C500 Mark II 5.9K 60P RAW Sample Footage

[Barry Goyette]

Surprise there's not much discussion of this camera over here. Maybe this will help. :-)

Canon C500 Mark II 5.9K RAW sample footage - YouTube

(It does have 5k playback on YouTube if you like Chrome as a browser. ). Feel free to shoot any comments or questions my way.

[Cary Knoop]

If people want to evaluate raw video performance it is not helpful to have a YouTube Rec709 rendition. If you want to share I would suggest to dropbox the raw files, a YouTube video is not going to mean anything.

[Barry Goyette]

Hi Cary, as this is an edited, graded piece, uploading a RAW file isn’t the intention, and couldn’t be supplied. It would also be well over 50gB. Cinema5d has a short raw file available if you are looking for one. It’s stellar. If you search out my Vimeo, I’ve made a short ungraded clip in ProRes 4444 available.

[Paul R Johnson]

Well I must be thick, because I never noticed on this Mac that chrome gave access to up to 5K playback. Even taking into account what Youtube does to images, the difference between Safari and Chrome is significant on this smallish laptop. I suppose any real hyper-quality limitations are a bit pointless watched on anything uncontrolled. I see the idea in RAW footage, but I have nothing to display pictures on that can resolve 'ultimate' quality, whatever flavour that is this week. The difference between 1080 and the 5K was however worth discovering.Thanks for this new info!

[Barry Goyette]

I think it goes up to 8k these days. I'm not sure why youtube has locked the higher resolutions out of safari, it might be a codec issue (google has some variant of HEVC that I think might be the problem...just guessing).

As much as I love Vimeo for it's quality and ease of use (uploading a high quality vid to YouTube pretty much sucks). I nearly dropped my lunch when that 5k vid played back full screen on my iMac Pro...seriously the best quality stream I've seen from any service.

[Drazen Stader]

Thanks for sharing this one with us...this is goregous loooking footage coming from this amazing new cinema camera from canon. We played with it recently and the only additional feature that I would love to see in future upgrades is the option of recording xfavc 10 bit in 6k 60fps full frame mode, currently you can only shoot in raw - which is fine but not very budget and disk friendly for some docu and corporative type of projects. But everything else is stellar.

[Barry Goyette]

Somebody did the math on this one and most likely XF-AVC wouldn't be that much smaller at 5.9k/60 than the Raw. for instance 4k/60 raw is 1Gbps and the XF-AVC is 810mbps for the same. Extrapolating we're probably looking at something in the range of 1.6Gbps. Not sure how many systems could decode that...but there certainly wouldn't be much of a savings in disk space.

B

[Seth Bloombaum]

Got a link to that math? Seems wrong on the face of it.

Mbps = megabits per second, 1Mbps isn’t enough to support a 4k distribution encode (much less an acquisition format).

Even if a typo, MBps = megabytes per second, at 8 bits to the byte, 8Mbps also seems much too small for a 4k raw file.

810Mbps or MBps could be a real number..., we could translate 810Mbps as 0.8Gbps, now we’re up in raw territory.

<confused> Can’t parse the numbers/units in a way that I can understand!

[Barry Goyette]

Sorry...I was doing that quickly while working...I've corrected it in my post. Had my Gs and Ps and Ms all mixed up. Thanks for calling it.

*4k Raw (c200/c500II) --1Gbps (30p is 12bit 60p is 10bit)
5.9k Raw (10bit.60p, 12bit 30/24P -- 2Gbps
4k 30p/24P XF-AVC -- 410Mbps
*4k 60p XF-AVC -- 810Mbps

*If you extrapolate from the above, XFAVC 5.9K 60 would be approximately 1.6Gbps. In theory. I doubt we'll ever see it, as I'm guessing that it would take too much processing power.

Beyond that, XF-AVC is a variant of Sony's XAVC...which only supports up to 4k resolutions.

[Seth Bloombaum]

Thanks for the clarification!

These are some big streams all right. To the point of XFAVC 5.9K 60 I think your math is about right, with roughly double the pixels over 4k 60. There’s some overhead and metadata that doesn’t get doubled, but roughly, which is all one could estimate.

[Jose Carlos]

Originally Posted by Barry Goyette

...not sure why youtube has locked the higher resolutions out of safari, it might be a codec issue...

Yes. Chrome uses VP9, which is not supported by Safari (uses HEVC/h265). So Youtube uses VP9 for those higher resolutions and serves the lower ones when viewing on Safari.

Any idea if Canon plans to support ProRes Raw output from the 12G/SDI? The C500 has no internal ProRes.

Footage looks amazing. I'm really liking what Canon's doing (certainly not standing still).