Feature update announcements coming to the Canon EOS R and Canon Cinema EOS C200 ahead of NAB

joejohnbear

EOS 90D
Sep 11, 2014
138
0
ALWAYS use an external monitor, like the mentioned ninja V, which is also an external recorder using ssd drives.
I guess you know what RAW is. It's the same as RAW in photography. It allows you to shoot "iso-less". You can change your exposure (ISO) and also the color temperature AFTER you shot your video, in the post.
Pretty sure that raw video (.crm / .ari, let alone Prores Raw ) is not ISO invariant.
 

transpo1

EOS RP
Jan 12, 2011
758
104
Have you seen some footage of what the 1DC is being capable of with that horrendous rolling shutter? (While the 4k sensor area is much bigger, it is still only 8-bit 4:2:2 MJPEG, a far cry from ProRes RAW, no AF, no peaking, etc...)

Main line is: it is still better than anything we've had before from Canon at this price range (if it turns out to be true)

That’s nice, but I’m not talking about the 1DC, which is APS-H and a 1.3 crop factor— I’m talking about the EOS-R, which has a crop of about 1.8 in 4K. Usually, the more severe the crop, the more it accentuates the rolling shutter so my guess is you’ll find a slight difference in this regard between the two cameras.

Maybe Canon will be able to include an update to 1.4x crop in the firmware, which will make it equal to true Super 35mm. That would be nice of them.

In any case, if true, kudos to Canon for enabling RAW, but their time would be better spent enabling less crop on the camera and higher frame rates.
 

joejohnbear

EOS 90D
Sep 11, 2014
138
0
You can NOT alter the sensitivity of the sensor in RAW file. Stills or Video. ISO is a PHYSICAL sensitivity setting you instruct the sensor to set itself to at the time of exposure. You can't change it after that shutter fires.
PureClassA, maybe read the original post I was addressing. Thanks.
 

max_sr

EOS M6 Mark II
Jan 8, 2019
71
55
"External" Makes no sense. EOS R already records everything externally. What else could be added except for ProRes RAW lol. If they didn't wanna tip their hat, they should not have even done such a poll. :sneaky::p

They didn't mention any of that was a new feature. So yes you can already record externally on the R and you can already shoot Raw Lite on the C200. They are just asking what they should inform their marketing people about. So there is still a chance, that this was just a misunderstanding by one of the people operating the twitter account and no form of raw recording is coming to the EOS R.
 

padam

EOS R
Aug 26, 2015
1,254
915
That’s nice, but I’m not talking about the 1DC, which is APS-H and a 1.3 crop factor— I’m talking about the EOS-R, which has a crop of about 1.8 in 4K. Usually, the more severe the crop, the more it accentuates the rolling shutter so my guess is you’ll find a slight difference in this regard between the two cameras.

Maybe Canon will be able to include an update to 1.4x crop in the firmware, which will make it equal to true Super 35mm. That would be nice of them.

In any case, if true, kudos to Canon for enabling RAW, but their time would be better spent enabling less crop on the camera and higher frame rates.
Now you are just talking nonsense in terms of relation to the crop factor (it would actually increase further by decreasing the crop factor on the same sensor, not the opposite), it just simply depends on how good/bad the sensor is (for instance the 1DC vs 1DXII similar crop but twice as good rolling shutter) and the performance of the EOS R sensor cropped 4k recording is roughly similar to the 1DC. Not great, but can you use it to produce great-looking video within its limitations? YES. Have we had anything like this from Canon in this price range? Absolutely NOT.

So this is all this sensor is capable of in terms of crop and frame rates, it will be used as B-cam in many setups, and the rest can just moan all day in front of the keyboard (yes it is free, although the value of time is underestimated for many people, and of they have time to continue the drivel as well)
 

