Is Canon testing an 8K Super35 Cinema EOS camera? [CR1]

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jul 20, 2010
8,507
1,229
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
Canon Watch is reporting that a Super35 8K Cinema EOS camera is currently in field testing. I have been unable to confirm this information, so please treat it accordingly.
Unnamed Canon 8K Cinema EOS camera specifications: 

8K 3.2μm Super 35mm imaging sensor
High-Speed 3D
Dual Gain Output
Dual Pixel AF II
Dual Native ISO
DIGIC DV X (Faster AF, Faster I/O, Faster UI)
DCI 8K 60fps 12b RAW
4K RGB (2-Green-pixel binning on the sensor) 90fps 12b RAW Output

I do not believe that the Cinema EOS C90 will be an 8K camera, so if this information is correct, it’s a new camera for the Cinema EOS lineup.
8K is coming sooner than later from Canon, the EOS R5 can’t be the only camera in their lineup capable of capturing 8K video. I don’t think we’ll see anything officially announced until at least April of 2021.
Continue reading...


 
Oct 13, 2020
2
1
It wouldn't surprise me because there must be quite a long development and testing program to every single type of camera be it a Cinema line, R series, M series and whatever. From any manufacturers perspective, these developments are on going and then WHAM along comes Covid 19, what do you do, stop or keep going ? Where I think it will make a difference is in the post pandemic world where the economic circumstances may lead to planned products (prior to Covid), not being released until companies get a feel for how the global economy will pan out.
 

filmmakerken

EOS R, EOS 10, FTb
CR Pro
Apr 12, 2020
32
22
Virginia
www.cinefoundry.com
I agree, the R5 can't remain the only Canon camera that shoots 8K for long. Especially since Canon's own promotional materials referred to the R5 as a "B camera" in a filmmaking environment.

My question -- why does canon seem to be stuck on Super 35 sensors? I'd bet that more than half the Pro cinematographers 'out there' have never shot film. So why stay with a sensor that emulates film. The advantages of a RF-mount cinema camera with a full frame sensor that captures 8K at 60fps (or even 120fps) are many.

By the way, is there any indication as to whether or not this camera will have a RF mount?
 

NorskHest

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Jan 11, 2018
146
173
Minnesota - US
Visit site
I agree, the R5 can't remain the only Canon camera that shoots 8K for long. Especially since Canon's own promotional materials referred to the R5 as a "B camera" in a filmmaking environment.

My question -- why does canon seem to be stuck on Super 35 sensors? I'd bet that more than half the Pro cinematographers 'out there' have never shot film. So why stay with a sensor that emulates film. The advantages of a RF-mount cinema camera with a full frame sensor that captures 8K at 60fps (or even 120fps) are many.

By the way, is there any indication as to whether or not this camera will have a RF mount?
Super 35 cameras do not have vignetting when shot wide open with full frame glass, there is typically less rolling shutter when not using a global shutter, DOF is typically not a massive issue in cinema. It’s easier to pull focus and have more in focus on s35. There are a lot of benefits. The rf mount is nice but the lenses are not good for cinema. This could be a c700 replacement and then would be a ef mount. I will say the pixel pitch seems quite small for canon. They like to stay close to 6 on their high end so seeing around 3 is different for them
 

jam05

EOS RP
Mar 12, 2019
284
138
I'd rather have full frame than 8K, especially with the line-up of RF lenses.
However "full frame" is merely the lens mount. With 8k comes the advanced supporting image processing technology. Faster readout, throughput, etc.
 

