You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

4K Firmware for the Canon T2i/Canon 550D

Posted: Thu, 30th Dec 2010, 5:42am

Post 1 of 39

miker

Force: 386 | Joined: 30th Jul 2005 | Posts: 651

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBaXUKESZqc

From my understanding.. basically, this will allow you to shoot at a much higher resolution than the default 1920x1080 (1080P HD). Really, really exciting stuff. What are people's thoughts on this? I don't wanna hype this too much, until I see some actual footage - but this does sound really interesting.

I'm currently shooting with Magic Lantern on my T2i - which is pretty cool stuff as well. If you haven't heard of Magic Lantern, there's a tutorial on how to install it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sQS3eNUL0I

Basically, it allows you to adjust settings on your camera you wouldn't be able to otherwise (more flexible ISO/shutter, better audio control, etc.).

HOWEVER - definitely do your research before upgrading/hacking your T2i/550D. From what I've read, it CAN ruin your camera (and I believe voids the Manufacturer warranty).

I just thought I'd share this here, because it seems pretty exciting and there are no doubt lots of T2i/550D users on FXHome.

Last edited Fri, 31st Dec 2010, 8:40pm; edited 3 times in total.

Posted: Thu, 30th Dec 2010, 6:02am

Post 2 of 39

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I'll believe it when I see it. I would prefer more flexibility with frame rates. I want to be able to shoot at 120fps, damnit! smile

Nice to know that Magic Lantern is working on the T2i. I am probably going to do it. Some of those features are too good to pass up.
Posted: Thu, 30th Dec 2010, 7:01am

Post 3 of 39

miker

Force: 386 | Joined: 30th Jul 2005 | Posts: 651

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

The ISO adjustment on Magic Lantern is extremely useful, as well as the ability to adjust the bitrate of your video (allowing you ensure maximum bitrate on each any every individual shot) - achieving even better image quality. There's also some nifty features for sound recording. I really wouldn't be surprised when somebody's developed something that allows you to adjust FPS to different levels. The world of hacks/'jailbreaks'/over-clocking/whatever you want to call it with electronic gear is quite incredible, really.
Posted: Thu, 30th Dec 2010, 8:33am

Post 4 of 39

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

4K, eh? Well there's no technical reason why not, and a class 10 SD card should make it possible to increase the bitrate... but 1920x1080 is *almost* 2k already, and digital screens often resolve to around 2k or under (before a checkerboard battern just looks grey), so it is likely to be a fancy number for its own sake, or at best a 40% uplift in resolution in each axis. Clever and interesting, but not necessarily useful!

But MikeR you're getting on well with the ML hack? Brilliant, I may give that a try myself, just to kill the AGC which screws up all sync sound smile
Posted: Thu, 30th Dec 2010, 2:37pm

Post 5 of 39

DVStudio

Force: 4983 | Joined: 22nd Nov 2007 | Posts: 1845

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Well, it certainly would be quite fun to be filming in 4K on the T2i, although, there's not much practical benefit for doing so at the moment. Interesting though.

Paddy- let me know if you get that ML firmware working, I think I'll give it a try if you are successful. The AGC is really obvious with the Rode Mic, so I either need to do this hack, or set up the 100MHz tone one.
Posted: Thu, 30th Dec 2010, 4:29pm

Post 6 of 39

Paradox Pictures

Force: 889 | Joined: 18th Mar 2008 | Posts: 387

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

What is the dimensions of a 4K image?
Posted: Thu, 30th Dec 2010, 4:50pm

Post 7 of 39

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

It varies depending on format and aspect ratio.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution
Posted: Thu, 30th Dec 2010, 4:57pm

Post 8 of 39

mikeh

Force: 1025 | Joined: 3rd Jan 2007 | Posts: 330

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1/-1

Wouldn't 4k result in less moire and aliasing problems? Because a larger amount of pixels are being used on the sensor, the down sampling wouldn't be as harsh. The best thing about shooting in 4k is that the 1080p image created by downscaling in post would be better than the native T2i sensor could do. Stu Maschwitz has a great post on his blog explaining this concept: http://prolost.com/blog/2010/9/2/ha-ha-very-funny-canon-now-get-back-to-work.html
Posted: Thu, 30th Dec 2010, 5:18pm

