Mokara

1 hour ago, mkabi said:

 

I bet you it’s going to be some crazy bit rate something like 2000 Mbps or more that  they probably said to themselves you need 1TB cfexpress card to record 10 min. so they would probably have to turn off the camera to change cards... overheating solved. Plus no one can afford multiple 1TB cards... bonus!

 

It will probably be something like up to 800 mbps for the 8K H.265 encoded footage recorded at the highest quality setting. 

1 hour ago, OliKMIA said:

 

Cxxx cameras have never been cutting edge when it comes to pure specs, resolution and frame rate.

 

They usually lead in with Canon's newest processors though, and that tells you what to expect from the next generation of stills processors which in turn tells what the specs might be. What other manufacturers are doing is irrelevant when it comes to that prediction.

My guess is that this is made possible by the Digic 9 processor. Digic processors come in two forms, a stills form and a video form (with the prefix DV before the number). A Digic DV5 is the same processor (with some minor modifications) as a Digic 7, a Digic DV6 is the sibling of a Digic 8 and so on

The C500M2 and the new C300M3 use a new Digic DV7. The stills variant would be the Digic 9, which presumably is the one that will be used in the R5. I would guess the main difference would be the inclusion of a H.265 encoder. 

As a general rule of thumb, if you want some presight into what future Canon cameras can do, just look at the newest Cx00 models, see what processor is in them, and if it is a new version then that will give some hints of what might be possible in the next stills cameras that comes out. If they are still using an older processor, or the video specs are not too different from older models, then the same is likely true for the next stills camera as well.

28 minutes ago, rawshooter said:

The question is: Who actually needs 8K? Sports broadcasters, nature documentarists - maybe. 

I think @Andrew Reid wrote here some time ago that we already have enough (or even too much) resolution with today's cameras when filmic images are the goal.

Beyond that, you're rather getting problems because you see every pimple on the face of your protagonist, because you can no longer film hand-held (since motion blur will kill your 8K resolution - it already kills 4K), because your 8K will only be visible with deep focus/depth of field (since shallow depth of field will blur out 90% of your 8K).

So in order to make actual use of 8K, you'll easily end up shooting boring, static, oversharp and flat video images like in the bad old camcorder days...

There's a reason why Arri never went beyond 2.8K on the Alexa's s35 sensors and even kept the full frame sensor of the Alexa LF at 4.4K (much less than even the 6K/24 MP prosumer Sony full frame sensors)...

So of whom did Canon think as the target buyer for this camera? "Us", or some journalists who need a hybrid camera to deliver both hi-res stills and 8K video to their employers?

Again, I don't wanna spoil anyone's enthusiasm, but just temper expectations before we get to see and test the real thing.

The reason to use 8K, even if you are delivering in lower resolution formats, is that it allows you to minimize artifacts that come from a digital beyer sensor. Closer to true color, less aliasing, stuff like that (things you obviously don't care about). You can always reduce resolution in post, you cannot recover it.

And don't forget that 8K TV panels will be the norm in the mid to high end big screen TV market within a few years. Companies that make consumer products have to take that into consideration since people who buy these products will be expecting that their new camera can shoot for their new TV.

This argument comes up every time TV resolution increases. When 4K came out, most here were poopooing the idea of shooting in 4K, because "who wants it?". Well, the market spoke, and apparently the poopooers were wrong. Now, almost all mid to high end TV panels are 4K and a camera that can't shoot 4K is considered dead on arrival. The same thing will happen with 8K in a few years. Canon seems to be getting in first, but the rest will follow soon enough, assuming they don't get held up by having inadequate processors. Right now Sony is behind the curve in this respect (assuming Canon are not just blowing smoke), and after that Panasonic will need to upgrade their processors (they are in a bit better shape than Sony in that department). Nikon will probably be left out in the cold.

There must be a new processor that is coming with this. I would guess that it has been in design for a long time, and that is the main reason Canon have been lagging behind the last 4 or 5 years.

12 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

IBIS on the sony is pretty decent for shooting stills. It is pretty mediocre for shooting video, IMHO, and the IBIS on my a6500 doesn't compare well at all to the IBIS on my Panasonic S1.

