C500 - 4k from a 3840x2160 sensor?

W

Will Turner

Well-known member
Is the '4k' from the C500 real 4k?

The sensor specs show 3840x2160 photo sites in a bayer pattern, so how can true 4k be obtained? Or are Canon giving the same definition to 4K as Red are (not really 4k at all)?
 
Will Turner said:
Is the '4k' from the C500 real 4k?

The sensor specs show 3840x2160 photo sites in a bayer pattern, so how can true 4k be obtained? Or are Canon giving the same definition to 4K as Red are (not really 4k at all)?
Click to expand...

Looks like UHDTV (sometimes called quad-d or QD, because it's exactly 4x the pixels of HDTV) to me, which isn't 4k in my book. To me, 4k means 4096 wide, no more and no less. But I have no doubt it that Canon's marketeers would decry my pedantic nature.
 
The C500 uses the same sensor as the C300 which has 4206 x 2340 total pixels, or approx. 9.84 megapixels. The C300 uses 3840 x 2160 of those pixels to create it's HD image, or approx 8.29 megapixels. The C500 uses 4096 x 2160 pixels to output it's 4096 x 2160 pixel Canon RAW image, or approx. 8.85 megapixels. The camera is not limited to Quad-HD and does output a true 4K image, but bayer interpolation resolution rules likely apply.

sources:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/855975-REG/Canon_EOS_C500_Cinema_EOS.html
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/profe...as/cinema_eos_cameras/eos_c500#Specifications
http://usa.canon.com/cusa/professio...as/cinema_eos_cameras/eos_c300#Specifications
 
Last edited:
Brian... I see on the second link... it list record times... that can't be for 4k... they look the same as the c300... trying to figure out those 4K numbers and the same for the quad... someone posted a link to some white papers on another thread... but I still must be blind...
 
GaryinCalifornia said:
Brian... I see on the second link... it list record times... that can't be for 4k... they look the same as the c300... trying to figure out those 4K numbers and the same for the quad... someone posted a link to some white papers on another thread... but I still must be blind...
Click to expand...

The record times listed are for internal recording, and not indicative of what you'll get via the 3G-SDI outputs into your external 4K recorder. Internal recording for the C500 is basically identical to the C300. However, pay attention to the active pixel count for the C500 vs the C300 - you'll see that the C500 uses the standard 4K horizontal pixel count of 4096. The C300 uses a Quad-HD (3840 x 2160) pixel count for perfect downscale to HD.

The sensor shared by all the Cx00 cameras has a total pixel count of 4206 x 2340, but different ratios are active on the separate models (and depending on your output selection on the C500). If you check the B&H product page, you'll see that the C500 can output either a full 4K image or Quad-HD (as well as 2K & HD).
 
lol... I'm a producer... so all numbers to me... or I know enough to be dangerous... just trying to figure out how many terabytes of storage I'd need for footage and backup on 4k... still have to read about the Aja Quad some more... thought I read that it doesn't record the raw...
 
Stephen Mick said:
That should all be determined by which external 4K recorder you'd use. For reference, here's a link to storage times and bit rates for the Convergent Designs Gemini 4K Recorder...

http://convergent-design.com/Products/GeminiRAW/GeminiRAWSSD.aspx
Click to expand...

Wow! 1 TB will hold 24 minutes of Canon RAW @ 60fps... That's a lot of storage needs. You get a little over an hour of Canon RAW @ 24fps in 1 TB.

If you were to shoot an 80 minute feature film on Canon RAW at a ratio of 20:1 (with no 60fps overcrank), you'd need at bare minimum about 50 TB of total disk space for storage & backup!
 
Thanks Stephen... I forgot about the Gemini... did just look up the Aja again... it says they can record raw... but they're very limited on their specs right now... but like Brian says... wow... a stedicam friend and I keep thinking about a used Red MX... I really like the look of the Canon... a friend told me you have to see it projected... its awesome he said...

Okay saw that 48T storage solution is $13,340 from Pro Max... so now to check out a 4k monitor and not the $25,000 Sony 4k TV... and just remember a new thunderbolt Mac... I know Pro Max has a Linus/PC/Mac combo for like 10k in price... not sure about the HP computer that does Red...
 
Is it not something to be disapointed? Camera like the F65 oversample from a 8k sensor to compensate the lost of Bayer Pattern CMOS sensors effective resolution

__________________________________________________________
Vincent Thomas
VFX Lead Artist ( free mid september) / Director & Cinematographer
http://fr.linkedin.com/in/vincentthomas
http://www.stranger-than-paradise.book.fr/



cowpunk52 said:
The C500 uses the same sensor as the C300 which has 4206 x 2340 total pixels, or approx. 9.84 megapixels. The C300 uses 3840 x 2160 of those pixels to create it's HD image, or approx 8.29 megapixels. The C500 uses 4096 x 2160 pixels to output it's 4096 x 2160 pixel Canon RAW image, or approx. 8.85 megapixels. The camera is not limited to Quad-HD and does output a true 4K image, but bayer interpolation resolution rules likely apply.

sources:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/855975-REG/Canon_EOS_C500_Cinema_EOS.html
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/profe...as/cinema_eos_cameras/eos_c500#Specifications
http://usa.canon.com/cusa/professio...as/cinema_eos_cameras/eos_c300#Specifications
Click to expand...
 
