Big New Canon Rumor - RAW Recording Module for 5D2 & 7D?

[Eric Lange]

I’m with Graeme on this one. At best it would have a frame rate of 10fps. When you look at large industrial sensors with parallel architecture their RAW frame rates are dismal. Only a highly integrated hw/sw serious compression scheme can produce the frame rates that RED delivers. High res raw at high frame rate requires major architecture imho. For our applications we have been searching for a globally shuttered, high res, raw, high frame rate system (for a long time now), right now it simply does not exist, and one that’s under $200K probably won’t exist for another decade, if at all. If some one knows different pleeeeease let me know!

Cheers in Advance,

Eric

 

[M Most]

On top of rumours. But as soon as you start to go down this route, data rates, data pathways, memory bandwidth etc. all become massive issues. They're not insolvable, but neither are they trivial nor cheap to solve. That is indeed why video cameras have lagged behind digital stills cameras in resolution for so long.

While what you say is certainly true, I think Tom's point is very valid. Red solved these issues. What makes you think nobody else can - especially a company with the resources of a Canon?

BTW, Tom: I just agreed with you wholeheartedly. A possible first! :hurray:

 

[Stuart English]

Canon / RAW

Canon / RAW

With respect, it's not a question of arguing about whether Canon (or Sony or RED) have the technical chops to do something.

Its a simply a caution not to assume frequently repeated rumors are true, and to reality check against the underlying math.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Not saying they can't be solved. The key word in my statement is the word "cheap" which implies that solving this issues is much more of a cost issue (in all meanings - cost to develop, cost in terms of battery life, cost in terms of $$$ price to the end user, cost in size, cost in heat etc.) than a technological issue, not minimizing the technological challenges.

Graeme

 

[Daniel Browning]

With respect, it's not a question of arguing about whether Canon (or Sony or RED) have the technical chops to do something.

Its a simply a caution not to assume frequently repeated rumors are true, and to reality check against the underlying math.

BOOOORING! Watering down rumor threads with fact takes away all the fun. You need to fight fire with fire.

My source at RED just gave me an update. Okay, well the source is urging caution on this rumor. He says it's not possible to verify yet. So this should obviously be taken with a grain of salt.

....Now he's saying that the RED Scarlet FF35 might be able to record 6K REDCODE with anti-gravity that will attach via the "hotshoe mount," and that the antigravity recorder "will cost more than the camera itself."

Instead of carrying a heavy camera around, the camera will carry YOU around!

I'm not sure whether this is meant to work with existing RED ONE, or future EPIC cameras.

Obviously 6K anti-gravity from RED would be huge, though.

Maybe it's some new type of connection?

 

[Tom Lowe]

Lol, well, a couple people on this thread asked me to look into it, so I'm just passing the info along, grains of salt included. :001_tongue:

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Grains of salt are fun Tom

Graeme

 

[M Most]

Not saying they can't be solved. The key word in my statement is the word "cheap" which implies that solving this issues is much more of a cost issue (in all meanings - cost to develop, cost in terms of battery life, cost in terms of $$$ price to the end user, cost in size, cost in heat etc.) than a technological issue, not minimizing the technological challenges.

I think you make an excellent point here. My view is that for a company the size of Canon (or Sony, for that matter) to undertake any development task for a new product, they likely need to be convinced that the sales volume will make development worth the cost. For Red, 6000 units is a rather high volume, higher than was likely expected for what many felt would be a niche product. But for Canon - who ship 5000 5D MkII's per **week** - that's a drop in the bucket. So regardless of the current audience for their products, I would think that for them to do a more directed digital cinema product they would need to see a much larger audience than the one Red has tapped into. That's not to say they won't, but I think that it's unlikely that such a product would appear in the current DSLR form factor and price range. But I've been wrong many times before, and could easily be again.

 

[Bill Anderson]

Yup, Canon has been very nonchalant about this H.264 tacked
onto Stills cameras. Almost as if failing to recognize or care about
the convergence of the two acquisition modes- they certainly seem
to care less than the third parties that are "testing and comparing"
and providing the anecdotal rhetoric for their products.
Seems like Canon is looking at motion capture and stills
as separate fields with the odd potential for a novel sort of overlap.
Keeping Stills separate from Motion Capture, then H264 makes plenty
of sense to most stills shooters- as far as "video" and post is concerned.
It's not like photographers are suddenly going to have an epiphany that
opens up the complex world of big screen moviemaking, but as the
very well populated world of stills guys come to grips with the potential
of RAW motion capture for their work, then Canon might lose its laid-back demeanor.

 

[M Most]

Yup, Canon has been very nonchalant about this H.264 tacked onto Stills cameras... Almost as if failing to recognize or care about the convergence of the two acquisition modes..
It's not like photographers are suddenly going to have an epiphany that
opens up the complex world of big screen moviemaking...