Post 9 of 39

Limey

Force: 547 | Joined: 11th Sep 2005 | Posts: 752

Gold Member

I will definitely get the Magic Lantern firmware. It looks great.
Posted: Thu, 30th Dec 2010, 7:03pm

Post 10 of 39

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

mikeh wrote:

Stu Maschwitz has a great post on his blog explaining this concept: http://prolost.com/blog/2010/9/2/ha-ha-very-funny-canon-now-get-back-to-work.html
On one hand, it is pretty ridiculous that the image from these cameras could be so much better than it already is, but on the other hand, that guy doesn't seem to take into account that the Canon cameras are still cameras with video functionality, not the other way around. It's reasonable to want more from the camera, but it's unreasonable to expect it to do something that it simply isn't designed for. RED cameras are designed for 4K cinematography. Canon DSLRs are not.

However, after seeing that article, the 4K firmware seems like a real possibility. Supposedly we'll find out for sure this weekend! If it's real, and I can tweak my camera to get full-res 1080p like that article demonstrates, I will do it. I see no real reason the sensor can't capture that kind of resolution. But like I said, I'll believe it when I see it, blah blah blah.
Posted: Thu, 30th Dec 2010, 9:05pm

Post 11 of 39

Limey

Force: 547 | Joined: 11th Sep 2005 | Posts: 752

Gold Member

What happens if the ML firmware screws up the whole camera? Is there a way to revert back to the regular set up?
Posted: Thu, 30th Dec 2010, 10:35pm

Post 12 of 39

miker

Force: 386 | Joined: 30th Jul 2005 | Posts: 651

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Limey12345 wrote:

What happens if the ML firmware screws up the whole camera? Is there a way to revert back to the regular set up?
Basically, you're formatting the memory card to use ML with your camera. So if something goes wrong, you'll just need to use a different memory card. Nothing's permanent on the camera, I'm 99% sure.
Posted: Fri, 31st Dec 2010, 12:31am

Post 13 of 39

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Some more updates on this here. Looks like it's legit! Or a cruel joke! And only 6 seconds of record time with 4K! Hmm!
Posted: Fri, 31st Dec 2010, 9:32am

Post 14 of 39

Sick Boy

Force: 0 | Joined: 21st Nov 2008 | Posts: 115

Member

The 4K is pretty meh, 6 sek on a 32Gb class 10 card? Also, no 25p and no 16:9?

The good things:

45mb/s - 175mb/s bitrates
Moire and aliasing “fixed”
“Rolling Shutter isn’t much of an issue”
Posted: Fri, 31st Dec 2010, 6:15pm

Post 15 of 39

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Even 175Mbps should give you almost 3' before hitting the 4GB filesize limit, so 6 secs is odd?

In theory though, you only make a teensyweensy change to the camera setup to be able to use ML - but you have to /always/ boot from ML (have it on all your SD cards) or the camera will go into overload trying to find the ML files and can overheat the processor (which makes a brick of your camera) - the only option is to take out the battery. But you can avoid it and revert to the regular Canon firmware pretty simply by changing one setting *inside* ML then *formatting* the cards to delete ML.

That said, having looked at it, I'm not sure the changes for video are all that amazing - there is a kind of programmable rack focus, and zebras, but you lose audio monitoring despite theoretically getting nicer audio with no autogain. I don't know, if I was going to use the camera to record audio, monitoring would be absolutely core to me, so it's not perfect. More handy for stills, if you take loads of stills!

But perhaps that's a *yet*, I'll certainly watch with interest.
Posted: Fri, 31st Dec 2010, 8:41pm

Post 16 of 39

miker

Force: 386 | Joined: 30th Jul 2005 | Posts: 651

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Another, pretty pointless trailer update here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/Earz62801#p/a/u/0/L34Vw-I2Lzo
Posted: Sat, 1st Jan 2011, 3:00am

Post 17 of 39

rogolo

Force: 5436 | Joined: 29th May 2005 | Posts: 1513

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 User MacOS User

Gold Member

pdrg wrote:

That said, having looked at it, I'm not sure the changes for video are all that amazing - there is a kind of programmable rack focus, and zebras, but you lose audio monitoring despite theoretically getting nicer audio with no autogain. I don't know, if I was going to use the camera to record audio, monitoring would be absolutely core to me, so it's not perfect. More handy for stills, if you take loads of stills!
Not that amazing? Whaaaa??? The ability to record in 2/3/4k with variable bit rates and framerates for $700 is not amazing to you?

True, as other articles have said, the 2/3/4k may not be true resolution, but even so - downrezzing back to HD should eliminate the aliasing and moire problems, which will resolve to a MUCH nicer 1080p image than we can get now. The rack focus, I agree, isn't amazing, but its certainly a cool little feature to have (especially when shooting closeups/macro/inanimate objects/etc) and zebras will help shooters keep a good eye on exposure without having a viewfinder attachment. And what audio monitoring are you losing with this? You can't monitor in the first place with Canon DSLRs.

While it may not be perfect, it's certainly an incredible value for a setup whose output (if shot correctly) can rival/emulate some very expensive gear. For $700. Expecting a perfect camera for the equivalent price of a 1 day camera rental is reaching a bit, eh?



Just hoping this isn't all another hoax, which it easily can be...but what's the fun in being a cynic 24/7? smile
Posted: Sat, 1st Jan 2011, 3:24pm

Post 18 of 39

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

rogolo wrote:

Not that amazing? Whaaaa??? The ability to record in 2/3/4k with variable bit rates and framerates for $700 is not amazing to you?... And what audio monitoring are you losing with this? You can't monitor in the first place with Canon DSLRs....Expecting a perfect camera for the equivalent price of a 1 day camera rental is reaching a bit, eh?
My mistake - it is perfect and amazing wink

You seem to be confusing how amazing the camera + firmware update is with how amazing the firmware update alone is. And I am not quibbling with the price. Just saying that for a videographer, that the ML update doesn't seem to me to add that much useful at the moment, at least it offers a lot more for stills (which makes sense for a stills camera).

Increasing the bitrate to 4x current is overkill for almost all occasions, especially if the buffers fill up even with a class 10 card. Zebras are handy, but as the LCD is only really for aiming, you should be monitoring for sharps anyway. Framerates haven't changed, have they? Rather if it offers say 200fps, awesome, but I don't think it does? I thought I tried and dumped audio monitoring on the 550D in the past, maybe not, either way, without audio monitoring you cannot trust the audio recorded isn't clipping or low or otherwise yucky - so have to go to a separate recorder allowing you to listen. 4k, well whoopee. I won't be spending my time swapping cards every 3 mins just to shoot at a resolution I can't use and most cinemas can't project.

So yes, the work is clever, I'm just saying from a video point of view, I don't feel enough reasons to use ML as the firmware *yet*. If they add framerates tweaked to 200fps (or above!) even at SD, I'll have another look, but right now I don't think I'll gain anything useful.

Your mileage may vary smile
Posted: Sat, 1st Jan 2011, 5:11pm

Post 19 of 39

DVStudio

Force: 4983 | Joined: 22nd Nov 2007 | Posts: 1845

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

mikeh wrote:

Stu Maschwitz has a great post on his blog explaining this concept: http://prolost.com/blog/2010/9/2/ha-ha-very-funny-canon-now-get-back-to-work.html
If you ask me, that guy is a naive idiot. If you wanted 4K footage, then buy a RED camera, not a $900 DSLR from Canon. Keep in mind, this is a camera that was designed no less, for still images, although it does handle video and images quite well as we all know. But certainly don't go ahead and complain that it's not up to par with the $20K RED cameras. Give me a break. Perhaps his idea is useful, but he can leave the opinions out of it, because IMO they take away from the article.

Hopefully this firmware is useful- not for shooting in 3K or 4K but for getting higher res 1080p. wink This is pretty good article talking about the development of the firmware, assuming it's legitimate.