IggyMo

I'm New Here
Mar 29, 2019
22
32
You can NOT alter the sensitivity of the sensor in RAW file. Stills or Video. ISO is a PHYSICAL sensitivity setting you instruct the sensor to set itself to at the time of exposure. You can't change it after that shutter fires.
This is where you are wrong. You have probably heard of base ISO on a camera. Thats is the actual physical sensitivity of the sensor or say the optimal and ONLY working ISO. Say your camera's native ISO is 400. Whenever you press your shutter button the sensor captures the same information at its native ISO 400, disregarding your ISO setting on the camera. The change to your choosen ISO on your camera is applied by the processor, which will then digitally lower exposure values for ever pixel if you shoot at the setting ISO 100 (400->100 = 2 stops of lower exposure) or it will digitally increase the exposure value if you choose to shoot at say ISO 1600.
You can basically disregard your iso setting on your camera these days. Of course I oversimplified things here. Because the internal processor uses optimized algorithms developped by the manufacturer of that sensor, which of course will always give you better results in the noise handling areas when shooting at higher exposure settings compared to when you yourself adjust the exposure levels in post, say in lightroom. Programmes like these, wether for pics or video can do a really good job, but they are not optimized for any particular camera model or their sensors. But if you're not pixelpeeping you won't see any difference.
Then of course there is the matter of the newer cameras having dual ISO. Which basically means that you have 2 native (or base) ISO levels with your sensor. Often it is around 400ISO and the second is often around 1200, but those vary wildly from model to model. This of course gives you way more flexibilty. You got 2 real exposure settings and therefore digital exposure intervention is reduced greatly.
All that being said, I put iso-less in " ", because very few cameras are actually and really iso-less. Most of them come somewhat close others less, but still... you are not ever changing your physical ISO of the camera unless it is a dual iso capable camera, it's always digital adjustments inside or outside of the camera. This is why you see so many people with technical backgrounds arguing that the ISO setting on your camera is a misleading name nowadays and should rather be called "gain", as in digital signal gain. Of course, we're talking about RAW for pictures and video. If you shoot pics in jpeg or video in normal stand profile picture or a log profile all of this iso-less talk doesn't matter as the selected digital exposure and color temperature is backed in to the file.
 

transpo1

EOS RP
Jan 12, 2011
758
104
Now you are just talking nonsense in terms of relation to the crop factor (it would actually increase further by decreasing the crop factor on the same sensor, not the opposite), it just simply depends on how good/bad the sensor is (for instance the 1DC vs 1DXII similar crop but twice as good rolling shutter) and the performance of the EOS R sensor cropped 4k recording is roughly similar to the 1DC. Not great, but can you use it to produce great-looking video within its limitations? YES. Have we had anything like this from Canon in this price range? Absolutely NOT.

So this is all this sensor is capable of in terms of crop and frame rates, it will be used as B-cam in many setups, and the rest can just moan all day in front of the keyboard (yes it is free, although the value of time is underestimated for many people, and of they have time to continue the drivel as well)

Drivel indeed.

Time = money and the amount of time one will have to spend to rig an external recorder and process raw data for a rather paltry 1.8x crop doesn’t seem enough to justify that time.

I prefer not to work within these limitations and I suspect many video folks will feel the same.
 

degos

EOS RP
Mar 20, 2015
420
355
Of course I oversimplified things here.

Yes, you did. And in the end contradicted yourself and your original claim. You can't simply 'ignore' ISO on modern cameras.

All digital cameras will have better noise handling up to their invariant level than trying to do the same push in post-processing. That's all there is to it.

How about this: imagine saying that Camera-X has its lowest shutter-vibration at 1/100th, therefore you should set it there at its 'base speed' and 'ignore' shutter otherwise. "Just push the exposures in post! Don't worry about motion blur, that's only a concern to pixel-peepers!" People would look at you like a fool. Likewise, ISO or gain or whatever is trading SNR for the opportunity to get a shot that wouldn't be technically possible otherwise.
 
Last edited:

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,742
1,305
Time = money and the amount of time one will have to spend to rig an external recorder and process raw data for a rather paltry 1.8x crop doesn’t seem enough to justify that time.

I prefer not to work within these limitations and I suspect many video folks will feel the same.

I'll admit I was disappointed when the R was released with a heavy crop for 4k video. But in the time that it has been out a lot of professional cinematographers have given it praise. The 4k footage is solid and grades very well. The A7 III may be FF 4k but its bitrate is...dare I say it...crippled by comparison to the R. And now the R is adding external RAW? Cinematographers are going to love it. And yes, they will rig an external recorder (which they normally do any way) and deal with a 1.8x crop (which is a small crop from S35) to get RAW footage.

