Jump to content
Andrew Reid

Canon announces development of 8K Cinema EOS camera and 120MP DSLR

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

Canon just keeps announcing random grossly overdone camera technologies. 4 million ISO, and then this. And then everyone is kept in the dark for the next 10 years over what the footage actually looks like, because NASA is using this for indulging in voyeurism wrt to spying on alients making love on Pluto.

I think Canon should concentrate on making cameras to compete with the G7, the GH4, the LX100 etc etc instead of all. 

True. But, they've found marketing works. Don't forget, today, their C-line competes directly with RED.

:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True. But, they've found marketing works. Don't forget, today, their C-line competes directly with RED.

:-)

If this monster did 120MP at 24p at RAW instead of 5fps in jpegs, it would sound the death knell for all other cameras.

I guess the new C300 will compete with the REDs and maybe even the Alexas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really understanding the negativity on this announcement. Can only assume the Canon name, coupled with the likely high cost.

Worth remembering though, if the flagship C500 II is 8K/60fps then the lower models have room to move up a level without threatening the flagship, eg 4K/24fps and 1080/120fps

Probably good news all around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People's whims are a Psychoanalysis' case study, troubled by the worsened airs proper of motion picture "artists"... Too much workarounds to daily deal with.

 

LOL

:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I should get back into selling diffusion filters . . . 'cause I don't know one actor/actress who wants to see their pores reproduced in 8K detail.

Long ago they had posted screen shots from a 5k Red Camera and the image was way too sharp and no grain had been added. I could literally see the hair on the nose of the actress. Me being me,  I pointed it out. They obviously deleted the post and blocked me. Hahaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Senti...

Just with that you convinced instantly!!! Even if I am a spanish body trapped in the italian country! ;-DD

I wet my pants going from interlaced to progressive, I re-wetted them going from SD to HD. I was happy with 4K. But I can't get to be happy for 8K. And I hate to be a hater!!! ;-DD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On big screen, I've always gotten the difference, night and day on wides, since the beginning when RED delivered it for first time 8 years ago*.

 

You're either sitting in the first three rows, viewing on a 60ft+ screen - or your brain is just thinking you're seeing a difference when you actually aren't.

As second thought, delivery has nothing to do with acquisition. Your SD copy from 4K or 8K capture will really shine much more "natural" when you just accept it as a simple truth

It has long been accepted that to get 'true' 4k you need to shoot with an 8k sensor - which is the reason the F65 has an 8k sensor.

It's another tool for acquisition - many will use it and many won't, much like the RED Weapon vs an Alexa, for example.

I can't see 8k delivery taking off for a long time. But 8k acquisition certainly. Considering we were 'acquiring' on film which could be scanned at up to 4-6k+ (depending on who you believe) for many many years, and that we've been shooting 4k on RED since '07, and only recently had 4k TV sets and projectors brought in, I can see some/many productions shooting 8k for 4k delivery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Diffraction's going to be the biggest issue. The 5DS already shows diffraction losses at f/8, so not only will you be pushing your lenses to their limit, but you'll also be shooting them at apertures no smaller than f/2-2.8. 

We're reaching the point of diminishing returns. SD to HD was a quantum leap in quality. HD to 4K was small but noticeable--more useful for post than anything. Most theaters still use 2K projectors, and almost all films are only mastered in 2K. Most DPs even consider 4K too much resolution to shoot people without using diffusion to offset the harshness. The Epic Dragon with its 6K resolution was crazy. Luckily, RED was smart enough to use a bit of diffusion in the filter stack and digital pipeline, so we still had enough detail to downsample or crop down for a nice crisp 4K delivery. They also touted it as a way to shoot world-class video and still simultaneously, but it hasn't really worked that way in practice due to the lack of flash support and the fact that good video and sharp stills require completely different shutter speeds. Besides, 4K was more than enough for magazine covers as it was. 

I don't see the point of 8K. To me, the resolution race is over. We have far, far more than we need. I can see one or two 8K cameras for special cases/effects; they'll be for resolution what the Phantom Flex is for slo-mo. But to act like this will be anything like the leap from SD to HD is asinine, because there's only so much detail the human eye can resolve. And guess what? We've already reached that point! At 8-12 feet (the average distance a viewer sits from their TV), the difference between 1080p and 4K is so insignificant that you're basically guessing as to which is which. Contrast ratio, motion rendering, and color gamut/accuracy will make a far bigger difference. In the theater, you're limited by the display resolution, ambient conditions, and how well the projector is maintained. My theater has all 4K projectors, but half of them have a misaligned color panel. Even if it's only off by a couple pixels, there goes your resolution advantage right there.

So if home viewers can't resolve it and most theaters won't benefit, what is the value of higher-than-4K resolution? You have bigger file sizes, more cost in post, a more limited selection of suitable lenses, and a boost to your ego. What's the point? 

Manufacturers need to work on color, ease of use, workflow, heat management, bit depth/tonality, and compression. Resolution is at the bottom of the list. The Alexa's already proven it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're either sitting in the first three rows, viewing on a 60ft+ screen - or your brain is just thinking you're seeing a difference when you actually aren't.

It has long been accepted that to get 'true' 4k you need to shoot with an 8k sensor - which is the reason the F65 has an 8k sensor.

It's another tool for acquisition - many will use it and many won't, much like the RED Weapon vs an Alexa, for example.

I can't see 8k delivery taking off for a long time. But 8k acquisition certainly. Considering we were 'acquiring' on film which could be scanned at up to 4-6k+ (depending on who you believe) for many many years, and that we've been shooting 4k on RED since '07, and only recently had 4k TV sets and projectors brought in, I can see some/many productions shooting 8k for 4k delivery.

It depends on the distance to keep, obviously. The point is that the difference is there.

No need for 8K acquisition to reach 4K delivery, but can help, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if home viewers can't resolve it and most theaters won't benefit, what is the value of higher-than-4K resolution? You have bigger file sizes, more cost in post, a more limited selection of suitable lenses, and a boost to your ego. What's the point?

Of course, there will be and there is a limit. But, the point is the hybrid convergence, the media convergence as said, between other outcomes.

OK, let the open door to a countless options (possibility of better and more radical cropping, zooming, re-framing, etc) available alone. This is nothing more than a medium. And there's no one way to be a medium, only one. Actually, there have been introduced different mediums side by side the advance of technology. With no mention for TV in the past, for instance. What about digital? 3D? In digital age, even film, despite the digital advantage. No matter 2D audiences may have beat the 3D experience. The point is its coexistence.

Anamorphic lenses?

Or sound? Only to go yet more back in time and even be more simple. Hard to beat this one but silent movie was still there for a while. Is this your beef? I must confess, I felt it when HFR has been introduced. I don't think we are in the same battle, though. Resolution brings some positive changes, nevertheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just use the Forza 18K camera and you will get plenty of "convergence" -- your heatsinks will "converge" with your CPUs/GPUs when they all liquify as you try to edit and color grade.

Convergence includes form factor, sarcasm is acceptable too ; )

Hybrid concept will rule at any try of a more conservative scope anyway. it is the future, whether you like whether not. A bit like smartphones. 4K arrived even first than to compact cameras. Who follows who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...