Canon on assult? 3 new 8K60p cinema cam with up to 20+ DR

[ntblowz]

https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-to-add-to-their-cinema-eos-lineup-with-three-new-monster-cameras-cr3/

 

I hope the R5C will use that C500 sensor, 8K60P sensor with 17DR? that is way more than 12DR (more like 10.5 stop) on current R5.

[scotchtape]

I'm guessing at least $15K USD for the new C300S!

[josdr]

7 hours ago, scotchtape said:

I'm guessing at least $15K USD for the new C300S!

20Κ and pay for raw output whenever Canon feels like including it... 😁

[mrtreve]

Well lets be honest, they really need to deliver something great to maintain the £10K+ market.

Very decent 4K+ is now the norm for under £5k.

In my view the footage simply has to look a level above the current generation to tempt people to upgrade.

It means they can't miss on codecs/dr/noise/sensor readout speed/colour. Everything now counts as the image on a 4th gen product has to be stellar.

The processors also need to deliver with no caveats on output capability. If it does X frame rate, then everything has to work. No dropping proxies at certain frame rates or limiting the outputs or assistance functions.

Canon really did make big improvements with the C300 III and C500 II, so I'm hopeful they can do it...

 

[ade towell]

20 plus stops of DR claims makes me laugh, reminds me of RED marketing - but are these going to be RF or EF mount? CAnon has definitely been busy of late though not sure how present C300 III and C500 II owners will feel so soon after their pretty major investment, there has been grumbling of lack of firmware updates compared with FX9, hope Canon doesn't leave these folk out in the cold...

[gt3rs]

1 hour ago, ade towell said:

20 plus stops of DR claims makes me laugh, reminds me of RED marketing - but are these going to be RF or EF mount? CAnon has definitely been busy of late though not sure how present C300 III and C500 II owners will feel so soon after their pretty major investment, there has been grumbling of lack of firmware updates compared with FX9, hope Canon doesn't leave these folk out in the cold...

FX9 FW was just delivering promised features that were not ready at launch... so not really a fair comparison imo. 

Product should be ready at launch not launch something with a lot of *coming later....

[UncleBobsPhotography]

3 hours ago, ade towell said:

but are these going to be RF or EF mount? 

With how fast Canon are discontinuing EF lenses, I can't see how they can release them with the EF-mount.

[noone]

For the prices these would be, I would guess RF and they will throw in a free adapter for EF lenses.

[BrooklynDan]

Really, really hope that they skip that C700 sequel. The original was one of the biggest flops in camera history. Almost no one bought it and everyone who did lost money on it. Regardless of the sensor in it, that form factor is severely antiquated. That dull gray bread loaf shape is from the last decade. The C500 MK II and C300 MK III with the modular extensions are actually some of the most nicely designed cameras on the market right now.

Also, I don't know who needs a 4K full frame sensor at this point. A $30K+ camera cannot have a 4K full frame sensor when many people are gonna put Super 35 and anamorphic lenses on it which will only cover 24mm worth of sensor, forcing you to shoot 2K. 

[kye]

5 hours ago, BrooklynDan said:

Also, I don't know who needs a 4K full frame sensor at this point.

When I read this sentence I thought you were going to suggest that 4K wasn't enough.

Haven't you heard that Hollywood is finally catching up to the amateur market and going bigger=better with sensor size?  Go read the interviews of people who shot with the Alexa 65 and see how they talk about the sensor size.  The scale of the image from the larger sensor was completely critical to their vision, they all say it over and over again!

[IronFilm]

@kye, the point Dan was making is that a Large Format native 4K cinema camera is going to be a tough sell. As then it can only be used with shooting the entire sensor if you want to do 4K. 

Guess that niche usage works for some larger markets. 

But for most people they need to be able to use these cameras as 4K S35 Cinema Cameras too, which a Large Format native 4K cinema camera can not do 😕 

[ade towell]

19 hours ago, gt3rs said:

FX9 FW was just delivering promised features that were not ready at launch... so not really a fair comparison imo. 

Product should be ready at launch not launch something with a lot of *coming later....

Am just relaying what I read from some Canon users.

On these crazy DR claims (Canon aren't the only ones), when does this becomes false advertising? I start to lose respect for companies when they spin these figures, at some point they should be made accountable. If Arri has 14 stops of useable DR and the market leader (Arri don't feel the need to mislead), how do the others get away with their false claims?

[IronFilm]

21 minutes ago, ade towell said:

how do the others get away with their false claims?

Because DR can be somewhat subjective in terms of how you measure/define it. 

[ade towell]

Yes sorry it was a somewhat rhetorical question - I realise it is subjective and people have different tolerances to noise but when these figures are thrown around that are so far from what is practical and useable maybe there needs to be a universal scientific way of testing (and an agreed level of noise as a base line) otherwise it is just completely meaningless and misleading

[ade towell]

oops sorry double post

[kye]

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

@kye, the point Dan was making is that a Large Format native 4K cinema camera is going to be a tough sell. As then it can only be used with shooting the entire sensor if you want to do 4K. 

Guess that niche usage works for some larger markets. 

But for most people they need to be able to use these cameras as 4K S35 Cinema Cameras too, which a Large Format native 4K cinema camera can not do 😕 

I understand the logic, but the Alexa 65 suffers from the same problem.

