sturgis
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off
|
MayaTlab wrote:
You're absolutely right of course  .
But that chip is a lot less dedicated to video processing than Canon's and I believe quite a bit smaller in surface area. Which it probably compensates to a degree by using a smaller node process. I'd wager that it might have to do a lot more work as well to clean up the output.
Let's imagine a situation where Canon uses the latest node process, the latest IPs, on a larger chip, of which most transistors would be dedicated to imaging, in a device that is (theoretically) a lot less thermally constrained. I'm not sure why 8K @ 30 fps would be, at least on the chip side, a huge challenge. That would simply amount to me as doing things at the forefront of what's possible today instead of being a few years behind. After all this is what you'd expect out of an imaging company.
Let's just say that I'm skeptical that the R5's version of 8K 30fps or 4K 120 fps would result in 2020 in a chip that gets so hot that it can't be theoretically passively cooled in an enclosure such as the R5's... provided the camera's resources were allocated to that effect. It's unknown how effective the R5's cooling system is but it certainly looks very peculiar and counter-intuitive. It's entirely possible that it's just a compromise to the benefits of other areas of the camera and that Canon thought that 8K 30 fps or 4K 120 fps would be sufficiently niche applications that most users would use an external recorder instead and that they didn't warrant spending more of the available resources on a better passive cooling solution. That would be to me the nice, non-conspiracy theory explanation.
...Show more →
As you say, different chip fabrication - phones tend to use the latest the fabs can provide, I dont know who fabs Canon's procesor chips, but I would guess they are on an noticeably older size as it will be cheaper (and be less energy efficient)
Phones are on a massive scale in comparison to cameras as we all know. Look at the money in smartphones, hence the amount of effort gone into transforming them into what you see and use today.
80Mbps can use cheaper, slower storage. 2600Mbps as we know, takes CFExpress which further adds to the heat envelope.
But I still think they're doinig similar processing - x265 in HW (else it wouldnt be real time on either device), some lens correction, some noise processing, some sharpening and downsampling. I dont know how much phones do in HW vs SW, but I bet they do a lot. They release new CPU & GPUs almost annnually, and they iterate a lot quicker. Sure they do lots in SW, but anything they can offload into HW they will because of the reduction in processing times and heat.
Alas, no external recorder can support those high bitrate modes (yet), which is another indication for me about why 8K is bleeding edge, and even Canon's use of 4:2:2 rather than 4:2:0 means editing is rather difficult.
On the CR site, someone rightly pointed out that Sigma fp can do some of the modes that the R5 can do, without the same restrictions (and without some of the features that the R5 has).
I hope for Canon, that they are being protective of the Camera internals. Whether that is the Sensor, IBIS, the Image processor or something else, I doubt we will know - even if Canon did give some insight into the trade-offs.
No company is perfect, no product is perfect. If enough people don't buy the R5 then Canon will have to understand why. If that's because the wrong expectations were perhaps set in the pre-launch literature well then hopefully lesson learnt.
If I could sell my other Canon bodies back in the UK (here in HK pricing is much lower), I would buy a 2nd R5, even though the cool down times and stills impact on video times disappoint me, the rest of the camera is enough of an improvement for me, and different camera lines start to annoy me after a while - ha ha.
|