At the moment, Maschwitz's idea won't work, at least not in a practical sense, because the cameras can only shoot about 6 seconds of the 4K, which was a significant limitation when they were working on this update. So, for me, six seconds is a waste of time, and I'm with pdrg on this- surprise... wink
Posted: Sat, 1st Jan 2011, 8:11pm

Post 20 of 39

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkTN7Ayosq0&feature=player_embedded

It's gotta be real.
Posted: Sat, 1st Jan 2011, 8:20pm

Post 21 of 39

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Aculag, that's a +1 find. Brilliant. I love the extra modes too wink
Posted: Sun, 2nd Jan 2011, 12:54am

Post 22 of 39

DVStudio

Force: 4983 | Joined: 22nd Nov 2007 | Posts: 1845

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

pdrg wrote:

I love the extra modes too
Especially that option to simply eliminate the rolling shutter issue... can't wait! wink

It's actually quite funny- when I first saw the original video, I immediately wondered if the video on the T2i was just motion tracked and the bad footage was a cover up, but I'm hoping it's not... wink

Hey, look, it's working... wink
Posted: Sun, 2nd Jan 2011, 1:20am

Post 23 of 39

mikeh

Force: 1025 | Joined: 3rd Jan 2007 | Posts: 330

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -1

DVStudio wrote:

mikeh wrote:

Stu Maschwitz has a great post on his blog explaining this concept: http://prolost.com/blog/2010/9/2/ha-ha-very-funny-canon-now-get-back-to-work.html
If you ask me, that guy is a naive idiot. If you wanted 4K footage, then buy a RED camera, not a $900 DSLR from Canon. Keep in mind, this is a camera that was designed no less, for still images, although it does handle video and images quite well as we all know. But certainly don't go ahead and complain that it's not up to par with the $20K RED cameras. Give me a break. Perhaps his idea is useful, but he can leave the opinions out of it, because IMO they take away from the article.

Hopefully this firmware is useful- not for shooting in 3K or 4K but for getting higher res 1080p. wink This is pretty good article talking about the development of the firmware, assuming it's legitimate.

At the moment, Maschwitz's idea won't work, at least not in a practical sense, because the cameras can only shoot about 6 seconds of the 4K, which was a significant limitation when they were working on this update. So, for me, six seconds is a waste of time, and I'm with pdrg on this- surprise... wink
If you have read his other posts, you would know there is no one more excited and ready to embrace the DSLR movement than Stu Maschwitz. To call him a "naive idiot" is a bit extreme. He is an intelligent and well respected guy.

And to be honest, your logic is flawed, and I believe you didn't thoroughly understand or read the post. He never asks for 4k on the DLSRs so I don't know where you got that from!? However, I don't feel the need to defend him. What he is pointing out in the article is that the Canon cameras are capable of producing a clean 1080p image. However, the down scaling done by the internal firmware is preventing this from happening.

In any DSLR, the sensor skips lines to record the video, causing moire and aliasing problems. Instead, he points out that the cameras could use a more efficient down sampling process that eliminates these issues. He shows that software like Photoshop and light room can downscale a 4k image (a larger percentage of the sensor)more efficiently than the poorly written Canon firmware.

It's not a matter of comparing a DSLR to a RED, or even hoping for 4k on a DSLR. Hell, he even told Canon to make a true 1080p camera before moving onto 4k. But his argument is true: the cheap price of the Canons is no excuse for crappy and inefficient firmware. Yeah, they might be still cameras, but if Canon hasn't realized that millions of people are buying their cameras JUST for video, then they're the "naive idiots"!

Simply put, these cameras come so close to being perfect. Canon could reduce many of the problems found in DSLRs (which are far from perfect!).

Panasonic and Sony are already addressing this but yet we have heard nothing from Canon?
Posted: Sun, 2nd Jan 2011, 1:27am

Post 24 of 39

Sick Boy

Force: 0 | Joined: 21st Nov 2008 | Posts: 115

Member

Amazing what some punks will go through for cheap fame.
Posted: Sun, 2nd Jan 2011, 2:04am

Post 25 of 39

DVStudio

Force: 4983 | Joined: 22nd Nov 2007 | Posts: 1845

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Oh, where to start...

mikeh wrote:

He never asks for 4k on the DLSRs so I don't know where you got that from!?
Oh, I have no idea.... he says the 1080p isn't good enough, and then goes on to say that "I expect this kind of technology dick-swinging from Sony, but not from Canon." Plus, "Canon, please stop building fake “4K” video cameras when you can’t even make an SLR that shoots actual 1080p HD."