Antono Refa

EOS R
Mar 26, 2014
1,131
313
I speculated the R5 is testing grounds for an 8K video camera. S35 is a standard sensor size in the cinema industry. RED is making an S35 8K camera. I think its a safe bet Canon is developing an S35 8K video camera.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dantana
Jul 30, 2020
6
5
Canon has invested a lot of money on the RF glass. It would make sense for me to put 8k on the C90 to make people flock to the RF system. RF system makes more sense as a creator as you can use both lens type. So Canon would focus on the RF lineup for new technologies. Hence R1 will be way superior to 1DX3. Good Times ahead!
 

mb66energy

EOS R
Dec 18, 2011
1,453
330
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
[...]
They like to stay close to 6 on their high end so seeing around 3 is different for them
Maybe gorgous 4k video (rggb subpixels for one image pixel so "full color") and the option
to do 8k with debayering? Would make sense and is - as far as i understood the R5 - the same
principle.
So 8k in bright light and 4k in dimmer light / at higher ISOs - just well mastered 2k would be
sufficient in low light scenes.
 

filmmakerken

EOS R, EOS 10, FTb
CR Pro
Apr 12, 2020
32
22
Virginia
www.cinefoundry.com
Super 35 cameras do not have vignetting when shot wide open with full frame glass, there is typically less rolling shutter when not using a global shutter, DOF is typically not a massive issue in cinema. It’s easier to pull focus and have more in focus on s35. There are a lot of benefits. The rf mount is nice but the lenses are not good for cinema. This could be a c700 replacement and then would be a ef mount. I will say the pixel pitch seems quite small for canon. They like to stay close to 6 on their high end so seeing around 3 is different for them
I agree that there are not any good cinema lenses in the RF mount...yet. When I spoke to the Zeiss rep at a trade show he said they were waiting for Canon to license the mount. Since Samyang/Rokinon make RF lenses I have to assume there are details/costs that Zeiss doesn't like. Most of Zeiss' cinema lenses cover full frame sensors. And it'd be simple to mount Canon Cinema Primes on the RF mount with an adapter.

It seems to me that filmmakers in the 1970s would all have moved to 70mm if it hadn't been too expensive. Full Frame at 36mm, like the R5, is about halfway between Super 35 and 70mm.

I'm imagining an 8K, FF, RF cinema camera with fully functional Zeiss Master Primes. But I'm a producer, not a Cinematographer.
 

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
626
705
Super 35 cameras do not have vignetting when shot wide open with full frame glass, there is typically less rolling shutter when not using a global shutter, DOF is typically not a massive issue in cinema. It’s easier to pull focus and have more in focus on s35. There are a lot of benefits. The rf mount is nice but the lenses are not good for cinema. This could be a c700 replacement and then would be a ef mount. I will say the pixel pitch seems quite small for canon. They like to stay close to 6 on their high end so seeing around 3 is different for them
This guy cinematographers :geek: all very fine points.

As I have pointed out in numerous other threads, the most popular digital cinema camera, 10 years running, has an APS-C sensor. The majority of Oscar-nominated films are shot on cameras with APS-C sensors. It's not an accident that The Academy isn't chomping at the bit for full-frame.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorskHest

jvillain

EOS RP
Sep 29, 2018
208
147
My question -- why does canon seem to be stuck on Super 35 sensors? I'd bet that more than half the Pro cinematographers 'out there' have never shot film. So why stay with a sensor that emulates film. The advantages of a RF-mount cinema camera with a full frame sensor that captures 8K at 60fps (or even 120fps) are many.
Super 35 is the standard in video. Keep in mind that the video world doesn't do 4x3 sensors for the most part. Hybrid cameras sure, but dedicated video cameras no. So calling some thing crop or FF in the video world isn't really applicable. Don't forget MFT got it's name from the broadcast industry where it at least was the standard and might still be. I know those quarter million dollar broadcast lenses Canon rolled out for the Olympics were MFT.

I get why camera companies might want the industry to spend billions on throwing away their existing perfectly fine equipment and buying all new gear. But as some one that works in the industry maybe you can tell me what problem I have that only a larger sensor will solve? Noise? I don't have noise problems I know how to light. DOF? In video things move. Often the camera and the subject are moving at the same time. A T1.5 lens on a super 35 is more than enough for 95+% of situations. Can I stand 100 meters away from a subject and blur out the back ground 2 meters behind the subject? No. But then no sane cinematographer would ever try. On top of that R5 class auto focus isn't a thing for the most part in the video world. Stick the R5 on a gimbal with the RF 50 1.2 wide open set to manual focus and let me know how it works out. That 8K sensor will instantly become meaningless.

