There is a Cinema EOS R camera in the pipeline, likely for early 2022 [CR2]

[privatebydesign]

Super35 has been the standard in Hollywood over 40 years and is based on traditional 35mm film that's been standard for over 100 years. Full frame sensors are still a very new concept for cinema. The Arri Alexa (by far the most used camera for big productions) only got a full frame model in 2018.

That might well be true, but it is also true that times and technology change, iMax has been a bigger ‘standard’ for decades too but the cost of 70mm film held it back. Now bigger than s35 sensors are cheap and readily available so the underlying benefits of larger sensors/capture area are more apparent to more people at a price they can afford.

The ‘standard’ size of a tv has grown from 22” to 50” in the last 25 years yet viewing distances have not grown, meanwhile movie attendance has been decimated in the last year. 4K will become the norm as 5G proliferates and these all push resolution and capture sensor size to new limits.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

S35This question is purely from ignorance on the subject.

Why would anyone spending this type of money, want a smaller S35 sensor over a true FF sensor (or larger)?

Majority of video makers like Arri, Red, BlackMagic, Panavision, Sony and Canon, has S35(1.3x-1.7x) sensors in their portfolio, MORE SO than FF sensors, that’s just hard cold FACTS(not ignorance). Just look at Canon Cinema line up; C200B(S35), C300II&III(S35), C90-70-50(S35), C500(FF) and C700(FF). Why...because human eyes are more in line to render bokeh closer to S35 than FF sensor.

The latest ARRI product on S35 sensor, not FF.
https://nofilmschool.com/everything-about-new-arri-alexa-super-35-4k-camera

PROOF S35 sensor(1.3x-1.7x) is the standard size in Cinema world, not FF.
https://cinequipt.com/resources/resources-sidebar/cq-sensor-size-comparison-chart-march-2018/

YOU MUST BE A QANON MEMBER, MORE ON CONSPIRACY, LESS ON FACTS!

 

[telemaque]

Maybe Canon will have two types of video camera on the RF mount. One has a FF sensor on a ML body, the other has a S35 sensor on a Cinema body, modified not overheat of course with appropriate audio/video sockets and features. So the line up goes something like . . . R4(or R5c)=C90, R3=C70, R2=C50. Both types of bodies are spec’d for video use.

I see the possible future line the same way you do ! This would clarify also the C90 name... with a FF 8K sensor it would make sense. Above C70 in the marketing line. Even if many people might prefer an S35 sensor size for video. Let's see what Canon will issue at the end.

It is good news.

Thanks CR Guy.

 

[Doug7131]

That might well be true, but it is also true that times and technology change, iMax has been a bigger ‘standard’ for decades too but the cost of 70mm film held it back. Now bigger than s35 sensors are cheap and readily available so the underlying benefits of larger sensors/capture area are more apparent to more people at a price they can afford.

The ‘standard’ size of a tv has grown from 22” to 50” in the last 25 years yet viewing distances have not grown, meanwhile movie attendance has been decimated in the last year. 4K will become the norm as 5G proliferates and these all push resolution and capture sensor size to new limits.

I don't see full frame having any real technological advantage over super 35. In all the tests I have seen the performance differences have been almost non existent. Certainly not enough to abandon Super35. Also, any technological advancements in sensor design can be applied to both full frame and super 35 sensors.

More importantly, cinematography is an art form and sensor size has large effect on the resultant image. Many cinematographers will prefer Super35 since they are familiar with how it looks and can access a huge range of Super35 cinema lenses.

 

[privatebydesign]

I don't see full frame having any real technological advantage over super 35. In all the tests I have seen the performance differences have been almost non existent. Certainly not enough to abandon Super35. Also, any technological advancements in sensor design can be applied to both full frame and super 35 sensors.

More importantly, cinematography is an art form and sensor size has large effect on the resultant image. Many cinematographers will prefer Super35 since they are familiar with how it looks and can access a huge range of Super35 cinema lenses.

The biggest differences are in background blur, which is very apparent when direct comparisons are made, and noise. A ff sensor will always give you one stop higher iso performance whatever your personal upper limit of noise is.

Artistically both can be used to great advantage, just look at the lengths people like Kubrick went to to get better low light performance or subject separation.

 

[Atlasman]

The biggest differences are in background blur, which is very apparent when direct comparisons are made, and noise. A ff sensor will always give you one stop higher iso performance whatever your personal upper limit of noise is.

