DSLR's and ultra high resolution video. Why no?

Discussion in 'Digital Video' started by nateo200, Sep 13, 2011.

  1. nateo200 macrumors 68030

    nateo200

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Location:
    Northern District NY
    #1
    What is preventing an 18megapixel DSLR like a Canon 7D or 550D from shooting video higher than 2megapixels (1920x1080p)? I mean I understand the obvious ones being the fact that your bitrate goes up and is bottlenecked at the SDXC cards speed, your CMOS sensor begging for mercy, the fact that canon probably doesn't really think anyone needs to shoot 2k+ on a DSLR (and they are probably right!), H.264 codec being crappy, etc. But lets talk theoretically here; Could the current line up of DSLR's realistically shoot say 2.5k video natively with a fast SDXC card, more battery life, ect.? I mean the video portion uses such a small portion of the overall megapixels/sensor...I figured this would be an interesting discussion for some and as I've been playing ALLOT more with video now I can't help but wonder. The purpose of the discussion/idea isn't "Well you don't need that much resolution" rather "Bigger and better? Oh yeah because I can!".
     
  2. Kevin Monahan macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    #2
    I would say that it is certainly possible in the future. DSLR manufacturers are probably well aware of this.

    For now, you can rent or buy 4K movie cameras like the RED One or Epic from RED (http://www.red.com/products). That's what most people are doing now for 2K+ images on up.
     
  3. nateo200 thread starter macrumors 68030

    nateo200

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Location:
    Northern District NY
    #3
    Wow I could have sworn my original post had something about RED in there. Anyways yeah I don't think RED scarlet is going to fill any serious gaps, It'll fill a gap but It'll still cost loads of $$$ not including the stuff you'll need for it. I like RED but I feel like DSLR's have so much more in them! I think Canon and Nikon amongst others need to release a firmware update so we can use a RAW video format instead of H.264 first though. Sure it will most likely cut my SD cards in half but I think the footage will be worth it!
     
  4. Lagmonster macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    #4
    Its a bandwidth issue. Processor/bus plus storage not to mention heat. A "cheap" dslr cant handle it. Yet.
     
  5. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #5
    Some of the limitations have already been touched on and it's basically akin to asking why can't a Ford Focus drive more like a Porsche 911. All you need to do is swap out all the stock Focus parts for high performance parts and you'll get a better performing Focus. Of course you just increased the cost of the car by a factor of 10! ;)


    Lethal
     
  6. acearchie macrumors 68040

    acearchie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    #6
    One of the reasons you pay a huge whack extra for RAW on the RED is because these tiny cameras couldn’t handle it without overheating etc.

    I hear what your saying but it sounds similar to why can’t my 600d take the same amount of photos in burst mode as a 7d. It can’t because it doesn’t have the processing power behind it.

    That being said I think that the 7d could handle 1080p60 but there is no point releasing a firmware update as otherwise there would be nothing that the 7dii would have to make it worth purchasing.

    The same can be said of the 500d which had very similar specs to the 550d but the 550d is so superior in video features even though they have the same processor.
     
  7. beltzak macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    #7
    I don"t really know much but for what I understand what you say cannot be done.

    The canon 5D mark ii has digic 4 processor and can take 3.9 frames per second. I don't really know if you scale down to say 8mpx (it has 21) you could take more frames but I really doubt it, and if it is posible then would not be proporcional.

    The 7D has 5.9 frames per second and digic 5 processor.

    So do any of this camera at least reach to the 24 frames per second to record a movie? Answer is No ;)

    Just my opinion, I told you I don't know much and sorry my poor english ;)
     
  8. acearchie macrumors 68040

    acearchie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    #8
    I think you'll find that the 7D can take 8 photo's a second in burst mode and in fact has dual digic 4 processors!
     
  9. THX1139 macrumors 68000

    THX1139

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #9
    And the other side of the question is, why do you need that? Are you going out to film? The average prosumer... even most pros, won't need to go above 1080 for quite some time. You do realize the storage and processing power requirements for editing going from 1080 to 2K and above? You are getting into a whole other league of costs. And for what reason?

    Yeah, I realize that you are speculating the potentiality of shooting 2K on DSLR, but I think it's a silly waste of time if you have no need for it. If you do, then you probably wouldn't be needing to ask the question. You'd already be shooting it. Your time would be better spent trying figure out how to improve the quality of your footage with the tools that are already available.
     
  10. acearchie macrumors 68040

    acearchie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    #10
    I think it would be much better to increase the IQ of the current 1080p / 720p frame as there are still some serious issues with these cameras.
     
  11. xStep macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Location:
    Less lost in L.A.
    #11
    For those new 4k TVs that will be popular real soon now. ;)
     
  12. nerdo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    #12
    Well 1 frame of 1920x1080 of high quality video would be what? 4MB each frame? So 24 X 4MB, the processors already have a hard time downscaling from 18MP to the 2mp image, my 5DII can run too hot and shut down even. 7D less of a problem off course because it has 2 digic processors.

    Anyway the bandwidth needed for this, in the camera from CMOS to camera memory to the processor, and if you get it compressed into a usable format then put it on a compact flash card. Was just asking too much for a camera under $2000.- Or for any camera under $12000.- really. the DSLR revolution was really a fortunate "mistake" nobody even thought we would be running around with DSLRs shooting video.

    Now two years later, I'm sure it won't be too long before RAW video and proper downscaling will end up in a package cheap enough to buy for most prosumers.

    But the simple answer to the question: why is a $1800.- camera not doing the same as a $35000.- camera (working RED one is about 35K) is simple: because it is not a $35000.- camera. It is cheaper because it is cheaper.

    Sony just announced a 4K camera, starting price: $80000.- just because something is possible, doesn't mean it is easy :)
     

Share This Page