A little review might be in order. The video mode was added to the 5D MkII for one reason and one reason only - because the Associated Press asked if it were possible, to allow their photojournalists to not have to carry two cameras and to allow convenient capture of video clips when warranted. It was not designed as a motion picture camera, it was certainly never intended for "big screen moviemaking." That came about because people saw it, liked certain things about it (interchangeable lenses, large sensor capture/low light capability/shallow depth of field, all for about 3 grand with a midrange zoom) and started using it for things it was never intended for. I think it's probably naive to think that Canon didn't learn anything from this rather wide acceptance of the product for unintended usage. And it's likely unrealistic to think that their response to that knowledge over the next year or so will be what it has been to this point.

 

[Bill Anderson]

A little review might be in order. The video mode was added to the 5D MkII for one reason and one reason only - because the Associated Press asked if it were possible, to allow their photojournalists to not have to carry two cameras and to allow convenient capture of video clips when warranted. It was not designed as a motion picture camera, it was certainly never intended for "big screen moviemaking." That came about because people saw it, liked certain things about it (interchangeable lenses, large sensor capture/low light capability/shallow depth of field, all for about 3 grand with a midrange zoom) and started using it for things it was never intended for. I think it's probably naive to think that Canon didn't learn anything from this rather wide acceptance of the product for unintended usage. And it's likely unrealistic to think that their response to that knowledge over the next year or so will be what it has been to this point.

I'm aware of the reasons behind the h264 implementation, Most.
It hardly matters what the reasons- other than to illustrate
Canon's initial indifference towards motion capture.
I didn't say, or even imply it was intended for "big screen
moviemaking"- quite the opposite. But now that it's on the
shelves, and Canon is, by their own admission "surprised"
at the response, this hardly makes one feel confident that
Canon's immediate game plan included competing with,
let alone innovating with the best in cinema style acquisition-
as per "rumors" suggest.
Not foreseeing the potential until the Associated Press
stirred Canon out of its slumber hardly gives me confidence
in their immediate plans. Again, given Canon's recent admission of "surprise",
I don't think they are particularly well placed, mentally or otherwise,
to make much noise in the critically near future.
Sure they'll get round to it, but for this forum's demands/hopes,
it seems unlikely that it's more than a committee back-burner
issue at the moment. No skin of my nose, either way.

 

[Miguel "Macgregor" De Olaso]

Interestingly, there is a rumor that Canon will make an announcement on Sept. 29 for a major new product. This is the translation of the announcement they have posted at canonrumors.com:

“Mark the calendar

During this fall, Canon will make one of its largest and most important launches in the company’s history and we hope you can attend. During a luncheon, you are invited to listen to CEO Jouko Tuouminen, Marketing president Monica Forsberg and trend analyst Magnus Lindkvist, talking about tomorrows trends and factors of success in the continually more digitalized everyday life.

Date: September 29
Time: 11 am- 1pm

An invitation including more information will come soon.”

http://www.canonrumors.com/page/3/

Assuming this is not a hoax, could this be some sort of sRAW adapter/recorder for video-capable DSLR’s?

BTW, Sandisk has just released some new CF cards (16GB, 32GB and 64GB) with read/write speeds of up to 90MB/s. Tying into what someone else said above, in a raid configuration, this would be more than enough for sRAW.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09091402sandisk.asp

what was the announcement finally?

 

[M Most]

Not foreseeing the potential until the Associated Press
stirred Canon out of its slumber hardly gives me confidence
in their immediate plans. Again, given Canon's recent admission of "surprise",
I don't think they are particularly well placed, mentally or otherwise,
to make much noise in the critically near future.
Sure they'll get round to it, but for this forum's demands/hopes,
it seems unlikely that it's more than a committee back-burner
issue at the moment. No skin of my nose, either way.

Well, since they're shipping thousands of these units every week - for whatever use their customers are using them for - I would hardly call it a "slumber." Canon's DSLR products are, well, DSLR's. AKA, digital still cameras. And they're very successful as digital still cameras. If a small part of their user base (besides the AP photojournalists) wants to use them for, well, something else, I don't see why their failure to cater to that rather small group constitutes being asleep at the wheel. Digital cinema is a specialty business and will in all likelihood remain so. That's why a smaller company like Red can cater to it and do well, even though they've only shipped about 6000 units worldwide.

People seem to be overlooking the fact that Canon has been a major player in the video world for quite some time. They ship an awful lot of lenses, particularly box lenses used in both studio and sports work, and they have also been a major player in handheld consumer and prosumer video for a number of years. The people who populate RedUser are not typical of the average consumer and represent at best a rather small group. That's why it likely is, as you say, a committee back burner issue for Canon, which has a lot of other fish to fry. I don't think they're ignoring it completely, and the fact is that there are an awful lot of people out there using the 5D and 7D for exactly the things that people here on RedUser say they can't be used for.