Honestly, having watched a number of reviews and sample short films, I think the X-T3 is the real competition. Very sharp 4k straight ooc. 400 Mbps. And if you don't want to grade footage, the Eterna profile. I've seen good R footage and poor R footage (with that crop lens sharpness is very important to getting the most out of it). I've seen good A73 footage and poor A73 footage (it can literally fall apart with a heavy grade). But the X-T3? I haven't seen anything but excellent 4k footage off that camera. And 4k60p slowed down to 24p has a really nice effect.

It's funny because when the R dropped I thought "no FF 4k? Looks like I'll buy an A73 soon." But I've waited and I'm glad I waited because at this point the A73 is dead last on my wish list. If I get a cinema camera it's going to be the X-T3 or the R.
 

padam

EOS R
Aug 26, 2015
1,254
915
Drivel indeed.

Time = money and the amount of time one will have to spend to rig an external recorder and process raw data for a rather paltry 1.8x crop doesn’t seem enough to justify that time.

I prefer not to work within these limitations and I suspect many video folks will feel the same.
Well at least I didn't write any fake assumptions... and of course the internal recording is pretty solid, nothing wrong with that, it is not like anybody is forced to buy a big recorder (if one is planning to use a monitor anyway, might as well).

If this is actually true (might still just be a simple typo) it will take a few months for the firmware update to come out anyway (it may even cost a bit of money, based on their 5D IV Canon Log)

Main line is that some people will just moan behind the keyboard, because it is much, much easier than working. Meanwhile the EOS R cropped footage looks pleasing to me, in the past one couldn't get anywhere close to this quality from Canon at this price range, and now, it has become possible. Or get a C100 for its ergonomics, a Sony, Nikon or a Panasonic to shoot FF 4k with internal stabilisation or a Blackmagic to shoot internal raw, a plethora of options are all out there, and yet some people are still sitting at the complaining level, or just trying to justify their choices against others who are just hating on anything that is not what they have chosen.

 

IggyMo

I'm New Here
Mar 29, 2019
22
32
Yes, you did. And in the end contradicted yourself and your original claim. You can't simply 'ignore' ISO on modern cameras.

All digital cameras will have better noise handling up to their invariant level than trying to do the same push in post-processing. That's all there is to it.

How about this: imagine saying that Camera-X has its lowest shutter-vibration at 1/100th, therefore you should set it there at its 'base speed' and 'ignore' shutter otherwise. "Just push the exposures in post! Don't worry about motion blur, that's only a concern to pixel-peepers!" People would look at you like a fool. Likewise, ISO or gain or whatever is trading SNR for the opportunity to get a shot that wouldn't be technically possible otherwise.

Wow, now you're pushing it. Comparing ISO to shutter speed. The shutter is an actual physical factor in the exposure, ISO is not. Of course I wouldn't EVER suggest to ignore the shutter speed as I wouldn't EVER suggest to ignore the aperture. Both are real physical factors. ISO on MOST modern cameras with raw ability is invariant or very close to it. Canon's processors are the most heavy handed in processing RAW photos in giving an "optimized" look for the user defined ISO setting, so Canon's RAW files are the furthest away from isoless, but most other brands are pretty close to isoless with their raws.
There is literally thousands of videos on this subject, if you need proof and on all levels of expertise. From simple Joes running the test to actual huge producing companies. Here, an exemple which is quick to the point and as a bonus shows an exemple of a non-iso-invariant camera :
 
  • Like
Reactions: crazyrunner33
Nov 3, 2014
698
508
It makes absolutely no difference to rolling shutter or readout speed(there is no camera where external/internal makes any difference at all in that regard), it is just a different codec and of course 4k60p would be possible on a 1DXII if it had more modern processors and HDMI interface, but not on the EOS R with that sensor.
The EOS R appears to be processor limited so we don't know if the camera is reading the sensor at it's highest possible speed or if the processor just can't compress and write the stream at the sensor's maximum rate. If the camera has to reduce read speed to accommodate processing the stream than rolling shutter will increase.

