Thread: Canon EOS R5 with 8K video! No crop!

Reply to Thread
Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 289101112131415 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 142
  1. #111  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Toronto & Vancouver
    Posts
    3,994
    It's ironic that barely compressed 8K raw plays back better than the 4k 10bit 422 h265 on the computer I have with me.
    Last edited by Mike P.; 07-20-2020 at 03:10 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #112  
    Senior Member rand thompson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    7,202
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #113  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Toronto & Vancouver
    Posts
    3,994
    Lol, yeah I saw that... It's not like it'll be easier on the system or that the R5 will record it internally.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #114  
    Senior Member rand thompson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    7,202
    Yeah, I can playback 6k ProRes 4444XQ files and Red Raw .R3D files back easier tthan H.265 files in Davinci Resolve. I can't image the difficulty of H.266 files on my computer. However, it's supposed to be the future streaming format for 4K and 8K video content.
    Last edited by rand thompson; 07-21-2020 at 11:06 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #115 Take 2 
    Senior Member Blair S. Paulsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    5,273
    Part of the original H.265/HEVC scheme included a dedicated chip on the decoding side. The plan was to make the decoding chips in such huge quantities that the wholesale cost would be around $5 USD so pretty much every client device would have one. Then the patent trolls blew up the H.265 train, so ramping up the silicon production just made you a target for lawsuits.

    If the patent situation for H.266 is locked down, then perhaps special purpose chips leveraging the economies of scale could happen. In addition to taking the load off primary resources like CPU/GPU processing, there's another huge potential benefit. Imagine that you could send that H.266 stream directly to a display that could decode it internally. Instead of HDMI, SDI or Display Port to carry 18gb/s (or higher) data rates - you could just send the compressed H.266 bit stream.

    IIRC the H.265 rollout included a requirement that displays sold after a certain date had to include the decoder chip. I didn't follow that closely, but it seems likely that was waived when the availability of the silicon didn't happen. FWIW, I think the concept is right on. These days, video content is being consumed on a very diverse population of devices. If a low cost, low power ASIC can do that task in the display device itself...

    Cheers - #19

    Note: Professional post/color work would still need displays able to accept uncompressed signals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #116  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    461
    $5 USD is not "low cost" in any consumer product context. I can't imagine a legit working group coming up with a scheme like that.

    The CODEC is a tiny, tiny piece of the overall pie and it needs to be designed as such from the start. It should be barely one step up from free...on the order of three cents per unit.


    Quote Originally Posted by Blair S. Paulsen View Post
    Part of the original H.265/HEVC scheme included a dedicated chip on the decoding side. The plan was to make the decoding chips in such huge quantities that the wholesale cost would be around $5 USD so pretty much every client device would have one. Then the patent trolls blew up the H.265 train, so ramping up the silicon production just made you a target for lawsuits.

    If the patent situation for H.266 is locked down, then perhaps special purpose chips leveraging the economies of scale could happen. In addition to taking the load off primary resources like CPU/GPU processing, there's another huge potential benefit. Imagine that you could send that H.266 stream directly to a display that could decode it internally. Instead of HDMI, SDI or Display Port to carry 18gb/s (or higher) data rates - you could just send the compressed H.266 bit stream.

    IIRC the H.265 rollout included a requirement that displays sold after a certain date had to include the decoder chip. I didn't follow that closely, but it seems likely that was waived when the availability of the silicon didn't happen. FWIW, I think the concept is right on. These days, video content is being consumed on a very diverse population of devices. If a low cost, low power ASIC can do that task in the display device itself...

    Cheers - #19

    Note: Professional post/color work would still need displays able to accept uncompressed signals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #117  
    Senior Member Blair S. Paulsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    5,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Med D View Post
    $5 USD is not "low cost" in any consumer product context. I can't imagine a legit working group coming up with a scheme like that.
    The CODEC is a tiny, tiny piece of the overall pie and it needs to be designed as such from the start. It should be barely one step up from free...on the order of three cents per unit.
    $5 wasn't just for a license, that was for the actual chip. Besides, I think they actually said "under $5" which could potentially be much lower, it was an estimate. IAC, the primary use case is UHD-TVs and all the vendors would be mandated to include after a trigger date.

    The big draw was finding a way to move content all the way to the display while still compressed, instead of having to move baseband video signals. HDMI standards have been losing a game of catch up with more pixels, high frame rates and 10 bit color. "High Speed" HDMI cables rated for 18gb/s throughput have had high failure rates in many HDMI 2.x devices. Not sure what the delta is between adding a chip to decode H.266 and the cost of ports, switches and routing of high bandwidth signals via HDMI. But I'm pretty sure either one is less than the cost of one premium HDMI cable...

    Cheers - #19
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #118  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    461
    I understand that the chip is included, but $5 is still a ton of BOM. Maybe if it makes a lot of other stuff disappear, as you suggest, it will make sense -- I don't know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #119  
    Senior Member rand thompson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    7,202
    EOS R5テスト撮影(4K120P)



    By PRONEWSjp








    Canon R5 4k 120fps | field-Test | Kyung6 film



    By
    Kyung6Film








    Canon EOS R5 4K 120p video sample



    By DCFever Video Demo








    Canon EOS R5 Low Light Video Test | 4K



    By
    Technical Artist







    Canon R5 Dust



    By Mark Parry



    Last edited by rand thompson; 07-22-2020 at 12:26 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #120  
    Senior Member rand thompson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    7,202
    Some Canon EOS R5 sample Vimeo Videos from Gordon Laing.


    https://vimeo.com/user803551
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts