Canon R5 Announced with 8k

[John Brawley]

OOC, does anyone with BMPCC4K experience have a preference for the maximum ISO they would use on a shot that they don't want to look obviously noisy to the audience when viewed on a large screen?

6400? 3200? Avoid high gain mode altogether?

Large screen like a cinema or large screen like a TV ? I don't use the high gain much because it has less DR than the low gain native setting, and mostly I do narrative dramas so ISO 3200 is considered the extreme of low light anyway. From memory 6400 was still pretty solid, but I haven't done a lot of work up that end to truly know. I use more light and faster lenses

Also, does anyone have solutions or workarounds for image artifacts? As I understand, the BMPCC4K will randomly foul shots but it's not clear if the problem is related to temperature or what.

Never heard of this. Can you link something ? There are tens of thousands of these cameras out there now and I'm on a few forums and it's not something I've heard of before ?

I'm posing these questions because I calculate that the bitrate of 8K RAW from Canon must be in the neighborhood of 4gbps, no? Very unwieldy, especially if you don't need more than 4K.

Meanwhile, most of the shooting on it will be 10-bit 4:2:2 4K, so I might as well try to work with the 10-bit I already have on the S1. The S1 is a reliable low-light beast. All I gain from the R5 is AF, RAW and no-crop high-speed 4K. AF I can (mostly) live without and the RAW will be massive. No-crop 4K 60p would be cool, but still.

As I mentioned earlier I'm not very familiar with the canon RAW workflow, but it didn't seem like it worked in my favourite editing applications without going through Canon's software first.

REDCODE and BRAW are "smart" codecs that can have very high resolution and data rates but allow ways to work with the files natively in low end systems by various techniques around the playback of those files. Have you explored how that might affect your workflow ?

JB

 

[NorBro]

It's the random rainbow static/lines artifacts. If BMCuser was up I'd be able to find some more threads.

Here's one from the BM forum (and that's exactly what randomly happened in all of my BM cameras over the years, specifically the third picture down - top left - in the opening post). Some people never see it so it's just one of those unexplainable phenomenons since no official statement was ever made on it:

https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=44824

[And it was never the cards because they were repeatedly used in the same cameras and some days it never happened (which was always the strangest part for me).]

 

[stewhem]

Just chipping with a minor bit of info: Resolve and FCPX both handle Canon raw without problems - providing your hardware is up to scratch.

 

[John Brawley]

It's the random rainbow static/lines artifacts. If BMCuser was up I'd be able to find some more threads.

Here's one from the BM forum (and that's exactly what randomly happened in all of my BM cameras over the years, specifically the third picture down - top left - in the opening post). Some people never see it so it's just one of those unexplainable phenomenons since no official statement was ever made on it:

https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=44824

[And it was never the cards because they were repeatedly used in the same cameras and some days it never happened (which was always the strangest part for me).]

Well is that what it is that they're referencing here ? The horizontal noise in that thread was particular to that sensor family (the Ursa, 4K production and for that matter I've seen it on the Axiom as well)

The rainbow dot's in the third image really is new to me. They seem to be in line with the noise, which in this case was specific to that sensor family and isn't what's in the newer Pockets and UMPs. I haven't seen that before. Closest I've seen is the old digital dust that also seems to affect Alexa. Have you got examples of the exact same thing ? Did you raise an RMA ? What did they say ?

I've seen rainbow macro blocking that kind of looks similar to this at a larger scale on a single frame but that is almost always a DNG corruption on a file copy / file transfer (not media related per se) when not doing a checksum copy. The original frame is almost always OK.

JB

 

[ahalpert]

Large screen like a cinema or large screen like a TV ? I don't use the high gain much because it has less DR than the low gain native setting, and mostly I do narrative dramas so ISO 3200 is considered the extreme of low light anyway. From memory 6400 was still pretty solid, but I haven't done a lot of work up that end to truly know. I use more light and faster lenses

Large screen like a cinema. No limits on the viewing size. I have fast lenses although most are well served by closing down a stop.

My real concern is exposing for ambient light, say in a bar, where you're only lighting the actors and maybe an accent in the background, but relying on the lighting they already have. Relighting the whole establishment to a different light level would be a big proposition in that case.

Or shooting outside in streetlight or even moonlight, again just lighting the actors but trying to get an exposure in the background.

Maybe it can't be done. And maybe in that case I should just embrace noise. But I'm curious about the upper limits. 6400 would be a happy place, and even 3200 would be great. I would be speed boosting lenses and potentially reaching f/1.

Never heard of this. Can you link something ? There are tens of thousands of these cameras out there now and I'm on a few forums and it's not something I've heard of before ?