I think a compounding factor might be the really bad rolling shutter on sony bodies also makes it appear worse.

I wonder if shooting at a faster shutter speed than the 1/180th rule would make the IBIS appear better (at the expense of more staccato movement, of course). Something to try out for the next sunny day.

Things like IBIS are really intended for stills. You are always going to have issues with rolling shutter if it is not good and use stabilization for video. IMO the best way to do stabilization for video is electronically off an oversampled sensor, provided the processor can cope of course.

No.

10 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Buy a large ginger cat. I hear they are excellent lasagna hunters.

1 hour ago, kaylee said:

what's the thing to eat in Spain? 

Neighbors

12 minutes ago, Super8 said:

And the good news is you're wrong like the last doom and gloom predictor from France.  China has 1.386 billion people and they have 198,091 cases and 7,961 deaths.  it took the U.S.3 months to get here.  China also has 108,403 active cases and 7,020 of those cases are serious or critical.  94% of the cases are mild.

Take the time to look at charts to see what numbers have increased, and what numbers from which countries have started to flatten out. 

 

Those numbers you are quoting are world wide, not for China.

3 hours ago, Super8 said:

You mean the hospitals that collapsed?  Keep loving China when they are the origin of this.  Do some research and then think.

Also, China isn't reporting real numbers now and have pulled back how much they're testing.

I don't think the previous 2 months of data support that graphic. 

No hospitals collapsed. What collapsed was a hotel that was being used for quarantine purposes.

2 minutes ago, Super8 said:

Another political diarrhea post.  Why?  Who the cares ?   Be part of the solution or get out of the way. 

Your post about who you like or hate doesn't matter anymore.

That IS part of the solution, lol. In times of crisis you need competent leadership, not a showman.

1 minute ago, fuzzynormal said:

I think another thing that has flown under the radar a bit is that hospitals don't just stop treating other diseases while COVID19 is garnering all the attention.

An at-risk person who then gets the run-of-the-mill flu is now at a heightened amount of danger because health services are stretched way too thin.  So flu deaths can spike too.  When the dust settles and we look back at 2020,  COVID numbers might not be as high as we feared (let's hope) but meanwhile other numbers across the board could be rather depressing.

Not just flu. The guy I work with is from China, from what he hears from his family back there at the height of the breakout when all of the hospitals were full, people were dieing from all sorts of other things as well simply because there was no space for them at the hospital.

Oh...I see the great leader is now proclaiming that he knew it was going to be a pandemic all along.  Even after all the BS he has been spewing for the last week. Because, you know, he just MUST be right ALL of the time 🙄

Man, they need to get that clown out of there RIGHT NOW ☹️

2 hours ago, Super8 said:

In the U.S total number of deaths are 87 and climbing 15 a day it seems.  This is not new cases or a number that should spike based on testing. 

Prayers for everyone around the world.

I am going to quote you on this in a few weeks.

54 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

(Not necessarily directed at you, John, just piggybacking off the nice graphic you posted!)

It's great to have perspective and realize that even in the worst case, the human race will continue and this likely won't be the worst health crisis in our species' history.

However, we're at just over 7,000 deaths today, and on Mar. 7 we were at 3500. (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/) That means doubling in 10 days, as has been posted before. If we continue on that exponential growth model, we will hit 200M deaths globally in 150 days--and it will be 400M in just 160 days. A vaccine is expected to take 12 to 18 months, which would be too late for humanity in this case.

Since flu numbers are often used in comparison, starting with 100 deaths in the US now, and doubling every 10 days, we would surpass a "historically bad year" of 61,000 flu deaths by mid-June. And then we'd pass the 1.25M car accident deaths in August.

The good news is that we know that we won't continue on this exponential growth model indefinitely (partly because if all the 70+ yr olds die, the mortality rate will drop), so the 200M deaths scenario in under a year is unlikely. Eventually it will taper off. But our actions now, before we are inundated and our hospitals full, determine whether we taper off the exponential growth sooner or later.

Let's all do our part, be safe, and help out our friends and neighbors where we can.