You have to remember, Canon didn't release this alleged 4K firmware, nor did they release the Magic Lantern firmware. It was done independently, so Canon isn't trying to make "fake 4K toys" nor did they ever claim to.

wrote:

"So stop dicking around with your fake 4K toys and start making cameras we can use. That we want to use."
This is my main problem with the article. People here do enjoy using these cameras. I bought mine because I wanted to use it, not to b!tch at Canon for not making it better. If they'd fix the AGC and allow for monitoring the audio or perhaps increase the frame rate options slightly, that would be all I'd ever ask for. It's certainly better than any video camera I've ever owned. Hell, better than any you've had either.

mikeh wrote:

the cheap price of the Canons is no excuse for crappy and inefficient firmware.
No, it's not, but it's unreasonable to expect 4K images by default from a $799 camera. It would be nice, but it's not going to happen from Canon, Sony, or anyone else for under $1K. Hell, Nikon didn't include a mic input on their DSLR... yeah, they're catching up to Canon pretty quick... wink And, "They’re still falling way short of HD." What can he or anyone find that's better for the price of the T2i?

mikeh wrote:

It's not a matter of comparing a DSLR to a RED
Oh, no, not at all....

"It’s as if Canon brass lifted the internet ban on the engineer’s dungeon just long enough for them to visit to RED’s web site, and then shut it down again after they’d read as far as “4K.”

Does the latter sound unfeasible for “real” video work? Well it shouldn’t — it’s what we do with our RED One cameras now...

Canon, you have none of that stuff, you have no idea how to make it, and you don’t even know that you don’t know this."


Dude, I'm not trying to argue with you- you didn't write the article, heh. wink

Sure, I'd like some improvements too, but comparing a T2i and its possibility of 4K to the RED camera is like comparing a Volkswagen to a Porsche. No one (at least not reasonably) expects or wants to shoot in a resolution of 4096 x 3112. Why would you want to? The only potential use is to use that footage to make a sharper 1080p one, which is quite usable. The rest of that enormous amount of data will go to waste, because there is no practical reason to shoot a film at that resolution seeing as how the vast majority of cinemas and computer monitors and TVs can't handle it.

I respect that part of his article. It made sense. But the Canon bashing was pointless and should have been left out- that's all I was saying.

We don't disagree on much in this case, as a matter of fact.

Cheers
Posted: Sun, 2nd Jan 2011, 2:24am

Post 26 of 39

mikeh

Force: 1025 | Joined: 3rd Jan 2007 | Posts: 330

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +2

He isn't talking about he 4k firmware at all. This article was written months before this hoax(?). He's talking about a 4k concept camera that Canon put out, and is bashing Canon because they haven't made a true "1080p" camera yet (HDSLRs are not true HD, that's a fact) but are trying to compete with the RED by claiming this "concept" camera can shoot 4k.

I don't really understand where your getting the notion that he or I wants a 4k Canon DSLR?

That being said, if the Canon's could record at 4k, they would be using a much larger portion of the pixels on the sensor, reducing the moire and aliasing. Yes, 4k is pretty much useless as a delivery format, but could be down scaled to a beautiful 1080p image, like Stu shows in his article.

Ant no one is b!tching here. All Canon would have to do is rewrite a few lines of code to unleash the full potential of DSLRs. It would be a hell of alot easier for them to do this than some third party hackers!

