Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Canon EOS R5 with 8K video! No crop!

From the 8K CRM file I linked to above in post #103,Graded in ACEScct. I had to use DCI 4K instead of 8K in the project settings because of the "GPU Out of Memory" error that kept coming up in Resolve 16.2.4.

Untitled-1-1-1.jpg


Untitled-1-1-2.jpg


Untitled-1-1-3.jpg


Untitled-1-1-4.jpg


Untitled-1-1-5.jpg


Untitled-1-1-6.jpg


Untitled-1-1-7.jpg
 
Having a play with the 8K files shot by Moc/Hoang Nguyen that Kemalettin linked to above -









Can't say I'd choose to deal with the quirks of that particular camera or workflow, but I like overall quality of the images it can capture.


Didn't realize the footage was from an actual ad - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97Gm1ui9W_U
 
Last edited:
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:
Lol, yeah I saw that... It's not like it'll be easier on the system or that the R5 will record it internally.
 
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:
Take 2

Take 2

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.
 
$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.


Blair S. Paulsen said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Med D said:
$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.
Click to expand...

$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
 
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.
 
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:
Last edited:
Canon EOS R5 CINEMATIC Camera Test in 8K RAW!


By Armando Ferreira



 
Canon EOS R5 Image Quality vs R6, R, 5D Mk IV, 5DS-R & Sony a7R IV



By
Tony & Chelsea Northrup






Canon EOS R5 12Bit 8K RAW Video Test



By
DSI Pictures


 
Emanuel A. said:
http://chng.it/XgcyzLqSRf
Click to expand...

Note: the link is to an online petition to Canon to "fix" the R5. It is a harmless change.org link as far as I can tell but, given all of the online phishing attempts, it would be nice if posters of that type of link could describe what it is.

.....
I'm waiting for my R5 preordered first day, and supportive of Canon doing whatever they can to get the most out of the R5, however I don't quite understand the "outcry" over the recording limitations that Canon was totally upfront about.

Seems to me the proper way to view the R5 is this: First it may be the best 35mm size still camera ever made given the combination of 45 MP, IBIS, exceptional human face and eye tracking, as well as animal face and even eye tracking for some species, the expanded optical capabilities provided by the larger throat and shorter flange distance, normal canon Flash implementation, 12 to 20 frames per second, etc.

As far as video, presumably the autofocus will also be excellent on a par with the best available anywhere given Canon's experience in other canon products (and probably better than possible in RED's current camera lineup if one is comparing). As far as overheating - the camera should be viewed as primarily a 4K camera (if I understand correctly there are 4K modes that provide unlimited or near unlimited recording times) with "burst mode" 8K video for up to 20 minutes - similar to how numerous cameras have "burst mode" high frame rates that can't be sustained but are still very useful.

Consider that for $3899 it very well may provide very similar 8K VistaVision DOF results as current $50K+ cameras for limited recording times and 4K VistaVision DOF for as long as you want. Does the recording limit make sense for a big budget film that might be better served by a Red Monstro or Arri 65? - probably not. Although as I mentioned earlier, somewhat, but not entirely facetiously - if 8K full frame is desired and longer record times are desired one could purchase 3 or 4 bodies for $12K-$15K and rotate quickly to shoot forever.

Ultimately there are a lot of people that can make good use of the camera despite its limitations. I have for 40 years always been on the bleeding edge of technology trying to get the most resolution I could within reasonable budgets. I sold my Epic-W a few months ago because I wasn't using it a lot and all the hassles of size, weight, batteries, etc. precluded me using it much for personal projects. (Not to mention my insurance bill per year was a third of the cost of the R5). As a Hydrogen owner, I looked to Komodo to get me a smaller, simpler, and cheaper high quality RED camera and I will probably still purchase whenever Hydrogen discount orders open up. (And the truth is if I need a higher end RED for a paying job I have numerous friends that I can borrow or rent from cheaply - not to mention that RED's success means there are so many REDs out there that regular rentals are awfully cheap as well.)

But R5 may still be my most used camera - I like the fact that I can do really high quality still work - with the ability to use flash in the manner professionals have come to expect - and still be able to shoot excellent 4K full frame video and 8K when it makes sense - all in a complete package that fits - with a full complement of L series lenses (i.e. 15-35, 24-70,70-200 the standard pro traveling photographer kit) - in a compact backpack.

To the original point - given all of the above, it doesn't seem as Canon has done anything but give us an incredible option, been upfront about its limitations, and no reason for the online "outcry".
 
Michael Hastings said:
To the original point - given all of the above, it doesn't seem as Canon has done anything but give us an incredible option, been upfront about its limitations, and no reason for the online "outcry".
Click to expand...

I totally agree Michael. And for those with a Komodo too, with the RF mount (once it gets supported), I think it is the perfect video and stills combo. Though my R5 hasn't arrived yet, I think its 120FPS uncropped 4K will be a nice compliment to Komodo's lack of full frame over cranked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top