Canon R5 Announced with 8k

[ahalpert]

Were you paying for the extra cam and op out of your own pocket or was the client paying? I've never really shot high-res(4K+) for reframing purposes, but I know that when you crop-in 100% in stills, it usually looks bad. You'll see geometric distortion and flattening that isn't there/visible "full screen".

What's the difference in who's paying? They paid extra. But without the op I could have given them a better price. Or, since they could afford that budget, try to negotiate it and get more take-home pay. To put it another way - if I had to hire an operator for each of the 5 cameras I was using, I would have made next-to-nothing or they would not have been my client.

Oh, and the day went long so I paid her extra out of my pocket as she was working on an hourly rate. But I didn't see fit to renegotiate my package rate with the client over that little bonus. So I lost money there.

As for cropping in - usually it just looks a bit softer to me. Distortion if you're cropping to the edge of the lens. All dependent on the qualities of the lens you're using. But we're talking about a situation where we just want to see the person talking. It doesn't have to look amazing

 

[ahalpert]

This is really wonderful in terms of post-practicality if it's okay to do so for the client, but it's worth noting it also has to be manageable, one-and-done, and/or you have to have a powerful computer.

Life is full of variables. If they just wanted to cut out 30 seconds from the final export, I might just cut it out of the final file and rewrap that, depending.

I dont mind letting my computer crank for a night or a couple days transcoding footage if I'm getting work done in the meantime. If it's a fast turnaround, you dont do it this way and hire the other operator.

Or if you do this a lot, the money you saved on an operator goes into buying a faster machine.

Also - it doesn't have to be crl. The camera records all-i compressed 8K it seems, though I'm not sure about the specifics.

I'm not saying 8K is a home run - I'm just spouting hypotheticals

 

[Clermond]

For example - I shot a conference lsast December. 2 cameras on the panel (one wide, one with my assistant operating a CU on whoever was talking). I'm floating around shooting interviews and b-roll.

8K camera = 1 camera on the panel and no assistant. I could crop to 400 or 800% with a sharp lens and get a close-up from a very wide shot.

So...for inartful stuff where I could cut a camera/operator?

Or - I was just sent a self-shot interview from an a7riii of a photographer in front of his framed print. Client wanted me to roto out the reflections on the glass. More resolution helps there

Again, it's not at the top of my list.

I don’t think that you will do yourself a favor with these scenarios when you shoot 8k to save the cost of one op. If it works technically at all. I had these requests in the early days of my carrier on 8x10inch large format stills. Shoot big so we can crop the frame we want. the result is an image that’s far from what I call a created frame. I’d be careful with that. My2cts

 

[NorBro]

Life is full of variables. If they just wanted to cut out 30 seconds from the final export, I might just cut it out of the final file and rewrap that, depending.

I dont mind letting my computer crank for a night or a couple days transcoding footage if I'm getting work done in the meantime. If it's a fast turnaround, you dont do it this way and hire the other operator.

Or if you do this a lot, the money you saved on an operator goes into buying a faster machine.

Also - it doesn't have to be crl. The camera records all-i compressed 8K it seems, though I'm not sure about the specifics.

I'm not saying 8K is a home run - I'm just spouting hypotheticals

That's all true...and FWIW I'm definitely on board with using 8K that way for panels. I do it with 4K. The final product is so much better for its purpose (just people speaking like you mentioned) if you do it right and don't shoot crazy wide.

 

[ahalpert]

I don’t think that you will do yourself a favor with these scenarios when you shoot 8k to save the cost of one op. If it works technically at all. I had these requests in the early days of my carrier on 8x10inch large format stills. Shoot big so we can crop the frame we want. the result is an image that’s far from what I call a created frame. I’d be careful with that. My2cts

I totally agree. I'm not saying the result is great, just passable.

In this particular case though, it would have been a grand slam. They changed their minds about the editing after the conference was shot. The sizzle edit only used interviews and b-roll. They never saw the panel footage. I think I used one shot for a few seconds as b-roll. So, i never would have had to transcode it or crop in. But obviously this was an exceptional circumstance.

 

[Run&Gun]

What's the difference in who's paying? They paid extra. But without the op I could have given them a better price. Or, since they could afford that budget, try to negotiate it and get more take-home pay. To put it another way - if I had to hire an operator for each of the 5 cameras I was using, I would have made next-to-nothing or they would not have been my client.

As for cropping in - usually it just looks a bit softer to me. Distortion if you're cropping to the edge of the lens. All dependent on the qualities of the lens you're using. But we're talking about a situation where we just want to see the person talking. It doesn't have to look amazing

If the client is willing to pay and it doesn't negatively affect your bottom line(which is why I asked who was paying), you hire another op. I've never heard anyone say that they'd rather have an unmanned lock-off instead of a cam with an op, if money wasn't an issue. I guess I'm just from a different generation. Multi-camera shoots had an op on each camera. Everyone has gotten so accustomed to cheap clients who only want one op and 10 cameras on a shoot that they think that's HOW it should be all the time. If you're making less for each op you hire, you're doing something wrong.