I think we all agree no one expects a 4k camera for $800. But it would be so easy for Canon to make their DSLRs true 1080p cameras.
Posted: Sun, 2nd Jan 2011, 2:57am

Post 27 of 39

DVStudio

Force: 4983 | Joined: 22nd Nov 2007 | Posts: 1845

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

mikeh wrote:

But it would be so easy for Canon to make their DSLRs true 1080p cameras.
Right, and by all means they should make it the best it can be. Trust me, I'm not arguing with that, no matter how anyone wants to read into my post. wink

I gather that they are talking about a 4K concept camera. There was a picture of it at the start of the article, but this is a thread about the alleged 4K firmware on the T2i. In effect, this firmware would potentially allow for the process that he details using Photoshop and Lightroom to make a crystal clear 1080p picture. Let's git 'r done.
Posted: Sun, 2nd Jan 2011, 4:16am

Post 28 of 39

DVStudio

Force: 4983 | Joined: 22nd Nov 2007 | Posts: 1845

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Rick Rolled. wink
Posted: Sun, 2nd Jan 2011, 5:02am

Post 29 of 39

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

That guy is going to get so much hate mail for this its not even funny. Heck, I'll send him one when I have the time Lol
Posted: Sun, 2nd Jan 2011, 5:49am

Post 30 of 39

miker

Force: 386 | Joined: 30th Jul 2005 | Posts: 651

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Lol, ridiculous.

I thought it was a little suspicious when "Dod3032" deleted the video he had posted of the exact same trailer originally created/posted by "Earz6280", the proclaimed "creator" of the 4k firmware. That was quite the Rick Roll..

It would have been even better if I was in on it.. which I wasn't wink.

No 4K firmware for us.. yet. unsure
Posted: Sun, 2nd Jan 2011, 7:33pm

Post 31 of 39

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I stopped believing it when they said they weren't going to release it because canon offered them $650k and they turned it down.
Posted: Sun, 2nd Jan 2011, 11:16pm

Post 32 of 39

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +2

DVStudio wrote:

mikeh wrote:

Stu Maschwitz has a great post on his blog explaining this concept: http://prolost.com/blog/2010/9/2/ha-ha-very-funny-canon-now-get-back-to-work.html
If you ask me, that guy is a naive idiot.
It's time to shut your mouth and back away when you call someone like Stu Maschwitz a naive idiot. That's really all I have to say about that.

We don't need 4k. We need better 1080p. We need better audio control and we need less/no rolling shutter.

-M
Posted: Mon, 3rd Jan 2011, 12:15am

Post 33 of 39

DVStudio

Force: 4983 | Joined: 22nd Nov 2007 | Posts: 1845

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Listen, perhaps that was a bit harsh, however, I did explain the comment, which you must have overlooked. Taking something out of context is wonderful and all, but I specifically said that my opinion was based on the amount of un-needed Canon-bashing which detracted from the article as a whole. How many more times should I say that? Now, as I was saying, I don't know anything about this guy, nor do I care. I know how the T2i works for me and that's all I care about.

I never asked for 4K footage, I never asked for better 1080p as a matter of fact. There is nothing wrong with that part of the camera. Keep in mind, it is a consumer camera, not a professional camera, and to expect it to perform and match the colors or anything like that is preposterous. All that I would like Canon to adjust slightly is the audio (which ML has taken a step in the right direction with) and to increase the frame rates and options associated with that. Those a useful features and adjustments. To demand "better 1080p" is pointless, because Canon won't do it. And I don't know that they need to. Is there a better 1080p camera that you can find, even for double the price, than the Canons? No, there is not. It would be nice, but be realistic and step back and listen to yourselves...

I respect your opinion Hybrid, and I agree with you on the audio and rolling shutter, and no one would object to 1080p, but I'm being pragmatic here. wink

Cheers,
DV
Posted: Mon, 3rd Jan 2011, 12:32am

Post 34 of 39

mikeh

Force: 1025 | Joined: 3rd Jan 2007 | Posts: 330

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Canon DSLRs aren't true 1080p. The shallow depth of field makes the video seem better quality than it really is. Just look at any deep focus shot on your T2i of a brick wall.