Compressing and writing the video stream requires significant internal camera resources. The Codec is a critical part of that equation. Delivering a RAW stream over HDMI could require fewer internal resources. Properly coded internal firmware could take advantage of those additional resources to improve the rate which the camera can read out the sensor if the sensor can handle a higher speed. Only Canon knows the answer to that.

Most camera's that stream 4K60p RAW levels of data use SLI rather than HDMI. That may be a preference for the more secure connections of SLI or issues with pushing that much data through HDMI. I'd have to look into that a bit more to have an opinion one way or the other.

I've never seen any evidence to suggest that the sensor in the 5D4/R has inherently slower read times than the sensor in the 1DX2. The 1DX2 has significantly more processing capability and a faster I/O which result in less rolling shutter and higher frame rates. Both cameras are reading 4K at 1:1 so sensor megapixel shouldn't be relevant.
 
Last edited:

PureClassA

Canon since age 5. The A1
CR Pro
Aug 15, 2014
2,123
825
Mandeville, LA
Shields-Photography.com
This is where you are wrong. You have probably heard of base ISO on a camera. Thats is the actual physical sensitivity of the sensor or say the optimal and ONLY working ISO. Say your camera's native ISO is 400. Whenever you press your shutter button the sensor captures the same information at its native ISO 400, disregarding your ISO setting on the camera. The change to your choosen ISO on your camera is applied by the processor, which will then digitally lower exposure values for ever pixel if you shoot at the setting ISO 100 (400->100 = 2 stops of lower exposure) or it will digitally increase the exposure value if you choose to shoot at say ISO 1600.
You can basically disregard your iso setting on your camera these days. Of course I oversimplified things here. Because the internal processor uses optimized algorithms developped by the manufacturer of that sensor, which of course will always give you better results in the noise handling areas when shooting at higher exposure settings compared to when you yourself adjust the exposure levels in post, say in lightroom. Programmes like these, wether for pics or video can do a really good job, but they are not optimized for any particular camera model or their sensors. But if you're not pixelpeeping you won't see any difference.
Then of course there is the matter of the newer cameras having dual ISO. Which basically means that you have 2 native (or base) ISO levels with your sensor. Often it is around 400ISO and the second is often around 1200, but those vary wildly from model to model. This of course gives you way more flexibilty. You got 2 real exposure settings and therefore digital exposure intervention is reduced greatly.
All that being said, I put iso-less in " ", because very few cameras are actually and really iso-less. Most of them come somewhat close others less, but still... you are not ever changing your physical ISO of the camera unless it is a dual iso capable camera, it's always digital adjustments inside or outside of the camera. This is why you see so many people with technical backgrounds arguing that the ISO setting on your camera is a misleading name nowadays and should rather be called "gain", as in digital signal gain. Of course, we're talking about RAW for pictures and video. If you shoot pics in jpeg or video in normal stand profile picture or a log profile all of this iso-less talk doesn't matter as the selected digital exposure and color temperature is backed in to the file.

ISO is an analog amplification process applied to the sensor at capture. Some higher ISOs may also have a post process digital amplification applied, but that's the primary source. If you know how to alter the captured ISO in DPP or LR, do tell. You can raise and lower exposures, but you can NOT adjust the actual ISO in Post. That is about the only thing is baked into the image in RAW because ISO amplification is set (generally right at the Photodiode, to my knowledge) before the ADC process takes place and the RAW file is written.
 

