Canon to add 25fps 4K video recording to EOS-1D C pro DSLR

Will you buy a $25k 4k display to watch 2k Blu-rays? Or do you think the 5mbps YouTube "HD" will look better on that $25k screen?

"not if they use the 4k for current HD, everyone will have access to the best hd videos in sharpness and details"

Exactly. If you only have a full HD display, you can still make use of your 4K footage by reencoding it to 1080p. It'll have FAR better actual (real) resolution than the footage of any 1080p camera - pixel oversampling will always result in far better resolution than 1:1 recording. (See for example the Nokia 808's results in this regard.)

And, of course, 4K recordings you make TODAY are far more future-proof than 1080p ones. Sooner or later, everyone will have 4K displays.

They haven't got Blu-Ray straight yet and now 4K! Where are the video editors and other software and hardware to make this work? It's like shooting 60P video and your stinking BD player cannot handle it. A race for the cliff with wild techies in pursuit.

First old proverb: the wise person doubts, the idiot claims.

Second old proverb: when the idiot is laughing, trembles with fear the wise person.

HDSLR cameras are given 24 fps so that videos have a more "cinematic" or film-like look. A properly shot using 24p as the frame-rate does not look choppy, but renders motion in a way that we are accustomed to seeing in narrative film / motion pictures.

30p is smoother, some say too smooth, too much like video. 24 fps is the industry standard for film and projection, and with digital video is a popular choice for many videographers as it mimics film.

The Canon 5DII didn't originally have 24p. It was added in a firmware update as videographers requested this frame rate, not because they wanted their videos to look choppy, but because of the pleasing way it renders motion.

"The 4K video recordings requires processing 4 times the data as 1080p. To collect and store this much data continuously at 30fps and up requires faster data processing speeds that is probably beyond the capabilities of even the EOS 1D C."

Exactly. Camera companies must plan beforehand and build in components that actually are capable of handling such a HUUUUUGE bandwidth. Very few of them do. Take a look at the GoPro 3 Black Edition's 4K mode (15 fps max). They surely would have added 24...30 fps if they had been able to to make the camera stand out even more (and be actually usable to shoot action at 4k). They weren't for the reasons explained above.

Not enough. 300,000 frames per second minimum. How could we possible live with less?

/sarcasm

I personally find 120 nauseating.

No, I'm not kidding at all. It's so sad to see how many photographers have so little knowledge about any other subject. At 300 fps an image appears like you are looking out of a window at real life in motion. And speaking of impossible... just a while ago 1TB hard drives were impossible, 1GB of ram was impossible, 10 GFLOP cpu's were impossible, and 10Mpixel cameras were impossible.

ryansholl , I'm sorry to hear that you find 120 nauseating as you must be in perpetual pain and suffering since real life is way, way faster than 120 fps. Again, my heart hurts for your terrible pain.

300 FPS? There's no logical reason to ever present anything at 300 frames per second, your eyes and your brain could not process that much information, not to mention things that *should* have motion blur will mysteriously not have it. Look at your hand and wiggle it back and forth, see how blurry that is? Kiss that goodbye at 300FPS, how exactly would that be like "real life"? The sad thing here is that YOU are criticizing peoples' ignorance when you don't actually have the slightest clue what you're talking about. High frame rates can deliver certain effects but the most practical use for anything over 60 fps is to remap to a lower fps for slow motion effects (300fps would be awesome in that respect, you could turn 1 second into 10, more than enough for most cinematic effects). And re:real life, frame rate is not analogous to the way your eyes perceive visual stimuli. For the sake of video and animation, 60-120 fps is the reasonable limit; any more is a waste of resources.

Excellent point, in this sense for most people digital is safer, especially if you can do multiple back-ups. I do wonder for feature film makers, though, if formats like this will stand the test of time as well as conventional film, especially the 70mm variety. Digital is often presented as state of the art and as if it is the only available technology. Film at it's best still has a lot of advantages and I'm not sure I like the glossy, plasticy look of digital for conveying atmosphere, though of course it can have filters applied a la Instagram.

It's a little sad for me that despite all the fuss, digital is still a work in progress, without the maturity film has achieved through years of evolution. An 8k scan of an old 70mm film would offer so much more detail and subtlty than this, but given the choice of convenience, who would bother?

A lot of great films are rapidly deteriorating right now. While a lot of people try to take a fanboy approach and pit film vs digital in some kind of "war," the fact is that one of the biggest reasons great old films are being restored is because of digital DVD, Blu-Ray, and 8K. It is the economic potential of these digital markets that is making funding available to restore classic films. If we still had only film available, the theatrical market is not nearly large enough to justify this and great old films would rot and die. Film simply doesn't even last 100 years, in many cases not even 50.

As far as 8K scans of 70mm, you are mostly right. For most films, no one will bother. But when the film is cherished by the right people, it will happen. The 70mm masterpiece Baraka was scanned at 8K and the resulting Blu-Ray is so spectacular many say it's a "reference disc" enthusiasts use to rate all other Blu-Rays.

What would make 8K scans commonplace? If it becomes inexpensive and easy.

30 fps is more for TV, but definitely higher fps is needed 120/240/300+ for Cine, but at the moment, affordable dCine-cams/dSLRs are not going to offer that for awhile.

i think it is badly needed, as vast majority of theater release (4k/8k/IMAX/DLP/70mm of 'today') suffers from major lateral panning blur in big screen theaters. i go to a lot of new movies, that all suffer this blur problem, it makes one feel the large screen format is wasted because fps/refresh rates are too low/slow to reduce ugly panning-blur: so many 'scenic' shots are ruined by it in movies, even digital projection movies struggle as well (including CGI enhanced animated/movies sequences). if this isn't done soon enough, most are better off seeing a movie at home (minus 'big sound' and 'proper 3D', that comes along with big screen hi-res theater movies)

any step towards higher fps is welcome, especially if it's target is Cine/Theater, not 'home theater'.

Baraka/Samsara will still suffer pan-blur at lower fps too

Hmmmmm. Is he the 99% or 1%? I'm guessing the 99%. Inner dialogue is much better than inner monologue ;)

@Trollshavethebestcandy, where's your superior shots?

@ J Birn, I think Hugh means what's the point of 25fps specifically - there's a standard for 4K at 24fps but to me it seems he questions the added value of 25fps. There's a legacy affinity in Europe for 25fps being half of 50Hz (their local refresh rate), but their tech has long been capable of displaying 24fps correctly,

For the intended audience, $12,000 is strictly bargain bin.