If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
5DII video now up!
["Followup-To:" header *again* set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
Eric Miller wrote: "Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message Eric Miller wrote: You're mistaken in that they "can just shoot video and capture the stills they need". Even in the movie industry the still photographer is still a must: moved images don't have or need the resolution a still photo needs. For now you are probably right. As for movies, I'll likely stay right. After all, you just don't need that many pixels per image, when you have a new image 24 or 30 times a second. Building a camera that'd get as many pixels at that speed would be like building a 1.000.000 hp engine in an in-town-only econobox car. I find it strange that you'd feel the need for such an absurd analogy to "support" your odd claim that time and technology will stand still in this area. The leap from 100 hp to 1,000,000 hp is a 10,000 fold leap. Plenty of people might have a need, or at least a desire, for a camera that will capture 10-20 megapixels 24-30 times per second. By your logic people will want 200mph inside city limits, because they "might have a need, or at least a desire" for that. Racing on the Circuit de Monaco proves that there's at least some people who want that capability and that it is possible, technically speaking. For some reason, however, I really doubt that that capability will turn up in most cars ... and that most cars will still drive 30-50 miles inside city limity. Sure, 20 or 50 or 200 MPix at 30 or 60 or 120 fps, with excellent lenses and excellent low ligt capabilities will be cool. It'll be good for those who do filming in earnest. And such beasts will be available. Will they be still cameras? Nope. Any 'I can do everything' device will either be really expensive and deliver mediocre results or it'll be even more restricted. Examples? Compare Canon's 28-300mm L and 30-350mm L zooms on a full or 1.3x crop camera to your 1.5/1.6x crop camera and a 18-2xxmm. Or compare the image quality of a mobile phone camera with a dedicated camera in similar price ranges. The race for high resolution cameras in the 35mm-class hasn't finished yet: the 5D MkII's pixels are of nearly the same size as that from the old, old, 20D, just full frame. The 50D scaled to full frame would have 38MPix. So, no, outside specialized gear there won't be video modes that can replace pressing the shutter of a still camera at the right time. And yes, of course you can take stills from video cameras --- I have done so 20 odd years ago. Don't ask about quality, though. 10 megapixels at 24 frames per second is a just bit less than 10,000 times the current processing or capturing capabilities of cameras that have been on the market for some time. Moore's law says you'll be seeing 10,000 times faster system in 19-20 years. Have a nice wait. Just like a flying submarine car. It's possible to create one, but it's not really good in either domain and costs lots and lots. Which is why analogies can be false (your second in one post). This isn't a discussion of cars and submarines or other solutions in search of a problem (or an old James Bond movie). Digital cameras that can take both video and stills have been around for a while and apparently satisfy a need to many consumers. They don't make films from stills and don't extract stills from film. They record memories. Completely different application. Still cameras are getting better at capturing video as the OP's video link shows. Not much of a technological leap seems to be required for the resolution and quality gap between the video frames and the still images to close since they are being captured by the same sensor and also given the recent steady advances in this area of technology. That's the difference between 'seems to be required' and reality. Kindly look back a couple of decades and find what they'd imagined the year 2000 would have been. You'll find all sort of 'not much of a technological leap' which would bring us all peace, intelligent robots, personal helicopters and 3-D television --- but no internet. Perhaps what we are seeing is a shift towards high frame rate capture in a video mode where the lcd is used instead of the viewfinder (or maybe an evf) And what would the LCD . . . or EVF Or EVF. . . . give us, for all the shaking and tired arms or "tripod only" costs it incurs? Why, the ability to see what you are shooting while the mirror is locked up, of course. Rangefinders have been doing this for a very, very long time. So have pellicle mirrors. Unfortunately, EVFs and LCDs only show what I'd have been shooting 1/30s ago. And they don't show me a thing during a still capture. And they draw quite a bit of power. And they don't like cold. And ignoring EVFs, why should the use of an LCD make such a camera "tripod only"? Because your eye cannot focus arbitrarily close. That means the LCD must be at some distance from the eyes (and don't forget presbyopia!). LCDs at the back of cameras thus need outstretched arms, which do wonders for stability. LCDs _not_ on the back of cameras need a bulky design, probably something shoulder stabilized. I suppose that you routinely shoot football games with your 400 f/2.8 without a monopod all the time? Yes, and with outstretched arms, holding the camera like so many people hold a point'n'shoot. Though I usually use a 1200mm, that saves the fees for the muscles factory. At 1/50.000s I usually get something sharp, too. And if your irony meter didn't justr peak, you need it readjusted. In any event, your "tripod only" proclamation seems to be an argument with the many people who use cameras without either a viewfinder or a tripod all the time. So they do. Their videos make me motion sick. Most of their stills aren't remotely good, either. After all, they record memories, nothing more, nothing less. Not being a lemming or a sheep, I don't feel a compulsion to follow them. You can read sensors fast. You can read sensors accurate. Don't plan on having both at the same time. Not without crippling costs. Yeah, I guess I was dreaming about that whole 50D press release I thought I saw. I mean, you obviously cannot read a 15 megapixel sensor at a higher speed "accurately" for less money than one of its predecessors could read only 4.3 megapixels 6 years (or so) ago. Nice strawman. How high is the read noise of the 50D? What is the unity gain? How do you *know* that the read speed doesn't degrade the image quality? Heck, I'll bet that if you take photos of a dog with a 50D, the in-"accurate" reading of the sensor will probably result in the noisy image of a cat . . . or something like that. Other bottlenecks are things like *storing* the information. Sure, if you got *the* money, you can get a solution. So right you are. I too have noticed that flash memory, like all computer/digital technology, just keeps getting slower and slower and more and more expensive over time. I've also noticed that all the newer cameras have smaller memory buffers too. So, how long does it take to save 21MPix @ 14 bit per pixel? It's "only" 37 MByte. At 30fps, it's 1.1GByte/second. Which one of your flash memory cards even comes close to that number? How about 50MPix @ 18 bit per pixel and 60fps? -Wolfgang |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
5DII video now up!
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message ... ["Followup-To:" header *again* set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.] Eric Miller wrote: "Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message Eric Miller wrote: You're mistaken in that they "can just shoot video and capture the stills they need". Even in the movie industry the still photographer is still a must: moved images don't have or need the resolution a still photo needs. For now you are probably right. As for movies, I'll likely stay right. After all, you just don't need that many pixels per image, when you have a new image 24 or 30 times a second. Building a camera that'd get as many pixels at that speed would be like building a 1.000.000 hp engine in an in-town-only econobox car. I find it strange that you'd feel the need for such an absurd analogy to "support" your odd claim that time and technology will stand still in this area. The leap from 100 hp to 1,000,000 hp is a 10,000 fold leap. Plenty of people might have a need, or at least a desire, for a camera that will capture 10-20 megapixels 24-30 times per second. By your logic people will want 200mph inside city limits, because they "might have a need, or at least a desire" for that. Racing on the Circuit de Monaco proves that there's at least some people who want that capability and that it is possible, technically speaking. No. That would not be logic and it isn't mine. You are the person who apparently believes that absurdly extreme automobile/submarine analogies are perfectly adequate to sum up your theory that cameras cannot do what you proclaim they cannot. For some reason, however, I really doubt that that capability will turn up in most cars ... and that most cars will still drive 30-50 miles inside city limity. Sure, 20 or 50 or 200 MPix at 30 or 60 or 120 fps, with excellent lenses and excellent low ligt capabilities will be cool. It'll be good for those who do filming in earnest. And such beasts will be available. Will they be still cameras? Nope. Any 'I can do everything' device will either be really expensive and deliver mediocre results or it'll be even more restricted. Oh come on! You're not giving up on race cars downtown so soon are you? Abandoning your silly arguments about 24-30 frames per second pretty quick aren't you? If I were you, I'd want to change the subject to. Examples? Compare Canon's 28-300mm L and 30-350mm L zooms on a full or 1.3x crop camera to your 1.5/1.6x crop camera and a 18-2xxmm. Or compare the image quality of a mobile phone camera with a dedicated camera in similar price ranges. And this has exactly what to do with a DSLR capturing high quality, 10-20 megapixel images at 24-30 frames per second? BTW, I don't own a "1.5/1.6x crop camera." The race for high resolution cameras in the 35mm-class hasn't finished yet: the 5D MkII's pixels are of nearly the same size as that from the old, old, 20D, just full frame. The 50D scaled to full frame would have 38MPix. So, no, outside specialized gear there won't be video modes that can replace pressing the shutter of a still camera at the right time. And yes, of course you can take stills from video cameras --- I have done so 20 odd years ago. Don't ask about quality, though. Well at least we know how long time has supposedly stood still. 10 megapixels at 24 frames per second is a just bit less than 10,000 times the current processing or capturing capabilities of cameras that have been on the market for some time. Moore's law says you'll be seeing 10,000 times faster system in 19-20 years. Have a nice wait. Did you wave at the point when it flew over your head? Just like a flying submarine car. It's possible to create one, but it's not really good in either domain and costs lots and lots. Which is why analogies can be false (your second in one post). This isn't a discussion of cars and submarines or other solutions in search of a problem (or an old James Bond movie). Digital cameras that can take both video and stills have been around for a while and apparently satisfy a need to many consumers. They don't make films from stills and don't extract stills from film. They record memories. Completely different application. Who is this "they" of which you are speaking and why are you trying to change the subject to film? Knock knock? We're talking about the video capture mode of a DSLR, remember? Still cameras are getting better at capturing video as the OP's video link shows. Not much of a technological leap seems to be required for the resolution and quality gap between the video frames and the still images to close since they are being captured by the same sensor and also given the recent steady advances in