Cinema EOS Announcement on 19th Jan - EOS R5C

NorBro said:
As far as "greatest"...that's really subjective depending on how my day is going, ha. Right now, it's the greatest because it has me head over heels with taking [motion] pictures again. Maybe sometimes that's just as important as paper specs, or even more.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your feedback. Your thoughts/views on the camera are always appreciated. I was in a similar boat as you when the R5 was first released until some of the "gotchas/cripple hammers" were revealed, like the overheating. In general I am a Sony user for the most part, but not necessarily tied to them. Most of my lenses are actually EF-mount for adaptability. I'm hoping the R5C causes Sony to have to jump out the window with something really good soon (maybe A1C?) at a price point that is not ridiculous.

As to your thoughts about being inspired to shoot again due to owning the Komodo, that is very understandable. Although this forum mainly focuses on technical aspects of cameras, etc. Being inspired to shoot is as important, if not more important, than all the numbers.
 
Thank you :) - and, yeah, I think you liked what you saw from the a1 after grading some sample footage, IIRC, so hopefully the Sonys keep getting even better.

Besides the inspiration, I can already write a few essays about the technical aspects that I love, dislike and missed about RED systems, but with YouTube and a dedicated forum for the cameras, I won't be saying anything others already have said.

Two things I really missed about them were the goal posts/traffic lights and how easy it is to work with .R3Ds. (The process is kind of broken in FCP right now - they are working on it - but enough to get by.)

Hopefully they keep improving the camera - and it won't be discontinued in 6 months, lol - because RED FW upgrades are always fun to look forward to since Jarred likes to flex on us sometimes with what they can do if competition starts heating up too much.

Which goes along with your point about the R5 C and it's exactly right; for some, yeah, it's a cool camera, but it's also very exciting to look forward to how it will push others to make similar cameras for $4500.
 
So, NorBro, after all that talk about how you wouldn't buy a camera if it wasn't 8K, or full-frame, or the best AF, it turned out that what mattered more was... what, the codec?
 
ha, yeah, I know...one day I'm shouting, "I will never again pay more than $2K for a camera that's not 8K!", and the next I own something completely opposite.

But that's nothing new; my entire life I needed to own or use any and all electronics I was interested in because there was no other way as far as I was concerned.

So I definitely said that about AF time and time again, and most recently about 8K because it's undoubtedly next for pretty much everything, but I don't know if I said that about full-frame. I might have said I preferred it if I had a choice, but I wouldn't rule out another camera if it had other stuff I liked about it.

I never really cared about the exact measurements of the sensor; I just didn't want to fight with it in obtaining decent shallow DOF.

~1.3x is kind of what I had with the 1DX Mark II so it's good enough (I'm only using this camera in 6K). But, yeah, that feeling of anything less being inferior from a technical hardware standpoint will always be there.

In short, it mostly came down to it being a RED camera and the type of work and groups I'm chasing.

But then I actually liked it when I got it. lol
 
NorBro said:
ha, yeah, I know...one day I'm shouting, "I will never again pay more than $2K for a camera that's not 8K!", and the next I own something completely opposite.

But that's nothing new...my entire life I needed to own or use any and all electronics I was interested in because there was no other way as far as I was concerned.

So I definitely said that about AF time and time again, and most recently about 8K because it's undoubtedly next for pretty much everything, but I don't know if I said that about full-frame. I might have said I preferred it if I had a choice, but I wouldn't rule out another camera if it had other stuff I liked about it.

I never really cared about the exact measurements of the sensor; I just didn't want to fight with it in obtaining decent shallow DOF.

~1.3x is kind of what I had with the 1DX Mark II so it's good enough (I'm only using this camera in 6K).

In short, it mostly came down to it being a RED camera and the type of work and groups I'm chasing.
Click to expand...

What brought you out of retirement?
 
So much for the R5C... new rumor is that the R5C and the C300III are having a baby called the C5. far from being a confirmed rumor

  • The camera is a combination of the EOS R5 C and EOS C300 III, similar in appearance to the EOS R5 C, but more square, with the electric ND filter of the EOS C300 III, the professional interface of the EOS C70, and an extended battery compartment.
  • Its XF-AVC recording format is the same as the EOS C70, but it uses a modified version of the EOS R5 C’s CMOS sensor with a total of 22.5 megapixels.
  • With a sampling resolution of 8192×2160, it is capable of perfect oversampling to 4K 120fps, making it Canon’s current 4K 120fps product with the best image quality.
  • When the frame rate is reduced to 72fps or less, DGO mode is turned on to provide a higher dynamic range.
  • Unlike the current EOS C70, it does not offer RAW recording for now.
  • Full pixel QPAF, and RAW internal recording in subsequent firmware.
  • In terms of photography, it no longer offers a mechanical shutter and is replaced by in-body stabilization.
Click to expand...
https://www.canonrumors.com/new-repo...-surfaced-cr1/
 
James0b57 said:
Also, if we got to 20stops useable DR, then our midtones wouldn’t have to shove the shadows into the noise floor, just so that we can roll off the highlights.

