Canon R5 Announced with 8k

If the playback issue is based on the h265 10bit 422 files what is different to the C300iii/ C500ii internal 10bit files? Or why didn’t Canon use the XF-XAVC?
 
DLD said:
If you go into the photo mode, can you hear the shutter clicking or is it all dead?
Click to expand...

Sorry for the delay. The camera has been sold. Never tested any resetting.

___

Final thoughts if anyone's interested:

I didn't pay $4235 for an EOS R because that's exactly what the R5 is once you:

(1) Take away the RAW
(2) Take away the 8K
(3) Take away the 4K HQ
(4) Take away the nicer S35 60p (this one was the ultimate deal breaker for me)
(5) Take away the 120p

Take away as in take away after 30-45 minutes of filming.

So then what's left over the EOS R?

No crop. Regular 60p. IBIS*. 10-bit.**

*EOS R has digital IS which can be used here and there.

**Honestly, 10-bit is sometimes overrated. 8-bit with good color science at high resolutions goes a really long way. In this case, I had 10-bit and the images still started to break down a little if pushed too hard. C200's CRL is magical. (And the EOS R has external 10-bit if it's necessary.)

So when you evaluate the remaining benefits (and keep in mind this analysis is for video, not stills), you have a camera that's worth about $2500, IMO. The extra $700 over the EOS R pays for - AT MOST - no crop, 60p, IBIS, and 10-bit, which is A LOT, but for me it was only 60p.

So I'm not paying $4235 for an EOS R with 60p. (And the EOS R already has nice color science and eye-AF.)

And FWIW, I'm not mad; I've been around the block way too long and most of you know I've owned over 80 cameras by now - and I will continue to support Canon because it's nothing personal, just business - but it's onto the next.
 
Follow up on the playback of the beach 120p R5 clips on my computer. I have a 10-core Intel 7900X which is overclocked to ~4.1GHz. In Edius, I can sustain playback with a slowly growing buffer in 4k30 without a LUT applied. Add a LUT and it plays but with a slowly draining buffer. If I drop down to 8bit preview I can get a growing buffer/sustained playback with the LUT applied. Premiere Pro on this same system could not sustain playback. Not horrible on Premiere, but not smooth playback.
 
Bassman2003 said:
Follow up on the playback of the beach 120p R5 clips on my computer. I have a 10-core Intel 7900X which is overclocked to ~4.1GHz. In Edius, I can sustain playback with a slowly growing buffer in 4k30 without a LUT applied. Add a LUT and it plays but with a slowly draining buffer. If I drop down to 8bit preview I can get a growing buffer/sustained playback with the LUT applied. Premiere Pro on this same system could not sustain playback. Not horrible on Premiere, but not smooth playback.
Click to expand...

It’s not the question of the processor but of your GPU.
Actually there is no hardware acceleration support for H265 10bit 422 afaik
 
NorBro said:
Sorry for the delay. The camera has been sold. Never tested any resetting...
Click to expand...

It was a long shot, but within the realm of possibilities, and it may have addressed some of the issues related to the camera (but not the codec).

In any case, moving on.
 
NorBro said:
Sorry for the delay. The camera has been sold. Never tested any resetting.

___

Final thoughts if anyone's interested:

I didn't pay $4235 for an EOS R because that's exactly what the R5 is once you:

(1) Take away the RAW
(2) Take away the 8K
(3) Take away the 4K HQ
(4) Take away the nicer S35 60p (this one was the ultimate deal breaker for me)
(5) Take away the 120p

Take away as in take away after 30-45 minutes of filming.

So then what's left over the EOS R?

No crop. Regular 60p. IBIS*. 10-bit.**

*EOS R has digital IS which can be used here and there.

**Honestly, 10-bit is sometimes overrated. 8-bit with good color science at high resolutions goes a really long way. In this case, I had 10-bit and the images still started to break down a little if pushed too hard. C200's CRL is magical. (And the EOS R has external 10-bit if it's necessary.)

So when you evaluate the remaining benefits (and keep in mind this analysis is for video, not stills), you have a camera that's worth about $2500, IMO. The extra $700 over the EOS R pays for - AT MOST - no crop, 60p, IBIS, and 10-bit, which is A LOT, but for me it was only 60p.

So I'm not paying $4235 for an EOS R with 60p. (And the EOS R already has nice color science and eye-AF.)

And FWIW, I'm not mad; I've been around the block way too long and most of you know I've owned over 80 cameras by now - and I will continue to support Canon because it's nothing personal, just business - but it's onto the next.
Click to expand...
It feels like we bullied you into selling the camera. Is it a relief not having to defend the camera anymore from our criticisms? :-p
 
You're new here Peter so it may feel like that, but I have sold 32 cameras on DVXuser.

I defend them all, but not because I own them but because people talk about them whom have no business talking about cameras, or technology at all.
 
Clermond said:
If the playback issue is based on the h265 10bit 422 files what is different to the C300iii/ C500ii internal 10bit files? Or why didn’t Canon use the XF-XAVC?
Click to expand...
Yes, the C300 Mark III and C500 Mark II use 10-bit 4:2:2 XF-AVC for their compressed codec, with AVC referring to the Advanced Video Codec which is H.264.

Note that 4:2:2 sub-sampling is not supported for hardware decoding in either H.264 or H.265 on NVidia graphics cards (NVidia Encode/Decode Support Matrix). And I don't believe 10-bit H.264 (in any subsampling format) is supported for hardware decoding through Intel Quick Sync either, even though 10-bit H.265 is supported on later processor versions.

Having said that, H.264 decoding is considerably less computationally intensive than H.265 decoding so it is more feasible to do software-based H.264 decoding, particularly at lower frame rates, and especially with a high performance multi-core CPU.