this area of technology. That's the difference between 'seems to be required' and reality. What difference? What the hell are you talking about? What seems to be required is simply taking the processing power of the 1DS MkIII, marrying it to the sensor of a 40D and the firmware of a 5D MkII. That would seem to provide a camera with the ability to capture 10mp images at 20-30 frames per second. Now all we need is some invention that would allow the photographer to see what is being recorded while the mirror is up. Hmm, your right, its probably not possible. Kindly look back a couple of decades and find what they'd imagined the year 2000 would have been. You'll find all sort of 'not much of a technological leap' which would bring us all peace, intelligent robots, personal helicopters and 3-D television --- but no internet. Perhaps what we are seeing is a shift towards high frame rate capture in a video mode where the lcd is used instead of the viewfinder (or maybe an evf) And what would the LCD . . . or EVF Or EVF. . . . give us, for all the shaking and tired arms or "tripod only" costs it incurs? Why, the ability to see what you are shooting while the mirror is locked up, of course. Rangefinders have been doing this for a very, very long time. So have pellicle mirrors. Ding Ding! DSLRs, remember? Unfortunately, EVFs and LCDs only show what I'd have been shooting 1/30s ago. And they don't show me a thing during a still capture. And they draw quite a bit of power. And they don't like cold. So, let me get this straight, in order for a photographer to get decent shots with a DSLR shooting in some kind of video burst mode during a football game in cold conditions, he'd need to think in advance 1/30th of a second, someone would have to "invent" an LCD that didn't go black during the video capture, he'd have to wear a coat and bring extra batteries? All for the benefit of only three times the frame rate of a current camera? Yep, that's way too tough. And ignoring EVFs, why should the use of an LCD make such a camera "tripod only"? Because your eye cannot focus arbitrarily close. That means the LCD must be at some distance from the eyes (and don't forget presbyopia!). LCDs at the back of cameras thus need outstretched arms, which do wonders for stability. I guess that is why no one does this . . . LCDs _not_ on the back of cameras need a bulky design, probably something shoulder stabilized. I suppose that you routinely shoot football games with your 400 f/2.8 without a monopod all the time? Yes, and with outstretched arms, holding the camera like so many people hold a point'n'shoot. Though I usually use a 1200mm, that saves the fees for the muscles factory. At 1/50.000s I usually get something sharp, too. And if your irony meter didn't justr peak, you need it readjusted. Thanks for acknowledging your prior idocy. In any event, your "tripod only" proclamation seems to be an argument with the many people who use cameras without either a viewfinder or a tripod all the time. So they do. Their videos make me motion sick. Most of their stills aren't remotely good, either. After all, they record memories, nothing more, nothing less. You're right. This whole LCD business and Liveview phenomenon will never catch on. Not being a lemming or a sheep, I don't feel a compulsion to follow them. You can read sensors fast. You can read sensors accurate. Don't plan on having both at the same time. Not without crippling costs. Yeah, I guess I was dreaming about that whole 50D press release I thought I saw. I mean, you obviously cannot read a 15 megapixel sensor at a higher speed "accurately" for less money than one of its predecessors could read only 4.3 megapixels 6 years (or so) ago. Nice strawman. Not a strawman, an example that tends to contradict your claim that sensors can't be read quickly and accurately. I've seen sample images from the 50D and they look pretty good. How high is the read noise of the 50D? What is the unity gain? How do you *know* that the read speed doesn't degrade the image quality? Nice combination of an argument to ignorance and attempting to change the subject. You're not knowing the answers doesn't support your position now does it? Again, I've seen the sample images from teh 50D, they look pretty good and I'm guessing that no one slowed down the "read speed" to make the images look better. Additionally, when I watched the video in the OP, I really didn't think to myself, man that video may look nice, but I bet the unity gain on that camera sucks. Heck, I'll bet that if you take photos of a dog with a 50D, the in-"accurate" reading of the sensor will probably result in the noisy image of a cat . . . or something like that. Other bottlenecks are things like *storing* the information. Sure, if you got *the* money, you can get a solution. So right you are. I too have noticed that flash memory, like all computer/digital technology, just keeps getting slower and slower and more and more expensive over time. I've also noticed that all the newer cameras have smaller memory buffers too. So, how long does it take to save 21MPix @ 14 bit per pixel? It's "only" 37 MByte. At 30fps, it's 1.1GByte/second. Which one of your flash memory cards even comes close to that number? Talk about a straw man . . . it doesn't make any difference, as long as the camera writes all the images to the card. So the video burst mode is limited by the buffer on the camera, so what? I still see photographers on the sidelines of games using cameras whose images can't be written to thier flash cards as fast as the images can be caputured. That apparently didn't prevent them or thier employers from purchasing the cameras. I just can't imagine a Canon or Nikon technician saying,"Oh no! That Wolfpack guy won't buy it if the unity gain isn't impressive enough . . ." But maybe that is just my lack of imagination. How about 50MPix @ 18 bit per pixel and 60fps? How about it? Why not 1,000,000 horsepower in an econobox? Eric Miller |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
5DII video now up!
