Mokara

It is probably just M50 electronics rehoused on a Rebel body.

For internal recording the limiting factor is the heat generated by the processor encoder. That is why the old 1D cameras could shoot 4K footage long before anyone else, they were using mjpeg codecs which did not stress the processor, while most other cameras used H.264 for encoding (which generates a lot more heat). For hardware encoding you need a thermally efficient processor or some sort of external cooling such as a fan (an option frequently used in high end video cameras). Cell phones get away with higher specs because they use variable frame rates, which means that in complex scenes that are stressing the processor (and making it hot) the frame rate drops so that it remains within an acceptable thermal envelope. Oversampling would not generate as much heat since most of that comes from the actual encoding, and if you have a smaller data set then it will require less overhead to encode it. Straight 8K would probably run hotter than oversampled 4K off a 8K base.

Heh...you are the one with misunderstanding. Read the first sentence of his post dude. I was obviously responding to his first sentence, not the second. Comprehension.

We are still far from that. The limitations on modern cameras are primarily imposed by the processing power available, and that should continue to improve in the foreseeable future. For DSLRs sure, they have gone about as far as they can go, but MILCs can go much further than that (which is why DSLRs are fast fading into the sunset at the moment).

The real original would not have had a fixed frame rate. Certainly nothing that would be compatible with anything today, so all modern frame rates would be "soap opera/video" with this footage, lol.

It is not rolling shutter, it is the film flexing as they are cranking it past the shutter.

This is not taking random photographs though, he is getting in peoples faces and that absolutely is an invasion of privacy, even in a public space. An unwritten social law is that you don't do stuff that might revert society to a bunch of screaming apes ripping strangers apart who happen to wander into their territory. That is what makes us different from chimps, we have that unwritten compact that you do not intrude on my space and in return I don't try to tear your head off when I see you. A chimp who encounters another chimp from outside their social group but inside what they consider to be their territory will kill that other chimp. We don't do that, which is why we can live in cities alongside a bunch of strangers but chimps have to live in the forest in isolated groups. In order for society to work it is understood that you respect a strangers personal space, if no one did that then society would be impossible outside of family units. This guy is blatantly violating that unwritten rule, it is just a matter of time before someone beats the snot out of him, and he fully deserves it. And btw, the real Philistines actually were cultured based on the archeological record, they just were not the ones writing the history books.

That is a consequence of the form factor. The FS cameras can be cooled properly, that allows more performance from their processors, which in turn allows for greater specs. It has nothing to do with conspiracies and everything to do with basic physics. Just because SOME people have used a specific camera does not mean that EVERYONE will use it. Gopro cameras are sometimes used in pro shoots, that doesn't mean that Gopro cameras are replacing professional cameras, it just means that they might be more suitable for some shots. Sometimes people will use a less appropriate product just because, other times because it is being used for specific scenario where the superior equipment might be less suitable because of the demands for that particular shot.

Sony sensors are made in Japan as well, but the thing is that critical parts of the supply chain originate in China (specifically rare earths), this will be true for all of the other manufacturers as well, including Canon, no matter where they produce final products.

People who use the FS cameras do so because of the form factor and connectivity of those products. The a7S series are hybrids, and address a completely different market space and function. There will not be any significant competition no matter how similar the specs might be. Different tools for different purposes. A pro is going to use the right tool, not the cheapest one. Cost is primarily an issue in the consumer market space, and almost none of those folk buy FS products anyway. So the a7SIII is not going to take sales away from the FS line. That is not an issue for Sony, it is only an issue for the conspiracy theorists.

You need to be close to the TV to see pixels, but that is not what higher resolution is for. The advantage is to resolve small objects into identifiable things instead of blobs, it has nothing to do with resolving pixels. On a 8K panel with 8K footage you will see a leaf.....on a HD panel the exact same image will show you an unrecognizable blob which your brain guesses is probably a leaf since it is green. Small objects involve a large group of pixels, and you absolutely can see that. If your subject matter is a face then that might not be important, so for talking heads you don't need a lot of resolution, but if your subject matter is comprised of a lot of small elements (trees or hair for example), then you do need that resolution. If you are not aware of this as a shooter then you are probably not shooting to the level you could be as a result of your ignorance. The other advantage of higher resolution is that it reduces the scale of debeyering artifacts to the point where you might not notice them anymore. This would include what people refer to as "sharpening" (but is actually a debeyering artifact). With true 8K footage on an 8K display sharpening settings become irrelevant because the debeyering artifacts are too small to be noticed (people will still be deliberately blurring their footage however, because of Pavlovian conditioning from an old mind set derived from obsolete technology) Larger sensors also have the advantage of minimizing light scatter on the beyer filter which results in purple blooming (mostly - in some cases in can be other colors, depending on the light source) around highlights.

