Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 17 Mar 2010 (Wednesday) 05:46
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

what's canon's obsession with video

 
justincase724
Goldmember
Avatar
1,400 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
     
Mar 17, 2010 13:51 |  #61

WaltA wrote in post #9815854 (external link)
I think your quote of 0 is a pretty low number for that.

I agree with WaltA on this - Canon had to spend money on some kind of R&D of the video system, which was first implemented into the 5dmk2, thus absorbing most of the cost. I don't think it was very much in the scheme of things. However, now that it's figured out (for the most part), I'm sure the cost is very minimal for each new camera released that does have video.


FLICKr (external link) GEAR

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
alt4852
Goldmember
Avatar
3,419 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Northern Virginia
     
Mar 17, 2010 14:02 |  #62

justincase724 wrote in post #9815900 (external link)
I agree with WaltA on this - Canon had to spend money on some kind of R&D of the video system, which was first implemented into the 5dmk2, thus absorbing most of the cost. I don't think it was very much in the scheme of things. However, now that it's figured out (for the most part), I'm sure the cost is very minimal for each new camera released that does have video.

i'm going to go out on a limb and assume that the others, myself included, are referencing relative cost/effort. delegating coding and processing power to video encoding is much simpler than designing a new autofocus sensor, algorithm, and dedicating processing power to accommodate it. canon has been making camcorders for decades.. i don't think video encoding is a tall order for them. redesigning an autofocus system from the ground up on the other hand is something completely different.


5D4 | Z21 | 35L2 | 50L | 85L2 | 135L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
WaltA
Goldmember
Avatar
3,863 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 111
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Ladysmith, BC, Canada
     
Mar 17, 2010 14:06 |  #63

alt4852 wrote in post #9815834 (external link)
i don't see your point. are you trying to speculate about hypothetical features that canon may have included into the 5Dmk2 had they not included video? while you're at it, why not also consider how wonderful it would have been if they didn't spend all that time developing picture styles since most of us shoot RAW? how amazing would it be if they removed the automatic shooting modes, and replaced that dial with a built-in wireless flash transmitter?

the fact of the matter is, they didn't. we're speculating on what their engineers and marketing staff may have decided to develop over other features, speculating whether or not any particular feature was the demise of another, and speculating about a hypothetical camera that is tailored to our personal tastes as opposed to the reality of a camera that was created to make money and therefore appeal to the largest range of potential consumers. who knows if more advanced autofocus was passed up for development of the sensor dust cleaning function. we don't. claiming that video is the reason why we don't have a feature that we want is equally fruitless.

OK - let me make my point more clearly.

1 - People are saying that to develop, implement and support video on cameras like the 5Dmk2 costs nothing.

2 - I am saying that in the technology world - there is a cost to any new features.

There is no speculating at all. I am simply saying that there is a cost (time, effort, money etc) to developing and supporting this new functionality. And when you make that functionality part of an existing technology (DSLR) you run the risk of having to decide which is more
critical to the lifecycle of the product - still photographs or video. Sometime you can't do both - and one or the other loses out.


Walt
400D, 5D, 7D and a bag of stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
WaltA
Goldmember
Avatar
3,863 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 111
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Ladysmith, BC, Canada
     
Mar 17, 2010 14:09 |  #64

alt4852 wrote in post #9815976 (external link)
i'm going to go out on a limb and assume that the others, myself included, are referencing relative cost/effort. delegating coding and processing power to video encoding is much simpler than designing a new autofocus sensor, algorithm, and dedicating processing power to accommodate it. canon has been making camcorders for decades.. i don't think video encoding is a tall order for them. redesigning an autofocus system from the ground up on the other hand is something completely different.

I agree - its not a huge jump - but they had to add that H.264 encoding/decoding technology to the Digic 4 chip. I don't know for sure but I'll bet the Canon Video cameras don't use a Digic chip


Edit:

I just check the canon website and they do use a digic chip
===============
Industry-standard connections and terminals along with a wider range of image control settings and options are combined with the new Genuine Canon 20x HD Video Zoom Lens III with Professional L Series Fluorite. To back up that superb lens are three 1/3" Native 16:9 CCD with 1.67M Pixels (delivering a full 1440 x 1080) and Canon's exclusive DIGIC DV II HD Image Processor. The XL H1S is the compelling choice for anyone seeking to produce the best in high definition video.

===============


Walt
400D, 5D, 7D and a bag of stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
alt4852
Goldmember
Avatar
3,419 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Northern Virginia
     
Mar 17, 2010 14:17 |  #65

WaltA wrote in post #9815999 (external link)
OK - let me make my point more clearly.

1 - People are saying that to develop, implement and support video on cameras like the 5Dmk2 costs nothing.

2 - I am saying that in the technology world - there is a cost to any new features.