Artistically both can be used to great advantage, just look at the lengths people like Kubrick went to to get better low light performance or subject separation.

Sony seems to think that FF is the solution to all imaging pursuits—their APS-C products are an indication.

 

[Dearl4]

Sounds like a possible C90 to me.
Since the C70's been so popular and Sony released the FX3, it could be possible that Canon will use mirrorless style bodies for the C50 & C90.

 

[Alam]

The biggest differences are in background blur, which is very apparent when direct comparisons are made, and noise. A ff sensor will always give you one stop higher iso performance whatever your personal upper limit of noise is.

Artistically both can be used to great advantage, just look at the lengths people like Kubrick went to to get better low light performance or subject separation.

Background blur is actually an issue, in video, audience only have split second to process what's going on, making your actor float on cloud of bokeh is not a good thing.

Aesthetically it looks good, but practically, nope, remember, you need to make the actor to interact with his/her surroundings

You can close the aperture to combat background blur, but you end up sacrificing light and use higher iso, why do that when you can use smaller format without light sacrifice in the first place.

This is One reason why S16 is still popular format.

Also, using bigger format on smaller sensor is the best combination, physics made corner of the lens not as sharp as center and suffer from vignette, less thing to fix during post processing

 

[privatebydesign]

Background blur is actually an issue, in video, audience only have split second to process what's going on, making your actor float on cloud of bokeh is not a good thing.

Aesthetically it looks good, but practically, nope, remember, you need to make the actor to interact with his/her surroundings

You can close the aperture to combat background blur, but you end up sacrificing light and use higher iso, why do that when you can use smaller format without light sacrifice in the first place.

This is One reason why S16 is still popular format.

Tell Kubrick that! Good god talk about a generalization...

A smaller sensor is always a compromise. You never get worse than smaller with bigger and normally at least one stop better!

 

[Antono Refa]

The ‘standard’ size of a tv has grown from 22” to 50” in the last 25 years yet viewing distances have not grown, meanwhile movie attendance has been decimated in the last year. 4K will become the norm as 5G proliferates and these all push resolution and capture sensor size to new limits.

Movie attendance has been dropping steadily for years.

A few decades ago big movies like James Bond and Star Wars came out, tickets were sold out and there would always be a profiteer around. Those profiteers were long gone ten years ago, and I've seen about as many movies in sold out screenings as I've seen seating alone in the movie theater, usually with a ticket to a different hour so the theater wouldn't have to pay the distributor for what was effectively a private screening.

 

[landon]

Thanks for the update. It's good to have a clearer picture of what's coming. Initially, I was going for R5(B cam) and C70(A cam). But I'll wait for C90FF?(A cam) and C60/R5c? (B cam).

 

[Bigglesworth]

This question is purely from ignorance on the subject.

Why would anyone spending this type of money, want a smaller S35 sensor over a true FF sensor (or larger)?

I mean, FF is not some objective measure of quality or value. For me as a cinematographer, S35 tends to be more flexible in that I have access to a greater number of lenses suited for cinema use (arri ultra and master primes, cooke s4's, angeneuix zooms, etc. etc.) I guess there's nothing inherent to FF that makes it "better" for video use than S35. It has a "look" that you can match by adjusting f stop and focal length, and right now, Canon's FF mirrorless sensors don't match the dynamic range of their dual gain sensor in the C70/C300 Mark III. So until they catch up in that regard, they'll always be C cams on my shoots.

That might well be true, but it is also true that times and technology change, iMax has been a bigger ‘standard’ for decades too but the cost of 70mm film held it back. Now bigger than s35 sensors are cheap and readily available so the underlying benefits of larger sensors/capture area are more apparent to more people at a price they can afford.

The ‘standard’ size of a tv has grown from 22” to 50” in the last 25 years yet viewing distances have not grown, meanwhile movie attendance has been decimated in the last year. 4K will become the norm as 5G proliferates and these all push resolution and capture sensor size to new limits.

But what are the underlying benefits? How do they outweigh Super 35? Wider? Not inherently a benefit - get a wider lens to match FOV. Shallower? Not inherently a benefit, not something you can't compensate for with f stop adjustments (except for the extreme ends, which is a place I rarely venture).