On the R5, Canon decided to go with H.264 for the 8-bit 4:2:0 recording formats, but H.265 (also known as HEVC) in a 10-bit 4:2:2 format when C-log or HDR PQ is enabled. The reason for these choices are a little unclear. This certainly wasn't motivated by the smaller file sizes that are possible with H.265 because the bitrates the R5 uses are largely comparable to the C300 Mark III. In 4K60, the R5 records 10-bit 4:2:2 IPB in H.265 at 230 Mbps whereas the C300 does 10-bit 4:2:2 in H.264 at 260 Mbps.

If I had to guess, the reason with going with H.265 is related to the fact that the R5 is more of a consumer-oriented camera (at least from a video capture perspective). 10-bit H.264 is a bit of an oddball codec from a delivery standpoint. Support for 10-bit in H.264 was added in the Hi10p profile well into the lifecycle of the H.264 codec, and after tons of devices with hardware support for H.264 were already out in the world. As a result, this format is not well supported for hardware playback in most devices such as Smart TVs, streaming video players, phones, computers, etc. The vast majority of content delivered in H.264 is 8-bit 4:2:0. In places where 10-bit H.264 is used, it is largely more as an intermediate codec for video that is expected to be edited before transcoding into a different format for delivery.

Once interest in delivery in HDR content became more prevalent, most of this content shifted to using 10-bit H.265 as the delivery codec. In part this is because the interest in HDR largely coincided with the push to 4K resolutions, and H.265 is a more efficient codec which is helpful in keeping bitrates reasonable for higher resolution video. But it is also because 10-bit support in H.265 (via the Main10 profile) was added relatively early in the codec's lifetime. Which means if a hardware video playback device supports 10-bit decoding, it is most likely only in H.265 format.

So if Canon wanted people to be able to take HDR clips from the camera and immediately be able to play them on a Smart TV, then H.265 is a much better codec for this. I'm not sure how many people actually do this in the real world, but it seems like the camera manufacturers think this is something consumers want, as this is what motivates the inclusion of playback ready log formats like HLG and PQ (in addition to proprietary manufacturer-specific log profiles). But if this was the goal, then using 10-bit 4:2:2 in H.265 is still a strange choice, since 4:2:2 subsampling is less well supported than 4:2:0 (still the dominant format for most delivery codecs).

Not sure how much flexibility there is in the encoding implementation in the R5, but it seems like Canon should really consider adding an alternate codec option like H.265 10-bit 4:2:0 that is a bit more playback friendly.
 
davedv said:
Once interest in delivery in HDR content became more prevalent, most of this content shifted to using 10-bit H.265 as the delivery codec. In part this is because the interest in HDR largely coincided with the push to 4K resolutions, and H.265 is a more efficient codec which is helpful in keeping bitrates reasonable for higher resolution video. But it is also because 10-bit support in H.265 (via the Main10 profile) was added relatively early in the codec's lifetime. Which means if a hardware video playback device supports 10-bit decoding, it is most likely only in H.265 format.

So if Canon wanted people to be able to take HDR clips from the camera and immediately be able to play them on a Smart TV, then H.265 is a much better codec for this. I'm not sure how many people actually do this in the real world, but it seems like the camera manufacturers think this is something consumers want, as this is what motivates the inclusion of playback ready log formats like HLG and PQ (in addition to proprietary manufacturer-specific log profiles). But if this was the goal, then using 10-bit 4:2:2 in H.265 is still a strange choice, since 4:2:2 subsampling is less well supported than 4:2:0 (still the dominant format for most delivery codecs).
Click to expand...

This was noted and promoted in the introduction of the XF705 and its H.265 in 2018, so it's most likely the same reason the implementation has continued with the 1DX Mark III and R5.
 
NorBro said:
Sorry for the delay. The camera has been sold. Never tested any resetting.

___

Final thoughts if anyone's interested:

I didn't pay $4235 for an EOS R because that's exactly what the R5 is once you:

(1) Take away the RAW
(2) Take away the 8K
(3) Take away the 4K HQ
(4) Take away the nicer S35 60p (this one was the ultimate deal breaker for me)
(5) Take away the 120p

Take away as in take away after 30-45 minutes of filming.

So then what's left over the EOS R?

No crop. Regular 60p. IBIS*. 10-bit.**

*EOS R has digital IS which can be used here and there.

**Honestly, 10-bit is sometimes overrated. 8-bit with good color science at high resolutions goes a really long way. In this case, I had 10-bit and the images still started to break down a little if pushed too hard. C200's CRL is magical. (And the EOS R has external 10-bit if it's necessary.)

So when you evaluate the remaining benefits (and keep in mind this analysis is for video, not stills), you have a camera that's worth about $2500, IMO. The extra $700 over the EOS R pays for - AT MOST - no crop, 60p, IBIS, and 10-bit, which is A LOT, but for me it was only 60p.

So I'm not paying $4235 for an EOS R with 60p. (And the EOS R already has nice color science and eye-AF.)

And FWIW, I'm not mad; I've been around the block way too long and most of you know I've owned over 80 cameras by now - and I will continue to support Canon because it's nothing personal, just business - but it's onto the next.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this short review. A really good way to put it.
 
FYI
I just talked with my dealer to order a second R5 :)
They are constantly delivered by Canon with the cameras but only one or two at once. The rumor that there will be modifications and the next batch will delivered not before October is definitely not true.
 
Clermond said:
FYI
I just talked with my dealer to order a second R5 :)
They are constantly delivered by Canon with the cameras but only one or two at once. The rumor that there will be modifications and the next batch will delivered not before October is definitely not true.
Click to expand...

Very cool that you are able to utilize the R5 strengths.

I find the best part of DVX, is not the cameras, but in learning how others accomplish making images.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top