There is no speculating at all. I am simply saying that there is a cost (time, effort, money etc) to developing and supporting this new functionality. And when you make that functionality part of an existing technology (DSLR) you run the risk of having to decide which is more
critical to the lifecycle of the product - still photographs or video. Sometime you can't do both - and one or the other loses out.

but that's the thing, it isn't that simple. it isn't a matter of canon deciding between still photography or video. they made a decision to market the video aspect because it makes it more attractive to a wider array of consumers. keep in mind that they also doubled the megapixels which made studio photographers happy and increase high ISO performance which made event/wedding photographers happy. who's to say better autofocus would have made still frame photographers happier? hell, some of the best glass out there for studio is manual focus only.

you claim there isn't speculation in the very premise of your point, but there is. from what i've gathered, in your mind, you believe something more useful to you (ie: improved autofocus) was passed up in terms of opportunity cost in the development of video. considering the inclusion of such would remove one of the major differences between the 5D series and the 1Ds series, what's the say canon wouldn't have left the autofocus the way it was even without the inclusion of video? none of us knows the answer.. therefore, any claim we could make would be speculation. do you get what i'm saying?


5D4 | Z21 | 35L2 | 50L | 85L2 | 135L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Keith ­ R
Goldmember
2,856 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Blyth, Northumberland, NE England
     
Mar 17, 2010 14:18 |  #66

WaltA wrote in post #9815854 (external link)
And as I've mentioned earlier there a lot more to adding functionality to any device thats behind the scenes - like s.w development, support, QA etc etc.

The point is that much/most of/all of that work has been done now, and some of us anticipate that Canon is - pretty much - just copying the code into the firmware of new cameras as a finished product (more or less) which implies very-low-to-zero additional cost.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
justincase724
Goldmember
Avatar
1,400 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
     
Mar 17, 2010 14:18 |  #67

alt4852 wrote in post #9815976 (external link)
canon has been making camcorders for decades.. i don't think video encoding is a tall order for them. redesigning an autofocus system from the ground up on the other hand is something completely different.

Agreed. Regarding the video though, I remember seeing something where a Canon rep talked about receiving the 5dmk2 for the first time and when they gave him the run-down on all the new features, they only casually mentioned video to the extent of "oh yeah, it has a video feature too" and that was about it. He went on to say that the engineers for the 5dmk2 almost happened on it by chance (the full 1080p thing) and the video side of Canon never even knew about it until after the camera was released. Not sure of the validity of his story, but it was an interesting side note.


FLICKr (external link) GEAR

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
WaltA
Goldmember
Avatar
3,863 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 111
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Ladysmith, BC, Canada
     
Mar 17, 2010 14:23 |  #68

alt4852 wrote in post #9816073 (external link)
but that's the thing, it isn't that simple. it isn't a matter of canon deciding between still photography or video. they made a decision to market the video aspect because it makes it more attractive to a wider array of consumers. keep in mind that they also doubled the megapixels which made studio photographers happy and increase high ISO performance which made event/wedding photographers happy. who's to say better autofocus would have made still frame photographers happier? hell, some of the best glass out there for studio is manual focus only.

you claim there isn't speculation in the very premise of your point, but there is. from what i've gathered, in your mind, you believe something more useful to you (ie: improved autofocus) was passed up in terms of opportunity cost in the development of video. considering the inclusion of such would remove one of the major differences between the 5D series and the 1Ds series, what's the say canon wouldn't have left the autofocus the way it was even without the inclusion of video? none of us knows the answer.. therefore, any claim we could make would be speculation. do you get what i'm saying?

I hear what your saying - but I'm not speaking as a photographer - I'm speaking as a software developer. I don't really care what functionality is missing from later model cameras that have video. I've got a 5D classic and an xTi - what does that tell you? The point I've been arguing is that people are saying that Canon has been making video cameras for years so putting video functionality into a DSLR is a no-brainer and costs nothing.

I disagree.


Walt
400D, 5D, 7D and a bag of stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
alt4852
Goldmember
Avatar
3,419 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Northern Virginia
     
Mar 17, 2010 14:29 |  #69

WaltA wrote in post #9816111 (external link)
I hear what your saying - but I'm not speaking as a photographer - I'm speaking as a software developer. I don't really care what functionality is missing from later model cameras that have video. I've got a 5D classic and an xTi - what does that tell you? The point I've been arguing is that people are saying that Canon has been making video cameras for years so putting video functionality into a DSLR is a no-brainer and costs nothing.

I disagree.

yea, i get that h.264 encoding isn't a light task for the digic processors given the limited power they have to begin with, but considering the development of live view right before the addition of video as a feature, i'd have to assume that the coding to capture continuous images from the sensor was already developed and coding it and recording the data to a card was the logical next step towards making a feature-rich product for the market. due to the capabilities of the processor to begin with, i might agree that video was inevitable/no-brainer, but i can see what you're saying in terms of it having opportunity and/or quantifiable cost.


5D4 | Z21 | 35L2 | 50L | 85L2 | 135L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
WaltA
Goldmember
Avatar
3,863 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 111
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Ladysmith, BC, Canada
     
Mar 17, 2010 14:30 |  #70

Keith R wrote in post #9816074 (external link)
The point is that much/most of/all of that work has been done now, and some of us anticipate that Canon is - pretty much - just copying the code into the firmware of new cameras as a finished product (more or less) which implies very-low-to-zero additional cost.

