New Canon 24 fps dSLR announced

Canon has been busy today!

http://pdnpulse.com/2011/11/canons-second-big-announcement-a-new-concept-full-frame-eos-dslr-being-developed.html

It's big brother pro video offering

http://pdnpulse.com/2011/11/breaking-canon-unveils-new-cinema-eos-c300-camera-in-hollywood.html

Mike

On 4/11/2011 2:36 p.m., Mike wrote:
Canon has been busy today!

http://pdnpulse.com/2011/11/canons-second-big-announcement-a-new-concept-full-frame-eos-dslr-being-developed.html

Not a 24fps dslr perhaps, but a dslr which can shoot 4k @ 24p resolution.

It's big brother pro video offering

http://pdnpulse.com/2011/11/breaking-canon-unveils-new-cinema-eos-c300-camera-in-hollywood.html

Looks good, some new cine lenses too, or you can get a PL mount version.
While the c300 is super 35mm, about APS-c size, the lenses apparently
(if I read it right) cover 36x24mm "still" 35 frame size. $6k or so for
a 50mm lens - I doubt many still photographers will buying one.

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:36:00 -0400, Mike wrote:
: Canon has been busy today!
:
: http://pdnpulse.com/2011/11/canons-second-big-announcement-a-new-concept-full-frame-eos-dslr-being-developed.html

I don't see this as particularly good news. Canon doesn't usually issue such
vague "announcements". It suggests that their development process is behind
schedule and that they expect Nikon to make a more substantive announcement
any day now. Or possibly Canon had planned a more substantive announcement in
anticipation of the Christmas rush, but the floods have made that impractical.

So here we are, left to guess. This could be anything from a minor upgrade to
the 5D2 to something quite different. I'd have to guess the former; but if
this turns out to be, for example, Canon's answer to the Nikon 1 series, Nikon
could conceivably be in a heap of trouble.

Bob

On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 12:32:28 +0000, Bruce wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
:
: On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:36:00 -0400, Mike wrote:
: : Canon has been busy today!
: :
: : http://pdnpulse.com/2011/11/canons-second-big-announcement-a-new-concept-full-frame-eos-dslr-being-developed.html
:
: I don't see this as particularly good news. Canon doesn't usually issue such
: vague "announcements". It suggests that their development process is behind
: schedule and that they expect Nikon to make a more substantive announcement
: any day now. Or possibly Canon had planned a more substantive announcement in
: anticipation of the Christmas rush, but the floods have made that impractical.
:
: So here we are, left to guess. This could be anything from a minor upgrade to
: the 5D2 to something quite different. I'd have to guess the former;
:
:
: There is a difference between recording 1080 video at 24 fps and full
: resolution still images at 24 fps, so don't get too excited. Unless
: of course video is your thing, in which case you can get as excited as
: you like!

It isn't. I'm still trying to catch up to where I should be as a still
photographer. Video isn't even on my radar screen.

: In conversation with a director of Canon Europe, I took the impression
: that there is something more than the EOS 1D X to come at the top end
: of Canon's DSLR range. I expect a replacement for the 5D II which
: will also effectively replace the 1Ds III.

gulp! The price of the 1Ds3 is nearly three times that of the 5D2. I had at
least entertained the possibility that I might someday be able to afford, say,
a 5D3; if the latter comes in priced like a 1Ds3, I won't live long enough to
afford one.

: No pixel count was discussed but it's an open secret that Canon has
: had a number of pros doing final test/appraisal of DSLRs with full
: frame sensors that are not unadjacent to 34.5 MP.

"not unadjacent to"?! Where did you receive your Master's Degree in
weaselwording, Bruce? ;^)

But anyway, what's your take on why Canon announced this camera, whatever it
is, so early? What is it that we're supposed to not buy while we wait for it
to materialize?

Bob

On 2011-11-03 21:36 , Mike wrote:
Canon has been busy today!

http://pdnpulse.com/2011/11/canons-second-big-announcement-a-new-concept-full-frame-eos-dslr-being-developed.html

That's 24 fps 4-k video, not still-full-frames.

(7 to 13 Mpix/frame depending on the "4K" format that is used - pretty
impressive IAC).

Be careful of your subject lines when posting in a SLR group.


--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On 5/11/2011 8:12 a.m., RichA wrote:
On Nov 3, 9:36 pm, wrote:
Canon has been busy today!

http://pdnpulse.com/2011/11/canons-second-big-announcement-a-new-conc...

It's big brother pro video offering

http://pdnpulse.com/2011/11/breaking-canon-unveils-new-cinema-eos-c30...

Mike

Why do they insist on still using that hoary old film frame rate?
Because every movie made for the past 80 years uses it.
All you get when you do use it is terrible jittering in any scene
involving movement.
If it's so terrible, then that's probably your playback equipment - or
the way you've got it set up.
They should for all digital video immediately
begin using 30fps at a minimum, and ideally, 60fps.
Not for movies they shouldn't.
I can't wait for the day when the last vestiges of film lineage are
GONE from digital.
You'll be long dead before that happens - so don't spend the rest of
your life whining.

