tugela

For RAW essentially the camera has to create a zip file in real time on the fly. How well does your desktop handle that task, to put it into perspective? It will require a significant amount of processing to do that. If it were simply writing the data to storage then little processing would be required, likewise if it was discarding a lot of data during the compression to speed things up. But to keep all of the data while still compressing, that requires processor muscle to do in real time. The code to implement higher bit rates/depths already exists, so it would already be there if it were that simple. The absence of those codecs means that the hardware encoder inside the new chip is not set up to enable it.

The RAW data is compressed, and that takes processing power. It is not just read to the card.

Because your receiver is digital, and it doesn't matter what comes in, what goes out is all digital anyway? I grew up before there were such things as CDs, and there is no way vinyl sounds better than modern digital sound. Unless of course you like all the media imperfections that were never intended to be in the sound track to start with.

If the hardware doesn't support it, it doesn't matter how fast the processor is. Digic DV6 processors may be optimized differently than the DV5, to maximize thermal performance when doing hardware encoding. That would make sense since the DV6 is the sibling of the Digic 8, and that presumably will need a thermally optimized encoder to enable 4K in consumer cameras so that Canon can compete in those markets. The processing power of the DV6 outside of hardware encoding may be necessary to handle the compression of the RAW feed, and that could explain why the C200 uses DV6s instead of DV5s. There is no reasonable logical reason for not including the sorts of codecs already present in the C300II and XC10/15 otherwise. It has to be a hardware compromise. And that compromise may be leaving the middle codecs out of the equation so that the processor can deliver the best of both ends in a variety of product models, not just the C200.

The first video is private. Looking at the second video on my laptop, the resolution looks good, but they did a terrible job grading it, the green looks too yellow. Not the fault of the camera, but a user error. That seems weird, unless the hardware is just not set up for that. If that is the case then no firmware can change it. It may be something to do with the new processor, with perhaps the hardware encoder optimized for the Digic 8 variant so they can enable 4K footage in consumer models of their products. It has to be because of the different processors used and the hardware encoding options available in each.

Probably means that Canon are exiting the camera business!!

By having a job that pays a decent salary.

Vinyl is not better. Digital recordings are far more accurate than any analog recording and don't have any of the artifacts associated with less than perfect pressings, scratches and dust. People like to say that vinyl is better basically because it makes them feel more refined than the common people who listen to digital. It is the same as those folk who drool over the rare expensive wines mostly because they are rare, not because of intrinsic quality over less rare wines. There is an irony here, most of those vinyl recordings people drool over were mastered in digital in the first place, lol. The best quality playback is live. Go support actual artists.

That is not the point. When watching a movie you are watching the content. But, having better IQ means that the experience overall will be better. It is like getting married. No doubt you love your wife (or husband, as the case may be) and you have all eyes for her. But, if she looked like a supermodel, it would be better. You are not going to be SAYING that at your wedding, however that doesn't mean that some things might not improve the overall experience. Yes, but I don't want 35mm film resolution, I want eye resolution. To be truly immersive it has to be as real as possible. That is the ultimate goal. That means clean edges, no pixels, NO grain, no softness (I don't have cataracts, so why the must my camera have them?) and 20 stops of DR (or whatever the human eye is capable of). We have a very long way to go.

You do realize that the footage is 1080p right? It might have been shot on a 8K camera, but that is 8K before debeyering. The YouTube clip however is not 8K. It is not even 4K, it is 2K. And it shows on a 4K screen. Existing consumer cameras that oversample already shoot at around 6K, so this "terrible future" you are so afraid of is already here.

Just saying what it is man. Sorry if you don't like it. The paradigm that a lot of people seem to have here is based on viewing devices from a decade ago. Things have moved on, and what was "good enough" back then is not good enough now. And going forward into the future as viewing devices become even larger and even higher resolution, that decade old paradigm is going to become even less competitive. At the very least you need oversampled 1080p footage to be acceptable, and 720p par-sampled RAW is not there, no matter how much you try to tweak it.

it is ~720p before debeyering, so it is still going to be soft compared to modern hybrid cameras. There is not much you can do about that. Good for the average laptop or cell phone using YouTube, but falling short compared to an oversampled 4K camera when it comes to displaying on a big 4K TV screen.

