Canon R6 mk2

Doug Jensen said:
Zack, could you elaborate a bit on this topic. Are you getting hired to shoot in 8K? How often? What kind of client? What are they doing with 8K video? Is the final deliverable in 8K? You seem to be a pretty strong proponent of 8K and I'd like to hear why.
Click to expand...

Doug, you only have to look back at the turnout of HD. The battle between 720 vs. 1080, interlace vs. progressive, SD vs. HD, none of it matters now as nobody would willingly accept interlace or SD footage and HD less than 1080, even the demand for compressed H.264 4K is starting to go through its own decline with 6K, 8K, Prores, and RAW formats being so widespread and, yes, even on phones! Anyone who decried HD over SD were driven into conversational irrelevancy as everyone adopted HD and the same will happen for anyone decrying 8K+.

Practically speaking, I’m working on finishing up the visual post on my first feature, we filmed all in 4K, RED One MX, original Sony A7S 4K external, Blackmagic Pocket 4K, etc. and doing all the composite and roto work, I can tell that we would have very well been served by 8K if it had been available to us at the time. There are shots where we had to zoom and reframe, detailed roto work for VFX, and even slightly missed focus moments that needed a sharpening mask to fix (which worked great btw), all of it could have used extra resolution to not only make the film look better but also to make the post process easier. I know it would help my film last much longer into the future with added resolution as well because who knows what people will be watching it on in the decades to come? Perhaps someone will appreciate the forethought to film in the latest 8K-12K format at the time as they watch it on their 64K Best-O-Vision Light Screen Display. That’s why I say we need to push forward and demand better from our cameras as we have to advance and think about the future of our projects and artworks as they will outlive us and they should be made for audiences not only of the present but for all time.
 
8K and beyond is undoubtedly the future for electronics manufacturers, but the battle between SD and HD was very different in a different universe.

Overall, all of this technology is not that old compared to the rock it's on, and back then the battle between SD and HD was more revolved around noticeable visual improvements whereas now resolution improvements and future products are more based on what phones are going to do and business relationships.
 
SD was just over 300,000 pixels. HD was 2.1 million. The purely technical improvement in pixel density was roughly seven times.

4K was ~ 8.4 million pixels and the improvement from HD was four times but it helped having a nicer screen/monitor/TV.

8K is barely discernible from 4K. One might see the difference on an 8K TV at close distance. Otherwise, the image reaches the "retina limit", an eye can't tell. Reframing is part of the process, not a technical feature. And it can be done with the upscaling.

Photography is different due to cropping and magnification.

As to the market condition - at the end of 2022, a full frame 4K camera with modern codecs and a top notch AF is $2,500. 8K is $4,000 and up. That's what the cartel wants to sell. One might say that they're holding product a generation behind but fifteen years ago a professional HD camera with a S35 sensor was $250,000 retail. So, the industry is not standing still. Someone out of the Big Three should reveal a more affordable 8K camera soon.
 
A similar point is made about dynamic range. The difference between a camera with 17 stops DR and 14 stops on a 1000 nit HDR monitor is:

(1000/2^14) - (1000/2^17) = 0.053 nit. That amount is hard to spot when your retinas are bombarded by 1000 nits coming from other parts of the frame. You will need a totally darkened room and to get up close as with 8K.
 
Zack Birlew said:
Doug, you only have to look back at the turnout of HD. The battle between 720 vs. 1080, interlace vs. progressive, SD vs. HD, none of it matters now as nobody would willingly accept interlace or SD footage and HD less than 1080, even the demand for compressed H.264 4K is starting to go through its own decline with 6K, 8K, Prores, and RAW formats being so widespread and, yes, even on phones! Anyone who decried HD over SD were driven into conversational irrelevancy as everyone adopted HD and the same will happen for anyone decrying 8K+.