[And again, "Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
Eric Miller wrote: "Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message Eric Miller wrote: "Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message Eric Miller wrote: By your logic people will want 200mph inside city limits, because they "might have a need, or at least a desire" for that. Racing on the Circuit de Monaco proves that there's at least some people who want that capability and that it is possible, technically speaking. No. That would not be logic and it isn't mine. But they want many MPix for moving images, which'll mostly be shown on devices that can't display more than 2 or 3 MPix at the very best? According to you, they do. You are the person who apparently believes that absurdly extreme automobile/submarine analogies are perfectly adequate to sum up your theory that cameras cannot do what you proclaim they cannot. Bah. You don't kno how to read. I proclaimed they *would* not, not they *can not*. Examples? Compare Canon's 28-300mm L and 30-350mm L zooms on a full or 1.3x crop camera to your 1.5/1.6x crop camera and a 18-2xxmm. Or compare the image quality of a mobile phone camera with a dedicated camera in similar price ranges. And this has exactly what to do with a DSLR capturing high quality, 10-20 megapixel images at 24-30 frames per second? BTW, I don't own a "1.5/1.6x crop camera." You really have no idea? I pity you. 10 megapixels at 24 frames per second is a just bit less than 10,000 times the current processing or capturing capabilities of cameras that have been on the market for some time. Moore's law says you'll be seeing 10,000 times faster system in 19-20 years. Have a nice wait. Did you wave at the point when it flew over your head? No, you did. You assume time stands still for still photography, for 20 odd years or so. Unless you have no idea what Moore's law is. Digital cameras that can take both video and stills have been around for a while and apparently satisfy a need to many consumers. They don't make films from stills and don't extract stills from film. They record memories. Completely different application. Who is this "they" of which you are speaking and why are you trying to change the subject to film? You don't even remember what you wrote? "Digital cameras that can ..."? Knock knock? We're talking about the video capture mode of a DSLR, remember? "[T]he video capture mode of a DSLR" "[has] been around for a while and apparently satisfy a need to many consumers"? Well, if you insist ... video link shows. Not much of a technological leap seems to be required for the resolution and quality gap between the video frames That's the difference between 'seems to be required' and reality. What difference? The one *you* are unwilling and unable to see. What the hell are you talking about? Something a guy who thinks DSLR video is an old thing won't grasp. What seems to be required is simply taking the processing power of the 1DS MkIII, marrying it to the sensor of a 40D and the firmware of a 5D MkII. Basically: You want 21MPix at 30fps, that's 630MPix/s, and at typical RAW compression (of the 1Ds MkIII) that's 730MByte/s. - The 40D sensor only does 10MPix. (half) - The 40D sensor cannot be read above 65MPix/s at that quality. (1/10th) - The 1Ds MkIII does only 105MPix/s (1/6th) - The 1Ds MkIII system can only write 20MB/s, depending on the cards used. (1/37th) - The 5D MkII firmware cannot store RAWs when doing video, but only a heavily downsampled (1080p) and lossily compressed (H.264) data stream. (completely misses the mark) - The 5D MkII can get by with a faster, less accurate sensor read, as it has to downscale the image by, oh, a factor of 10 or so. 10x10 pixel, i.e. 100 pixels, improve the noise by a factor of just 10. That would seem to provide a camera with the ability to capture 10mp images at 20-30 frames per second. And again, you don't see the difference between 'seems' and reality. As shown above, no part of the system would even come near your claim. And I see you are shooting low now. 10MPix only, 20 fps only ... pitiful. Why, the ability to see what you are shooting while the mirror is locked up, of course. Rangefinders have been doing this for a very, very long time. So have pellicle mirrors. Ding Ding! DSLRs, remember? Bong Bong! Google pellicle mirror. So, let me get this straight, Straight? You got it as twisted as can be, by carefully misunderstanding everything. Because your eye cannot focus arbitrarily close. That means the LCD must be at some distance from the eyes (and don't forget presbyopia!). LCDs at the back of cameras thus need outstretched arms, which do wonders for stability. I