My finding has been most of the people demanding the industry stop producing crop sensors and only build FF are either justifying their own buying decisions or don't understand the relationship between lenses and sensors. Youtubers are notorious for spreading misinformation around that. There is a reason Sigma makes a 18-35 1.8 and a 50-100 1.8 for crop but not FF. If you are spending the same amount of money on a MFT, crop or FF lens the MFT will usually have a lower F stop than the crop and the crop will often have a lower F stop than the FF. That is due to physics. The only place where FF has a true benifit is noise. But it is only one of many factors involved in noise. And again most videographers light. Actors moving around on a set in pitch black is a recipe for disaster. If you are down sampling from 8K to 2K your noise pretty well disappears on it's own so again noise isn't an issue. If your shooting bats in a cave at night, OK you got me. FF would help. But medium format would work even better. A sensor specifically designed for that environment would work even better yet. But then it would be likley be useless for day time shooting with out 30 stops of ND. Which brings up another point if you are shooting out side you are often running a ton of ND in order to get your apature down. Moving to FF would only make that worse.

Zack always get the last word on this subject.
 

peters

EOS RP
Dec 25, 2017
353
323
I'd rather have full frame than 8K, especially with the line-up of RF lenses.
Same for me. I guess this is because I am coming from a photographers standpoint and video is only my second home. I simply like the look a fullframe gives me (I know that it can pretty much be achieved by wider lenses with a lower f-number, but still).
8k on my R5 is incredible detailed, but I rarely have any use for it...
 

HarryFilm

EOS RP
Jun 6, 2016
638
139
Super 35 is the standard in video. Keep in mind that the video world doesn't do 4x3 sensors for the most part. Hybrid cameras sure, but dedicated video cameras no. So calling some thing crop or FF in the video world isn't really applicable. Don't forget MFT got it's name from the broadcast industry where it at least was the standard and might still be. I know those quarter million dollar broadcast lenses Canon rolled out for the Olympics were MFT.

I get why camera companies might want the industry to spend billions on throwing away their existing perfectly fine equipment and buying all new gear. But as some one that works in the industry maybe you can tell me what problem I have that only a larger sensor will solve? Noise? I don't have noise problems I know how to light. DOF? In video things move. Often the camera and the subject are moving at the same time. A T1.5 lens on a super 35 is more than enough for 95+% of situations. Can I stand 100 meters away from a subject and blur out the back ground 2 meters behind the subject? No. But then no sane cinematographer would ever try. On top of that R5 class auto focus isn't a thing for the most part in the video world. Stick the R5 on a gimbal with the RF 50 1.2 wide open set to manual focus and let me know how it works out. That 8K sensor will instantly become meaningless.

My finding has been most of the people demanding the industry stop producing crop sensors and only build FF are either justifying their own buying decisions or don't understand the relationship between lenses and sensors. Youtubers are notorious for spreading misinformation around that. There is a reason Sigma makes a 18-35 1.8 and a 50-100 1.8 for crop but not FF. If you are spending the same amount of money on a MFT, crop or FF lens the MFT will usually have a lower F stop than the crop and the crop will often have a lower F stop than the FF. That is due to physics. The only place where FF has a true benifit is noise. But it is only one of many factors involved in noise. And again most videographers light. Actors moving around on a set in pitch black is a recipe for disaster. If you are down sampling from 8K to 2K your noise pretty well disappears on it's own so again noise isn't an issue. If your shooting bats in a cave at night, OK you got me. FF would help. But medium format would work even better. A sensor specifically designed for that environment would work even better yet. But then it would be likley be useless for day time shooting with out 30 stops of ND. Which brings up another point if you are shooting out side you are often running a ton of ND in order to get your apature down. Moving to FF would only make that worse.

Zack always get the last word on this subject.

