Canon R5 Announced with 8k

Tom Roper said:
That’s what they always say until they have it, then there’s no doing without it.
Click to expand...

I don't really agree. It doesn't kill me to shoot HD. Half my deliverables are still HD. I've worked with stills from the A7RIII and the 5Dmk3. Doesn't kill me to work with stills from the GH5 or my damn phone. Obviously, you dont get as much detail or croppability.

Now if you look at Hunter Hampton's LF vs S1H test - there's a beautiful softness to the LF both in the color quality and the incredible DR. The S1H looked nice but didn't compare. If I could shoot on the LF it would be hard to go back to what I've got
 
Last edited:
Yeah so a bunch of posts say its overkill. What is that a statistical fact? BMD gave you a 4k, 8k, 12k camera in one. Use what you want , apparently with ease. Thats huge. No one says you've got to shoot 12k but its there for anytime you want to be an independent thinker where it will help you realize your vision. I worked on the movie Hustlers and the DP used the Panavision Millennium DXL and he shot the film in 8k, 7k, 6k and 4k. I asked him why so may resolutions, and basically it was a stylistic choice for a given actress and scene. Choice how wonderful.
 
I think the 12K is a cool camera. It just seems like a total vindication of RED's resolution argument. The DXL is a rebranded Monstro after all
 
ahalpert said:
I don't really agree. It doesn't kill me to shoot HD. Half my deliverables are still HD. I've worked with stills from the A7RIII and the 5Dmk3.
Click to expand...

So excepting yourself, you don't think the main hook for the R5 was 8k? I don't think of it as groundbreaking in other ways.
 
Tom Roper said:
So excepting yourself, you don't think the main hook for the R5 was 8k? I don't think of it as groundbreaking in other ways.
Click to expand...

Are Clermond and Liam shooting it in 8K or 4KHQ? (which benefits from the downsample it's true)

But I think we're getting ahead of ourselves - the R5 is Canon's first camera to shoot 10-bit 4K full-frame with full read-out. (Ok there was the 1dxmk3 just before it.) That alone is a big deal. Then it's got c-log, high megapixel stills, and amazing AF. With canon colors. If it couldn't do 8K, it would still be a groundbreaking amazing camera. 8K is a headline grabber and sort of a bonus IMO
 
Last edited:
mico said:
Red joined the race every company was in. Mpix bragging rights were going on before Red.
Click to expand...

Am I misremembering things? I remember so much talk about "megapixel race is overkill" and "better pixels not more pixels". I feel like RED got trashed for the very argument that other companies are being embraced for making. (Except among the RED faithful of course, who seem interested in the UMP 12K for the same reason they like RED)
 
Although this is nothing unknown and you've seen some tests online, there is without a shadow of a doubt you are getting your money's worth when shooting 8K.

Now if it matters for you is another thing, but it's there if you need it.

A frame from the original 8K shot (for reference) from an 8K project/timeline is followed by a 1000% zoom (all from native timelines, no upscaling).

105mm - f/8 - ISO 4000.

[The slight variation in framing is due to swivel slightly drooping and/or Full HD being compared to 4K and 8K DCI...nevertheless the detail/clarity difference is understood at every level.]

What you see below (ALL-I):

8K (Original)
1000% zooms...
8K
4K HQ Full-Frame
4K Full-Frame
4K S35 5.1K Crop
HD Full-Frame
HD S35 5.1K Crop

I wouldn't recommend paying money for the camera if you're thinking about using it in the regular full-frame mode. Not worth it.

x7LYWNz.jpg


lT37eUq.jpg


rtdiLaV.jpg


xtLc38F.jpg


rkgt3uE.jpg


yQTN7IO.jpg


DFqov3D.jpg
 
Thanks for the samples. I'd be more curious what a short 10 sec clip filmed at 8k, 4k, and HD. Then all 3 exported in editing software to HD. Point being if your final delivery is in HD is all that extra resolution that noticeable. A blind sample would be even more fun to see if anyone here could identify them. Video clips would be preferable considering most movies aren't paused and their pixels scrutinized at 1000% unless there is nudity involved.
 
Last edited:
It really depends...and there is also good resolution and bad resolution...and how it's being played back.

If you're filming in 8K and then editing in a HD timeline and playing back on a HD monitor, you are wasting your pixels and information so the difference will be less noticeable, especially against very good HD resolution.

[I like to think of cameras producing their images with formulas...and these formulas consist of a combination of pixels, color science, processing/oversampling, low-light, etc.]

If you're comparing the R5's 8K vs. bad resolution like from 2010 720p cameras, or even limited resolution like the R5's lower-quality full-frame that does not have the 5.1K oversampling then the difference will be more apparent. Especially when watching 4K or 8K on a 4K or 8K display.

But if you're comparing R5's 8K to ALEXA LF's 4K - even on a 4K screen - then the difference may be less noticeable to many.

With that said, with 90%+ of humanity ingesting content on smaller screens made by the 1% (Hollywood), I don't think it really matters much as resolution is the last thing anyone is thinking about.
 
I was thinking it be a more straight forward test using only the R5 with all the variables the same except for the resolution it was filmed at.
 
I said 8k was the hook. I never said it wasn't worth the money. When it comes down to what people say they want versus what they buy, a lot of them were saying they wanted better pixels not more pixels. I don't remember anyone saying they wanted more pixels. But when 4K, 6K, 8K and now 12K, well I'll say it like this, I'm not going back to searching social media to see who said what but dollars to donuts a lot of them will be saying the usual things, my clients wants it, I want to be able to crop in, downscaled content is so much better, Olympics will be in 8k, with 8k I am future proof, I can have Red Weapon quality for 1/10th the price, etc. It's a sure thing. Everyone knows they will get 4x the number of pixels, but if a manufacturer claims 17.5 stops or a wider color gamut, that is under immediate suspicion. It happened with 4K and it's happening again, that's all. I'm not saying it shouldn't be this way.
 
