Canon R5 Announced with 8k

...so I guess the collective conclusion we're reaching is that oversampled 4K and resolutions higher than 4K are unnecessary? Interesting...
 
ahalpert said:
...so I guess the collective conclusion we're reaching is that oversampled 4K and resolutions higher than 4K are unnecessary? Interesting...
Click to expand...

The conclusions I've reached are pixel binning on the R5 isn't as bad as the 5D MKII, good colour science is more important than resolution and having such incredible AF will likely mean I never shoot beyond F2.8 ever again.
 
ahalpert said:
...so I guess the collective conclusion we're reaching is that oversampled 4K and resolutions higher than 4K are unnecessary? Interesting...
Click to expand...

It is funny.

We went from arguing that 2K is enough even in just luma detail, to needing the perfect chroma detail downsample to 4K and 8K, “otherwise people will notice”, lol.



Where I differ in the argument, is with HD/2K screens. I don't mind 2K video, but things like text looks aliased in 2K. And I can see individual pixels on an HD screen. So, I like the idea of screens being 4K primarily, and text being in 4K to get rid of the jaggies. But as a video capture format, proper 2K is plenty, because you can edit in a close up when you want more detail. So, 2K capture then put onto a 4K timeline for text and graphics. for a 4K output to a 4K screen, but I could care less if the capture medium is 2K, as long as it is suitable for the project.

Our eyes can barely see the difference between the luma detail in 2K to 4K at typical viewing distances, so why would you be worried about the chroma detail if improving the chroma detail beyond 4K means less DR? And that is a question.

Don't get me wrong, I like detail. But for work, I put on my Yedlin hat, and try to think more about the goals, and not the specs. The most over looked thing Yedlin said was, and I paraphrase: so that we can be authors and not consumers. We should be able to choose the tools that do the job as we see it, and not be told we have to use something because someone else tells you it is the best.
 
Last edited:
....that said, if filming the remake of Lawrence of Arabia, or some story that would utilize high resolution wide panorama shots, then of course, go big on resolution. Or if some user loves HiFi video and wants to shoot in 8K for fun, that is also totally valid, and resolution matters then, but if it is another Star Wars offshoot, or sitcom, who really cares? We are watching those stories to see the texture of a leaf.
 
James0b57 said:
What is crazy, is that even with the CCH, it is still a compelling camera to compliment an A cam like the C3003.
Click to expand...

The colors are so pretty (granted that it's c-log not c-log2) that I'm considering its use in binned mode, its use with an external recorder, getting away with mixing it with the FS7, using it as a bridge to buying an R300 later, especially since I have EF lenses.... that A7SIII is mighty functional though
 
Thanks for posting the examples. Great to see the normal and HQ comparisons. It is tough to tell with the floral closeup and thin DOF but I swear the "normal" sample on the chicken coup wide has more detail than the HQ. May be different focus points. But overall, with a little sharpening in post the normal will probably be almost even with the HQ. Or this could be a good thing for shooting people.
 
davedv said:
Yes, it was verified that 4K HQ is in fact is being sent out to the external recorder in this test:

And I believe Gerald Undone found the same thing in his tests of external recording. So it seems pretty clear that the camera is changing the sensor readout mode, even if not recording internally.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I most likely will be getting an external recorder for other reasons, so it is good to know.
 
A few years ago, someone asked a Toyota executive why their "sport" 86 model (also Subaru BRZ) was so underpowered when its 2 liter engine could have simply added a turbo. The fearless Toyota-san replied that the engine compartment was too small for the turbo. Of course, the aftermarket tuners have been putting turbos on it for a long time.

In other words, Canon will scramble to release a plausibly sounding explanation, which will naturally be complete horsesh!t.

As a side note - these are various computer CPU temps, both idle and full load.

https://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch000687.htm
 
ahalpert said:
"Chinese user modifies Canon EOS R5 to improve heat management, but finds artificial firmware time limit"

https://www.eoshd.com/news/chinese-...ium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+EOSHD+(EOSHD.com)

pretty good read from EOSHD. there were a lot of theories listed and certainly enough for a few good conspiracy theories but in the end does it really matter what or why canon did what they did to end up with the 2 very disappointing bodies from a functional video POV.

sure the r5 can deliver nice quality if one "accepts" its shutting down constantly...but... for anyone needing a video "work dog" and not wanting to rely on external recording i find it odd that some people are still pondering the r5/r6 camera when the A7sIII should be that work dog from the tons of demos online.

david
Click to expand...
 
david_p said:
ahalpert said:
"Chinese user modifies Canon EOS R5 to improve heat management, but finds artificial firmware time limit"

https://www.eoshd.com/news/chinese-...ium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+EOSHD+(EOSHD.com)

pretty good read from EOSHD. there were a lot of theories listed and certainly enough for a few good conspiracy theories but in the end does it really matter what or why canon did what they did to end up with the 2 very disappointing bodies from a functional video POV.

sure the r5 can deliver nice quality if one "accepts" its shutting down constantly...but... for anyone needing a video "work dog" and not wanting to rely on external recording i find it odd that some people are still pondering the r5/r6 camera when the A7sIII should be that work dog from the tons of demos online.

david
Click to expand...

Interesting... Will this play out to be Canon's "F5/4K" debacle?
Click to expand...
 
It seems like Canon's public perception is at the mercy of the reviewers and the public. Rarely has a new camera been so polarizing.
The clips I've seen look great, it's just the functional limitations are causing people to lose it.
 
puredrifting said:
It seems like Canon's public perception is at the mercy of the reviewers and the public. Rarely has a new camera been so polarizing.
The clips I've seen look great, it's just the functional limitations are causing people to lose it.
Click to expand...

Isn't that odd? Reminds me of the time my client got pissed off when I told them I'd show up with a RED Helium and brought a C300mk2 instead. The footage looked great - I'm not sure why they were so upset ;)
 
puredrifting said:
It seems like Canon's public perception is at the mercy of the reviewers and the public. Rarely has a new camera been so polarizing.
The clips I've seen look great, it's just the functional limitations are causing people to lose it.
Click to expand...

It seems like part of that one step forward two steps back type of trend, as people demand unrealistic or lop-sided specs for ever decreasing sums of money.
 
ahalpert said:
Isn't that odd? Reminds me of the time my client got pissed off when I told them I'd show up with a RED Helium and brought a C300mk2 instead. The footage looked great - I'm not sure why they were so upset ;)
Click to expand...

Did Canon advertise the R5 as something it wasn't? I may have missed that.
 
Run&Gun said:
Interesting... Will this play out to be Canon's "F5/4K" debacle?
Click to expand...


Would be interesting. Although, Canon even prevented 10bit 2K in their DSLR line for forever, while giving 8bit 4K well before the competitors. Does anyone even offer 10bit 2K? So this all feels like the way.

 
James0b57 said:
It seems like part of that one step forward two steps back type of trend, as people demand unrealistic or lop-sided specs for ever decreasing sums of money.
Click to expand...

Thats been my phrase for the stupidity of digital cinema gear for the past 2-3 years, one step forward, two or three steps backward. People's priorities are so far out of whack and the manfacturers have
responded to indulge that. Or is it about 2-3 years ago, cameras became so capable for so little money that the manufacturers decided that nobody would buy any more new cameras unless they started
the useless trends of FF, raster size wars, HDR specs that few want, need to understand. It's sort of a cart before the horse conundrum. Is it all the buyers fault? Or the manufacturers?

A lot of what drives the market now is counterintuitive to logic, practical workflows and what clients need for output or care about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top