----

"...But as some one that works in the industry maybe you can tell me what problem I have that only a larger sensor will solve? Noise? I don't have noise problems I know how to light. DOF? In video things move. Often the camera and the subject are moving at the same time. ..."

--

As a person who is used to shooting 70mm (Arriflex-65 film AND Alexa-65 CMOS cameras), I have found that wide-dynamic range daytime imaging of landscapes/vistas and NIGHT IMAGING is and should be the prime use of such sensors.

When trying to shoot a firelight scene (i.e. see the movie The Revenant as an example), you need the LARGEST sensor photosites (or film area!) you can get. Such high 4k, 8k, and even 16k resolutions we see today are MOSTLY IRRELEVANT when I actually need LARGER photosites which give me more dynamic range (i.e. the difference between the brightest and darkest parts of an image).

While I can do a "Light the Night" scenario with a GREAT Key Gaffer (i.e. lead lighting specialist) by ADDING extra lights to a scene, many times I just want the NATURAL and INTIMATE look of a low-light scene to play out WITHOUT all the artificiality of a larger movie set.

The OTHER reason for larger sensors is in WIDE LANDSCAPES! There is an intrinsic BIGNESS attributable to large sensor imaging that makes such grand-vista scenes SEEM to stand out more. I was luckily able to first watch Interstellar on 70mm film and when I saw it on normal digital S-35 during a second screening, I just could NOT get over the LACK OF DEPTH and FEELING the Super-35 version had when compared to the BIG AND WIDE nature of actual 70mm film!

In my opinion, within 20 Years and BECAUSE of the COVID-19 Pandemic hitting their finances so badly, MANY theatres are going to GO UPSCALE with much larger IMAX-style screens, larger seats and more impressive digital projection technology that scales to IMAX-sizes. While that does mean more expensive ticket prices, it also means a MUCH BETTER and more GRAND movie watching experience!

This means we need LARGER SENSORS in order to "film" those movies and display them on-screen at higher resolutions. The SWEET SPOT for the next 20 years for digital film production SHOULD BE DCI 8K (8192 by 4320 pixel aka 1:89:1 aspect ratio) resolution at 16-bits per RGB colour channel (48-bit colour!) using cameras with 70mm by 38 mm sensors using 8 microns as their photosites sizes ....OR.... even LARGER SENSORS such as 120mm by 64mm using 14 microns as the photosite sizes.

Such VERY LARGE SENSORS would have the ability to show near-human-eye dynamic range, greater colour depth and large-screen projectability that would up-size the enjoyability of the moviegoing experience in theatres AND on large 65 inch+ DCI 8K home displays!

Larger image sensors ARE the way of the future and that means video-oriented sensor sizes for MF (Medium Format) at 56mm by 30mm sensors using 6.5 micron photosites, LF (Large Format) at 70mm by 38mm using 8 micron photosites and IMAX-style at 120 mm by 64 mm sensor sizes using 14 micron photosites. The dynamic range would be on the order of a TRUE 17 to 20 stops making for a truly wonderful and colourful rendition of any given cinematic world!

The LENSES used for such larger image sensors can go to Optical Grade All-Acrylic lens elements to reduce weight AND increase light-gathering power because Acrylic has a Refractive index of 1.495 versus 1.387 for fluorite glass lens elements so MORE light is gathered before rendering onto each photosite. Manufacturers can easily SOLVE the sun-caused yellowing and embrittlement issue BY COATING the acrylic lenses properly with indium, magnesium fluoride, gold and even platinum at nanometre scales for optimizing specific optical properties.

And once large-scale artificial diamond manufacturing FINALLY comes to consumer-level price points we can use its 2.418 refractive index to make the world's BEST QUALITY and HIGHEST LIGHT GATHERING POWER lens elements!

Coming soon to a theatre near you!

V
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: filmmakerken

jam05

EOS RP
Mar 12, 2019
284
138
----

"...But as some one that works in the industry maybe you can tell me what problem I have that only a larger sensor will solve? Noise? I don't have noise problems I know how to light. DOF? In video things move. Often the camera and the subject are moving at the same time. ..."

