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

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
1,739
601
Davidson, NC
If Super 35 was good enough for Titanic it couldn't be too half bad.

I don't shoot enough video to worry about. For years I have had an annual project of shooting after hours basketball pick up games. Last year I was in Denmark when they happened. This summer they didn't happen. Lately, I have just done time-lapse animation in Photoshop of a couple sunsets from pictures I shot in Europe a year ago. I realized that I had taken enough stills that I could put them together to fake a movie. With some motivation I could probably do a more believable version now that I know more what I am doing, but it was a bit of fun to do. One was from my hotel window in Assisi and the other looking at our cruise ship in the sunken caldera at Santorini. I've also set up my camera in the front room of my house and shot actual time lapse to see what I'd get.

But I am interested in video formats and how they relate to different sorts of cameras. I pick up odds and ends here, but really don't understand what is happening especially when still cameras shoot video. I see terms thrown around that I vaguely understand. People are passionate about things that make me wonder why. Just at an elementary level I can't see how a 3:2 camera would shoot 16:9 pictures without cropping, but that is apparently crucial to folks. (I don't think anamorphic trickery is going on, is it?)

Which reminds me, happy Mole Day!
mole.gif
 

jvillain

EOS RP
Sep 29, 2018
208
147
----

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).
Larger photosites allow you to gather more light. But they also fill with light faster as well so have no effect on dynamic range. The dynamic range of the Arri's is also due to other factors in their design which every one keeps skipping over. There are 1000 factors that play into the light gathering, noise and dynamic range capabilities of a sensor. The size of a photosite is only one of those. If you look at sensor tech you will see more and more sensors capable of capturing two images one to gather low light and the other to gather the bright areas which are combined into an HDR mage. Same as we do with 32 bit float in audio now. That will eventually make photosite size irrelevant to dynamic range.

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.
This is shot on MFT. It's the man not the machine.

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!
So now we are talking about film? I thought we were talking digital. Your aware that the new 12K Ursa mini has pretty well the same resolution as IMAX film? It comes in a more pleaseing DCI ratio as well, as opposed to the IMAX ratio. If you have the resolution you can put digital on any size film you want but most theaters are digital now. 2K digital.

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.
There will be a vaccine within the next couple of years, that is if the Russian ones don't already work. Covid won't be around other than isolated hot spots for 20 years. But the movie industry does have structural problems. I am old enough to have seen Lawrence of Arabia, Ben Hur and others in their original runs. But the world is heading in the opposite direction. Most people are happy watching movies on their cell phones or tablets. Those that still care have a decent home theater setup. The traditional movie chains under Trump got a lot of the laws removed that blocked their predatory douche baggery. Free to abuse their power the big studios will blow their brains out again like they have done over and over. Theaters are going away. Many won't survive the next year never mind 20.
 

jvillain

EOS RP
Sep 29, 2018
208
147
But I am interested in video formats and how they relate to different sorts of cameras. I pick up odds and ends here, but really don't understand what is happening especially when still cameras shoot video. I see terms thrown around that I vaguely understand. People are passionate about things that make me wonder why. Just at an elementary level I can't see how a 3:2 camera would shoot 16:9 pictures without cropping, but that is apparently crucial to folks. (I don't think anamorphic trickery is going on, is it?)
Keep asking. There are a number of different things that happen with formats. Some good, some bad. In the case of a hybrid camera with a 4x3 sensor to get to 16x9 or wider 2.35:1 in camera they crop. You can stick an anamorphic lens in front of it and that can be a better solution but anamorphic lenses can get pretty expensive pretty fast. But they do have a special look that isn't replicated well using post tricks. If you want to be able to monitor some thing shot with an anamorphic leans you really want a camera that will handle the desqueeze in camera or have an external monitor that can handle it. Most hybrids won't.

I still shoot some video stuff on the 'R' from time to time. Mostly for gimbal shots. If I take the output from it but want to go wide screen I bring the whole image into my editor and then use blanking in the time line to get the correct format which is a fancy way to say cropping in post. The benefit to not letting the camera do it is that it gives you the opportunity to move the image around a bit if you didn't frame it exactly right when shooting. It is shocking how much of your image you lose if you correct a horizon by just 1 deg. The down side to not letting the camera do it is that your files end up bigger. Pick which ever one better suites your needs.
 