Peter C. said:
... And there's the whole fan boy thing that I loath. On another forum, when the g5 was first released the fan boys were jumping up and down claiming it would put Sony and Canon out of business.
Click to expand...
Sony can't be put out of business but ... a smartphone manufacturer, who knows how to do a good AF, can put everyone but Sony out of business by making high resolution (40-80 MPX) small sensor bridge zooms that would satisfy most of the non-smartphone shooters. That would effectively drive all photo-video companies out of business.

Except Sony.

Tom Roper said:
I said 8k was the hook. I never said it wasn't worth the money. When it comes down to what people say they want versus what they buy, a lot of them were saying they wanted better pixels not more pixels...
Click to expand...
That was an ARRI campaign on behalf of Alexa vs. Sony F55/F65. And it made sense because, a decade ago, no one had 4K TV's, the removable media was expensive, the processing power were much s/lower and there were no streaming services outside of Netflix (even YouTube was then relatively new). Besides, most TV was 720p or 1080i anyway.

PS. Back on the New Year 2008, I found the old Soviet era New Year romcom "Irony of fate" on YouTube at 240p. Any movement was heavily pixelated. I don't think it got above 480p until its copyright owner Mosfilm opened its own channel around 2010. I saw Pink Floyd's reunion performance at 720p in 2009 and thought that was beyond the "state of the art".
 
Peter C. said:
I was thinking it be a more straight forward test using only the R5 with all the variables the same except for the resolution it was filmed at.
Click to expand...

I do hear you but that's only one part of the equation.

RED camera people have been doing these tests for over 10 years...and it's always the same conclusion as far as resolution (the answer in my last post).

But for your HD interest, here is a video with the two best highest resolutions (8K DCI and 4K DCI HQ) and Full HD on a 1080p timeline...can you see a difference between the three?

And to keep things fair...the one below it is a video of an 8K DCI timeline with 4K DCI HQ and Full HD thus being upscaled by FCP X's natural algorithm.

If you have a high resolution monitor and you watch these two videos (and I know 4 seconds for each clip is short but I only rolled about 5 seconds for each one during the test earlier) there is a very clear difference between the three clips if you're watching the 8K video in 8K.

The lines, the cracks, the particles/spots...all pop in 8K. That is what resolution is. The detail in the original file is astonishing.

But in the HD version...not so much. You have just thrown away over 30 million pixels.

And keep in mind that this is a close-up. On wider shots it will be more noticeable.

And then there is also glass. I am not using the best resolving optics.

Nevertheless...if one's eyesight isn't the best or if the final product is being delivered on a 5" phone screen, you just will not see a difference.

And the struggle for 8K content creators will remain as their 8K content will not reach its full potential with everyone.


 
Last edited:
DLD said:
Sony can't be put out of business but ... a smartphone manufacturer, who knows how to do a good AF, can put everyone but Sony out of business by making high resolution (40-80 MPX) small sensor bridge zooms that would satisfy most of the non-smartphone shooters. That would effectively drive all photo-video companies out of business.

Except Sony.
Click to expand...
You're missing my point that when a new camera comes out fan boys make these ludicrous pronouncements. These companies take turns leap frogging one another.

As a whole the industry is under pressure from smart phones and have lost a huge chunk of the consumer market. This is mainly due to the amount of money that Apple makes on the iphone allowing them to put a small fortune into r&d developing amazing hardware and software that things like face detection and auto focus uses. I don't feel bad for the camera companies but its hard to fight against the convenience of having a great camera built into the phone you carry with you all the time.

The only market left to them is professional cameras.
 
There is a better way. Take one 8k frame grab and save it as a 4k frame, discarding pixels and resolution, halving the size. Now resize the downsampled 4k frame back to 8k. It becomes a true 4k resolution frame in an 8k size. Now overlay this over the original 8k frame. View the composite image at 4k so the image size is magnified 2:1, pixels displayed 1:1. Toggle the composite between the two overlaid frames. That's one of the demonstrations of Steve Yedlin, cinematographer for "The Last Jedi" used to make his point that whenever pixels become small enough that we can no longer see them, that adding more pixels after that point will not add to the perception of resolution, and that we have already passed that point. See how much difference you can see when the number of pixels is the only difference.

There are two parts to his video presentation. Watch both.

http://yedlin.net/ResDemo/

Sorry James. (He hates this demonstration).
 
Last edited:
I saw it before and I'm not crazy about it either, but I also don't get nutty with this stuff...I keep it simple in my own ways and what works best for me.
 
I have it playing in another window. What I had forgotten is when he toggles between the 2k and the 6k images, the choice of scaling algorithm made the bigger difference in the perception of spatial fidelity than pixel size. Which illustrates the flaw in your comparison, because you are not only comparing the difference caused by the number of pixels, but also the fact that one image has an internal scaling algorithm (4k) from the camera that the other image (8k) does not.
 
I got the same feedback from various audiences amateurs and pros when I showed a preview of the R5 4K HQ footage: looks great, it’s very sharp.

Presentation was 1080 on vimeo.
 
It's interesting your choice of words, that you are not crazy about it, James not liking it, but afaik neither of you disputing the actual findings. James had a reason for hating it, that it gave his bosses fuel to say they didn't need new cameras. What's yours?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top