--

As a person who is used to shooting 70mm (Arriflex-65 film AND Alexa-65 CMOS cameras), I have found that wide-dynamic range daytime imaging of landscapes/vistas and NIGHT IMAGING is and should be the prime use of such sensors.

When trying to shoot a firelight scene (i.e. see the movie The Revenant as an example), you need the LARGEST sensor photosites (or film area!) you can get. Such high 4k, 8k, and even 16k resolutions we see today are MOSTLY IRRELEVANT when I actually need LARGER photosites which give me more dynamic range (i.e. the difference between the brightest and darkest parts of an image).

While I can do a "Light the Night" scenario with a GREAT Key Gaffer (i.e. lead lighting specialist) by ADDING lighting to a scene, many times I just want the NATURAL and INTIMATE look of a low-light scene to play out WITHOUT all the artificiality of a larger movie set.

The OTHER reason for larger sensors is in WIDE LANDSCAPES! There is an intrinsic BIGNESS attributable to large sensor imaging that makes such grand-vista scenes SEEM to stand out more. I was luckily able to first watch Interstellar on 70mm film and when I saw it on normal digital S-35 during a second screening, I just could NOT get over the LACK OF DEPTH and FEELING the Super-35 version had when compared to the BIG AND WIDE nature of actual 70mm film!

In my opinion, within 20 Years and BECAUSE of the COVID-19 Pandemic hitting their finances so badly, MANY theatres are going to GO UPSCALE with much larger IMAX-style screens, larger seats and more impressive digital projection technology that scales to IMAX-sizes. While that does mean more expensive ticket prices, it also means a MUCH BETTER and more GRAND movie watching experience!

This means we need LARGER SENSORS in order to "film" those movies and display them on-screen at higher resolutions. The SWEET SPOT for the next 20 years for digital film production SHOULD BE DCI 8K (8192 by 4320 pixel aka 1:89:1 aspect ratio) resolution at 16-bits per RGB colour channel (48-bit colour!) using cameras with 70mm by 38 mm sensors using 8 microns as their photosites sizes ....OR.... even LARGER SENSORS such as 120mm by 64mm using 14 microns as the photosite sizes.

Such VERY LARGE SENSORS would have the ability to show near-human-eye dynamic range, greater colour depth and large-screen projectability that would up-size the enjoyability of the moviegoing experience in theatres AND on large 65 inch+ DCI 8K home displays!

Larger image sensors ARE the way of the future and that means video-oriented sensor sizes for MF (Medium Format) at 56mm by 30mm sensors using 6.5 micron photosites, LF (Large Format) at 70mm by 38mm using 8 micron photosites and IMAX-style at 120 mm by 64 mm sensor sizes using 14 micron photosites. The dynamic range would be on the order of a TRUE 17 to 20 stops making for a truly wonderful and colourful rendition of any given cinematic world!

The LENSES used for such larger image sensors can go to Optical Grade All-Acrylic lens elements to reduce weight AND increase light-gathering power because Acrylic has a Refractive index of 1.495 versus 1.387 for fluorite glass lens elements so MORE light is gathered before rendering onto each photosite. Manufacturers can easily SOLVE the sun-caused yellowing and embrittlement issue BY COATING the acrylic lenses properly with indium, magnesium fluoride, gold and even platinum at nanometre scales for optimizing specific optical properties.

And once large-scale artificial diamond manufacturing FINALLY comes to consumer-level price points we can use its 2.418 refractive index to make the world's BEST QUALITY and HIGHEST LIGHT GATHERING POWER lens elements!

Coming soon to a theatre near you!

V
Near human eye? The human eye doesn't even see as a camera sees, let alone everything that a lens and camera image processor captures. The human brain doesn't even process everything that the eye sees. It simply isn't the way vision works with the human eye and brain. The brain will process what it desires, NOT as a camera lens.