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.
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?
Actually, they do, e.g. sample I, sample II, and sample III. FF glass vignettes less at S35 corners than it does at FF corners, and with longer focal lengths it might be very little, but AFAIK physics dictates that it would.
to do 8k with debayering? Would make sense and is - as far as i understood the R5 - the same
So 8k in bright light and 4k in dimmer light / at higher ISOs - just well mastered 2k would be
sufficient in low light scenes.
C300 and downward are S35 but Sony might force Canon's hand.
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.
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.
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.
8k on my R5 is incredible detailed, but I rarely have any use for it...
"...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!