Practically speaking, I’m working on finishing up the visual post on my first feature, we filmed all in 4K, RED One MX, original Sony A7S 4K external, Blackmagic Pocket 4K, etc. and doing all the composite and roto work, I can tell that we would have very well been served by 8K if it had been available to us at the time. There are shots where we had to zoom and reframe, detailed roto work for VFX, and even slightly missed focus moments that needed a sharpening mask to fix (which worked great btw), all of it could have used extra resolution to not only make the film look better but also to make the post process easier. I know it would help my film last much longer into the future with added resolution as well because who knows what people will be watching it on in the decades to come? Perhaps someone will appreciate the forethought to film in the latest 8K-12K format at the time as they watch it on their 64K Best-O-Vision Light Screen Display. That’s why I say we need to push forward and demand better from our cameras as we have to advance and think about the future of our projects and artworks as they will outlive us and they should be made for audiences not only of the present but for all time.
Click to expand...

Zack, thanks for the answer but I was hoping you would have a much more compelling argument for 8K after reading your earlier post that 8K should be the most important thing to consider when choosing a new camera today in 2022. Your personal experience and anecdotal story aside, you haven't said anything that would lead me to believe 8K is just around the corner. Will every thing be produced in 8K some day? Absolutely. But not any time soon. You're an advocate for 8K and yet even you still can't make a convincing argument. Trotting out the old SD to HD to 4K argument is weak. Why stop at 8K? I think you could make just as good (or bad) of an argument right now for 12K.

Just so you know, I am completely open to change. I went HD in 2005 and never shot another frame of SD after 2006. Not too many people who were established in the busienss at that time can say that. I also went 4K in 2014 and barely have shot anything in HD since 2015. I started shooting RAW in 2015. I have an a1 that can shoot 8K already, but I have no reason to use it at the resolution. As others have said, the jump to 8K from 4K is visually and creatively not a big deal. In my opinion, mainstream 8K production is so far off on the horizon that I don't expect it to play any role in my next cinema camera purchase, and probably not the next one after that either. The day I hear the word "8K" come out of a client's mouth will be the day I might need to start thinking about it.

I'm not saying your're wrong to think 8K is important for YOU right now so you can fix things in post that went wrong on the shoot, but I asked you to make a case for 8K today as a general production standard, and I remain unconvinced. There are far more important things to consider about a camera than whether or not it has 8K.
 
FWIW, it's also quite possible - and I would say likely - that R6MKII is a placeholder for MKIII the same way GH-5II was for GH-6, something with minor improvements over an existing model but not really a major step forward. If one takes the cartel's history of product releases, R6MKII will ship for about half a year to nine months until the MKIII announcement. First, Canon is likely to release R5 MKII with photo specs similar to Sony A7MKV, a 60'ish MPX sensor in the same $4,000 range. That might be expected at the upcoming CP+ in February. Once that model finishes dominating NorBro's/B&H hit parade, there will be room for the next R6, that will compete against Sony A7 IV, itself announced in October, 2021. A typical two year window should then have R6MKIII be announced around August/September of 2023.
 
It's a fool's errand to try predicting what new cameras will be released next or what features they will have. A total waste of time. My advice is to buy the camera that best fits your needs today, make some money with it, and then buy another camera when your current camera no longer meets your needs. That might be the next camera that comes out, but it's more likely you can skip a generation or two and get more ROI out of what you already own. Business 101.

I have a friend who waits in line to get the latest iPhone the day it is released. He's an idiot. I upgrade every few years when there is a good reason(s) for doing so. Same with cameras. Heck, I'm still using my F55 and FS7 on a regular basis and those cameras paid for themselves many times over already.

I have a theory that speculating about upcoming cameras and camera technology is inversely proportional to how likely it is someone will actually buy a new camera that has the technology they tell everyone else is so important. Some people pontificate. Some people shoot.
 
