Jump to content

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

CineD results a different story:

https://www.cined.com/canon-eos-r5-c-lab-test-rolling-shutter-dynamic-range-and-latitude/[/url]

The Canon EOS R5 C shows a mixed bag in our lab test. Rolling shutter values are quite good (but not exceptional), the internally recorded Canon 12 bit Cinema RAW Light LT is super noisy – so you have to plan applying noise reduction in post.
 

Hmm, interesting additional data point. Looks like the A1 is still the one to beat for 8K image quality.. if 30p is sufficient.

 

Summary

The Canon EOS R5 C shows a mixed bag in our lab test. Rolling shutter values are quite good (but not exceptional), the internally recorded Canon 12 bit Cinema RAW Light LT is super noisy – so you have to plan applying noise reduction in post.

The internally recorded 10bit 8K H265 CLog3 (no CLog 2 available yet) shows a real improvement over the Canon EOS R5, but dynamic range is still quite average looking at the competition from Panasonic and Sony in that price bracket.

Latitude results show 7 stops, confirming the average dynamic range results. For a consumer full frame camera, 8 stops is the benchmark for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dreifish said:

Hmm, interesting additional data point. Looks like the A1 is still the one to beat for 8K image quality.. if 30p is sufficient.

 

No hardware will be able to decode 8k60fps 

This whole 8K idea is a bit too early considering the fact 4K is just now picking up and is only covered by online streaming and no broadcast

Obviously Tv is changing but the time until it becomes completely digital is very very long and anything that gets done needs to go on satellite and aerial

Phones support HDR though so we need to see who gets there first 

For me 4k60 is plenty to take and underwater output in 30p is totally fine things move slowly most times. If we talk about birds, squirrels rabbits ok even 120fps but fish is really slow in comparison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/8/2022 at 9:57 AM, Interceptor121 said:

That is a definite mistake for the GH6 from Nauticam

The camera has the best codecs to record on card and instead no battery pack and the usual M24 big cable that makes the set up much less sturdy

I really do not understand the logic of doing a housing for a camera that is totally video orientated that is really for stills and for that reason I will not be investing in it despite I have the camera

If a manufacturer wants to have a chat with me on how to design a proper video orientated housing for the GH6 they can give me a call

I started discussions with aquatica but they too went out and made exactly the same mistake of nauticam

It is very disappointing the lack of understanding of housing manufacturers and this seems entirely to depend on who they talk to when they design a solution

So there is a battery pack for the R5C that has mediocre codecs on card but can record prores raw and then does not need the battery instead for the GH6 that has a relatively small battery pack and great codecs on card nothing

I wrote all of those things early march

https://interceptor121.com/2022/03/02/panasonic-gh6-my-preliminary-key-observations-for-underwater-use/

i totally agree with you: GH6 Nauticam housing is a total nonsense. It should have been a cinema camera housing since GH5.

I really don't understand who decide and design new products. One image says all on housing manufacturers design.

Who is the filmmaker who use a monitor underwater in this way? And this is how they thought about their product. A Babel Tower!

The harsh reality is that we are victims of photographers and WP is proof of that.

monitor_DSLR_Logo_2.jpg

 

Edited by Davide DB
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Davide DB said:

i totally agree with you: GH6 Nauticam housing is a total nonsense. It should have been a cinema camera housing since GH5.

I really don't understand who decide and design new products. One image says all on housing manufacturers design.

Who is the filmmaker who use a monitor underwater in this way? And this is how they thought about their product. A Babel Tower!

The harsh reality is that we are victims of photographers and WP is proof of that.

monitor_DSLR_Logo_2.jpg

 

I do not know

I had a long discussion on the handles that are bent forward and are useless but I was told this was the design feedback from 'experts'

I then asked why the A7S3 for example does not have handles angled forward and did not get an answer

You can of course use a longer arm and put the monitor back mounted the rig becomes elongated like a videocamera...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

You can of course use a longer arm and put the monitor back mounted the rig becomes elongated like a videocamera...

No you can't or just partially because the cable length and bulkhead position are chosen with that design in mind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No you can't or just partially because the cable length and bulkhead position are chosen with that design in mind

If the monitor has a mount top and bottom it is possible to put it behind the camera someone has done it already


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

No hardware will be able to decode 8k60fps 

I can confirm that the Macbook Pro with M1 Max and 32 core GPU can play play back and edit 8k60fps Canon Cinema RAW LT footage perfectly smoothly.

I agree that 60p is fast enough for underwater footage. 120p is largely overkill. 30p is fine most of the time. As for whether 8k is needed.. no, not yet. But it's all about future-proofing stock footage for me for natural history purposes. There, 8k does indeed have value.

Btw, with custom manual white balance under a 50000 kelvin light -- A1 does produce slightly cleaner, less contrasty  files than the R5 C. Not that skin tones look great under such teal light..