guess that is why no one does this . . . And there are people who blow themselves up. By *your* logic, that must be a good idea, because people do that. usually get something sharp, too. And if your irony meter didn't justr peak, you need it readjusted. Thanks for acknowledging your prior idocy. And your irony meter is gone missing. Yeah, I guess I was dreaming about that whole 50D press release I thought I saw. I mean, you obviously cannot read a 15 megapixel sensor at a higher speed "accurately" for less money than one of its predecessors could read only 4.3 megapixels 6 years (or so) ago. Nice strawman. Not a strawman, Bah. Of course it is. an example that tends to contradict your claim that sensors can't be read quickly and accurately. I've seen sample images from the 50D and they look pretty good. You don't understand contexts, do you? Have you tried breathing? How high is the read noise of the 50D? What is the unity gain? How do you *know* that the read speed doesn't degrade the image quality? Nice combination of an argument to ignorance and attempting to change the subject. Ah, yes, you have no idea. Again. does it? Again, I've seen the sample images from teh 50D, they look pretty good and I'm guessing that no one slowed down the "read speed" to make the images look better. Let me get that straight, as you would say: They read the data at 5.000.000.000.000 Pixels/second. Right? Additionally, when I watched the video in the OP, I really didn't think to myself, man that video may look nice, but I bet the unity gain on that camera sucks. You don't even understand the meaning of "unitiy gain", do you? So, how long does it take to save 21MPix @ 14 bit per pixel? It's "only" 37 MByte. At 30fps, it's 1.1GByte/second. Which one of your flash memory cards even comes close to that number? Talk about a straw man . . . it doesn't make any difference, as long as the camera writes all the images to the card. So the video burst mode is limited by the buffer on the camera, so what? Looking at the 1Ds MkIII and only 10MPix ... it'd be all of 1.26 seconds at only 30 fps. Yes, I can see photographers killing each other over that, since they can have every shot of a whole game by just pressing the button and pointing. I still see photographers on the sidelines of games using cameras whose images can't be written to thier flash cards as fast as the images can be caputured. That apparently didn't prevent them or thier employers from purchasing the cameras. You wouldn't get the idea if it painted itself purple and danced naked in front of you, singing "Ideas are here again". How about 50MPix @ 18 bit per pixel and 60fps? How about it? Why not 1,000,000 horsepower in an econobox? Oh, 50MPix is perfectly possible at full frame. We already have the pixel density for 38MPix on full frame (the 50D) and 40MPix (10Mpix 4/3rds). We're already at 14 bit/pixel, scanners routinely have more. More resolution reduces the need to switch ISO values, and the pixels are large enough to hold meaningful charges for 18 bit A/D converters, if we can reduce the read noise. (But then the 20Da had only 3 e- readnoise, so it's possible.) 60fps for film, on the other hand, is being pushed by at least some camera makers (go to the photokina and see for yourself). In 20 years you'll find that and better. And that's the difference to the overpowered econobox. Not that I expect you'll grasp the difference. -Wolfgang |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
5DII video now up!
Bryan Olson wrote:
Eric Miller wrote: How long will it be before a Digic VIII (or some such) chip comes along that will process (by itself or with others or maybe a "quad core Digic VIII") large enough images quickly enough to allow video-like (or faster) frame rates at 10-20 megapixels which could then be downsampled into HD video or the individual images used for prints or whatever? The Red One reportedly delivers 12 MP at 30 frames per second. http://www.red.com/cameras It does minimal compression, so relies on large and fast data storage. ....and 1920*1080 is 2MP (not sure what the 5D2 does). -- Paul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
5DII video now up!
-hh wrote:
The technology is out there. That's nearly always the case. "commercially viable" and "affordable for mere mortals" are usually the watchwords. You want an 81MPix sensor? It's out there ... -Wolfgang |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Best "5DII" rumour thread yet | Jufi[_4_] | Digital Photography | 3 | May 12th 08 01:30 AM |
(video) Guy shows off FLIR infrared thermal video camera that he bought off Ebay. | Joe[_7_] | Digital Photography | 6 | November 16th 07 02:15 PM |