I think the C300 and C500 certainly have their place, but for me, being able to shoot 5K in-camera with the Epic means everything. And having the option to select REDCode compression ratios allows me to maximize record times when I need to, or to shoot at the absolute highest quality when required. I don't want this to become a RED vs. Canon pissing match, as both have their strengths and weaknesses. But I'd encourage anyone who needs to originate in 4K or greater to look at all the options, and to select the one that fits their needs best.
 
That's one of the reasons why we thought about a used Red... I like the C300... good look... simple easy work flow... but the Red... we'd be sorta future proof... if we sorta sold are services as a producer and dp with equipment together for films and TV spots...
 
I hear you, Gary. I absolutely love shooting with the C300. Easy to use. Simple workflow. Fabulous codec. But I'm a bit puzzled by the C500. I mean, it's great that it outputs 4K via SDI, but for the price of the camera and a recorder, you could buy into a Scarlet 4K setup, recording on-board, and have money to spare, depending on how you outfit the setup. Not to mention with the Epic/Scarlet you get the benefit of interchangeable mounts, including a "smart" EF mount.

I did see the Canon presentation at NAB in the theater, and no doubt the footage looks fabulous (shot to a Codex external recorder, I think). But it always comes down to the right tool for the job, and if you need the feature set the C500 provides, it can (and will) deliver great footage.
 
Stephen Mick said:
I hear you, Gary. I absolutely love shooting with the C300. Easy to use. Simple workflow. Fabulous codec. But I'm a bit puzzled by the C500. I mean, it's great that it outputs 4K via SDI, but for the price of the camera and a recorder, you could buy into a Scarlet 4K setup, recording on-board, and have money to spare, depending on how you outfit the setup. Not to mention with the Epic/Scarlet you get the benefit of interchangeable mounts, including a "smart" EF mount.

I did see the Canon presentation at NAB in the theater, and no doubt the footage looks fabulous (shot to a Codex external recorder, I think). But it always comes down to the right tool for the job, and if you need the feature set the C500 provides, it can (and will) deliver great footage.
Click to expand...

Sure, but with Scarlet you have no option for overcranking at 4k, you have to window the sensor for smaller resolutions, no in-cam filtration, and likely a far less capable low-light performance. With the C500 you also get simultaneous on-board proxy recording, a log gamma mode for full sensor DR if you don't want to shoot raw, & on-cam buttons and controls for camera operation. While the scarlet is very nice in it's own right, the C500 gives you far more shooting options and is a more robustly featured camera. It lacks some features of an Epic, but also comes in at a much smaller cost, even after you factor in an external recorder.
 
cowpunk52 said:
Sure, but with Scarlet you have no option for overcranking at 4k, you have to window the sensor for smaller resolutions, no in-cam filtration, and likely a far less capable low-light performance. With the C500 you also get simultaneous on-board proxy recording, a log gamma mode for full sensor DR if you don't want to shoot raw, & on-cam buttons and controls for camera operation. While the scarlet is very nice in it's own right, the C500 gives you far more shooting options and is a more robustly featured camera. It lacks some features of an Epic, but also comes in at a much smaller cost, even after you factor in an external recorder.
Click to expand...

Again, it's horses for courses. With the C500, your only option for 4K recording is with an external recorder. Scarlet gives you that in-camera. If you need overcranking, sure, Scarlet isn't the best choice. But again, if you want 4K (and likely 5K with the forthcoming Dragon sensor upgrade), Scarlet gets you there at a lower price point than even the C500.

I think the C500 will be a great choice for productions and workflows already built around the C300. The 4K camera segment is quickly getting more and more competitive, which only benefits all of us.
 
EPIC and Scarlet raw is compressed. That can be a very beneficial thing. It's an advantage for most people to have the option to choose the level of compression, considering how much space 4K or 5.6K uncompressed RAW takes up.

External recorders are usually a pain in the ass.

I'd take some of that C500 love though, if I wasn't already tapped out on camera buys. I'm sure it can produce beautiful, no compromise 4K imagery.
 
I think Canon have really positioned the C500 well. With an external recorder, it sits right in the middle between Scarlet and Epic, both in price and specs.

And with 10-bit output to facilitate high-quality ProRes or DNxHD with lower end recorders, it doesn't really allow any of the intrinsic arguments people on the internet keep levelling against the C300 (namely 8-bit output).

I reckon it'll do really well.
 
vincent thomas said:
Is it not something to be disapointed? Camera like the F65 oversample from a 8k sensor to compensate the lost of Bayer Pattern CMOS sensors effective resolution

__________________________________________________________
Vincent Thomas
VFX Lead Artist ( free mid september) / Director & Cinematographer
http://fr.linkedin.com/in/vincentthomas
http://www.stranger-than-paradise.book.fr/
Click to expand...


That's what I'm getting at. It's not 4096 full colour pixels.. it is actually 4096 green, red and blue pixels which makes a hell of a difference to the true resolution. Bit of a scam I think!

I'd assume the 1080p mode would be equivalent to the 4k mode in terms of pixels:perceived resolution but apparently not!
 
The C500 has a 4k sensor the same way that a Red One has a 4K sensor. It has a bayer-pattern sensor that needs to be debayered to deliver its 4k image, which results in about 3.2k of actual detail.

In 1080p mode the C500 uses its sensor differently, it delivers the capability for a true 4:4:4 1080p. However, that's only valid if you're recording raw; if you're recording internally the best you get is 4:2:2 because that's all the codec supports.

Can't fathom how any of that could have the term "scam" applied to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top