Canon goes 8K60p and "20+ stops DR" in 4K by NAB

ahalpert

ahalpert

Major Contributor
Looks like high-level confidence for 3 Cinema EOS cameras launched by October - 2 that shoot 8K and 1 that shoots 4K WDR. Personally, I still get more HD requests than 4K...

5ms readout on the new C700 in WDR...wow. I wonder if it will be a clean exposure-combination process or if it'll be artifacty and screwed up in certain situations.

https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-t...os-lineup-with-three-new-monster-cameras-cr3/

Canon Cinema EOS C300S
8K Super 35mm
8K/60p, 4K/120p in all modes
BSI Stacked 3.2um 8K DGO Sensor
Dual Pixel Autofocus
16 Stops Dynamic Range in DGO Mode
10ms Readout in 8K DGO Mode
Dual DIGIC DV 8 Image Processor

Canon Cinema EOS C500S
8K Full Frame
8K/60p, 4K/120p in all modes
BSI Stacked 4.65um 8K DGO Sensor
Dual Pixel Autofocus
17+ Stops Dynamic Range in DGO Mode
10ms Readout in 8K DGO Mode
Dual DIGIC DV 8 Image Processor

Canon Cinema EOS C700DR
4K Full Frame
4K/240p in Fast Mode, 4K/180p in WDR Mode
BSI Stacked 9.6um 4K WDR Sensor
20+ Stops Dynamic Range in WDR Mode
5ms Readout in 4K WDR Mode
Dual DIGIC DV 8 Image Processor
 
RED DIGITAL CINEMA RED RANGER with HELIUM 8K S35 Sensor is $30k, so canon would still undercut RED on price. RED wins on codec. Having great AF makes the Canon more versatile.

I wonder what Sony does next... And how frequently can these companies really come out with cameras. They can't possibly keep up the pace of the last couple years.
 
The pace has increased each year; probably will see 2-3 main cameras every 6-12 months, with all of the little ones here and there.

Turned into an iPhone business model because we keep buying them.

Although worldwide camera sales have decreased, the sector that specifically purchases cinema cameras has probably only grown.
 
No, because most of them would be much less than claimed and that's not very good for business, lol.

There are many tests out there and everyone is free to count how many bars they like and go with that.
 
That's what I thought, NorBro.

Here's a followup: a while back I read somewhere that 14ish stops of DR was basically at the limits of what was physically possible for a S35-sized sensor, and that part of the move toward FF sensors was an ability to squeeze more DR out of existing technology and the laws of physics. Does anyone know if there's any truth to either of those claims?
 
Personally, I don't know - but I like to critically think about it.

In other words, I've tested about 40 different cameras in the same places all under the same harsh conditions, and I always get the same results. If a computer had to analyze the DR, there's no doubt the majority of them would fall between 12.5 and 13.5 stops.

That's amazing compared to the non-LOG cameras we used before 2012, but I also say to myself: "Okay, so if a new camera is truly 14 stops that's really good, but it's not a large enough improvement for me to be excited about it."

What we need is true 15-16-17 stop cameras to see some extreme differences in our images.

IMO, very little has changed in the last 10 years with dynamic range...at least with most of the affordable systems.
 
I just hope Canon can prove their 20 stops dynamic range in the court of law if a class action suit is filed. Legally speaking, can companies make arbitrary claims such as with dynamic range if the claims are not true? Is that not fraud?

I'm not seeing much appeal in the rumored C300 specs here. 8K is practically a downside at this point, unless it can still do 4K and 2K perfectly well. Give me an RF mount and a joystick I can push in to make selections and those would be upgrades.

I like a lot of the C300's features so I've been thinking about soldering in one of the ALEV III sensors from my Amiras into the C300 and hoping that I can then get things like a smaller body, auto-focus, better low light, etc.

Actually, I don't know how to solder. But what I could do is get a camera designer to take the ALEV III sensor from an Arri camera, place it in another camera and actually hook it up properly, and then sell that camera. Now, Arri probably has copyright claims on their sensor that would prohibit reselling it in another camera body and design, so this may need to be a black market special.
 
Last edited:
drboffa said:
That's what I thought, NorBro.

Here's a followup: a while back I read somewhere that 14ish stops of DR was basically at the limits of what was physically possible for a S35-sized sensor, and that part of the move toward FF sensors was an ability to squeeze more DR out of existing technology and the laws of physics. Does anyone know if there's any truth to either of those claims?
Click to expand...

I don't know if there's truth in those claims, but I think that theoretical dynamic range is easy to measure by the ratio of the energy of the full photosite well to its minimum signal discernible above the noise floor. Something like that. Maybe someone nerdier than me can chime in with the exact formula.

But even in that case, if you could push the noise down further, you could squeeze out more dynamic range.

HOWEVER, the way that Arri and BM and Canon DGO deliver so much DR is by combining multiple exposures (afaik) which pushes them above the DR of what a single exposure could achieve. And, if you could do it fast enough, you could probably combine 3 exposures using the same methodology and push your DR up even higher.

