Canon Announces the Development of New High Sensitivity Sensor

Osiriz wrote in post #15675330
But does it really surprise you? This is just one of many signs that Canon is moving more and more towards video.

Super strong AA-filters in all DSLRs, lenses made exclusively for video, sensors exclusively for video, EOS bodies designed for video, and loads of R&D money "wasted" in video features - stuff that most of us don't even care about.

Sure, the R&D on video might not be a "waste" for everyone, but for me as a still photographer, it is nothing but a big fat waste.

Dear Canon. How about giving us an update on the big MP sensor? You know, the one that we photographers are waiting for.

-End of my pointless rant-

Seriously? Canon has been in the video business for quite a long time. I doubt their R&D was "wasted" on video options.

You might want to watch the video in this thread:

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1280131

Pulling a RAW shoot from video is not far reached.

I've said slowly... I believe that's where Canon is going to.

tkbslc wrote in post #15680030
A diverse company is good! It means more stability. Okay, maybe they release a couple less cameras a year, but they stay profitable with money to devote to R+D.

I don't think so. We've had both mediums for almost 100 years now and they both still have their place. There's something about a well-composed frozen frame in time that video cannot duplicate. And I don't think very many people are hip to trying to sort frames out of high res video.

DarthVader wrote in post #15680064
You might want to watch the video in this thread:

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1280131

Pulling a RAW shoot from video is not far reached.

I've said slowly... I believe that's where Canon is going to.

Not a good thing for still photography, though.

A lot of video is shot with shutter speeds of around 1/40 - much slower than many still photos. The frames contain a significant amount of motion blur. This is a good thing in video, since it helps the frames blend into one another (a series of video frames shot at 1/500s and shown at 25fps or 30fps often looks 'choppy'), but not so good if you're going to take a single frame from the video sequence and present it as a high-resolution still photograph, to be examined at close distances for an extended period of time.

Damn I don't know, I'd buy a still camera that could successfully capture images by the light of glowing incense!!!! Damn!

It has limited usage but technology evolves there could be 8K, 16K, 32K, or more format that will solve current issues.

Shadowblade wrote in post #15680114
Not a good thing for still photography, though.

A lot of video is shot with shutter speeds of around 1/40 - much slower than many still photos. The frames contain a significant amount of motion blur. This is a good thing in video, since it helps the frames blend into one another (a series of video frames shot at 1/500s and shown at 25fps or 30fps often looks 'choppy'), but not so good if you're going to take a single frame from the video sequence and present it as a high-resolution still photograph, to be examined at close distances for an extended period of time.

DarthVader wrote in post #15680064
You might want to watch the video in this thread:

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1280131

Pulling a RAW shoot from video is not far reached.

I've said slowly... I believe that's where Canon is going to.

Oh, it's possible today. I just don't think many photographers are interested in, say, heading out to Yosemite, taking 2 hours of footage and then going through 172,000 frames (literally, 24fps x 120 minutes) to find the 5 frames they want to keep. It's much more satisfying to wait for the right light and clouds, take a handful of deliberate still frames and then move on.

Heck, even for sports, do they have time to go through even 2 minutes of footage (2880 frames at 24fps) to find the shot for ESPN.com when the still photo guy can have the shot sorted out in 60 seconds from his 50 stills?

It depends, not sure if every sports photographer wants to have a setup like this:

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=_AuyVz89AXg

to capture the "swing" of the century. Don't miss it or he'll get fired .

tkbslc wrote in post #15680269
Oh, it's possible today. I just don't think many photographers are interested in, say, heading out to Yosemite, taking 2 hours of footage and then going through 172,000 frames (literally, 24fps x 120 minutes) to find the 5 frames they want to keep. It's much more satisfying to wait for the right light and clouds, take a handful of deliberate still frames and then move on.

Heck, even for sports, do they have time to go through even 2 minutes of footage (2880 frames at 24fps) to find the shot for ESPN.com when the still photo guy can have the shot sorted out in 60 seconds from his 50 stills?

That's why we have 10-14fps cameras we can use for short peak action sequences.

14 fps is not enough. If you see the video above three 1D IIIs were daisy chained to get effectively 30 fps.

tkbslc wrote in post #15680472
That's why we have 10-14fps cameras we can use for short peak action sequences.

I read this with some interest, and as someone currently working on a project for Animal Planet and television with a pair of 1DX's. It has been a steep learning curve, and I am very grateful to have had such a good mentor in the wildlife filmmaker i'm working with.

Being forced to shoot in manual mode to keep the shutter speed on 50, has been a challenge, and opening up the aperture. My photography is a tight as possible, hence all the 2.8's I own, but i've had to learn to open up massively, which has been a learning curve.

Anyway, I emailed him immediately about this when I read the original post, and he already knew about it, but made a curious comment that shooting video full frame is extremely unforgiving, hence why the recent Canon C100/C500 camera is cropped; film makers simply prefer to work with the format.

I guess I might understand what on he's on about this time next year

DarthVader wrote in post #15680484
14 fps is not enough. If you see the video above three 1D IIIs were daisy chained to get effectively 30 fps.

I didn't say there were NO applications for video stills, but as a universal photography replacement its not going to happen.

and I'm saying what I think it's going to happen obviously you don't have to agree with what I've said... agree ?.

tkbslc wrote in post #15680800
I didn't say there were NO applications for video stills, but as a universal photography replacement its not going to happen.

I always thought that the opposite is true - increasing resolution (decreasing pixel size) increases noise

marsaz wrote in post #15683886
I always thought that the opposite is true - increasing resolution (decreasing pixel size) increases noise

Many sources of noise. Smaller pixels means less photons. So photon noise. And weaker signals.

But having huge pixels and still support daylight down to darkest night means more ISO levels to cover. So the electronics that read out the huge pixels needs more dynamic range.

DarthVader wrote in post #15680064
You might want to watch the video in this thread:

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1280131

Pulling a RAW shoot from video is not far reached.

I've said slowly... I believe that's where Canon is going to.

That is a very interesting video. I wonder how it will affect the average shooter in the next 5-8 years in regards to being financially available to the average shooter.

I love the concept though.
I have been shooting more video on days I bring the still camera. It is impossible to shoot both at the same time unless I am shooting video of one scene for more than a 1-2 minutes, possibly longer.