 

[Tom Lowe]

The fact is that Canon was completely asleep at the wheel regarding the potential market for large-sensor prosumer cine cameras using their still lenses. Either that, or they had some kind of business interest in remaining asleep.

Their entire video department management strategic planning team should probably be fired, IMO. Sure, they have had some success with their little HDV cameras, but that's nothing compared to what they could have done. There have been people on message boards for years and years screaming at the tops of their lungs that we need APS-C and FF35 sensor prosumer cine cameras. Hell, Canon could have sat down and had a chat with any of the prominent members of this message board here and laid out a vision for 5 years worth of new products, free of charge. The lack of vision in Canon's video dept is staggering.

Mac, the "announcement" turned out to be a printer, or some kind of "Secure document" system... hahahaa.

 

[Anson Fogel]

Dollars and the age old 80/20 rule

Dollars and the age old 80/20 rule

A simple reminder - doing something very well costs generally a lot more than doing something well, which costs a lot more than doing something functional. Ergo: Canon certainly CAN produce a device that approaches DSMC/R1 in overall quality. But its not going to do so a lot cheaper - and economies of scale arguments are not viable unless you talk about something that really does technically get close to R1 or EPIC - which don't sell in the qty's Canon handles typically.

In the flood of 5d/7d posts, thoughts, rumors and noise, it seems that this paradigm is ignored. Red products are expensive, and Red's customers are willing to pay the premium for quality that they want or need given their end product demand. Canon's VDSLR's are wonderful tools at the price, as are Red's, at a very different price for a different result. Graeme's point is as usual precise and clear - Canon has the ability, no question, but you can't get something for nothing. Doing high-end digital motion imaging is not binary - there are degrees, and the additional degrees come with additional dollars. Doing it at the level red does, or any other manufacturer at a similar technical level, is not something that can be done for 1/10 the price. Period.

Its often suggested - more outside Reduser than within, but certainly here as well - that Canon HAS done that. 80% of the quality for 10% of the price is a rational argument, many argue irrational values outside that. Maybe. But the important part is not whether or not, or to what degree they did that. The important part is the last 20% of quality - the right side of the curve.

We care about that 20% gap, and are generally willing to pay the extra 80% to get it. Or we would not be on Reduser or shooting red.

I shoot red a lot, and use a 5dmk2 for POV and some low light stuff when needed. I'd love a raw option for better post control. But I don't expect that suddenly that's going to change the paradigm, and rival red in any material way. It simply can't, the math, and the dollars, don't work.

 

[Bill Anderson]

Exactly, Tom. It doesn't take a genius to understand that
Canon "failed", or chose to ignore/play down the potential
in this area- in spite of their other successes.
I'm sure we all know just how well Canon is doing and
what they are capable of- it is this very knowledge that makes
their current position difficult to fathom. I can understand when
it's not a part of their game plan, but it seems it was, they just
hadn't fully recognized the potential of it.
And, guys, keep in mind, this is only a fairly light hearted
grain of salt speculation based chewing of the fat.
(couldn't fit any more metaphors in that one).
Someone recently posted "speculation equaled masturbation";
I'm not so sure about that, since speculation often ends in disappointment ( :

 

[Bill Anderson]

Anson, I agree, but I don't think we're expecting other
capable manufacturers to do this on the cheap.
And this is, I suppose where MMost and myself agree:
It might not be worth it in Canon's eyes. At least the "film"
quality acquisition end of it- but I can't see how the obvious
convergence of (RAW) motion capture for stills photographers
can be ignored. This might be exactly where Jim moves RED
from niche to universal.

 

[Karl Gustav H.]

what was the announcement finally?

Photocopiers with Adobe document security built in.

 

[M Most]

The fact is that Canon was completely asleep at the wheel regarding the potential market for large-sensor prosumer cine cameras using their still lenses. Either that, or they had some kind of business interest in remaining asleep.

Their entire video department management strategic planning team should probably be fired, IMO. Sure, they have had some success with their little HDV cameras, but that's nothing compared to what they could have done. There have been people on message boards for years and years screaming at the tops of their lungs that we need APS-C and FF35 sensor prosumer cine cameras.

I think that Canon's response might be something like "show me the money." And they'd have a point. I think your estimation of exactly how many unit sales they could have (you haven't really mentioned numbers, but for a company like Canon, anything under 40,000 or so is probably not enough) from such a camera is exceedingly optimistic and skewed by your own personal interest. But time will tell.

 

[Tom Lowe]

If Canon built a 3K APS-C RAW with (1080p RGB option) prosumer cine camera that could shoot at least 60fps and take Canon lenses under $10K, they would sell tens of thousands of them. They would sell like hotcakes.

It is absolutely baffling to me that Canon cannot seem to understand the cravings the market has for such a camera. To me, it's as clear as a sunny day. Crystal clear, and has been for about 4 or 5 years.

In fact, if you go back and look through my posts here and at DVXuser, I have literally been promoting those exact same specs for over 3 years now.