If you've got a really wide lens so you can fit everyone in the shot, like you mentioned, and you need a guy near the edge of the frame, guess what... And cropping is not the same as zooming(changing to a longer focal length)

I guess I just hate seeing where this industry has gone, because we have all of this incredible equipment now that can produce amazing images, but instead of being used to maximize the quality of the product/image, it's used to do the shoot as cheaply as possible. Despite all of the amazing stuff I see today that couldn't have been done 20 years ago, I see way more CRAP being turned out with these amazing tools.

 

[NorBro]

Sometimes there are other hidden costs that aren't thought about.

Some of these conventions/summits/symposiums/etc have hundreds of corporations (who may hire their own freelance videographers) whom will have to pay anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars for extra access to various key notes and presentations. (Of course, only if you want to see them.)

As I'm sure you know, the big venues have their own video production companies filming all of the speeches (for the big screens for the audience), but they don't sell that footage. So if a company wants to have their own speakers filmed (and usually the people running the shows are okay with it, especially if you're a sponsor), they have to pay extra for that access for the videographer.

So in such cases, flying out an additional person and paying for his or her expenses, including the extra access at the event might not be the best investment and utilization of their resources. Or sometimes may not even be doable as the access is limited and companies are most likely not going to provide two of their passes to two videographers rather than one for one of their own employees.

In a case like this, being able to record a decent wide shot of 4-6-8 panelists and then punching in on them later (for an overall better final product) is very useful.

 

[ahalpert]

And at the panel I'm talking about and many others, there can be back-and-forth that is hard to capture with one panning CU camera. My assistant was understandably late to switch coverage sometimes. So, as far as just having a usable CU of everyone, one high-resolution wide shot has advantages.

And regarding geometric distortion - my wide shot was like a 50mm equivalent since it was shooting from the back of the hall. Not much distortion at the edges of frame.

 

[NorBro]

Sometimes I would film near the director's booth (at the nicer events) and hear him/her cut to another camera when one of the videographers finished panning/reframing (for the big screen). But usually the big ones have enough cameras to cover everyone.

Essentially, some of us would like the same thing; what the audience sees on the big screens - the polished cuts - but from one 8K camera angle if more angles are not available (physically and/or financially).

 

[ahalpert]

I guess I just hate seeing where this industry has gone, because we have all of this incredible equipment now that can produce amazing images, but instead of being used to maximize the quality of the product/image, it's used to do the shoot as cheaply as possible. Despite all of the amazing stuff I see today that couldn't have been done 20 years ago, I see way more CRAP being turned out with these amazing tools.

Well I think it's different if it's a low-budget or non-profit entity who can now do something nice instead of something basic (or nothing at all) versus a commercial/corporate/high-end producer who is watering down the quality of their product to save a few bucks.

Like using a gimbal. Are you using a gimbal as an alternative to a proper steadicam? Or as an alternative to using no motion rig at all?

 

[DLD]

No - what if the cost is that it's a jello cam? Or that 4k must be line-skipped in order to read the 8k sensor fast enough?

Well, that is currently an unknown. From a shooter's perspective, a crop - or, for that matter, various crops - should be offered as options. Will they be? That is also an unknown. And that's the bridge to cross at a later date.

PS. I hate looking at the reframes because they look like crap. At best, if you reframe into a lower res, the rest of the footage also has to be at the same lower res. Or it just looks like crap. In case, I forgot to mention it.

 

[ahalpert]

They're not gonna offer a 6K crop. They're not RED. They'll offer a 4K APS-C crop and probably not RAW is my guess.

Reframing looks like crap in narrative if they crop in a lot and try to pull close ups out if a wide shot. I hate seeing that from REDs. But Fincher reframes his RED footage and I never noticed so he probably doesn't do it by much. (And yes, as a cameraman, I hate the thought of having my shots reframed by the editor.)

But non-narrative generally has more flexible standards. In the conference sizzle I keep mentioning, I shot b-roll on the S1 on gimbal. I used the pixel-to-pixel crop to get tighter shots of people in the audience asking questions. On my 24-105, I could get medium shots from like 80 feet away. The alternative was not getting a usable shot of everyone and not being able to build my multi-ethnic attendee montage with as many options.

The pixel-to-pixel HD looks softer than full-frame HD. Will anyone notice but me? Dunno. It looks fine. Especially in 720p on YouTube. Cropping in on 8K will be like that but sometimes from the edges of the lens and not always from the center.

 

[DLD]

Sony 7R series have been offering a pixel-for-pixel readout with a 15 MPX center crop along with the full sensor line binning 4K. Panasonic has offered various aspect ratios, including 4:3 for the anamorphic lenses, since GH-4. Canon just offered center crop 4K thus far. What will they do next?

Their history suggest an inevitable crippling somewhere ... but they may surprise.

 

[AndreeOnline]

Leave it to the internet to complain to Canon—after finally delivering a FULL FRAME, 8K, in RAW, to INTERNAL media camera:

"What the hell is this? Large sensor? High resolution? Fat negative? Where the hell are our CROP modes and easy on our storage EFFICIENT codecs????"