Last edited:
Zack Birlew said:
Doug, you only have to look back at the turnout of HD. The battle between 720 vs. 1080, interlace vs. progressive, SD vs. HD, none of it matters now as nobody would willingly accept interlace or SD footage and HD less than 1080, even the demand for compressed H.264 4K is starting to go through its own decline with 6K, 8K, Prores, and RAW formats being so widespread and, yes, even on phones! Anyone who decried HD over SD were driven into conversational irrelevancy as everyone adopted HD and the same will happen for anyone decrying 8K+.

Practically speaking, I’m working on finishing up the visual post on my first feature, we filmed all in 4K, RED One MX, original Sony A7S 4K external, Blackmagic Pocket 4K, etc. and doing all the composite and roto work, I can tell that we would have very well been served by 8K if it had been available to us at the time. There are shots where we had to zoom and reframe, detailed roto work for VFX, and even slightly missed focus moments that needed a sharpening mask to fix (which worked great btw), all of it could have used extra resolution to not only make the film look better but also to make the post process easier. I know it would help my film last much longer into the future with added resolution as well because who knows what people will be watching it on in the decades to come? Perhaps someone will appreciate the forethought to film in the latest 8K-12K format at the time as they watch it on their 64K Best-O-Vision Light Screen Display. That’s why I say we need to push forward and demand better from our cameras as we have to advance and think about the future of our projects and artworks as they will outlive us and they should be made for audiences not only of the present but for all time.
Click to expand...

You are forgetting about diminishing returns.

The move from SD to HD was also helped along by the move from analog to digital. SD was also pretty darn horrible visually and the move to HD was exponential. The 720p vs 1080i thing was overblown and most didn't even realize they were watching one vs the other. Most broadcasts today are still HD. You know the normal way most people still watch TV. Not the people who can stream all their content. Streaming has moved to 4k for some people but not as many as you think. Some people still stream in HD and 4k still isn't really broadcast. The move to 8k is even less significant fro ma consumer perspective and is going to be a really tough sell.

4k TVs started selling more not because people wanted them but because they were more or less forced into it. Stores wanted to sell more 4k TVs since they cost more so manufacturers reserved higher end features for the 4k TVs. Look at any section at BestBuy with HD only TVs and it looks like the degenerate section where clearance items go to die. Not because of what consumers want but by the gentle guiding of the industry to sell people more expensive TVs. No manufacturer or store wants to only sell a $200 HDTV that lasts for ten years. They will go out of business. So people have more or less been forced into 4k TVs.

The exact same thing but at a much worse scale will happen with 8k. Nobody and I mean nobody feels the need to have more resolution over 4k for a 50" TV. It's virtually impossible to even see it. Consumers will be forced to eventually buy 8k TVs because manufacturers will only make crappy 4k TVs. The horrible Black Friday models stores can barely give away. The degenerate graveyard section of the stores that all sales people will steer consumers away from. Last time I bought a HDTV I had three people at BestBuy desperately try to move away away from that section. They gave me 101 excuses.

Resolution gains are not equally beneficial with each generation. There are diminishing returns and eventually it becomes almost pointless. I'm not saying 8k is pointless but it not as significant of a move from 4k as 4k was from 2k or 2k was from SD or SD digital was from VHS. Each move the benefits are greatly reduced and become a lot more subtle. Eventually very few can judge those subtle differences and no longer care.

Thats why companies try really hard to push other features like smart features, streaming services, HDR (which most epically fail at) and panel quality. They try other questionable features as well like 120hz motion interpolation and 3D. They are desperate to make consumers want to rush out and buy a new TV. Unfortunately most consumers are generally pretty darn happy right now with what they have. Very few watch TV and say man I wish I could see more detail. Detail is not something that really comes up very much for consumers. Very few really say much of anything anymore when it comes to quality. A lot of consumers have generally been pretty happy ever since they moved to DVD and 720p ESPN, FOX or ABC sports broadcasts.