Its easy to make that assumption - and it may be true. But the Digic 3 (which didn't have video) was 20% smaller than the Digic 4.

They actually had to place 2 layers on the chip to accomodate all the new features supported by the Digic 4.

So I suspect its not just a matter of copying code to firmware. But without Canon techs to answer, I guess we'll never know huh?

Edit
Check this article out. These guys tore the Digic 4 apart.

http://techon.nikkeibp​.co.jp …/NEWS_EN/200902​17/165748/ (external link)


Walt
400D, 5D, 7D and a bag of stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
alt4852
Goldmember
Avatar
3,419 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Northern Virginia
     
Mar 17, 2010 14:36 |  #71

WaltA wrote in post #9816165 (external link)
But without Canon techs to answer, I guess we'll never know huh?

that's pretty much what i figured. we can't really know for sure unless we talk to their engineers. :p

(really cool link though)


5D4 | Z21 | 35L2 | 50L | 85L2 | 135L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mrkgoo
Goldmember
2,289 posts
Joined Aug 2006
     
Mar 17, 2010 14:38 |  #72

WaltA wrote in post #9815999 (external link)
OK - let me make my point more clearly.

1 - People are saying that to develop, implement and support video on cameras like the 5Dmk2 costs nothing.

2 - I am saying that in the technology world - there is a cost to any new features.

There is no speculating at all. I am simply saying that there is a cost (time, effort, money etc) to developing and supporting this new functionality. And when you make that functionality part of an existing technology (DSLR) you run the risk of having to decide which is more
critical to the lifecycle of the product - still photographs or video. Sometime you can't do both - and one or the other loses out.

I undersand there is a cost, and we are likely paying for it. But we don't know how much that is.

And you're still making the assumption that focus has shifted. Unless we can quantify how much 'focus' has been taken away, the argument is hard to fight either way. You assume that had Canon not been working on video that there would be some other uber-feature that you do use (or a substantial decrease in cost).

Few people complain that Canon are adding all sorts of other features that you don't use. For example, all the JPEG/post processing features built into the camera (NR, picture styles, light optimization etc).

Not to mention all the R&D into the software that you may or may not use.

In the end, The cost of R&D and implementation of new features are not all jammed into one model. Chances are for a major feature such as video, the roadmap for all their models in the future incorporate some of this.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
13,148 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 642
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
Mar 17, 2010 14:41 |  #73

WaltA wrote in post #9814802 (external link)
I don't understand how people keep saying "it costs them nothing to add new features". That is absolutely untrue.

It costs very little to add video to a camera that has Live View. One user here on this forum hacked the firmware of his 40D to record video--so everything needed for video already exists on a camera with Live View. Yes, I know about regression testing and such for every new feature, but with a new camera release, that's just part of the project.

So then we have to decide if we want to remove Live View. I personally find Live View extremely useful--that was a surprising bonus to me in a camera I bought primarily for its resolution.

How will we know the features that Canon are NOT putting in the 5DMk2 because of the space/effort/cost of adding video?

What feature did you want? We can easily see that that a substantially upgraded AF system would have involved a major hardware and software renovation--probably an additional RISC chip as well. That would have driven up the MSRP above the previous model.

And they would not have been able to leave out Live View, which had become a standard expectation. As has been already mentioned, Nikon had already released a camera with video, and as I said above, once you have Live View you already have video. Live View is nothing but the cherry on a banana split--a new AF system would have been a whole additional banana.

Leaving video out of the 5D2 would have been like leaving the cherry off a banana split--everyone would notice it was missing and it was too cheap to replace with anything really spiffy without increasing the cost.


TANSTAAFL--The Only Unbreakable Rule in Photography

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
WaltA
Goldmember
Avatar
3,863 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 111
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Ladysmith, BC, Canada
     
Mar 17, 2010 14:43 |  #74

Yeah, it would be interesting to see their roadmap and where each of the model lines are going.

And to see how a new development in a generation 3 model becomes standard equipment in a Generation 5 model.

Guess we'll read this thread in a couple of years and laugh, huh?


Walt
400D, 5D, 7D and a bag of stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
WaltA
Goldmember
Avatar
3,863 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 111
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Ladysmith, BC, Canada
     
Mar 17, 2010 14:46 |  #75

RDKirk wrote in post #9816208 (external link)
It costs nothing to add video to a camera that has Live View. One user here on this forum hacked the firmware of his 40D to record video--so everything needed for video already exists on a camera with Live View.

So then we have to decide if we want to remove Live View. I personally find Live View extremely useful--that was a surprising bonus to me in a camera I bought primarily for its resolution.

I'm no chip engineer but I would have to ask why did they have to add the H.264 encoding/decoding to the Digic 4 chip?


Walt
400D, 5D, 7D and a bag of stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

15,127 views & 0 likes for this thread
what's canon's obsession with video
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is marteend
924 guests, 322 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.