Those deaths are estimates though, they come from computer models. There is some debate about how accurate those models actually are. The only flu year there is extensive data to support anything is 2009, and the mortality rate then was notably lower than normal, even though it was a pandemic involving a novel strain of flu. And that probably reflects the shortcomings of the model rather than the severity of the outbreak itself.

At some point they will stop doing tests if too many people are hospitalized, so we may never know exactly how many people die as a result.

16 hours ago, Super8 said:

60,000 people die from the flu each year in the U.S.  So still think we wil have more deaths than the flu?

It is not 60000, that was the modeled estimate for 2018 (which was considered a bad year), most years the models generate numbers a lot lower than that. And remember those numbers are from a computer model, they are made up numbers, not confirmed cases. The only year where there was extensive testing was the 2009 pandemic, and when the pandemic finally ended 9 months later in 2010 there were confirmed 3433 deaths in the US and 13837 confirmed deaths worldwide. That was is the baseline from the last major pandemic that we can assess the current virus from.

We have only just gotten started on covid-19, so far there are 7961 confirmed deaths worldwide and 106 in the US. Infection rates in the US are currently increasing exponentially, it is essentially a runaway epidemic now. Most people will eventually get infected over the course of the next year or so. Those numbers are going to go way higher. The virus is going to be making people sick for the remainder of the year and probably into 2021.

6 hours ago, Super8 said:

What's your source for "Case mortality rate for covid-19 is 7.7%" ?

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0320_article

"Nevertheless, given the residual uncertainties, health sector decision-makers and disease modelers probably should consider a broad range of 0.25%–3.0% for COVID-19 case-fatality risk estimates.'

The mortality rate is from confirmed cases that have closed. Those are the hard numbers we know for certain, anything else comes from models and guesswork. A case is closed by death or recovery. Mortality rate = 100*(deaths/(recovered + deaths)). As of right now deaths = 7174, recovered = 79883 worldwide. That comes out to 8.24% right now. That number will continue to rise as the rate of infection increases since a death closes a case earlier than a recovery so there is some delay before the rate equilibrates at it's true value. Eventually it will come down again as the rate of infection falls once the pandemic peters out. That has more or less happened in China for now (infections may rise again once they start relaxing and taking less care since most of the population has not been infected yet) where the mortality rate has equilibrated at ~ 4.5%. There is not a lot of runway for that number to come down further because most people in China who were infected have either died or recovered. Of those who remain as open cases, a full 36% are classified as serious/critical.

It is early still in the US, but right now the mortality rate there is 55%. That will come down but it shows the effect of deaths leading recoveries when it comes to the mortality rate and we will have to wait a few months before we know where the US is going to equilibrate at. I would guess that it is probably going to be some number lower than China but still way higher than the flu.

10 minutes ago, eleison said:

12,000 Americans died because of the swine flu.  I think Obama didn't have any travel bans until 8,000 Americans died.  So far approx 70 Americans have died because of the COVID19.  There have been travel bans, restaurants forcefully closed, etc.

Lets see what the final numbers will be.  I don' think your assessment of COVID19 is more dangerous than the swine flue will be proven true.

Travel bans are pointless when an epidemic starts in your own country. Just saying.

The 12000 deaths in the US is an estimate based on modeling to account for cases where testing was not done. The number of deaths in confirmed cases was 1642.

Case mortality rate for covid-19 is 7.7% at the moment and rising. This number will go down as the pandemic winds down, and will probably end up at around 2-3% In china, where the epidemic appears to have subsided for now, the case mortality rate is 4.5%. The case mortality rate for H1N1 was 0.03%. Do those numbers sound even remotely comparable to you?

11 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

No, I know.

Germany has a specific foreign trade law to scrutinise and prohibit takeovers from non-EU countries if it threatens national security and order.

https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/germanys-foreign-investment-regime

The issue at hand really is whether he tried rather than whether he was thwarted Scooby Doo style by the meddling of those pesky kids.

 

 

It would not surprise me if he did. After all, he did propose buying Greenland without considering that the people living there might have something to say about that. He seems surprisingly ignorant about stuff like that, as though countries are just like some giant company and everything in them is a commodity for sale, including the people in it. After all, he is a guy born into a super rich family with a silver spoon in his mouth, I doubt he has any concept at all of what life is like for the ordinary joe. Those sorts of people never do.