I'd add that even if the manufacturers' numbers aren't directly comparable to Arri's because they use a more generous metric or methodology, they are probably still valuable for comparison against their own. Meaning that if Canon releases a "20 stop" DR camera, it should have more DR than their "16 stop" camera. 4 more stops? Maybe, maybe not. But objectively more.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
I just hope Canon can prove their 20 stops dynamic range in the court of law if a class action suit is filed. Legally speaking, can companies make arbitrary claims such as with dynamic range if the claims are not true? Is that not fraud?

I'm not seeing much appeal in the rumored C300 specs here. 8K is practically a downside at this point, unless it can still do 4K and 2K perfectly well. Give me an RF mount and a joystick I can push in to make selections and those would be upgrades.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they have internal testing or at least a theoretical model to back up their claims, even if they're not delivering the "20 stops" that you want or enough DR that Arri would claim it was 20 stops
 
The crazy thing about the ALEXA is they made that camera in 2010 and claimed 14 stops when no one else was making these kind of cameras besides RED and random Panavision systems or a F35, etc.

In hindsight, that number was nuts back then and no one could have predicted how crazy everything would turn out with specs/features and mirrorless' and competition and YouTube.

Hate them or love them, RED was always so far ahead with their marketing and overall vision.
 
ahalpert said:
I'm sure they have internal testing or at least a theoretical model to back up their claims, even if they're not delivering the "20 stops" that you want or enough DR that Arri would claim it was 20 stops
Click to expand...
More like a Canon exec saying, "We've created this Think Tank to brainstorm what kind of bogus testing method we can come up with to outdo Red's bogus testing 17+ stop dynamic range claims."

Then a technician says, "Give us millions of dollars for R&D and I'll design a camera that truly has better dynamic range."

Then the exec says, "The bogus test will be cheaper while still returning high profits."
 
Eric Coughlin said:
More like a Canon exec saying, "We've created this Think Tank to brainstorm what kind of bogus testing method we can come up with to outdo Red's bogus testing 17+ stop dynamic range claims."

Then a technician says, "Give us millions of dollars for R&D and I'll design a camera that truly has better dynamic range."

Then the exec says, "The bogus test will be cheaper while still returning high profits."
Click to expand...

What do you rate the C300III at? Either in absolute terms or relative to the Amira
 
I dunno, I'm not much of a tester. I rate it as Amira makes footage look gorgeous, C300 makes footage look okay.

Actually, I haven't used my Mark III yet and have only viewed footage from one shoot with it, maybe done four shoots with it, so I can't comment on it much. I've been using the Mark IIs more because I do a lot of multi-cam and it's nice to have two of the same camera even though the C70 seems to match pretty dead on to my eye with the Mark III, clients still request the Mark II, and I'm more familiar with the Mark II. It's been simpler to stick to what I'm more familiar with and I have doubts the Mark III image is that much better to make a difference. It's not like I'm shooting RAW for my clients in any case. I should probably test them next to each other some time. I think once I get a second Mark III I'll use the Mark IIIs more, but I'm not in a hurry to get one cause it's not like clients are requesting it. I kind of wish I'd gotten a used Mini instead of the C70 and Mark III, but whatever.
 
Last edited:
ahalpert said:
$16k for c300s and $20k for C500S? $30K for C700DR?
Click to expand...

R5c - $5K (it's mentioned in the comments section, albeit without the price)

C300s - $7,500

C500s - $15,000.

C700R - $30,000

My guesses, keeping with the price doubling per tier concept, Canon history and the expected market conditions of the late 2021.

As to the dual gain, two exposures is all you need.
 
DLD said:
R5c - $5K (it's mentioned in the comments section, albeit without the price)

C300s - $7,500

C500s - $15,000.

C700R - $30,000

My guesses, keeping with the price doubling per tier concept, Canon history and the expected market conditions of the late 2021.

As to the dual gain, two exposures is all you need.
Click to expand...

...why would they sell the c300s and c500s for less than the c300 iii and c500 ii?
 
Eric Coughlin said:
I dunno, I'm not much of a tester. I rate it as Amira makes footage look gorgeous, C300 makes footage look okay.

Actually, I haven't used my Mark III yet and have only viewed footage from one shoot with it, so I can't comment on it much. I've been using the Mark IIs more because I do a lot of multi-cam and it's nice to have two of the same camera even though the C70 seems to match pretty dead on to my eye with the Mark III, clients still request the Mark II, and I'm more familiar with the Mark II. It's been simpler to stick to what I'm more familiar with and I have doubts the Mark III image is that much better to make a difference. I should probably test them next to each other some time. I think once I get a second Mark III I'll use the Mark IIIs more, but I'm not in a hurry to get one cause it's not like clients are requesting it. I kind of wish I'd gotten a used Mini instead of the C70 and Mark III, but whatever.
Click to expand...

how much less dynamic range would you guesstimate that the c300mk2 has versus the amira?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top