And I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same people complaining about the 5D mkIV's crop mode, that now can't live without it... =)

 

[Bassman2003]

Imho, the R5 like so many others on the market is hybrid camera. It is not a high end cinema camera or a mega broadcast camera. It is going to be a great still camera with now great video features and functionality. I do not care if it has 8k or not. To me, it is more about finally offering both sides of the equation (stills & video) at an equally high level. As OMB, still & video shooter, it will give me a chance to build around one system really dial in color as the DPP software allows for a lot of baked in color controls. Then shooting in RAW will give any post leeway that is wanted. The addition of older EF lenses will allow for used specialty purchases along side any new RF lenses. It is just all finally coming together in Canon's offerings imho.

I can replace my 5D MK II & III and my GH5 if all goes well. Still hoping there will not be any gotchas!

 

[puredrifting]

Based upon the conversation here, it seems that the R5 will be jumped on by wedding and live event people. Not seeing anything here or elsewhere about how to use it creatively for narrative content.
Fair enough, I was just curious who is excited about this camera and what they will be doing or attempting to do with it. FWIW, the few times I have re-framed 4K on 1080 timelines,
it does look generally "off", the FOV and perspective look wrong , even though they aren't. I still like to roll two cameras instead of re-framing a 4K shot.

It will be interesting to see, besides the much hyped 8K, how good this camera is and how much rolling shutter is present. That's what ruled out the R for me mainly was the amount of rolling shutter was 5D MKII levels or worse. Terrible.

 

[jb.]

FWIW, the few times I have re-framed 4K on 1080 timelines, it does look generally "off", the FOV and perspective look wrong , even though they aren't. I still like to roll two cameras instead of re-framing a 4K shot.

I thought I was the only one who thought re-framed 4K looked "off."

 

[DLD]

What 8K in a consumer camera - albeit a high end consumer camera - should do is to make 8K mandatory on pro cameras. So, if/when an R-mount pro camera comes out, it ought to have that available for a very reasonable price, not $80,000-$120,000 that Monstro/DXL sells/rents for.

 

[Bassman2003]

Based upon the conversation here, it seems that the R5 will be jumped on by wedding and live event people. Not seeing anything here or elsewhere about how to use it creatively for narrative content.
Fair enough, I was just curious who is excited about this camera and what they will be doing or attempting to do with it. FWIW, the few times I have re-framed 4K on 1080 timelines,
it does look generally "off", the FOV and perspective look wrong , even though they aren't. I still like to roll two cameras instead of re-framing a 4K shot.

It will be interesting to see, besides the much hyped 8K, how good this camera is and how much rolling shutter is present. That's what ruled out the R for me mainly was the amount of rolling shutter was 5D MKII levels or worse. Terrible.

I have video cameras for live event applications. i plan on using the thing just like a normal hybrid do it all camera as well as my pro stills camera. Just the same as so many use the GH series cameras for. I don't understand your points here Dan. Its a mirrorless camera that can shoot up to 8k RAW with IBIS and great AF. That is supposed to be a good thing. A great tool.

 

[ahalpert]

Based upon the conversation here, it seems that the R5 will be jumped on by wedding and live event people. Not seeing anything here or elsewhere about how to use it creatively for narrative content.
Fair enough, I was just curious who is excited about this camera and what they will be doing or attempting to do with it. FWIW, the few times I have re-framed 4K on 1080 timelines,
it does look generally "off", the FOV and perspective look wrong , even though they aren't. I still like to roll two cameras instead of re-framing a 4K shot.

It will be interesting to see, besides the much hyped 8K, how good this camera is and how much rolling shutter is present. That's what ruled out the R for me mainly was the amount of rolling shutter was 5D MKII levels or worse. Terrible.

Well I think people are discussing what makes this camera different (8K). I dont think it's fundamentally different from other mirrorless cameras, although internal RAW is nice.

I had an S1 that I needed for low-light shooting. I sold it so I could get something similar with good AF and no-crop 4K60fps.

I don't see why you'd upgrade from your XT3s for this unless the AF is that much better, or you need better low-light, or you have a lot of EF autofocus lenses.

8K IPB got me excited because I thought it might just do 8K RAW. The situations where I want extra cropping resolution (which are not that frequent and not weddings, for example, where I dont usually crop anything because composition/beauty matters) - but when extra resolution is useful, 8K would be more useful than 4K. And IQ is not paramount in those situations and I'm probably rolling a lot, so IPB is more welcome than RAW.

Lots of people also just want a small gimbal cam with good AF. Something as a B camera for my FS7 on interview/b-roll shoots.

But shooting RAW, there's no reason it couldn't find a home on BRAW shoots (although you'll have fewer compression options). If you really need low-light shooting, it may be an objectively superior option. Or if you want full-frame aesthetic. But I imagine most BRAW/CRL shooters would pick whichever camera delivers the most IQ/color depth/DR.

And yes - there's a greater than 50% chance that its readout speed renders it unusable. In which case the R6 may triumph or the A7SIII. So many variables.

But all else being equal - why turn down an 8K option?