I get 8k is existing but why is it exciting? I honestly hear both sides about this every single day. From consumers and pros and every person in-between. Some say 4k is still pointless and still prefer HD. Others love 4k and consider it the holy grail of video. Then there are the handful like you that seem to think 8k is the only option. Partially fueled by the fact that you chose to invest in a 8k camera and are trying to make that a standout ability of yours. The amount that feel 8k is the new norm are likely in this chat right now. We are talking single digits of those who work with video. Heck Alexa 2.8k is still king out there and there is absolutely nothing wrong with the content created at 2.8k on Alexa. Resolution is just that, resolution. It's more pictures making up the exact same image. Adds more detail but that details values depends on how people will view it. Most full HD TVs at the normal size people buy or on any mobile devices are almost impossible to see more detail lat a normal viewing distance. 4k bridges what small vision variation viewers may have. Beyond 4k only really starts to matter on massive TVs that very few realistic consumer can and should buy right now. I'm talking the 80+ inch and larger TVs. Even 80" is debatable really.

Does it hurt to shoot 8k? Absolutely not as long as there are no other compromises because of it. 8k on the R5 is limited to up to 30p. That is a limitation to some. File size and record times are a concern as well. Along with overheating. It's really neat to have it but I really wouldn't call it a must at all. Visually many oversampled cameras up to 6k cameras are going to put out the exact same deliverable 4k quality as a 8k camera right now. Oversampled has diminishing returns as well. Once you get past 6k it's all wasted. 6k downscaled to 4k looks just as good as 8k downscaled to 4k. You don't magically preserve all that detail for a much smaller image. Thats not how physics or math work.

Now if you are somehow delivering 8k I would love to know how and where. I would love to know who actually watches it in 8k. We are years away from any normal consumer buying into a 8k TV. Sure you may get lucky and have a rich client who loves to spend $30,000 on new gadget toys but that is not true of very many people. 8k is just not a norma yet. Not even close. I'm not sure it ever will be. 4k had to pretty much be force fed down the throats of consumers.

As for smartphones part of why they moved to 4k is because the sensors suck. All the fancy processing in the world can only compensate for so much. 4k was the only solution to make the video look decent. It was also a big marketing thing to sell more mobile devices of course. Consumer did want it because the HD video on smartphones at the time was pretty bad. So consumers felt moving to 4k would help and it did. More detail for the complex noise reduction and image processing to butcher Fien details and have it not matter as much. No need for added sharpness to compensate for a loss of detail either. It generally looks much more natural now and that is thanks to the move to 4k. I'm not sure 8k on a smartphone will help much more now. Maybe it will a lot more than the cameras we use that don't need over processing to fix the crap sensors but it is not going to be anywhere near the significant increase the move to 4k was. Again diminishing returns.

You like 8k and thats cool. I'm telling you even if you have a client with a 8k TV there is no possible way they wouldn't enjoy a 6k video upscaled to 8k just as much as a 8k image. By the time you factor you lens resolving power, focus errors, optimal f stop for detail resolving, any level or processing that may take place on the image or viewing distances there is no human on the planet that would say the 8k is superior. Take a 6k raw photo and blow it up to 8k. It's really not a large blow ups at all. Especially to the UHD form of 8k which is what 99.9% of 8k monitors and TVs will be. 6000 blown up to 7680 is not all that big. It's only a 28% increase in horizontal resolution. You need some insanely sharp glass used at its sweet spot of likely f5.6 to get whatever extra detail difference there may be there. Shooting at f1.4 on a R5 is absolutely in no way shape or form resolving 8k of detail. It's just not. It all becomes splitting hairs at this point.

This is also why the camera industry and TV industry is where it is right now. Some of you think 8k is the future but people are not rushing out to buy cameras because many cameras have reached a good enough stage. Now that 4k is the norm many pros are content. Thats why this forum feels dead lately. Camera news just isn't the same anymore. There just isn't a driving need anymore to keep upgrading. Because consumers and pros alike have reached a good enough stage. I have little desire to move past 4k right now. If I did get a R5 it would be strictly as a oversampled 4k delivery camera. Something I know 6k from the R6 mk2 will do equally well and I get 6k 60p to do that instead of being stuck at 30p like the R5 is.

