Laying the ground, what's next?

[Vich]

Continuation and non-hijack from Rex's thread (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=149060&posted=1#post149060)...
I think this is laying the ground work for a big upgrade in the next X0D itteration. . .

I think the focus on the entry level body aligns with Peters remarks, they can't loose that market. . . They brought it with adding the 30Ds focus system to the entry level body. . . One can only expect the improvements shifting up the line like this in the near future. . .

Oh ya. . . BTW - when this camera hits the shelves its really going to be the infared body I told you about. . . damn I sware that Canon briefed me on that one too. . . . oh well. . .:rolleyes:
Are we starting the speculations now? How about Digic III? Not sure what they'd improve, but they need to create some distance between the 30D replacement and the 400D.

OK, my wishes:
- Even better viewfinder with built in manual focus screen.
- Built in LCD screen.
- Even bigger and faster buffer.
- 1.3x crop switchable to 1.6x to accept EF-S lenses. 12MP.
- Digic III processor with better white balance and metering, faster procesing, better noise cancellation.

I think that would make a big distance between them, enough to justify 90% greater cost.

Sorry if this hijacks, maybe I should move that discussoin to a new thread?

[forno]

Even better viewfinder with built in manual focus screen

Best thing I have heard in a long time

[coldrain]

They will not use 1.3x crop, they would just use a version of the new 10mp line. Also, no manual focus screen for the simple reason that they tend to interfere with the AF. So, at best user switchable focus screens like with the 5D.

The Digic II is already great at everything you point out. No one wants noise cancelation that is better IN camera... because it brings also softness and loss of detail. The DIGIC processor does no metering, and the white balance of Canon is already very good, give or take some problematic tungstun lights that you are going to get wrong from colour to colour temp. That is a setting and software thing though, not a processor thing.

What do you mean with inbuilt LCD?
The buffer would be faster to accomodate the bigger photos (10 mp) and remain at 5fps.

[Bluedog]

Dang Vich if that happens even I'll be upgrading yet again ... :rolleyes:

[Vich]

Noise cancellation, as I understand, is different from general noise processing. And maybe noise is a bad word for it.

CMOS is inherently very noisy. This due to the in-pixel processors not talking to each other and being a little hot or cold compared with neighboring pixels. Canon (years back) figured out a solution of taking a pre-shot, record the values, then add/subtract after the shot for each pixel. That's the end of my "knowledge" of it.

If history repeats, you (Coldrain) will be far more knowlegable on this and I'll be eating crow, but since they had to draw a line of how far to take that it follows that it may be an area of potential improvement, esp. at high ISO. I should add that, in thinking about it, the DIGIC II processor must be unrelated since they put that in the non-CMOS units.

I really don't know what they could imporove in that processor, but I'm sure they could dream up stuff to improve in the general sensor / processing arena. General enough? Maybe cross-hair sensors at every point, maybe add a few more points, donno.

For the screen, I'm not aware of that 5D feature. Pray tell. So I have yet another reason to start saving (no, not able to do another multi-thousand dollar impulse purchase).

[Vich]

They will not use 1.3x crop, they would just use a version of the new 10mp line. Also, no manual focus screen for the simple reason that they tend to interfere with the AF. So, at best user switchable focus screens like with the 5D.

The Digic II is already great at everything you point out. No one wants noise cancelation that is better IN camera... because it brings also softness and loss of detail. The DIGIC processor does no metering, and the white balance of Canon is already very good, give or take some problematic tungstun lights that you are going to get wrong from colour to colour temp. That is a setting and software thing though, not a processor thing.

What do you mean with inbuilt LCD?
The buffer would be faster to accomodate the bigger photos (10 mp) and remain at 5fps.
Saw Rex's post and did a Google on DIGIC III, Check this reference (http://photo.blogger.ph/) out. Specifically:

" the DIGIC III provides even greater DR, more accurate colour rendition improved WB and lower noise."

Digic III, 1.3x sensor, more cross hair AF points. Looks like Andy called it. "Laying the ground for x0D" except remove the "0" and make it 3D.

So then, $3600 intro? Naaah, too cheap. Weather sealed, 1.3x, even less noise, greater dynamic range, more fps, eye controlled focus (not sure what success that ever saw on the EOS 5, 3, 1), better power consumption, improved and even larger LCD, tighter spot metering, 98% viewfinder, improved metering, more AF points. Sounds more like a 1D killer than a 5D replacement! That is, if this wasn't a hoax!

[aparmley]

I think that 3D is real and its going to be a fancy water pistol in disguise. . .

12 FL oz capcity
5 - 16 foot range expandable to 32
8.5 streams per second rapid fire burst mode


....ahh the kids are gonna love it. . :D

[coldrain]

Yes Vich, that "information" goes around for quite some time now. Some people actually have that much time too much. And why would anyone think a processor gives more dynamic range?

[Vich]

Yes Vich, that "information" goes around for quite some time now. Some people actually have that much time too much. And why would anyone think a processor gives more dynamic range?
What are you saying, it's not true? These aren't the true 3D specs or press leak?

Even if DR is a stretch, the rest sounds wonderful. Be interesting if they move up from 12 bit pixel info .... you'd think they'd say so in huge letters, but they woulld need a new processor for that.

So then, what info do you have about it?

This would lay a nice groundwork for a 40D.