1 hour ago, mercer said:

I'll probably kick myself for joining this "conversation" but here I go.

As an American, I believe in American Exceptionalism. Every POTUS, no matter their party or ideology, is and was my President.

It is pretty much a fact at this point that the lower numbers of infection, as of now, are due to closing our border to China when the government did it.

This comparison with Italy is fear mongering journalism at best. It's my understanding that Italy has the second oldest population in the world, have 100,000 Chinese migrant workers in Northern Italy, and have one of the worst, if not the worst, healthcare systems in Europe.

If anything, Italy's situation could be an example that Universal Healthcare, on a large scale, is a failure.

If people want to believe their news source of choice, then by all means, believe it. But I will ask this... in 2009 when H1N1 was sweeping the world with 1 billion cases, why wasn't there the panic that there is today? Why wasn't it reported about as much? President Obama, and his administration, was praised for their response, yet President Trump has done more than his predecessor with Covid-19 than was done for H1N1 and he is ridiculed. 

With that said, in these times I really don't think this should be a pissing match. I have to assume that every leader, from every country, are doing their best for their citizens.

Well, for a start, H1N1 was influenza, and there are drugs to treat influenza that are relatively effective if administered early enough after infection (they don't help if you start receiving them too late). You also have the advantage of partial immunity as a result of exposure to earlier strains. Flu can be controlled nationally if the effort is made, especially among at risk populations such as health care workers and the elderly. 

That is the main difference between the current outbreak and H1N1 (which was treated by governments very seriously as well). With covid-19 we have no defence except isolation.

H1N1 actually started in the US btw. Overall the pandemic was significantly less lethal than the average flu season, but had a higher than normal mortality rate among younger people (probably because that demographic had less partial immunity). The risks posed by that pandemic, although serious, was not comparable to what we face now. The main problem with H1N1 was not the mortality rate, but the number of people who were eventually infected (which was much higher than usual). The government response to H1N1 was appropriate and timely, more importantly they recognized the nature of the risk and responded correctly. Covid-19 is completely different. The case mortality rate is comparable to the 1918 pandemic that devastated the planet (it is about 100X higher than H1N1). It will also end up with a high number of people being infected overall if we don't do something to slow it down. In a worst case scenario everyone gets infected at more or less the same time and medical care is overwhelmed. It is those dynamics which most governments worldwide and certainly the experts in the field understand and why we are having the societal response that is going on now. 

The last time the developed world faced anything of this magnitude is the 1918 pandemic. The outcome does not have to be the same, but if we are going to avoid that we have to be proactive about it. Contrary to what Trump apparently believes, the problem will not solve itself or just go away if we ignore it. His attitude on the subject is extremely dangerous to us all.

19 hours ago, Trek of Joy said:

The 4k and 1080p HFR options that *should* be 10-bit internal are far more interesting to me. That and the IBIS paired with a 40-ish mp sensor capable of 20fps and Canon's AF to boot. If its pulled off the impossible - speed, resolution, stabilization and great internal video - all my needs are met with one body. The unicorn has arrived. The rest is just a bonus. For my needs.

Though I have no doubt the a9 with its stupid fast readout speed could do the same, only topping out at 6k and melting from the heat. But Sony is the new Canon and clearly won't dump everything into one body.

Chris

They will, provided they can get a new processor. 

3 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

Well, at the very least, and as you can tell from my posts, I think he's a study in what not to do in this situation.  Hopefully your government is using this example to their advantage.

I guess it's sort of like watching a bad movie; seeing what mistakes to avoid to make yourself a better filmmaker.

And to try and pull the convo back to where it started, getting gigs in this market is stressful!

Add on top of that the fact that we've been trying to juice the US economy for waaaaaay too long. COVID plus a bubble burst and market correction?? No thanks.

Seriously, I've been having exestintial episodes about this career for awhile now, not sure where I'll be by mid-summer if this is our track. 