And if you don't care about who Stu is, maybe you should?

http://www.amazon.com/DV-Rebels-Guide-All-Digital-Approach/dp/0321413644/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1294014776&sr=8-1-catcorr&searchContext=0321413644,1932907513,B003XEMVZ2
Posted: Mon, 3rd Jan 2011, 2:39am

Post 35 of 39

Limey

Force: 547 | Joined: 11th Sep 2005 | Posts: 752

Gold Member

mikeh wrote:

Canon DSLRs aren't true 1080p.
What do you mean?
Posted: Mon, 3rd Jan 2011, 3:12am

Post 36 of 39

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

DV, I'm not sure you are being pragmatic, not totally. The firmware makes the 1080p worse than it should be, no? Canon has been very slow on the video front; maybe they have something up their sleeves, but they're being slow. I appreciate the T2i SO so much, and am fine with it in its current state as well. But it already records 24p. Asking it to do MORE frames per second is something the sensor has no control over, that's asking the camera to do something that it isn't designed to do at all, they make specialty cameras for that. If you want audio, go pick up an external recorder. But that is another aspect Canon is pretty much being a dick about.

As for "true" 1080p, according to broadcasting and film standards, and the rolling shutter issue: I think that's just all of our dreams, and they seem to be coming true right in front of us. We can now produce great looking films without a hollywood budget. But it seems like things like commerce and business are getting in the way of it, or something. Clearly something is delaying this movement, and hopefully these firmware hackers can do something about it. If not, I'm sure a solution will come in time. But yeah these cameras are already damn fine.

I don't think anyone is demanding anything, just disappointed in the slow reaction to this invention. At least that's what I gather, but I haven't really been following these new developments closely.
Posted: Mon, 3rd Jan 2011, 10:26am

Post 37 of 39

Sick Boy

Force: 0 | Joined: 21st Nov 2008 | Posts: 115

Member

What makes the 1080p on the 550D not "real"?
Posted: Mon, 3rd Jan 2011, 2:13pm

Post 38 of 39

DVStudio

Force: 4983 | Joined: 22nd Nov 2007 | Posts: 1845

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Ehh, that's not entirely true about the "true 1080p", Mike. The T2i is as worthy of being 1080p as any other camera/camcorder. Perhaps it makes it look better than it is due to some downscaling within the software, but it's still 1080p in its own right. wink Sure, it doesn't feature 4:4:4 square sampling, but every camera is going to have limitations, and Serpent's right, these cameras are already really great.

Oh, and thanks Serpent. At least someone has something intelligent to say. I guess the higher frame rates are a bit unrealistic wink, but I'm not the only one who mentioned it on here. Other respected members here have too, you know?
Posted: Tue, 4th Jan 2011, 1:00am

Post 39 of 39

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Bunfight! I'm in!

I'm not sure what's unreal about the 1080p, but in the same way would you say the HDCAM standard was true or untrue 1080p? You've seen movies shot on these £50k cameras, yet they use 3:1:1 chroma sampling and nonsquare pixels, so are 1080 lines strictly speaking, but lower res technically than a 550D. There is no such format as 1080p, it is just one dimension of a spec that encompases bitrate, horizontal pixel count, chroma sampling, codec used, etc. It's a handy shortcut, but there are very few (no?) cameras out there with full marks on all these dimensions.

Framerates - Ooohh that is probably my fault - casio's consumer/toy line of cameras are able to shoot fantastically high framerates by only sampling an area of the sensor, but more frequently. Maybe they patented that or something, or maybe they use a special type of CMOS sensor, but it is technically possible, so would be a nice to have. Seeing as the limitation on the ~18MP image is about 3-4 fps to clear the buffers each time, perhaps a 2MP (video) image at 27 fps is the best possible at HD, but maybe 125fps is possible at SD (Approx 20% of the image size)? Plenty of reasons why not, but Casio have arranged their systems to make that possible, so not an outrageous question to ask.

Of course the rolling shutter is an attribute of these CMOS sensors, which is why it was an option on that spoof vid (along with 4:2:2/4:4:4). They are read sequentially, the shutter rolls. Just physics.

I like my 550D, I don't love it, but I do like it. It does a lot for the money, but Canon have a video camera arm, and the stills camera guys are not in competition with them, so changes/upgrades are likely to be slow or not at all. We must remember, 25fps 1080p at a decent bitrate on any device at the price is a lucky accident!