Depends on how you look at it. If it means that future firmware updates are aimed primarily at improving the stills capability, then perhaps it will be a blessing for many R5 owners (myself included).
Upvote
0
Confirmed, a Canon EOS R5c is going to be announced this year [CR3]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Depends on how you look at it. If it means that future firmware updates are aimed primarily at improving the stills capability, then perhaps it will be a blessing for many R5 owners (myself included).
I don’t mind the codec format, but more so the amount of space used to achieve that codec. The C70 shoots way less, but looks just as good, if not better in 4K. I think I said that right lol.
The data rates are just insane. I’ve heard some people talk about proress being implemented. Is that even an option?
Upvote
0
fan needing bigger body for cooling and thus no overheating makes sense, it's a hardware upgrade.
But how on earth does Canon not 'cripple' their still new R5 if they offer C-Log2 and other software only features on the same hardware (besides cooler) in an R5c?
I feel ripped off as it is.... this would be another bummer.
At least go and offer firmware addons people can pick and pay for. 50 bucks for CLOG2... ok. 50 bucks for waveforms. H264 codec, focus-spot bound metering etc etc.
But no... Canon just claims it doesn't cripple their cameras ... right. Who are they fooling? Sadly most. Why would they change their behavior if most customers don't mind spending the money and not even complain?
I'm a more or less happy Canon shooter, 'stuck' with many lenses, never switched to Sony because of that and because I like many things about Canon better.
I'm mostly happy with the R5 but eager for a policy change from Canon towards higher frequency firmware upgrades. Make money with hardware, provide the best software you can, charge for addons if you must but don't expect most people purchasing cameras more frequently when all that is missing is Canon's will to SUPPORT their own product properly.
But how on earth does Canon not 'cripple' their still new R5 if they offer C-Log2 and other software only features on the same hardware (besides cooler) in an R5c?
I feel ripped off as it is.... this would be another bummer.
At least go and offer firmware addons people can pick and pay for. 50 bucks for CLOG2... ok. 50 bucks for waveforms. H264 codec, focus-spot bound metering etc etc.
But no... Canon just claims it doesn't cripple their cameras ... right. Who are they fooling? Sadly most. Why would they change their behavior if most customers don't mind spending the money and not even complain?
I'm a more or less happy Canon shooter, 'stuck' with many lenses, never switched to Sony because of that and because I like many things about Canon better.
I'm mostly happy with the R5 but eager for a policy change from Canon towards higher frequency firmware upgrades. Make money with hardware, provide the best software you can, charge for addons if you must but don't expect most people purchasing cameras more frequently when all that is missing is Canon's will to SUPPORT their own product properly.
Upvote
0
It’s almost like he already knew that and stated cLog 2 for a reason.
It’s pretty clear the point he is making and it’s valid. Not to mention do you remember the 1DC and the accompanying price? $12k ....in 2012.
Upvote
0
what does that have to do with my statement?
yes of course I knew that C-Log 3 is supposed to come out for the R5. But why not C-Log2 as well, it's not like it would cost them a lot of work adding it. C-Log2 offers more dynamic range, that's just a fact. So why wouldn't they offer it but instead now announce it for the R5c? It's shameful.
taken from this website:
Canon Log 3 vs. Canon Log 2 Side by Side 4K Comparison
Filmmaker and post-production professional, Jon Carr took compares Canon Log 3 vs Canon Log 2 on the C300 Mark II with the latest firmware.
www.4kshooters.net
or here:
No need to discuss the differences between the log formats here, C-Log2 just offers more dynamic range, period. My question and frustration remains, it is an artificial castration of features and half a year ago or so some Canon manager was interviewed regarding crippling their models and the answer was 'no'... which is obviously not truthful.
Give me the firmware and I will add focus spot related metering in a couple of days/weeks, I'm a good enough programmer of high efficiency code for image analysis to pull this off, it could maybe be done in a day if you knew your way around the firmware already. Laughable. I bet you they'll offer it the the R1 and R5 users will keep thinking that it's a hardware limit... right... every phone can do it but the 4500€ camera with a throughput of 30frames 8K a second can't ... LOL
Oh and 99 frame limit in the intervalometer. How about the record limit even though the EU got rid of the import tax on photo cameras being able to record longer video.