[coldrain]

I'm pretty sure the 12 bit info is a restriction of the CCD/CMOS, and has little to do with the processor used. Internally they both will be handled as 16 bit numbers, since that is what the processor is based on...

I have NO info on a 3D. And I have not seen any viable info on a 3D either. That does not say there will not be a 3D of course. But I wonder if there is room for a 3D at all, in the current lineup.

And about 1.3x crop, Canon has said about 2 years ago already that they will move to all full frame. So, I don't see a new 1.3x crop camera appear. It is more likely that the 1D will move to full frame too in some next generation.

[Vich]

I'm pretty sure the 12 bit info is a restriction of the CCD/CMOS, and has little to do with the processor used. Internally they both will be handled as 16 bit numbers, since that is what the processor is based on...

I have NO info on a 3D. And I have not seen any viable info on a 3D either. That does not say there will not be a 3D of course. But I wonder if there is room for a 3D at all, in the current lineup.

And about 1.3x crop, Canon has said about 2 years ago already that they will move to all full frame. So, I don't see a new 1.3x crop camera appear. It is more likely that the 1D (you mean 30D?) will move to full frame too in some next generation.
Isn't the 1Dn released last year a 1.3x? Its a question of preference and trade-offs. The 1Dn has 8fps at 8.2MB, something the sports guys need, and all those extra pixels in FF surely slow things down some. Also; more tele is needed for most sports, so FF has it's drawbacks.

I'd like to see in in-camera option.

May I make a leap here, that the "DIGIC II" processor is a general processor much like Pentium, with specialized commands and functions for what cameras need (and the unnecessary ones eliminated). All the other in-camera systems would depend on it (AF, Color Balance, etc). I don't know that, but having been around computer archetecture, that would make sense.

To draw a parallel to PCs, the video system (itself packed with sub-processors) is tightly integrated with the main processor, that itself has a lot of specialized support for video.

Surely the archetecture is a complex array of system layers, but the DIGIC II processor will support improvements to them without change, but an improved processor will open the doors to other improvements (particularly speed).

A processor upgrade would be a natural progression of any computer based product. Increased speed, tighter algorythms, improved (and maybe new) basic commands (or less, as with RISC based systems). Something like going from 16 to 32 bit would be huge, and maybe not appropriate. However switching from 12 to 16 bit depth in the sensor would most likely require non-trivial changes in the processor to support it, but not being privy to their processor specifications (nor technically up to the task of understanding it if I were) I could not say.

It was pure speculation, but some day we'll have to break from the 12 bit per color barrier. Some day. Sheer processing speed and capability will be one large determining factor. Surely there are others (like CMOS design considerations). Maybe a Canon engineer would laugh at this display of ignorance, but my gut tells me that in 10 years we won't be using 12 bit depths in DSLRs.

[coldrain]

You should ask yourself if a photo diode in a bayer layout sensor is capable of delivering more precision than 12 bits can hold. My guess is no (based on the noise we already see). The processor is just a processor... only the firmware needs to be adapted to handle less or more bits.
Also, you should know that 16 bit processors like the Motorola 68000 already could work with 32bit values without any problem. They had 32 bit registers even, the reason the Atari ST was called ST, Sixteen Thirtytwo.

So, the address space of a processor (16 bits, 32 bits or 64 bits) has little to do with what kind of data it can handle. As far as I know, the DIGIC II is a design based on a 32bit MIPS RISC processor. This may be wrong, but that is what i seem to remember.

And the 1D mkII N is an update to an already 1.3x crop 8mp camera that is almost the same. It is not like Canon introduced a new line with 1.3x crop sensor, they just kept with the 8mp sensor to be able to give the very high FPS. A faster computer may change that, we will see what happens.

Of course Canon may decide to change direction, the DSLR market is very dynamic on the moment... But for now Canon has been saying they will move towards full frame.

And no, I meant the 1D series that is geared towards high FPS reporters, not the 30D.

[noyjimi]

To me, when we say 16-, 32- or 64-bit processors, it does mean the kind of data that the CPU handles; by this, I mean the size of the general registers (which hold the data), instructions, and general operations. (I don't mean any special operations that may address larger word sizes, such as, say, SIMD or some FPU.)

However, the word size doesn't necessarily mean it's also the limit on the amount of memory that the CPU addresses, which can sometimes be confusing. There may be special instructions, registers, or combination that allows the CPU to address beyond its word size.

How this all translates into the processing inside a camera, I don't know. :D

[coldrain]

Well, actually the 16/32/64 bitness of a processor has nothing to do with its registers, just with its addressing space. The whole PPC range had 64bit registers, only the G5 had 64bit addressing. The G4 and G5 also has a 128bit vector processing unit... Still, the G4 is a 32bit processor and the G5 a 64bit processor. And as I mentioned before, the 16bit motorola 68000 had 32 bit registers.

[noyjimi]

So maybe nothing's clearcut. As a counterexample, a current 32-bit Pentium processor can address 36 bits of memory using PAE. I'm sure it has special instructions in the FPU for >32-bit operations, and I'm sure it's marketed as a 32-bit processor (and running 32-bit software such as Windows XP Home).

As a side note, PAE isn't new - it was planned as far back as with the Pentium Pro but was removed for some reason.

I am not very familiar with the PPC line, but what I remember is that the 750 line has a 32-bit address bus and 64-bit data bus. One or two variants can switch between 32- and 64-bit mode on the data bus. I do have a 603e sitting here in the room, but I've never programmed assembler on it. Just on x86.