Since the 1DX III has a burst of around 1000 frames, that establishes an upper limit to what the buffer size is, and assuming that the buffer is the same size in the R5, the 8k "video" would essentially be whatever fills the buffer and after that it would stop. The buffer is emptying to the card while being written to, meaning the buffer itself is smaller. So, an upper limit of ~30 seconds, but probably less than that. My guess is that camera will have about 16GB of RAM in the buffer, which would be enough for about 7 seconds of 8K30p video (and before people say that no camera would have that, keep in mind that current cellpones, such as the S10, have up to 12GB of RAM, so it is not out of question)

No they wouldn't. Display devices in general run at 60Hz, so that is what people would shoot at. Since there are 8K TVs out there, and likely increasingly so in a year or two, yes, people would shoot in 8K.

Cell phones use variable frame rates, so when the processor gets too hot it throttles down by reducing the frame rate thus allowing the recording to continue uninterrupted. That is exactly why they use variable frame rates and not fixed frame rates. It is also why cell phones have "better specs" than regular video cameras that MUST maintain a consistent frame rate no matter what. Sensors are more like memory. There will be an optimal operational temperature for the best IQ, the heatsinks on the sensors are there to ensure it doesn't fluctuate if IQ is mission critical (something that is important to a professional, but less so to a consumer). Keep in mind that the sensor is in constant operation when the camera is switched on, most of the heat generation is going to come from clearing the cells (basically a write operation, which is what generates heat) and that is happening whether you are recording or not.

The heat that limits camera performance is processor heat, not sensor heat. Sensor size has nothing to do with it. An overheating processor will shut down or throttle to prevent damage to itself. The level of throttling and when that happens will determine what specs the camera will be able to meet. All modern sensors are capable of much more performance than what current cameras deliver, the bottleneck is the processor and what it is capable of (which in turn is limited by the thermal envelope in which it can reliably operate). Unless you are suggesting that camera processors operate by magic and not the same principles as processors in computers and GPUs.

There is nothing special about FF when it comes to computational load, the processor does not give a rats ass about pixel size.

Umm....no. 8K at 30 is more data than 5.5k at 60. Do the math. And remember, this will be in a smaller body that is going to provide less cooling, which means that the camera will do less than the 1D even if it used the same processor. Not sure what exactly the Digic X is, it may be the sibling of the DV7, meaning it is essentially a Digic 9. Or it may be a processor dedicated to the 1D series, with Digic 9 coming in for the consumer models. If so, then use the E500II as a guide for max specs (in the EOS-R they will be substantially less because of the form factors thermal envelope)

There is no way that this camera would have much better specs than the latest 1D model, lol.

It is all about the processors and what they can do. Until Sony come out with next gen processors they are not going to be upgrading the camera specs. If the processor can only handle X amount of data processing before overheating, don't expect X+Y performance any time soon. If the new S camera comes with a Bionz X processor then it will probably be limited to similar capabilities as existing Sony cameras (the big video cameras can do more because their thermal envelope is more forgiving). Canon are not "innovating hard" now, what is happening is that their processors are finally becoming somewhat competitive, specifically they seem to be getting their heat generation under control which in turn allows enablement of more advanced features from the sensor. The EOS R models will likely have Digic 9 processors in them, so more like a limited version of the C500M2. Digic 9 should have the same hardware capabilities as the DV7 in that camera, but obviously in EOS-R bodies the thermal envelope will be more constrained, so the feature set would be more limited. I would guess that the $1.5k - 2.5k range is the sweet spot. Margins are decent at the price range, it is cheap enough to be affordable by the masses, and the sorts of people who buy in that price range are more likely to invest in additional add ons, such as lenses etc, than the folk who buy at sub $1.5k (those mostly do not buy anything else other than the kit itself).