On 2011-11-04 15:56 , Me wrote:
On 5/11/2011 8:12 a.m., RichA wrote:
On Nov 3, 9:36 pm, wrote:
Canon has been busy today!

http://pdnpulse.com/2011/11/canons-second-big-announcement-a-new-conc...


It's big brother pro video offering

http://pdnpulse.com/2011/11/breaking-canon-unveils-new-cinema-eos-c30...


Mike

Why do they insist on still using that hoary old film frame rate?
Because every movie made for the past 80 years uses it.

No. Most do but Imax also has a 48 fps mode and some movies are filmed
and played at higher rates.

All you get when you do use it is terrible jittering in any scene
involving movement.
If it's so terrible, then that's probably your playback equipment - or
the way you've got it set up.
They should for all digital video immediately
begin using 30fps at a minimum, and ideally, 60fps.
Not for movies they shouldn't.

Of course they should. Higher rate filming reduces jitters and matches
new media from home televisions to electronic projection in theatres.

With digital cameras used more and more in movie making (film is still
used extensively) digital recording at film time at 29.97, 30, 60 or
whatever rate is needed for smooth playback.

The "24" is an old standard. Standards change to evolve with technology.

I can't wait for the day when the last vestiges of film lineage are
GONE from digital.
You'll be long dead before that happens - so don't spend the rest of
your life whining.

His whining is nonsense as usual. But the premise that 24 fps is the
gold standard for film making and cast in concrete is just as nonsensical.


--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On 11/5/2011 8:32 AM, Alan Browne wrote:

I can't wait for the day when the last vestiges of film lineage are
GONE from digital.
You'll be long dead before that happens - so don't spend the rest of
your life whining.

His whining is nonsense as usual. But the premise that 24 fps is the
gold standard for film making and cast in concrete is just as nonsensical.



Actually it is cast in concrete.

Why, you might ask? WHY would a very low frame rate that causes
jerkiness be cast in concrete?

The answer is artistic blindness. Filmmakers are stuck in their ways.
The "see" film the way it is, the way it always has been. Change
it and they don't feel "comfortable". Modern, high quality silicon based
UHDTV is far more "realistic". This they don't like. They say
it "ruins suspension of disbelief".

Oh yes ... odd ... this week I got an official letter announcing that
I was eligible to join the SMPTE. WHAT? I'm a chemist! What do I have to
do with movies? Then I remembered the "T" in SPMTE and that I have
several patents involving digital TV (one of which, incidentally,
also has been discovered to cover 4G cell phones.) I don't plan to join!
I do wish these would make me some money, or, more likely, that
I win the WSOP main event.

Doug

On 2011-11-05 20:18 , Doug McDonald wrote:
On 11/5/2011 8:32 AM, Alan Browne wrote:

I can't wait for the day when the last vestiges of film lineage are
GONE from digital.
You'll be long dead before that happens - so don't spend the rest of
your life whining.

His whining is nonsense as usual. But the premise that 24 fps is the
gold standard for film making and cast in concrete is just as
nonsensical.



Actually it is cast in concrete.

It definitely (that's a hint) is not.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On 6/11/2011 1:18 p.m., Doug McDonald wrote:
On 11/5/2011 8:32 AM, Alan Browne wrote:

I can't wait for the day when the last vestiges of film lineage are
GONE from digital.
You'll be long dead before that happens - so don't spend the rest of
your life whining.

His whining is nonsense as usual. But the premise that 24 fps is the
gold standard for film making and cast in concrete is just as
nonsensical.



Actually it is cast in concrete.

Why, you might ask? WHY would a very low frame rate that causes
jerkiness be cast in concrete?

The answer is artistic blindness. Filmmakers are stuck in their ways.
The "see" film the way it is, the way it always has been. Change
it and they don't feel "comfortable". Modern, high quality silicon based
UHDTV is far more "realistic". This they don't like. They say
it "ruins suspension of disbelief".

It's not just that. Outside USA, there isn't wide uptake of digital
projection, current digital projection implementation allow for 24 or 48
fps at 2k, but 4k is 24 fps only. Most movies are also intermediate
edited in 2k.
There's no point going to an intermediate frame-rate of say 30 fps, as
pulldown to convert to 24 or 48 fps will be worse than native 24 fps.
I don't know how well cinema operators have done out of 3d, but kids
like 3d and they charge higher ticket prices. I suspect higher
resolution/framerate projection won't have the pulling power of 3d - not
to the point that cinema goers would pay a 50% premium to see an "extra
HD" version so that the cinema owner can recover investment cost.

Yeah - I didn't mention IMax, but the nearest IMax theatre to me is
1,000km away. The only time I've seen it has been in tourist spots.

As far as I know, The Hobbit is being shot in 4k @ 48 fps, and about (if
not the first) general feature movie to be shot at this resolution and
framerate. But there's a problem - current theatres can't display it at
4k 48 fps.

As for home theatre, if a new standard was foisted on the general public
now, it would probably just allow video on demand to kill the bluray
industry. 3d bluray, as underwhelming as it is (IMO) at least allowed
backward compatibility - but "4k/48fps bluray" wouldn't be. It wouldn't
be much use to have the gear to display it, if there was no content
available.