And whatever is left can be used as adaptive to compensate and slow down really hard high contrast light, sort of like an analog process.
Click to expand...

I wonder if we need more than 16-bit linear/12-bit log to properly handle that much DR... in terms of getting thin information
 
ahalpert said:
I wonder if we need more than 16-bit linear/12-bit log to properly handle that much DR... in terms of getting thin information
Click to expand...

12bit is 4,000 variables and 16bit is something like 66,000 variables. I know there is no visual advantage to 16bit on the current crop of cameras.

The Alexa has the most dynamic range and they do 12bit.

Red pretends to do 16bit, but their files are too small, so they either have some funky math or some magic compression, but as usual, they are exaggerating in a way that will only hold up in a court of law. hahaha!


But I don’t think that is a bad thing, i much prefer 12bit with current cameras, no sense in wasting extra space for no visual gains.

i don’t know if 16bit is needed for 20stops dynamic range, but the ADC or whatever on the sensor has to be better than the ones we currently use to better capture that kind of information. Would hate to see midtone gradients get out of whack. We are really paying the most attention to the midtones, when we are looking for that lush high quality. the highlights have to be there, but they can be roooooooolllled off, they just have to be there, but the midtone have to be niiiiiice. So, i’m guessing if you are casting a bigger net, but still needing the same few stops to be lush and gorgeous, then that fine tooth comb has to have more teeth, not bigger ones, if i am making any sense.
 
James0b57 said:
So, i’m guessing if you are casting a bigger net, but still needing the same few stops to be lush and gorgeous, then that fine tooth comb has to have more teeth, not bigger ones, if i am making any sense.
Click to expand...

I think we're on the same page. I mean, basically - if you keep increasing your dynamic range, then at some point a low-contrast scene you capture (or just the midtones of a high-contrast scene) is only 8 bits of gradient in the middle of your gamma curve. And then increasing the contrast of that section would be like working with 8-bit files. no?
 
Is Canonrumors just a website for Canon to feel it out?

Like they saw reduser, and thought that’s a great idea, but how do we avoid the drama?
 
ahalpert said:
I think we're on the same page. I mean, basically - if you keep increasing your dynamic range, then at some point a low-contrast scene you capture (or just the midtones of a high-contrast scene) is only 8 bits of gradient in the middle of your gamma curve. And then increasing the contrast of that section would be like working with 8-bit files. no?
Click to expand...
sort of. because you have a 12bit log file, it can be more selective about how those bits are used, as long as the initial information starts with really fine precision, it can be stored logarithmically, as i don’t think we need to retain a whole lot in the highlights and shadows unless people can expose worth a crap, or producers want to be in control of exposure as well as framing,
 
My understanding was that encoding in log is why you can get away with only 12-bit, and that the quality is roughly equivalent to 16-bit linear

but so maybe we'd need more than 12-bit log or 16-bit linear to handle even more DR
 
Last edited:
If Canon does come out with this new C5 or whatever it will be called, Sony's going to have to scramble big time.
 
ahalpert said:
My understanding was that encoding in log is why you can get away with only 12-bit, and that the quality is roughly equivalent to 16-bit linear

but so maybe we'd need more than 12-bit log or 16-bit linear to handle even more DR
Click to expand...

no, because a file only has to preserve visual information. It is the processing from the analog to the digital that initially needs the extra bit depth and precision, and then the file itself can be 12bit or even 10bit and still look great, unless you want to try and recover some hopeless exposure, then you might see some funk, but the file is only going to store the important visual information, so, in a sense they can continue to be 12bit, even on 30stop DR cameras, but the ADC will have to be amazing.
 
James0b57 said:
no, because a file only has to preserve visual information. It is the processing from the analog to the digital that initially needs the extra bit depth and precision, and then the file itself can be 12bit or even 10bit and still look great, unless you want to try and recover some hopeless exposure, then you might see some funk, but the file is only going to store the important visual information, so, in a sense they can continue to be 12bit, even on 30stop DR cameras, but the ADC will have to be amazing.
Click to expand...

I believe I see what you're saying, but if you log gamma it and keep giving a lot of data to your midtones, you'll be further and further compressing your highlights and shadows. if anything there needs to be recovered or stretched apart, you might have banding...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top