NorBro mentioned to me that his pocket will cast lines or maybe green color over some frames, but completely randomly and infrequently. Nevertheless, that type of problem would prevent me from using the camera on hired jobs for anything besides beauty shots I can retake. Can't screw up an interview shot or a doc/event shot or something where the director is looking over my shoulder that way.

I've also heard of issues with the camera not recording on command or beginning to record when not commanded. I've heard of issues with the external drive showing up blank to the camera after a day of shooting (but then the footage appeared to the computer later). I hope some of those issues have been ironed out. But image artifacts seem to still be a (rare) problem.

As I mentioned earlier I'm not very familiar with the canon RAW workflow, but it didn't seem like it worked in my favourite editing applications without going through Canon's software first.

REDCODE and BRAW are "smart" codecs that can have very high resolution and data rates but allow ways to work with the files natively in low end systems by various techniques around the playback of those files. Have you explored how that might affect your workflow ?

JB

I'm not hugely concerned by Canon RAW workflow if I were using it inrequently. Of course, it would be great to use RAW frequently. If I felt I could rely on a BMD, I would.

But BRAW doesn't cut natively in FCPX does it? I switched last year from Adobe to FCPX after using Adobe for 10 years because new updates were buggy and cost me a lot of time and money. At the end of the day, I needed something reliable.

FCPX has been very reliable for me and has convenient proxy workflow, background render/export etc.

I tried the free version of Resolve last year as well (the latest release) and it seemed buggy and occasionally crashed. Obviously a lot of people use it, even for editing and not just color. Maybe the kinks have gotten worked out, but FCPX is mighty reliable and convenient for a quick turnaround.

None of these NLE concerns would keep me from using a BMPCC4K or an R5, they just affect how much time the footage needs for prep and how broadly I could integrate RAW workflows into what I'm doing.

 

[NorBro]

Well is that what it is that they're referencing here ? The horizontal noise in that thread was particular to that sensor family (the Ursa, 4K production and for that matter I've seen it on the Axiom as well)

The rainbow dot's in the third image really is new to me. They seem to be in line with the noise, which in this case was specific to that sensor family and isn't what's in the newer Pockets and UMPs. I haven't seen that before. Closest I've seen is the old digital dust that also seems to affect Alexa. Have you got examples of the exact same thing ? Did you raise an RMA ? What did they say ?

I've seen rainbow macro blocking that kind of looks similar to this at a larger scale on a single frame but that is almost always a DNG corruption on a file copy / file transfer (not media related per se) when not doing a checksum copy. The original frame is almost always OK.

JB

I'm not sure if he actually knows what he's referencing because maybe he's just trusting me when I brought up "random artifacts" the other week.

I did RMA two cameras, no problem. Then it seemed like they were taking a step back from swapping cameras so easily as the years went by (which makes financial sense), but at that point I already moved on to other systems for the most part.

Just one of those things...other people have experienced some kind of corruption over the years (although it seems to be less frequent with the newer cameras but I would never trust them 100% at all times). Or some have experienced other problems I never did (fried SDI ports, battery plate issues, buttons not working, battery hinges breaking or not locking, etc).

The 6K Pocket I bought last week has been perfect so far (but I did see artifacts with a P4K many months ago). It's even clean with no dust in the chamber. That has been my #1 immediate test with all BM cameras. Stop down to f/16+ and point the camera at the sky to check.

 

[NorBro]

Another note about the R5...has it been made known which specs will be recorded to which card?

Ideally, both - but that's not how other Canon DSLR/mirrorless cameras have worked in the past, so maybe it's worth considering if the cost of CFexpress cards will have to be factored into the budget.

If they are separating the recording formats again, the obvious guess is 8K will go onto the CFexpress and everything else on the SD card (but I still think the 4K could go onto the CF too).

 

[ahalpert]

I'm not sure if he actually knows what he's referencing because maybe he's just trusting me when I brought up "random artifacts" the other week.

This is correct. I have read about so many issues with BMD cameras over the years (FPN, battery death without warning, etc) that I wanted to ask a current user what the state of play is. It's also hard to trust internet reviews because they might be click baiting you with sensationally positive or negative takes. They may also have no idea what they're doing technically.

Another note about the R5...has it been made known which specs will be recorded to which card?

Ideally, both - but that's not how other Canon DSLR/mirrorless cameras have worked in the past, so maybe it's worth considering if the cost of CFexpress cards will have to be factored into the budget.

This is true re:CFexpress cards, although they seem like a broad, new standard for camera capture, so they're probably a good long-term investment. Of course, if your bitrate is 4gbps you'll need a lot. I would mostly not shoot RAW on the R5, but that would limit the usefulness of that codec.