If we compare the width of Super35 at 24.89mm and divide it by the width of the Alexa 65 at 54.12mm it is 46% as wide.  If we take 46% of the width of the 6.5K from the Alexa 65 then we get 3K, so the Alexa 65 can only shoot 3K in S35 crop mode.

I won't pretend to know if 3K (from the Alexa 65) vs 2.7K (from a 1.5 crop into a FF 4K sensor) is a meaningful difference, but it's interesting that the Alexa 65 is a large format flagship model and I would imagine that a C700 with 20 stops of DR would also be trying to have that premium market too.

4 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Because DR can be somewhat subjective in terms of how you measure/define it. 

and it also needs pretty rigorous testing processes in terms of managing the image pipeline too.  Not an easy thing to test consistently even if you are paying attention to all the details and don't have a vested interest!

[BrooklynDan]

Different cameras work differently in different markets. Nobody rents an Alexa 65 to shoot Super 35 on it. It has the same exact pixel pitch and density as the other Alexa cameras. The standard Alexa sensor is 3.4K wide at 28mm open gate. You can upscale to UHD in camera and this is enough for most. It fudges the numbers a bit compared to true DCI 4K, but Arri gets a pass because they're Arri and they still make the best performing digital cinema cameras on the market.

But we still live in a 4K world, and more importantly, a multi-format world. And that special pass that is granted to Arri is not gonna be given to Canon. Compare the new C700 to the Sony Venice. The 6K full frame sensor is much more useful across a range of crops and formats. It's a true 4K in Super 35 mode, which is useful for slow-mo, anamorphic, and 4:3 photography. 

A Canon camera is never going to be in the same high-end market as the iconic Alexa 65. It's playing in the middle ground where the Venice and the Monstro live. And those cameras have 6K and 8K sensors and are incredibly flexible with resolutions and formats.

[IronFilm]

2 hours ago, kye said:

I understand the logic, but the Alexa 65 suffers from the same problem.

It does indeed suffer from that problem. 

Have zero doubt whatsoever that if they could have made everything identical about the Alexa 65, except be a higher resolution sufficient to do 4K S35 then it would've been a much more successful camera by a huge margin. 

8 minutes ago, BrooklynDan said:

Nobody rents an Alexa 65 to shoot Super 35 on it.

No of course not, that would be stupid silly!

Unless..... if it could do 4K S35, then yes, people would be renting it just purely to do that!!

9 minutes ago, BrooklynDan said:

But we still live in a 4K world, and more importantly, a multi-format world. And that special pass that is granted to Arri is not gonna be given to Canon.

Exactly. Non-Arri brands definitely can't be a one trick pony if they wish to succeed. 

10 minutes ago, BrooklynDan said:

Compare the new C700 to the Sony Venice. The 6K full frame sensor is much more useful across a range of crops and formats. It's a true 4K in Super 35 mode, which is useful for slow-mo, anamorphic, and 4:3 photography. 

Venice is also massively preferable for gimbals (or car rigs / cranes / etc). 

[kye]

10 hours ago, IronFilm said:

It does indeed suffer from that problem. 

Have zero doubt whatsoever that if they could have made everything identical about the Alexa 65, except be a higher resolution sufficient to do 4K S35 then it would've been a much more successful camera by a huge margin. 

Doing the maths, the Alexa 65 would have needed to be 8.7K to have a 4K S35 crop, but an 8K sensor would have a 3.7K S35 crop which would probably have been just fine, so I guess 8K looks like the magic number at that sensor size.

What's interesting is that the Alexa 65 has 120 pixels per mm horizontally, the 3.4K is also 120pp/mm and the 2.8K is 118pp/mm, so I wonder if they've decided that the pixels need to be at least that big?  Certainly, ARRI are aware that having good pixels is more important than having lots of pixels, so they may have done testing and drawn a line at a certain pixel size as being the minimum required for a certain image quality / noise / colour performance.

Of course that won't stop other manufacturers cramming as many pixels into their cameras as possible.  Every time I see a manufacturer declaring victory with their latest release full of tiny little pixels I think of a salesman in full-tilt sales mode for All-You-Can-Eat Gravel.  Sure, it's gravel, which isn't good to eat at all.....  but it's ALL YOU CAN EAT so STEP RIGHT UP!!!  *sigh*

[IronFilm]

10 hours ago, kye said:

Doing the maths, the Alexa 65 would have needed to be 8.7K to have a 4K S35 crop, but an 8K sensor would have a 3.7K S35 crop which would probably have been just fine, so I guess 8K looks like the magic number at that sensor size.

The FX9/VENICE have 4K S35.

10 hours ago, kye said:

What's interesting is that the Alexa 65 has 120 pixels per mm horizontally, the 3.4K is also 120pp/mm and the 2.8K is 118pp/mm, so I wonder if they've decided that the pixels need to be at least that big?  Certainly, ARRI are aware that having good pixels is more important than having lots of pixels, so they may have done testing and drawn a line at a certain pixel size as being the minimum required for a certain image quality / noise / colour performance.

ALL the ARRI digital cinema cameras have "identical" pixels, it's just the size of the sensor they've cut out of the wafer that varies. 

And that won't change until their 4K S35 sensor camera gets launched. 

In a way, these 4K LF format cameras were largely a stop gap measure for ARRI to slow the bleeding out to the true 4K competition (such as what is demanded by Netflix commissioned films).