30/60fps

I also think it will be released much the same time as normal people can get their hands on an epic/scarlett. I will probably buy a RED and a new DSLR.

RAW by definition is reading actual sensor data pixel for pixel unprocessed. Any 1080p output is going to be scaled and processed. To read it RAW would mean cropping the sensor to 1920x1080 size, about 1/4 of the full frame.
Canon at this point has not demonstrated a sensor and associated A to D circuitry that can record RAW faster than 8fps for a 3 second burst, hardly full motion. Noone including RED has yet demonstrated full motion raw off of an FF35 22+ megapixel sensor. In Canon's case you would be talking about a jump from a 35megabit per second H.264 data rate to almost 800+megabyte per second data rate uncompressed. As Ketch says, it isn't going to happen.

 

[Jim Retar]

It depends how picky you want to be with technical terms... if i shoot an 11mpx image in S-raw, even though it is down scaled... I still consider it a RAW image, as I can change all the settings that make RAW the great thing it is.

If the 1080p stream is being downscaled, not skipping lines or pixel, is bypassing any compression and outing a nice 4:4:2 stream that something like a nanoflash can grab... then to me, it is a "raw capable" camera.

Ketch-- how do you work out that the RED doesn't need an external recording device? ... surely the whole point of Scralett/Epic is that it is made of components.... one of which will be a choice of external recording components (with the possible exception of the fixed lens scarlett).

 

[Ketch Rossi]

External devise is referred to as a device to which you record by use of a cable connecting such device to the main body of the capturing Camera, instead of recording Images to a on board CF recording media module and or included CF module as is in the DSLR.

What I really talking about from post one, is not just how you capture the image, Raw (which is not really Raw, not even in RED, is R3D, a Raw codec) as recording True Raw takes absurd amount of Data transfer capable media such as is with the Viper Filmstream, any way, as I was saying is not to the fact that you can capture Raw, which also in Canon is not Raw, not truly is CR2, their Codec version of Raw, when capturing high image burst such as I do with the 1D III, you can only go up to 3 second bursts on Raw CR2 and 11 seconds on JPEG, I can use external devices to control and extend various sensor and processor limitations, but we are talking very few gains here, so when I say it will not happen is because I know it can't, I have researched and talked to head researchers in various companies, and know what I'm talking about, unless off course this guys were telling me crap, and they to had no idea what they were talking about.

We could go on and on, but there is no point, you just can't make a guy on a Bicycle go faster then a guy driving a Ferrari full speed, unless off course you put TWO rockets on the Bicycle, but then you have issues of safety, the Bicycle possibly melting from Heat generated by the Huge burning of the Rocket fuel, and don't forget to account for the trust of which the guy in the Bicycle hast to account for in order to stay put in his bicycle.

Very different off course but in practice very many similar yet diverse situations and issues would be encountered when trying to make a current DSLR do what the guys at RED are making the Scarlet and Epic do, that simple, well not really that simple, but I hope I give a bear idea about it, also taking in consideration that I know nothing about technically engineering a camera.

 

[Jim Retar]

like I said, it depends on how specific you want to use technical terms like raw, external etc.

My own view is that Canon will launch a DSLR capable of capturing a 1080p/24/25/30/60fps, uncompressed stream (via external unit) that has no aliasing, artifacts, jello etc in 2010 at a similar, if not better price range than a kitted out scarlett.

Would that put me off buying a Scarlett, no. Would I also buy the Canon, yes.

 

[Eddy Robinson]

I don't buy technology to make money, I buy it I use it and when something that does better for my work comes along I sale it.

(scratches head a bit)
If it's work, you're getting paid for it, no? If it's not paid work, just art for art's sake, then you're a lucky person - but ultimately it's your decision to buy the 'latest', even though this is a very expensive strategy where technology is concerned. It's kinda like buying computers...in fact, these days buying a new camera is buying a computer, just one specialized for one task of image acquisition.

Really, I only see one major difference between what Canon is doing and the upcoming DSMC line from RED. With Canon (or Nikon or...fill in the blank) you buy a body, the lens is interchangeable, the storage media can come from third parties, there are third party battery and power accessories, shutter release etc.

The main difference is that each 'brain' also has the i/o built into it, so the HDMI, USB etc. is fixed, you can't upgrade to a breakout box that will give you uncompressed SDI or something, or take out the 5Dii sensor and substitute a 1Div sensor, you must trade the whole camera body. Like you, I prefer the RED model, but at the same time I recognize that it's quite expensive.