Of the reasons I've heard that I've actually found convincing, none of them are entirely compelling either. Higher resolution with the same pixel pitch? Ok now we're getting somewhere! I don't need higher than 4K yet, so not quite relevant, but I am happy that those options are being developed and are already available. But again, doesn't feel like an inherent benefit. Just a tool that exists that can be useful. Finer noise patterns? Sure. Although Roger Deakins shot 1917 at 1600 ASA to get more noise in the image. So for some people that might not be an inherent benefit. What about getting the same FOV but with less distortion because you're using a longer focal length? Great! If that's what you want. I personally like the distortion I get from a 32mm on S35 though.

A smaller sensor is always a compromise. You never get worse than smaller with bigger and normally at least one stop better!

It really isn't. Why balk at a generalization with another generalization?

 

[Alam]

Tell Kubrick that! Good god talk about a generalization...

A smaller sensor is always a compromise. You never get worse than smaller with bigger and normally at least one stop better!

Errr, there's no right or wrong in art, its about picking the right tool for the job
Do you know why broadcast still use 1 inch sensor? Right they want to open wide to capture light without want to blurring the surrounding, and make people wonder wheter the reporter is on site or not.


Also, large format mainly used as greensceen shoot, as you blur the background any inconsistencies on the greenscreen dissapear, less thing to fix and faster post processing, you don't need the background anyway

 

[privatebydesign]

Errr, there's no right or wrong in art, its about picking the right tool for the job
Do you know why broadcast still use 1 inch sensor? Right they want to open wide to capture light without want to blurring the surrounding, and make people wonder wheter the reporter is on site or not.


Also, large format mainly used as greensceen shoot, as you blur the background any inconsistencies on the greenscreen dissapear, less thing to fix and faster post processing, you don't need the background anyway

You clearly don’t have a clue on how equivalence works so congratulations, you win, I don’t have the time or inclination to be bothered with your ridiculous assertions.

 

[jvillain]

As I do product work narrow depth of field is usually the enemy.

 

[privatebydesign]

As I do product work narrow depth of field is usually the enemy.

Get a grip and learn about equivalence, you can ALWAYS mimic a smaller sensor with a bigger one, you cannot always mimic a bigger sensor with a smaller one.

And when you do the former you will always be at least one stop of iso performance better.

If you want choice bigger is always better, if you want IQ bigger is always better.

 

[Paul Nordin]

Why would anyone spending this type of money, want a smaller S35 sensor over a true FF sensor (or larger)?

If you watched the Super Bowl, where they experimented with using A7S III cams on gimbals to record endzone celebrations, you would have your answer. They captures and broadcast massively out of focus shots at very inopportune times. That is the #1 reason super-35 is still the standard for broadcast...plus a huge inventory of S35 lenses that would cost several fortunes to upgrade.

 

[Paul Nordin]

That might well be true, but it is also true that times and technology change, iMax has been a bigger ‘standard’ for decades too but the cost of 70mm film held it back. Now bigger than s35 sensors are cheap and readily available so the underlying benefits of larger sensors/capture area are more apparent to more people at a price they can afford.

The ‘standard’ size of a tv has grown from 22” to 50” in the last 25 years yet viewing distances have not grown, meanwhile movie attendance has been decimated in the last year. 4K will become the norm as 5G proliferates and these all push resolution and capture sensor size to new limits.

You are confusing sensor size with resolution. Every high-end cinema S35 camera captures at least 4k, and most capture 6k or better. There is a lot that goes into the exceptional quality of high-end cinema cameras besides sensors. Its a system. Top end S35 Cinema lenses are generally very large and heavy...a necessity to house enough glass to deliver near zero breathing, CA, distortion, even sharpness and exposure. I'm not against FF Cinema cameras, which are now out and becoming popular. But they are not inherently superior. Just different, with a different aesthetic. Another tool in the bag.

 

[privatebydesign]

You are confusing sensor size with resolution.

No I am not.

 

[vladk]

Will be interesting to see just what different body design this comes with, and whether it gives any clues for further 'non-cinema' R cameras, as Canon balances heat control with weather sealing.

(Of course, if it is a totally different design, then it probably won't give any clues).

EL-1 has active cooler with weather sealing of 1D series level. So they already know how to achive the balance.
I would expect something similar to C70 feature wise, but with 8K 30/24, 4K up to 120, and may be, with global shutter (if the rumor is true and R1 will have one). My main wish is it does not employ quad Bayer design.