Bloom has shot footage with a Barbie doll and still did a decent job with it. If someone is creative they can shoot pretty much with anything because for them it is the content that is telling the story, not the camera. Less creative shooters need the big spec cameras because they can hide their lack of creativity behind technical details. That is the main reason why people drool over the super-spec cameras, because they know that their footage would be lacking without it. If you can't make interesting footage that people will watch no matter what, then you need to have the image as perfect as possible to compensate. There is a reason for that. If your content does not draw the viewer in, then they are far more likely to notice IQ defects in the footage. Which means that if your content is uninspired and boring, you better be damned sure that there are no IQ defects in the footage. And for that you need the super camera.

Just for accuracy, androids are robots that look and behave like humans, while cyborgs are people with robotic components. The characters in the movie were "replicants", basically genetically engineered clones. They were NOT androids. They were as human as anyone else, but only with a very limited world experience and a short shelf life. The movie was about them grappling to find their own humanity and not really understanding what being human was all about (since they were essentially toddlers being exploited as soldiers), not about them being robots.

Or not wanting to be sued because competitors hold the IP. The DV6 should have a Digic 8 sibling, so perhaps the new processor will have enough efficiency to start implementing 4K in hardware in consumer cameras. We will probably have to wait until the end of 2017 when the new processor starts appearing in powershot style cameras to get a sense of whether it will be good enough for that. The Digic 7 very likely already has a 4K encoder built into it, they just can't make use of it because the processor would get too hot. They are still stuck in 2013 it seems. I suppose that the development cycles for the higher end products are longer, so it is perhaps unreasonable to expect too much from a 6D mark 2 if it is released with the tech Canon have now. Given the product cycles Canon has, it may be as late as 2019 before we start to see a competitive Canon hybrid, but by then of course everyone else would have moved on so they could well still be behind even then. The best bet for such a camera would be a 7D mark 3 IMO, since we can expect to see a new model in that line sometime around late 2018.

They are "holding back" on specs not because they want to, but because their hardware is not up to it yet. Don't make the mistake of thinking there is some cunning plan at work here, there is not. Focus peaking is necessary for DMF, which is a very useful tool when shooting stills. Traditional Canon DSLR 1080p is too soft for the world of large screen 4K TVs that currently form the bulk of the commercial lineup. What is or is not acceptable is determined by the current standard of displays.

Improper usage of a term does not make it proper just because people use it improperly.

They are the same camera, except for lens and body. The package is different but the electronics are basically the same. Any zoom lens with a range greater than x3 (or at most x4) is going to be "unfortunate".

Why not just buy a second C200, if that is what you use to earn a living? This does not seem like a real problem to me.

2 has a lot of chromatic aberration. Also a lot of noise. IQ wise it is the worst of the three. 1 has quite a bit of noise on blowing up but not as much as 2 (which is visible even in the whole image). Also a trace of CA. It is also has the highest pixel count, so defects on blowing up may just be more apparent as a consequence. Exposure is different from 3, and that may skew perceptions. 3 appears to be the cleanest shot, no CA that I can see, not a lot of noise. It also has a lot fewer pixels than the other two, so it may just be that the defects are less obvious as a result. As far as CA is concerned, that reflects the lens on the camera, while noise may reflect the sensor (but may also indicate different levels of processing).

It is hardware encoding, so it will be limited by what the processor has in it's logic. If it could handle 10 bit then that would already be implemented already. My guess is that the hardware encoder will be limited to 8 bits, but other things such as bit rate or 4:2:2 might be available in future options, since those things don't require any physical change on the processor, such as register size and such.

H.264 support is much older than Haswell in Intel processors, at least since Sandy bridge, perhaps earlier (my gen 1 system has an X processor, which does not have an onboard GPU, so I don't know what the regular processors had at that point). Perhaps not full official implementation but the processors were definitely capable of hardware acceleration of encoding/decoding H.264 content. H.265 acceleration has been possible in hardware since the 4th generation processors I believe. I know it is not present in Ivy Bridge, but is in the generation after. http://techreport.com/news/27677/new-intel-igp-drivers-add-h-265-vp9-hardware-decode-support

Well, the thread was derailed by a poster dissing PCs, not the other way around. So be correct. If you maintain your system properly there is no problem. The advantage of a PC is that it you can get it set up how you want with the hardware you want. As you point out, that is an option which for the most part is not available for Macs. You are stuck with whatever they choose to give you. Personally I never have had a problem with drivers not playing nice with software. If you have those sorts of issues it is more likely that you have some odd hardware and it is your editor that is the problem, not the OS. And for the record, hardware support for H.265 has been in Intel CPUs for years, Apple just has not bothered to implement it on the software side until now, hence my comment. I am not sure why any user would regard that situation as generally acceptable.

My PCs don't crash. Maybe you need to get new technicians?

Good to see Apple leading the way with cutting edge innovation.