One of the appeals of the pocket 4k/6k is the external SSD recording. It's hardly an ideal way to shoot, but it is mightily cost-effective.

Any bad experiences recording to SSDs, NorBro?

 

[NorBro]

I have never tried external SSD recording with any camera (besides the BMCC/BMPC which naturally recorded to them).

It's not for me. Not that I engage in some kind of crazy production in which I would be worried about it, but I just don't want another thing hanging off my camera.

(I had a few CFast cards laying around which is one reason I decided to purchase this camera because I would have lost hundreds on the sale of them.)

___

EDIT: Actually I recorded to Atomos' plenty of times if that counts, but that's a little different (the purpose).

 

[puredrifting]

FCP X = CRL, Prores RAW
Resolve = CRL, BM RAW

Part of the reason I use both programs. Different projects can be edited in one or the other program optimally. I also really like editing in both, they are different feeling but complimentary.
I can fly in FCP X, I am much slower in Resolve simply because it's much newer to me. But I think $299.00 for Resolve Studio and putting in a few weeks is a smart investment.

 

[John Brawley]

Just chipping with a minor bit of info: Resolve and FCPX both handle Canon raw without problems - providing your hardware is up to scratch.

Thanks for this.

I managed to find a C500 MK2 clip and was indeed able to open it in Resolve. PLayed at 12 FPS on my 2018 mac laptop and metadata described it as "12 bit".

Can't really tell much from a single clip, but at least you can get an actual clip into Resolve now.

JB

 

[John Brawley]

I have never tried external SSD recording with any camera (besides the BMCC/BMPC which naturally recorded to them).

It's not for me. Not that I engage in some kind of crazy production in which I would be worried about it, but I just don't want another thing hanging off my camera.

Yeah I hate the idea of an external recorder. I've never used this function, but I guess if you need long takes ??

JB

 

[AndreeOnline]

Thanks for this.

I managed to find a C500 MK2 clip and was indeed able to open it in Resolve. PLayed at 12 FPS on my 2018 mac laptop and metadata described it as "12 bit".

Can't really tell much from a single clip, but at least you can get an actual clip into Resolve now.

JB

I've been assuming that you've all been talking about something other than just playing the .CRMs in Resolve, because that has been possible since very shortly after the release of the C200—so for several years now.

I think the first few weeks after the C200 release in 2017 we only had 'playback compatibility' (with full access to the image data of course), and a bit later the convenience features of the Raw tab were implemented too.

I've found the files quite OK to work with performance wise, but in terms of a raw codec it's nowhere near the flexibility of .r3d or .braw (with various types and levels of compression and so on). Canon should have definitely added a few more flavors to it by now (x3, x5... x10, whatever), but perhaps it's a patent issue.

 

[John Brawley]

I've been assuming that you've all been talking about something other than just playing the .CRMs in Resolve, because that has been possible since very shortly after the release of the C200—so for several years now.

I think the first few weeks after the C200 release in 2017 we only had 'playback compatibility' (with full access to the image data of course), and a bit later the convenience features of the Raw tab were implemented too.

I've found the files quite OK to work with performance wise, but in terms of a raw codec it's nowhere near the flexibility of .r3d or .braw (with various types and levels of compression and so on). Canon should have definitely added a few more flavors to it by now (x3, x5... x10, whatever), but perhaps it's a patent issue.

No I’m afraid just ignorance.

Canon just aren’t on my radar for professional work for me. I know lots of people use them but I don’t see any advantages and mostly disadvantages.

Even with my now updated knowledge of their wider utility, you saying they still aren’t there is enough for me. They’re still the same thinking.

JB

 

[ahalpert]

Yeah I hate the idea of an external recorder. I've never used this function, but I guess if you need long takes ??

JB

Recording to external SSD would purely be a cost-saving measure since I already own some that are compatible. Obviously not ideal.

It looks like RED Komodo will not have dual gain ISO - therefore we can safely assume that the bmpcc4K will have less noise at high ISOs - yes?

Even if the Komodo had superior DR in spite of its global shutter, the bmpcc4k might fare better in under lit scenes.

I am starting to wonder if the bmpcc4k is not the goldilocks for low-budget filmmaking. I just wish I could get the full width of my FF glass onto the sensor because it fouls up my focal lengths a bit.

 

[stewhem]

But I think $299.00 for Resolve Studio and putting in a few weeks is a smart investment.

Certainly is in terms of saved round trips and handfuls of hair torn from your head in sheer frustration at Abode products these days, sadly. And I find I'm actually faster at editing on Resolve as I know it well. But you really do need a capable machine to use it at speed.