HarryFilm

EOS RP
Jun 6, 2016
638
139
Larger photosites allow you to gather more light. But they also fill with light faster as well so have no effect on dynamic range. The dynamic range of the Arri's is also due to other factors in their design which every one keeps skipping over. There are 1000 factors that play into the light gathering, noise and dynamic range capabilities of a sensor. The size of a photosite is only one of those. If you look at sensor tech you will see more and more sensors capable of capturing two images one to gather low light and the other to gather the bright areas which are combined into an HDR mage. Same as we do with 32 bit float in audio now. That will eventually make photosite size irrelevant to dynamic range.



This is shot on MFT. It's the man not the machine.



So now we are talking about film? I thought we were talking digital. Your aware that the new 12K Ursa mini has pretty well the same resolution as IMAX film? It comes in a more pleaseing DCI ratio as well, as opposed to the IMAX ratio. If you have the resolution you can put digital on any size film you want but most theaters are digital now. 2K digital.



There will be a vaccine within the next couple of years, that is if the Russian ones don't already work. Covid won't be around other than isolated hot spots for 20 years. But the movie industry does have structural problems. I am old enough to have seen Lawrence of Arabia, Ben Hur and others in their original runs. But the world is heading in the opposite direction. Most people are happy watching movies on their cell phones or tablets. Those that still care have a decent home theater setup. The traditional movie chains under Trump got a lot of the laws removed that blocked their predatory douche baggery. Free to abuse their power the big studios will blow their brains out again like they have done over and over. Theaters are going away. Many won't survive the next year never mind 20.
===

With the RIGHT PEOPLE you can use a CELL PHONE to create incredible video!

But in this case where a prosumer, a film student or a 1 to 5 years experienced cinematographer + director want to explore lighting and camera, they should more focus on larger photosite size and better quality lenses if they've got their OTHER filmmaking aspects down pat.

Many modern hybrid cameras with larger photosites (i.e. Canon 1dx2 or 1Dc, Sony A7s2/3, etc) don't usually saturate the photo-wells because the base CMOS light-gathering substrate has been optimized to NOT blast-out the highlights (i.e. have over-sensitivity). It is USUALLY the DSP chip that affects the quality of the final image. This overt and highly-specific optimization of APS-C and FF hybrid cameras lets one choose between colour depth and dynamic range versus file recording size. In my opinion, most pros SHOULD be shooting at least in 10-bit, 12-bit or 14-bit RAW for the BEST colour rendition which will let you recover shadows that look crushed during initial capture but will be brought out properly when colour correcting.

For those starting out, find a camera that can shoot 10, 12 or 14-bit RAW 4:4:4 and has an APS-C or Full Frame sensor if you are shooting 4K and get the FASTEST LENS you can afford (i.e. f/1.2 stills or a T2 cinema lens!)

In terms of FRAME SIZE, I was merely mentioning a QUALITATIVE difference between the "Sensor Size" of 70mm vs 35 mm imaging, even though I know I am comparing dissimilar formats such as film and digital projection. The resolution and clarity differences was actually quite astounding between the projection formats even though I know Interstellar was mostly shot on high resolution film stock but projected digitally in S-35 in most theatres.

Since Film IS going mostly towards a niche market, the MAJORITY of image capture systems will likely increase in sensor size starting with 56mm Medium Format sensors, which SHOULD allow for an increase in both colour depth (i.e. up to 16 bit per RGB channel!) and a much smoother dynamic range allowing for extreme contrast ratios being NICELY rendered on-screen.

I really do THINK that the future of cinema production is going be HYBRID video cameras with medium format (56mm), Large Format (70mm) and IMAX (120 mm) CMOS global shutter sensors. The Alexa-65 is already paving the way AND WITHIN TWO to FIVE YEARS I expect to see that type of MF sensor camera stuffed into a hybrid body maybe a little larger than the Canon 1Dx3!

While Hollywood Cinema will STILL want an Actual Arri Alexa-65 camera for big budget production, the AVERAGE Netflix or Apple+ Series and Online Movie production will be shot on smaller hybrid camera bodies with larger sensors due to budget constraints. EVERY camera manufacturer worth their salt WILL and MUST introduce an MF 4K or MF 8K sensor hybrid camera body SOONER rather than LATER if they want to keep their own marketshare from being upended by some fast-and-hungry player LIKE Blackmagic.

