You won't see 4K video in a DSLR for a long time. What's the point? What are we going to display it on. Even a high end 30" monitor only does 4MP and TV's only do 2MP. Cinema is different, so it makes sense in a dedicated high video camera.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
You won't see 4K video in a DSLR for a long time. What's the point? What are we going to display it on. Even a high end 30" monitor only does 4MP and TV's only do 2MP. Cinema is different, so it makes sense in a dedicated high video camera.
Well, seeing as how there already exist dedicated high end Zeiss video/cine lenses in Canon EOS/EF mount ...
... very expensive lenses with long focus throws suited for cinematic focus pulling. Also calibrated with T-stops for very precise aperture settings.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
You won't see 4K video in a DSLR for a long time. What's the point? What are we going to display it on. Even a high end 30" monitor only does 4MP and TV's only do 2MP. Cinema is different, so it makes sense in a dedicated high video camera.
2550x1600 monitors arnt uncommon, why should we record video for last years monitors?
wow that sounds interesting
maybe the 5D3?
If digic v is 6x faster then is could properly scale video down from 21-24MP sensor and produce, other than compression quality differences of course, full-on $$$$$$$$$$$$ Hollywood 1920x1080 quality video, if not better (again the compression will be worse of course and maybe they won't store more than 8bits per channel either which would also be worse).
Either this or the new rumored super camcorders using DSLR level sensors.
THis sure would fit well with the new NL rumor about the 5D3 and even to the old one on NL from like almost 3 years ago projecting waht Digic V was planned to do.
Or..... it could just be a new printer for the stars. With TWO direct print connections .
RobDickinson wrote:
2550x1600 monitors arnt uncommon, why should we record video for last years monitors?
Really, I don't know a single person outside a few forum nuts that haves one. Most of them complain text is too small even using 1920 x 1080 on a 24" monitor. They maybe easy to buy, but they'd represent a fraction of a percent of the user base. Also 4K video is 4192 x 2086, so > 8MP, a far cry from a 2560 x 1600 monitor's 4MP. The next step at least should be 2K video, which current high end monitors could accommodate.
Also most people would rather display this on their 50" TV than a 27"/30" monitor. TV's won't be moving beyond HD for several years.
I'm surprised no one has suggested that Canon has bought RED and will be doing a combined digital technology assault on the entertainment industry, eventually spilling over into consumer/pro-level cameras like a redefined 1Ds4 and 5D3.
RobDickinson wrote:
You dont know anyone with 27" imacs?
No and what % of the market do they represent. Most people are using crappy netbooks, or notebooks of which the vast majority are still stuck on that useless 1366 x 768. Really only small % of people have need for 2560 x 1440/1600. Even if the price dropped dramatically I don't see the uptake being high. For me the more res the better. I'd love a 4K monitor.