So no I don't think any camera not managing 8k is dead in the water. In fact I think the complete opposite. I think a $2,000 P6k mk2 with 15 stops of DR and a FF sensor would eliminate most film maker DSLR sales from all the manufacturers combined. Film makers tend to want dynamic range and raw long before they want resolution. Not juts dynamic range in the generic mindless sense that most Youtube reviewers throw the term around to sound smart either. I mean true latitude and usable range. Like we get on the Alexa. In fact a 4k Alexa would kill almost any other Hollywood larger resolution cameras.
 
It’s funny that responses sometimes remind me of teachers grading my papers in school lol! I’m not sure what answer people wanted from me, if you don’t agree then we clearly have different mindsets and that could just be professional designations as I’m a filmmaker, I don’t have clients to worry about, I produce my own works and work in that field so it’s art over client demand in that respect. A basic example would be that if someone were making a movie next year, some would be fine renting a Sony Venice, it’s 4K, it ticks the boxes and that’s all they need, whereas I would rent the Sony Venice 2 8K version because of the 8K factor, it’s that simple. Either you get it or you don’t until you do because it’s the nature of technology.

Now if your clients are happy with 4K then by all means continue with business as usual, you’re making money so it’s working out, however there was a segment of my initial response that I did cut out because I didn’t want to risk being inflammatory. It was something about SD/HD and now potentially 4K folks hanging on to their cameras too long until they become YouTube’s next how-to video on how to use an old broadcast/cinema camera as a webcam. So, regardless of how you feel about 8K, don’t wait too long to upgrade folks!
 
Tom Roper said:
. . .before you were baited into ambush.
Click to expand...

Baited? Not by me. I genuinely wanted to hear his reasons for being such a proponent of 8k at this stage of the game. I truly wanted to keep an open mind and be sold on 8K. Unfortunately, like a teacher grading his paper, I found his arguments completely unpersuasive for his thesis. But, he gets a C- . . . mostly for neatness and spelling. Now go enjoy your holiday break.
 
It kind of sucks they can't improve cameras much more anymore. Those earlier years were so exciting (2008-2018).

DR is out, no one knows how. I guess they could squeeze out an extra stop of IBIS or start tracking the color of your retina for that much better AF, but it's mostly resolution now, which includes resolution for HFRs which I think is the most important upgrade a camera could have.

4K/120p got going for some models but 4K/240p would be nice, or maybe a little 8K/120p soon. :evil:
 
Just because I wrote a lot doesn't mean it was an ambush. It was just adding to the discussion. I see the case for both 8k and not having 8k. I'm not against 8k at all. I'm against definitive things like it's 8k or nothing. I just don't agree with that. I'm not saying anybody is wrong to want 8k. I kind of want it as well for my own strange wants and desires. I'm just saying there is totally a place for good 4k cameras out there yet. Especially over sampled 4k cameras which is becoming the norm in the DSLR world. The Sony A7S and Panasonic GH5S were the rare exceptions of a 1:1 4k sensor. Some cinema cameras will still be 1:1 like the P4k or even under like the traditional Alexa cameras. A lot of cinema cameras are even higher resolution now providing some level of oversampling. Nothing wrong with that at all and I actually prefer over sampled to 1:1 sensor readout now.

I just didn't agree with the statement that there is no place for any camera under 8k. I think that is slightly jumping the gun a bit and most cameras are going to be under 8k for some time. Even those that do manage it are not really providing a ton of extra detail over other cameras.

It all really depends on the industry and each individual.
 
NorBro said:
4K/240p would be nice,
Click to expand...