The basic problem with Trump is that he is an ignorant buffoon. While that be entertaining and amusing under normal circumstances, in a crisis like this the US needs a real leader, not a fake one. The presidency is not a TV show.

The US economy has been promoted over the last few years by runaway deficit spending (it is funny how it is always the Republicans that end up doing this in spite of their claims to be fiscally responsible). They don't have any leeway to stimulate the economy, interest rates are almost at zero if not zero. What else can they do when the country goes into recession as a result of the pandemic? They can't reduce interest rates to negative values, that would be paying people to borrow money. The only other option is to massively increase the already inflated deficit.

2 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

The German government are taking the report seriously enough to be discussing it today in their crisis meeting so we will see what we see.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/16/not-for-sale-anger-in-germany-at-report-trump-seeking-exclusive-coronavirus-vaccine-deal

A cynic might wonder why if such a report as this, with attributed comments from named German politicians is indeed "fake news", why a certain someone who is so enamoured of that phrase isn't tweeting precisely that.

With caps locks on and many, many exclamation marks.

Great exclamation marks.

The best exclamation marks ever, in fact.

It would not happen. The German government would simply seize the product under imminent domain if a company tried anything like that. Any government that wanted to remain in government would do that, their citizens would come first.

1 hour ago, sanveer said:

Around the months leading up to the Presidential Elections in 2016, for many months, there were all sorts of fake polls and campaigns, which suggested that Trump had  less than 1% chances of winning, and that Hillary was GUARANTEED to win.

I realised that this fake narrative constitutes the majority of mainstream media news (I have realised that they are fake news, after all). So, while I do believe Trump has his foot in his mouth (or both), any criticism of Trump from the liberal presstitutes isn't believable, by a long shot. 

 

It's a mystery why Italy has handled the crisis so badly. Or maybe the Politicians in Italy are busy doing the Bulosconi, with illegal money and underaged girls, and that's why they have Done Almost Nothing to fight the Pandemic. Hopefully, once this gets over, heads will roll (they should probably introduce the guillotine again). 

Actually Clinton did win the election by about 3 million votes, and the margin was pretty much what the national polls predicted. Polls were less accurate in individual states because the n numbers were lower and error margins higher, which was a factor in close contests in a few critical states. Trump became president because the system is rigged by the electoral college setup. Most Americans did not vote for Trump.

The problem in Italy is that they did not take it seriously until it was too late and the virus had already spread extensively within the community. It seems like the same thing is happening in a few other European countries, and will likely happen in the US as well. I live in Canada, and Thursday was the day that everything changed in terms of people's attitudes to the problem (the day that Sophie Trudeau was tested positive). Was that soon enough to make a difference in the shape of the infection curve - time will tell.

The other problem is that Italy is one of the oldest countries in the world. More old people = bigger health care crisis.

7 hours ago, eleison said:

Yes, lets revisit this thread 12 months from now.  The total death is now around 60 -- mostly elderly. We have a ways to go until it's 12,000.  Considering most scientist seem to think it will wane just like any other flu, and china cases are already going down, I highly doubt it will get that far.  Also, my nephew is an healthcare professional and he says doctors and nurses are being extremely vigilant with respect to taking care of their elderly patients (most testing kits go to them first).   Lets see how the USA health care system does.  The USA health care which ranks below 25th.  I bet you the number of deaths in the USA will be lower than that of Italy - a "top 5 health care system".  If that happens, you should probably go back and ask yourself if your sources are biased.  

Patients are getting much sicker than the flu (coronavirus is a completely different virus from influenza btw). Being vigilant will not help, none of these people are going to have immunity to the virus. They will get sick and there is little the doctors will be able to do other than put them on ventilators to try and keep them alive long enough for the virus to be cleared.

The main issue is the health system being swamped by numbers, when there are not enough ventilators then any extra patients will simply be left to die. This is the basic problem Italy is having at the moment. How that will play out in the US remains to be seen, but the US probably will not have enough either. 

Keep in mind that about 8-9% of Americans have no health insurance of any kind. What do you think is going to happen to these people if they all get sick more or less at once? ICU beds are going to go to those with insurance, if there is not enough left over then all those folk who had their health care stripped from them by the Republicans are going to be in real trouble.