File A

SonyA1_1.1.1.thumb.jpg.aa48b13eeb55a4c0faf7959a03fbfcb1.jpg

File BCanonR5C_1.2.1.thumb.jpg.16496b4697736f3fcceb912ff657f0b0.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not going to produce those files as output of your process. You are likely to output x265 10 bits 420 with good level of compression or your files will be huge
Those output files won’t play on majority of machines out there


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

You are not going to produce those files as output of your process. You are likely to output x265 10 bits 420 with good level of compression or your files will be huge
Those output files won’t play on majority of machines out there


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you mean 8k h.265 files in 10-bit, either 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 chroma subsampling, then yes, that's a challenging codec on most older machines. Newer generation processors and graphics cards though have dedicated decoder/encoder chips that make it manageable. Here's a good chart. You can also add M1 & M2 Macs to the list.. they actually have the fastest hardware decoders for h.265, both 4:2:2 and 4:2:0.

1421482364_ScreenShot2022-07-13at11_41_15AM.thumb.png.f7cf14bc26f47ef6a6250fe61af3cbb2.png

10 bit 4:2:0 files should play back fine on any machine from the past 3 years or so. 4:2:2 files are more troublesome. There you need a 11th or 12th generation Intel processor or an M1/M2 mac. 

Edited by dreifish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dreifish said:

If you mean 8k h.265 files in 10-bit, either 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 chroma subsampling, then yes, that's a challenging codec on most older machines. Newer generation processors and graphics cards though have dedicated decoder/encoder chips that make it manageable. Here's a good chart. You can also add M1 & M2 Macs to the list.. they actually have the fastest hardware decoders for h.265, both 4:2:2 and 4:2:0.

1421482364_ScreenShot2022-07-13at11_41_15AM.thumb.png.f7cf14bc26f47ef6a6250fe61af3cbb2.png

It is a bit more complicated than this

Unless you play your file locally you will need to compress it. On wireless LAN you are looking at around 50mbps 

In order to get the file so compressed you will need to apply many settings that will fry the machine for the encode

When it comes to playback

As no laptop have 8K resolution you will look at a screen with HMDMI 2.1 currently over £3K as the bandwidth of uncompressed RGB is massive

For streaming to work reliably at 50 mbps it is also a very high requirement if you wanted to use an online service

So the only platform that will actually playback your 8K file is going to be a Tv either from USB or HDMI 2.1 or from a very strong LAN connection 

The rest of the devices will playback a scaled version of your file 

But then why exactly did you shoot 8K I guess it is my question

Today 4K works fine with Tv sets also in HDR bandwidth requirements are 15-20 mbps which is aligned to performance of most wireless LAN and internet connections

I do believe there may be a case of scaling down to 4K for delivery more pixels can help but then I am ok to have the camera doing it internally for me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Interceptor121 said:

But then why exactly did you shoot 8K I guess it is my question

I'm not shooting 8k video for personal consumption or to share with friends and family.. that's overkill. I don't have an 8k TV to display it on and no plans to purchase one in the next few years. I personally think the case for 8k resolution at standard TV sizes and viewing distances isn't really there. You're not going to notice a resolution difference between 4k and 8k sitting 10 feet away from a 65" TV. Maybe once we start getting 120" micro led TVs...

8k is for commercial work, and higher-end productions do absolutely want the higher resolution for natural history content.  Requirements are driven by commercial customers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2022 at 10:54 PM, dreifish said:

Haven't tested the power bank, but I think it's a non-issue. Reef Photo Video reports about 7 hours of run time with the power bank. Plenty to last you a full day of shooting.

For reference, the standard Canon  lp-e6nh battery is ~14 watt hours. The battery packs used in the nauticam housing are ~72wh. So you should be getting 6x the run time.

I finally got the 72WH Anker battery pack and ran some tests filming continuously in 4k60p h.265 with auto-focus continuous and face tracking enabled (with me moving around randomly throughout my work day as a target.

To no great surprise, the internal battery lasted 45 minutes. With the battery pack connected, the combined total recording time was 4 hours and 35 minutes. Just slightly over 6x. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dreifish said:

I finally got the 72WH Anker battery pack and ran some tests filming continuously in 4k60p h.265 with auto-focus continuous and face tracking enabled (with me moving around randomly throughout my work day as a target.

To no great surprise, the internal battery lasted 45 minutes. With the battery pack connected, the combined total recording time was 4 hours and 35 minutes. Just slightly over 6x. 

I replied on your other thread

The internal battery appears to do a really poor job

Now Nauticam should consider a complete redesign of their GH6 housing to have the battery pack as I said since day 1 and then we have options as frankly not everyone needs a full frame camera and almost nobody needs 8K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...