Later today I will be reading the update from Jim and probably making some big financial decisions over the weekend about owning a Scarlet, along with many other people. For me, it's all about the fixed-lens Scarlet or the 2/3" cinema model, depending on exactly what lens mounts are available and the price. I have to control my spending. There's no direct upgrade form the fixed-lens version, and even upgrading from the 2/3" cinema probably means buying or renting new lenses as well. that's perfectly OK, at the bottom of the price range you trade flexibility for affordability.

As pointed out on a OTHER thread not on this one, my rant in THE OTHER thread was abut how much value the 1Ds III had lost after the announcement of the 5D II.

:confused1: Well, if you bring it up again, people will reply...and yes, I had read the whole thread but since you restated this opinion here I wanted to respond to it here.

Anyway, it would be nice if Canon offered trade-ins on older cameras the way RED is doing on the RED One -> Epic. But as described above, even the DSMC line has to make some economic compromises to meet the needs of different customers. I don't know what will happen to all those traded-in RED Ones; maybe they will be melted down like the terminator :violent5: or maybe they will be refurbished and sold as 'Original RED' for $10,000 each (and if so, some people will complain about that).

I really don't think that there is any point in classifying manufacturers into better and worse. They employ different strategies, and (at least until now) the business model for Canon and Nikon has been to provide a complete camera in one box that you can shoot with as soon as you put in the battery and storage media, whether film or CF card. That's why a camera like the 7d includes the option of a kit lens at a competitive price - not the best glass in the world, but many people just want something reasonably good so they can shoot straight away.

On the other hand, the really pro cameras like the 1Div don't even come with a kit lens option because (almost) nobody buys a camera of that price without having strong opinions about the glass which should go in front. And pro photographers who buy that will also considering spending a lot on accessories - more lenses, special filters, etc., which can easily add up to more than the cost of the camera. Same with a RED one, you can quickly drop $5000 on 'extras', or buy a prime lens set that doubles the price of the package. The modular design and flexibility is part of the cost. Camera geeks like us enjoy this flexibility, but other people would complain that it's an evil business strategy designed to make the customer pay more and more money, and demand to know why there wasn't a more economical solution with everything integrated.

You can make this comparison with anything...shoot video on a Sony EX-something, then people want to stick a 35mm adapter on the front. Spent $40,000 on a fully-formed Epic system and then some jerk comes along with something he shot on a Flip Mino that got 2 million views on YouTube and wins a prize at Sundance (this will surely happen sooner or later). Who makes more money, the people at Pixar who make the world's most fantastic animation with power full stories and amazing technological skill, or the people who make 26 episodes of South Park every year, which has almost the worst animation and really silly scripts?

Some people wonder why we go crazy over this RED system, for the same price as the camera body you could buy an Aaton LTR and shoot a feature already. In fact, right now there is an auction on eBay for an Arriflex 35 with mags, a sachtler tripod, a Cooke zoom lens, and a video tap for $8000, and nobody has bid with only a few hours to go. :emote_22_yikes:

 

[David Rasberry]

Any 1080p output from a Canon DSLR is by definition highly compressed, from 22mp to 2mp resolution if they read every pixel, which they don't at present. I am sure they will improve, but at this point their 1080p output only resolves about 450 lines clean. They have a ways to go to even get to the resolution and freedom from artifacts of one of their own 1/3" prosumer camcorders.

 

[Jim Retar]

Again.... it depends on how picky you want to be about technicality....

To me, going from a 21mpx image to a full 1080p output via HDMI is absolutely not compressing the signal, it would be a downscaled, uncompressed output. (which may well be possible on the latest model, we don't know just yet).

 

[David Rasberry]

Again.... it depends on how picky you want to be about technicality....

To me, going from a 21mpx image to a full 1080p output via HDMI is absolutely not compressing the signal, it would be a downscaled, uncompressed output. (which may well be possible on the latest model, we don't know just yet).

Latest model 1D4 has the same Digic4 processors and H.264 compressed Mpeg as the 7D. The DSLR's are not capable of housing the processing power necessary to do any kind of high quality frame for frame video codec with full scaling. Too much power required and too much heat generated. They already overheat shooting motion for longer clips.

 

[Jim Retar]

So, you know for sure that the HDMI out is after that video processing?

If the HDMI is ahead of the video processing in the chain, then it is more than possible to grab the signal before it gets near the h264 codec. Much like people are doing with some camcorders and the blackmagic capture card.

 

[David Rasberry]

HDMI output off of any camera is already encoded to some video standard, otherwise there would be no picture on the monitor. Might be better than the H.264, up to now its the same as the on camera LCD video.

 

[David Rasberry]

HDMI output off of any camera is already encoded to some video standard, otherwise there would be no picture on the monitor. Might be better than the H.264, up to now its the same as the on camera live view LCD video and is no good for recording.