... stuff like that is just comical, there are artificial limitations off all categories and technical difficulty, from something that's clearly just a single line of code to copying the same code from another camera, I honestly don't know why not more customers keep mail-bombing the support but at least I and some others will continue to do so.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
@randfee I only mentioned clog3 because you said 'and other software only features'. I did not realize you were after the clog2 over clog3 for the extra stop of DR... or that you even knew clog3 was coming. I was just pointing out a 'free' upgrade was coming to possibly point a light at the end of the tunnel.
Upvote
0
what does that have to do with my statement?
yes of course I knew that C-Log 3 is supposed to come out for the R5. But why not C-Log2 as well, it's not like it would cost them a lot of work adding it. C-Log2 offers more dynamic range, that's just a fact. So why wouldn't they offer it but instead now announce it for the R5c? It's shameful.
taken from this website:
Canon Log 3 vs. Canon Log 2 Side by Side 4K Comparison
Filmmaker and post-production professional, Jon Carr took compares Canon Log 3 vs Canon Log 2 on the C300 Mark II with the latest firmware.
or here:
No need to discuss the differences between the log formats here, C-Log2 just offers more dynamic range, period. My question and frustration remains, it is an artificial castration of features and half a year ago or so some Canon manager was interviewed regarding crippling their models and the answer was 'no'... which is obviously not truthful.
Give me the firmware and I will add focus spot related metering in a couple of days/weeks, I'm a good enough programmer of high efficiency code for image analysis to pull this off, it could maybe be done in a day if you knew your way around the firmware already. Laughable. I bet you they'll offer it the the R1 and R5 users will keep thinking that it's a hardware limit... right... every phone can do it but the 4500€ camera with a throughput of 30frames 8K a second can't ... LOL
Oh and 99 frame limit in the intervalometer. How about the record limit even though the EU got rid of the import tax on photo cameras being able to record longer video.
... stuff like that is just comical, there are artificial limitations off all categories and technical difficulty, from something that's clearly just a single line of code to copying the same code from another camera, I honestly don't know why not more customers keep mail-bombing the support but at least I and some others will continue to do so.
This is the one.Its crazy. Creators have never had more incentive to work on video and grow into a “cinema” camera and the entry is the $5500 S35 C70 just to not have a record limit .... Then you still have to buy a “photo”camera.
Man I love my Cameras, it just feels like your getting the short end of the stick and kind of takes the fun out of it when you want to try some of the new things, and the answer is go buy a cinema camera, when a thousand dollar Sony can shoot unlimited in Slog-3 powered by usb to two card slots and the R5 can’t do any of it. Lol
Upvote
0
Canon only puts ProRes in the C700.
Since the Z CAM E2-M4 has it and only costs $1,500 I can only assume that it is not the cost of the license that is making Canon leave it off.
(I intentionally left off BMPCC 4K because I assume Black Magic must have some arrangement with Apple since they also make external recorders.)
Upvote
0
Prores won't be smaller than HEVC. The whole point of HEVC is it's compact.
I don't see a serious data rate difference between the C70 and the R5 when looking at apples to apples
XF-AVC 4096 x 2160 YCC422 @25p (10bit/410Mbps Intra)
4K (29.97p/25.00p/24.00p/23.98p): ALL-I Approx. 470 Mbps
If anything the R5 might be lower at 25p.
Upvote
0
That's not true anymore.
Resolve added support with version 17.1 on intel platforms. Adobe released what they called tigerlake features. I can only guess they meant 4.2.2 support.
Intel has supported 4.2.2. 10 bit 265 since Icelake IGPU. Tigerlake and Rocketlake add 12bit support.
Upvote
0
Adobe Premiere Pro User Guide
Somebody want to ask Adobe what exactly that means?
Blackmagic Forum • View topic - Release of DaVinci Resolve Studio 17.1
Upvote
0
Yes, but no one uses the Intel GPU. The first thing most people do when they build or buy a PC is to put in an Nvidia or AMD GPU because overall they are much more powerful. I don't have any of those Intel processors because overall, they're much weaker than the latest AMD processors. I'm not sure who would take out their more powerful GPU just to use the internal Intel GPU. Plus, you need the software to recognize and use the features of the GPU. Just because Ice Lake, Tiger Lake, etc. support the codec doesn't mean the software supports it. If it's easy to flip back and forth between choosing which GPU to use for decoding/encode, that would be fantastic. I would love to hear from Resolve users how fast it is to edit h.265 10-bit 4:2:2 EOS R5 footage with the latest Intel processors.