IggyMo

I'm New Here
Mar 29, 2019
22
32
ISO is an analog amplification process applied to the sensor at capture. Some higher ISOs may also have a post process digital amplification applied, but that's the primary source. If you know how to alter the captured ISO in DPP or LR, do tell. You can raise and lower exposures, but you can NOT adjust the actual ISO in Post. That is about the only thing is baked into the image in RAW because ISO amplification is set (generally right at the Photodiode, to my knowledge) before the ADC process takes place and the RAW file is written.
ISO is both analog AND digital amplification. The analog amplification does not change in normal ISO range in dslr's or mirrorless bodies (ISO 50 - 12800 usually). In simple terms: the analog amplifier = base ISO (does not change). Digital ISO = user sets ISO (digital gain). When you have a dual ISO you basically have a second analog amplifier that amplifies way stronger, sends the clean but more amplified analog signal to the digital converter and then it goes through the digital ISO amplifier if needed (according to users ISO setting). This is how on dual ISO cameras you get way cleaner images at say 1600 iso than at 1000 iso. because at iso 1000 you're using the first analog amplifier which operates at say base 100iso, but crank it up to 1000iso digitally. Say your 2nd analog amplifier kicks in at 1200 iso, you'll be getting a very clean image like you did at iso100 through the first analog amplifier.
Once again, ISO is misleading. It should be called gain. Different software call it different names, but in lighroom it is the exposure slider which works in stops of light. Other applications call it gain. Still other apps still call it directly ISO. In Davinci Resolve for example, if you use raw footage they call it ISO, and yes you do change your ISO in post on davinci. You have the same ISO changing options in Adobe Premiere Pro if you work with raw footage.
Once again, here is a technical explanation from a guy that works in hollywood:
 
  • Like
Reactions: MickDK

jvillain

EOS RP
Sep 29, 2018
281
223
I have been hammering Canon pretty hard for their mirrorless bodies. I never thought that the R was a bad camera, but up here in Canada it is just horrible value at $3000 for just the body compared to what else you could buy. But if the new EAF firmware works at least reasonably, and they do add external RAW and it doesn't require a license and isn't limited to 720 then that changes the equation enough where I will step up and they will keep me in the fold.

I was very skeptical of Canons comments that they were going to try harder to offer improvements through firmware like every one else as Canon has never been that kind of company and they have promised stuff in future firware in the past and then failed to deliver. But external RAW would be a ligit feature add that wasn't promised at launch and that change of attitude is a game changer for me. That tells me that the body side of the business still cares and still wants to compete. That is some thing that I have really been questioning lately. If this pans out props to Canon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IggyMo and Janek

crazyrunner33

EOS RP
Nov 4, 2011
306
125
The EOS R appears to be processor limited so we don't know if the camera is reading the sensor at it's highest possible speed or if the processor just can't compress and write the stream at the sensor's maximum rate. If the camera has to reduce read speed to accommodate processing the stream than rolling shutter will increase.

Compressing and writing the video stream requires significant internal camera resources. The Codec is a critical part of that equation. Delivering a RAW stream over HDMI could require fewer internal resources. Properly coded internal firmware could take advantage of those additional resources to improve the rate which the camera can read out the sensor if the sensor can handle a higher speed. Only Canon knows the answer to that.

Most camera's that stream 4K60p RAW levels of data use SLI rather than HDMI. That may be a preference for the more secure connections of SLI or issues with pushing that much data through HDMI. I'd have to look into that a bit more to have an opinion one way or the other.

I've never seen any evidence to suggest that the sensor in the 5D4/R has inherently slower read times than the sensor in the 1DX2. The 1DX2 has significantly more processing capability and a faster I/O which result in less rolling shutter and higher frame rates. Both cameras are reading 4K at 1:1 so sensor megapixel shouldn't be relevant.

SDI is used for multiple reasons. For one, it's purposefully designed for RAW data streams, no other activities or concerns about DRM. The biggest (and this is a massive one) advantage is that it's also a locking connector. HDMI is delicate, SDI is designed to move around and even handle a interning grip tripping on the cable while carrying a 60,000 dollar lens.

HDMI is used in DSLRs because it's a consumer product designed to be able to connect to a TV. SDI makes more sense, except it's 100 percent worthless to any photographer or consumers.
 

CanonGrunt

C70
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2012
215
139
SDI is used for multiple reasons. For one, it's purposefully designed for RAW data streams, no other activities or concerns about DRM. The biggest (and this is a massive one) advantage is that it's also a locking connector. HDMI is delicate, SDI is designed to move around and even handle a interning grip tripping on the cable while carrying a 60,000 dollar lens.

HDMI is used in DSLRs because it's a consumer product designed to be able to connect to a TV. SDI makes more sense, except it's 100 percent worthless to any photographer or consumers.

Yet they unfortunately put an SDI connector on the C200 that is not capable of handling a RAW stream, or even 4k. It has a nice 422 10 bit 2k though.