In fact, I would not be surprised if Blackmagic IS ALREADY working on an MF sensor hybrid camera body that will be designed for the run-n-gun small-crew filmmaker. A DCI 4K 56mm MF sensor with 16 bit colour and 60 fps in a Blackmagic Pocket Camera-like body (with a bigger mount) priced at $5500 to $6500 USD would be a PRETTY COMPELLING PRODUCT for the new guys/gals coming into the video production arena!

So long it has a two hour battery life (i.e. use a bigger hand-grip) and AT LEAST two hours recording time onto a removable SATA-6+ internal SSD drive (i.e. $400 for 4 Terabytes), it would make Sony, Canon, Fuji and Panasonic QUAKE in their boots!

In terms of the major theatre chains, I would say 70% of theatres will close permanently within the next 5 years and the OTHER 30% left over will be IMAX-size screens with DCI 8K at 60 fps or 120 fps digital projection. Ticket prices will rise to around $25 to $40 ...BUT.... the seats will be a LOT NICER and concession stands will move onto carts with staff that deliver snacks and drinks DIRECTLY to your seat before the movie! You will even be able to order a glass of wine/beer in the new setups! These will be very much like VIP screenings with lots of little luxuries BUT at a much higher price. Everyone else will just have to stay home and watch their Hollywood movies on Netflix and Apple+.

This COVID-19 has already and WILL CONTINUE to change the Hollywood Production industry and ALL OTHER sorts of image-making. Directors, Producers, Cinematographers and the associated professionals in the industry MUST ADAPT otherwise they just won't get hired NOR will they be able to sell their imagery to any distributor.

The ONLY IMMEDIATE beneficiaries I see are the Disney's, the Netflix'es, the Apple+'s and the Viacoms of the world who ALREADY have theatre AND online distribution DOWN PAT. You'll be ADAPTING to their rules and formats sooner rather than later, or you just won't get any production work or be selling/renting/leasing any films! What has happened to Bricks and Mortar businesses will happen to video production. It will be the Amazon Effect, where ONLY A FEW TITANS dominate the general public's viewing needs and there will be a much smaller secondary market with only a few NICHE players that cater to up-scale customers. Ergo, you'll be either producing/directing/working a possibly dull/dreary life for the Amazons/Walmarts of moviemaking OR you will niche yourself upscale into the Nordstroms of moviemaking!

THIS IS GONNA BE A HECK OF A SHAKE-OUT in the next five years!

How will YOU ADAPT and CHANGE to meet the demands of those monster-sized and/or niche-sized players?

Or will you just decide it's no longer worth it and go back to working for Uncle Bob in his mind-numbing but solid-paying salaried office clerk job?!

YOU DECIDE!

V
 
Last edited:

adrian_bacon

EOS M50
Aug 12, 2020
32
25
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?
they stay with super 35 because most of the lenses made for shooting movies cover that image circle. “Full frame” as a stills photographer knows it was never really a thing in hollywood, and in pro ENG type video, super 35 is a huge sensor because most of that historically has been 1/3 or 2/3 type sensors.
 

adrian_bacon

EOS M50
Aug 12, 2020
32
25
I'd rather have Canon work on solid 2K than mess with 8K.
Canon has had solid 2K since the C100. That was a super35 sensor that was natively 4K and downsampled to 2K, had Canon Log and clean 4:2:2 HDMI out. It has (even by today's standards) excellent high ISO performance and very good dynamic range. If that isn't solid 2K then what is? Even today on their Cinema cameras, the lower resolution modes typically are downsampled from the native sensor and have extremely good lower resolution video. There's not much else to do in 2K land except maybe higher bit depths or faster frame rates, but then you're getting into speciality shots and stuff, not all around video performance. They've been at a place in their cinema cameras for a while now where the 2K really isn't going to look much better than it does now. Their 4K is getting there. When they hit a native 8K sensor, their 4K output will be the same quality level as the C100 2K output since like the C100, they'll have a native 2:1 downsampling. You're not going to get much more detail and resolution than that at a given recording resolution. The same goes for bit depth. 8 bits is usable for a lot of stuff, 10 bits is really usable. More bits than that and you're really only covering more specialized shooting scenarios. The same for color resolution. 4:2:0 is good for a lot, 4:2:2 covers most everything else, 4:4:4 won't make much of a difference except in very specific instances.