And just so you know, these terms such as ice Lake, Tiger Lake, etc. refer to the project name that Intel had internally for that line of processors. Ice Lake is Intel's 10th generation processor line. Rocket Lake is the 11th generation. When you are writing about Adobe, it means that Adobe has added software support for those processors to utilize hardware decoding/encoding for (in this case) h.265 10-bit 4:2:2. I am very interested if this is the case as I haven't heard anyone reviewing how the new Intel Xe graphics do with editing this footage.
I'm not a Resolve user anyway. I'm completely familiar with Adobe Premiere and don't intend to switch.
And Adobe improving performance in h.264/HEVC... we'll wait to see what that means. Adobe is always slow with improving GPU support. With Lightroom, a ton of stuff is still only done on the CPU instead of the GPU. For example, if you're just encoding the picture, the GPU is used and the image is generated very quickly. But if you start doing multiple masks, it switches to a lot of CPU instead. I will give Adobe credit for slowly improving. They just don't improve as fast as other companies.
You're referring to a VERY recent Resolve update that was released only a couple weeks ago:
Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:56 am
What's new in DaVinci Resolve Studio 17.1
• Support for Apple Silicon based Mac OS systems.
• H.265 4:2:2 hardware decode support on Apple Silicon.
• H.265 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 Intel decode support in DaVinci Resolve Studio.
• H.265 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 Intel encode support in DaVinci Resolve Studio.
• Support for GPU decoding of RED clips in OpenCL processing mode.
• Option to always perform copy and paste actions on selected color nodes.
• General performance and stability improvements.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Hopefully next week I'll know.
You don't need to take out your GPU. You go into preferences. Set decode to use Intel Quicksync. The main GPU remains for all the other work.
I think you'd be surprised how many people over the years have used Quicksync. Both Premiere and Resolve supported hardware encoding much earlier for Quicksync than anything else.
If you go to Puget Systems they have a test they did last year comparing an AMD 3900x with an Nvidia 3800 versus an Intel 10900k using Quick Sync. The test didn't factor in 4.2.2 but it'll give you an idea how fast Quick Sync decode can be.
Upvote
0
Can you point to an article? I found this article (https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...264-H-265-Hardware-Encoding-Performance-1778/) but it doesn't detail any 10-bit 4:2:2 decoding/encoding. Intel QuickSync didn't look good compared to the other cards.
Upvote
0
The test is from last year and doesn't deal with 4.2.2. If they're doing that test they would likely be under NDA until next week. Here is the test I was talking about
Premiere Pro GPU Decoding for H.264 and HEVC media - is it faster?
In the latest version of Premiere Pro, Adobe has added support for GPU-based H264/H.265 (HEVC) hardware decoding with both NVIDIA and AMD GPUs. How well does this feature work, and is it faster than the previous hardware decoding that utilized Intel Quick Sync?
www.pugetsystems.com
IF we get similar performance with 4.2.2 that solves the R5 playback issue.
Upvote
0
I should have clarified. All formats on the C70 work flawlessly in premier pro. The R5 needs proress transcoding or proxies.
But the c70 4k120 is a lot smaller than the R5.
Upvote
0
The test is from last year and doesn't deal with 4.2.2. If they're doing that test they would likely be under NDA until next week. Here is the test I was talking about
Premiere Pro GPU Decoding for H.264 and HEVC media - is it faster?
In the latest version of Premiere Pro, Adobe has added support for GPU-based H264/H.265 (HEVC) hardware decoding with both NVIDIA and AMD GPUs. How well does this feature work, and is it faster than the previous hardware decoding that utilized Intel Quick Sync?
IF we get similar performance with 4.2.2 that solves the R5 playback issue.
Yes, I can't wait to see some results!
I did see this in the comments from a user:
Thanks for this test. I think what's missing here is the look at the situation for 4k material with 10-bit 4:2:2 colorsampling in h.265, which you find in more and more cameras. And all NVIDIA Geforce GPU's - even the new ones - do not support hardware accelaration of 4:2:2 material. They support 10-bit 4:2:0 (like the mavic pro 2 has), or even 4:4:4 but not 4:2:2. And also Quick-Sync only support h.265 4:2:2 10-bit in it's latest mobile processors (Ice & Tiger Lake) but in the desktop processors only with the Rocket Lake generation which will come out next year. So you have to keep that in mind, when planning a new Editing PC. What I do not know: what about the professional NVIDIA GPUs and in generell AMD GPUs. Maybe you have other informations about that.
Upvote
0
That's the problem nothing else does this on PCs. Nvidia has published their decode/encode chart and nothing for anything they've made. Not consumer. Not Quadro. AMD I haven't found anything similar.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