Now that is a camera that would get me excited. Especially if it had a 6K sensor for oversampled 4K, X-OCN as a codec choice, in an FX6 body, with all of its current bells and whistles. That would be a killer camera.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Now that is a camera that would get me excited. Especially if it had a 6K sensor for oversampled 4K, X-OCN as a codec choice, in an FX6 body, with all of its current bells and whistles. That would be a killer camera.
Click to expand...

I'm also 100x more excited to see 4k or 6k 240p than I am 8k.

I feel having higher frame rates opens up a lot more narrative creative options than the difference between 6k and 8k. Not even for just the 24p slow motion world. There are still those that consider 60p the video norm and they have been left a bit in the dust when it comes to slow motion. 120p is only 2x slow motion for 60p shooters. 240p would finally provide some tangible slow motion for 60p playback applications. On the 24p side of course thats some insane 10x slow motion.

More than that it opens up an interesting world where similar methods used in photography to manufacture HDR with multiple images or add motion blur in post could be utilized more in video applications. The GH6 uses its really fast readout to help boost dynamic range by a stop. Faster sensor readout can have so many benefits. Much mores than just more pixels.
 
The problem with your GH6 is that is only MFT, right? That is a complete deal breaker for me. I could probably still accept an S35 sensor in order to get 4K @ 240 fps, but nothing else is going to keep me from shooting with a FF sensor in a mirrorless camera. The form factor and lack of ND filters suck, but I can put up with those shortcomings in exchange for a FF sensor. But MFT is a complete non-starter for me no matter what specs the rest of the camera claims to have. I love my S1H and a1, and will not go backwards on sensor size now.
 
I will also add I would much rather see global shutter eventually and a continued move away from delivery type compression for video. No camera should be recording anything less than 10bit 4:2:2 these days. Even that to me is stuck in the old archaic broadcast world of thinking. Formats like BRAW are moving in the right direction. Even if one doesn't want to define it as true raw it finally gets video out of that old school mindset of luma and chroma forms of compression. I don't think any modern pro camera should be missing some type of RGB 4:4:4 format. Be it raw or some other new age format like Braw. Something that gets us closer to how a RGB image should look and not some strange subset.

I find it sad that cameras like the R6 can manage 14 stops for raw photos thanks to 14 bit processing but when it comes to video that gets dropped quickly to 10bit or 12bit processing which truncate and limit the stops. Thats another thing I would rather see than more 8k cameras. Raw 8k is awesome on the R5 but I would also like a vide format that isn't raw but doesn't sacrifice as much as HEVC 10bit 4:2:2 does either. HEVC is totally capable of 4:4:4 and our cards are totally capable of the extra bits needed to make it happen. Yeah its not for everyone but let us make that choice.

Typically we have to choose from heavy HEVC compression or raw with very little in between. While raw could be the end goal that solves a lot of that I also feel it's a bit much for every user. Sometimes people shoot 10bit or even 8bit formats for ease of use and because its their only other option besides going raw if they have that option.

I could see Fuji saying screw it and being the first to do this. No reason why it can't be done. I doubt Canon will.
 
Doug Jensen said:
The problem with your GH6 is that is only MFT, right? That is a complete deal breaker for me. I could probably still accept an S35 sensor in order to get 4K @ 240 fps, but nothing else is going to keep me from shooting with a FF sensor in a mirrorless camera. The form factor and lack of ND filters suck, but I can put up with those shortcomings in exchange for a FF sensor. But MFT is a complete non-starter for me no matter what specs the rest of the camera claims to have. I love my S1H and a1, and will not go backwards on sensor size now.
Click to expand...

I don't have a GH6. Moved away from m43 a few years ago and yeah not looking back either. I think it's a fine format but I have moved on to FF as well. I also don't really mind APSC or s35mm but since APSC is limited to more budget cameras none really appeal to me except maybe Fuji. I wasn't going to invest in Fuji however since I don't think it has much chance in the industry to stay alive. I think Fuji is really impressive but my eye is only on Canon or Sony at this stage. The two players most likely to be around long term.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top