1DC used mjpeg because the processor at the time could not handle 4K hardware encoding without a cooling solution, which was not acceptable in the DSLR form factor. So they compromised and used a software solution instead, and the only way that would work was with an inefficient codec like mjpeg. The 1DC did use hardware encoding for 1080p footage, which the processor encoder could do within the thermal envelope presented by the form factor. I know people at the time said that mjpeg was better/superior because it damaged the footage less bla bla bla (the only downside in their mind was the large file size), but that was not the reason it was implemented that way, it was implemented as mjpeg because the processor encoder could not handle H.264 encoding of 4K footage. If the processor had been up to snuff they would have done it using H.264.

I don't think there is any mystery here....if you have a high budget production and are professional, you are going to pick one of the best tools for the job. Why wouldn't you? If you have a multi-million dollar budget, spending an extra few k on the best gear is a no brainer. Things like the EOS systems appeal more to the low budget crowd because that is all they can afford. There are usually hardware or IP reasons for those things, it is not "crippling". You can't implement something if the hardware can't do it, or you don't have freedom to operate because of some blocking IP that you don't have a license for.

Because it is Blackmagic dammit! Did you not look at their superior marketing? Was it all wasted?

It probably does not cost him that much since a lot of that stuff is likely sold after he reviews it. Ad revenue would make up the balance, provided he has enough viewers. Plus, if his channel is popular and he maintains contacts with marketing people from manufacturers, chances are that he gets a fair amount of gear free or for evaluation.

As a software engineer you no doubt know that memory is arranged as 8 bit blocks, so a 14 bit data piece is stored in a 16 bit space? Yes? Or do your computers work differently? The spec says 1000+ frames, that means that it will be around 1000, but could be more because actual RAW file sizes vary depending on what is in the image and the point you hit the wall is different based on that. It does NOT mean infinite. It means 1000, thereabouts. If there was no limitation on the number of frames they would have said so, not "1000+". Clearly there IS a limitation. The write speed of the card itself is irrelevant if the camera can't deliver data at that rate. As a software engineer I would have expected you to know this. Magic does not exist in the real world, you can't write data that has not been created yet. Mirror speed running is completely irrelevant. The mechanical limitation imposed by the mirror is 16 fps, and in any case is irrelevant to the computing overhead imposed by DPAF since in DSLR mode the camera is using the viewfinder focusing elements (which has it's own discrete processor in the 1D and 5D cameras), not DPAF (which is handled by the main processor/s in those cameras, the 1D has two primary processors, the 5D has one). In live view the frame rate is 20 fps, which is the upper limit of what the camera can handle, subject to the constraints of the buffer size. Note: 20 fps = live view, not SLR mode, the mirror is up and is not involved at all. 12 bit compressed RAW can be handled as 3 byte fragments instead of 4 bytes that 14 bit would require, so it is inherently faster to deal with. Also, 5.4k is working with ~15 mpixels, not the full 20 mpixels. So, significantly less data that has to be dealt with. The overall processing limitations can be roughly deduced from the absence of DPAF in RAW or 4K60p modes. This is not a problem with stills since dropping a frame or two to accommodate the processing needs of DPAF is not an issue, but you can't do this with video. Compression itself is not a factor because that is handled in hardware by a different part of the processor.

That is compressed RAW (an actual file). A 16 bit 20 mpixel data feed is 40MB of data, that is what is going into the buffer. It is then processed and packaged into a file, that is where the bottleneck is. The buffer itself must be able to accept at least 800 MB/s to meet the specs. Again, you are missing the point, it is irrelevant what a card is capable of, it is what the camera is capable of that counts, and that is approximately 1000 frames at the spec frame rate. You don't need a buffer to take up the entire 1000 frames before writing, writing will be going on while the buffer is filled, which means that you can have a much smaller buffer and still get those 1000 frames at that frame rate. Let me provide a visual analogy since text is not doing it for you. Think of it as a bottle with a hole in it. Water is running in at the same time it is running out, but if it is running in faster than it is running out, eventually the bottle will fill and you cant get any more water in. So, if data is going into the buffer at 800 MB/s and leaving at 500 MB/s, with 1000 frames at 20 fps, the buffer would fill at 15 GB of RAM. If you write to the card at a higher speed then your buffer would necessarily be smaller to hit the same 1000 frame limit. A 600 MB/s write rate would mean 10 GB of RAM, while 700 MB/s write would require a buffer of 5 GB of RAM. Cellphones have 8GB of RAM, it is not out of the question that a large flagship camera has more. This new camera probably has 16 GB. The fact that there is a maximum frame number cited in the specs means that the camera does eventually bottleneck.