 

[ahalpert]

Certainly is in terms of saved round trips and handfuls of hair torn from your head in sheer frustration at Abode products these days, sadly. And I find I'm actually faster at editing on Resolve as I know it well. But you really do need a capable machine to use it at speed.

Yeah I had to quit Adobe last year. Now I'm using FCPX.

Does Resolve have a proxy-generating workflow as streamlined as FCPX? Can you edit while you export? I assume not.

As for the price - since you can get the software free with a camera purchase, it makes their cameras even more price competitive if you want Resolve.

 

[AndreeOnline]

Canon just aren’t on my radar for professional work for me. I know lots of people use them but I don’t see any advantages and mostly disadvantages

Sure. Horses for courses.

I am starting to wonder if the bmpcc4k is not the goldilocks for low-budget filmmaking. I just wish I could get the full width of my FF glass onto the sensor because it fouls up my focal lengths a bit.

Since you are specifically saying 'filmmaking', I'd say it's not even a question. I'll group the P4K and P6K together and view them as 'one option', where a user will pick one over the other depending on what lenses they have in their bags. The new price for the P6K is now at $1995 so it's a negligible difference when choosing one over the other. But one of those should be point of entry.

I owned both the P4K (and Metabones 0.64XL) and P6K at the same time at one point, but since all my lenses are EF, I let the P4K go and kept the P6K.

They are by no means perfect cameras, but I would have zero concerns — zero — bringing my P6K to any shoot where everyone else brought their REDs (regardless of variety). I have no doubt that the UMP G2 produces an even sweeter image.

Like you, I'd very much like to see a Pocket with a sensor that matches (image circle) an EF/RF mount. Resolution is fine at 6K. Bless it with NDs and well....

Again: this is from a filmmaking perspective where you have a scale from [very easy --> filmmaking........corporate...documentary.......family videos <-- very hard] in terms of execution. If you look at it from a perspective of expectation, the scale reverses.

I'm still looking at the R5 (woah – back on topic!) because I'm less to the left and more middle/right and I need compatibility with my wireless Speedlites and, and, and....

 

[ahalpert]

Since you are specifically saying 'filmmaking', I'd say it's not even a question. I'll group the P4K and P6K together and view them as 'one option', where a user will pick one over the other depending on what lenses they have in their bags. The new price for the P6K is now at $1995 so it's a negligible difference when choosing one over the other. But one of those should be point of entry.

I'm still looking at the R5 (woah – back on topic!) because I'm less to the left and more middle/right and I need compatibility with my wireless Speedlites and, and, and....

Interesting input. If you want compatibility with your Speedlites, it seems like the R5 wins!

On the topic of Pocket 4K vs 6K, with a speedbooster you can achieve a lower crop factor on the 4K than on the 6K. (Although maybe lucadapters makes a speedbooster for the 6K?) Why did you ditch the 6K?

Naturally, I will wait for performance reviews of the R5 and also the Komodo before even thinking about buying anything (not to mention the resumption of enough business that buying gear is merited).

The R5 will probably have a massive bitrate for RAW (4gbps?) and probably no choices for compression levels.

It seems to me that they are very much trying to serve photographers here (as they tried on the 5Dmk2 originally) by giving them a chance to flip a switch and take a quick video clip of whatever they were photographing. Photogs want the same RAW flexibility in their videos (or they won't be able to deliver the same look they planned in their stills) and they probably don't need long takes.

 

[AndreeOnline]

On the topic of Pocket 4K vs 6K, with a speedbooster you can achieve a lower crop factor on the 4K than on the 6K. (Although maybe lucadapters makes a speedbooster for the 6K?) Why did you ditch the 6K?

The P6K is the one I kept, since it had the EF mount, which matches my lenses. I still have that one.

I'm not a huge fan of depending on 3rd party "lenses" (Speedboosters) from mom-and-pop manufacturers. I have no special reason to sell Metabones short, so that's not my intention. But it's an additional piece of glass that goes between the camera and every lens you put on. Metabones has been at it a while and I'm sure they've learned a lot. I saw some of Lucadapter's work and quickly decided it wasn't for me.

But it's a bummer to carry glass for a larger mount and then have a 'smaller than intended' sensor to capture it. Format wise there is lots of overlap between FF and "S35" via equivalence, and I don't need FF for bragging rights. But when I think about focal lengths and framing, my reference (inner eye) is FF photography and it is the stronger format from a physics standpoint.

Many others have already said this, but video resolution to me has to do with intended display/projection size. For my current 65in OLED (and probably up to 100in or so) UHD is plenty.