rawshooter

Not only that. He's systematically bullshitting this forum in all his postings, doesn't know what he's talking about and obviously has none of the practical experience he claims to have.
It's becoming toxic because people google this forum for answers, and he's contaminating it with misinformation.
The biggest fraud who has been on this forum since Ebrahim Saadawi - unless he's the same person.

The likely reason is that Canon design and manufactures its own chips/electronics, and that its chip technology is old and not on the level of contemporary chip manufacturing of 14nm or less.
Bigger structures/more nanometers mean: less power efficiency, more heat production. (That's why smartphones, using the latest and smallest chip technology, are so incredibly powerful at low electricity consumption and low heat dissipation.)
Panasonic, as much bigger electronics manufacturer, has access to more modern chip technology. They likely also manufacture the electronics of the Sigma fp (since they also manufacture the electronics of Leica cameras, and since the fp uses a Panasonic battery).
This is also the reason why Canon's self-manufactured sensor chip are behind in performance to Sony's.

But that's actually not true - other cameras such as the Panasonic S1H record oversampled 10bit 4:2:2 Full Frame 4K  without any thermal issues.
You basically got three options now:
1) Sony A7iii: oversampled 4K, but only 8bit, passive cooling
2) Panasonic: oversampled 4K, 10bit, with active cooling
3) Canon: 4k 10bit, but only with line-skipping/binning if you want continuous recording, passive cooling + "turbo" or "burst" modes with overheating issues

Not only that. He's systematically bullshitting this forum in all his postings, doesn't know what he's talking about and obviously has none of the practical experience he claims to have.
It's becoming toxic because people google this forum for answers, and he's contaminating it with misinformation.
The biggest fraud who has been on this forum since Ebrahim Saadawi - unless he's the same person.

You literally have no idea what you're talking about! I've already answered all your questions but you keep flogging a dead horse. You must have very little experience of shooting interviews.
I have used all sorts of cameras for all sorts of different jobs - from tiny client work to feature films to short docs for VICE - from crappy DSLR's to cinema cameras. Whatever the job calls for. That's why I know what is needed for interviews.
If you are focussing on "what camera I use" and think that's what makes a filmmaker, that confirms your naivety. It's a problem with a lot of talk on this forum - confusing technical camera knowledge for filmmaking. 

And this here sucks even more - so even after shutting the camera off, and waiting 20 minutes, you will only get another 8 minutes recording time:

Well, Canon writes that you will get more than 20 minutes only when the internal temperature of the camera is lower than 14 degrees Celsius - that's 57 degrees Fahrenheit. Unless one shoots in Alaska or at the North Pole (or in a refrigerator), that's unlikely to happen.
It even seems as if the 23 degrees Celsius/74 degrees Celsius refer to the camera's internal operating temperature - then your real-life recording time will likely be much shorter than 20 minutes.

And this here sucks even more - so even after shutting the camera off, and waiting 20 minutes, you will only get another 8 minutes recording time:

Well, the first camera made to combat climate change, since you'll even only get those twenty minutes recording time when outside temperatures are no more than 23 degree Celsius / 73.4 degree Fahrenheit.... Imagine the whole world buying it - then people will have a personal reason and urgency of fighting global warming.... (The plot thickens... Was this camera thought up by Greenpeace....?)

And this here sucks even more - so even after shutting the camera off, and waiting 20 minutes, you will only get another 8 minutes recording time:

The situation is likely to be much worse in reality, since those numbers refer to an operating temperature of 23 degree Celsius - that's 73.4 Fahrenheit, the temperature of mild Northern American/Middle European climate or an air-conditioned room.
In summer, in regions like Southern Europe, California, South America, Africa, much of Asia, or any place with subtropical or tropical climate, I guess you can completely forget about shooting RAW video outdoors with this camera.

Well, the news about the R5 overheating when recording RAW doesn't come to a surprise, doesn't it? In the initial thread about the camera, we said exactly that - that it either needs some never heard-of, science fiction electronic technology or an active cooling system in order not to overheat when recording 8K.
Here's the old thread:
Money quote from that posting: "I see forums littered with phrases like "Canon take my money!" Really? Not only have we not seen the full specs. No one has been able to test the camera. Something seems fishy to me."
 
And here:
 
By the way, do we have any info on the rolling shutter of the R5? With that high sensor resolution, I wouldn't hold my breath about that one either. 
We really need to wait till the dust settles, propaganda noise from the industry-paid YouTube influencers has faded, and there is real-life experience with the camera.
 
(A crucial part of info is how long the camera will need in order to cool off after those 20 minutes. It's not just that it needs to cool to to safe temperatures, but it will need to cool off thoroughly and to such a degree that it won't shut down again after 5 or 10 minutes.)

IMHO you nailed it, @Andrew Reid - Nikon is going down the route of Olympus. Nobody is going to buy into the Z system except owners of Nikon SLR AF lenses, and that won't be enough to keep the company alive as a camera manufacturer. Nikon already makes more than 60% of its revenue with industrial and medical imaging. I wouldn't be surprised if they spin off the imaging division at some point, after which it will die sooner or later.

IMHO you nailed it, @Andrew Reid - Nikon is going down the route of Olympus. Nobody is going to buy into the Z system except owners of Nikon SLR AF lenses, and that won't be enough to keep the company alive as a camera manufacturer. Nikon already makes more than 60% of its revenue with industrial and medical imaging. I wouldn't be surprised if they spin off the imaging division at some point, after which it will die sooner or later.

Use Slimraw instead to recompress the CinemaDNG to smaller file sizes. Cineform Raw is a sparsely supported and pretty much a dead format.

It wouldn't really be possible or make sense, since the X-T3 and X-T4 have sensors with X-Trans (instead of Bayer) filter patterns. Neither Resolve, nor any other video software would be able to process that material.
And even if you added X-Trans support to all those programs, it wouldn't be practical because demosaicing X-Trans is a computationally much more demanding process and would result in terrible playback performance.

ProRes is factually a derivative of MPEG-2, that's why it's so light on CPUs. It compensates its old codec technology through high bitrates, thus the generally good quality.

h264 and h265 will always be better than ProRes at the same bitrates, provided that a decent codec implementation (with high profile and 10bit color depth) is being used.
So the question is whether 400 Mbit/s h265 (in the case of the Fuji XT-4) for 4K/25p video is visually as good as ProRes HQ at 737 Mbit/s for the same resolution and frame rate... 
 
EDIT: The real issue with h264 and h265 are not the codecs themselves, but that manufacturers - treating them as consumer codecs - bake all kinds of overdone image processing (aggressive denoising, artificial sharpening, pushed contrasts) into material recorded with them. ProRes, being conversely treated as a "pro" codec, doesn't get those over-processed images. This is why we think that ProRes is better...

Logged on and what do I see
Yes another topic waylaid by Super8 causing arguments
If you keep it up, I will have to do what's best for the forum as an informative tool for filmmakers. And you know what that means.

ProRes is factually a derivative of MPEG-2, that's why it's so light on CPUs. It compensates its old codec technology through high bitrates, thus the generally good quality.

h264 and h265 will always be better than ProRes at the same bitrates, provided that a decent codec implementation (with high profile and 10bit color depth) is being used.
So the question is whether 400 Mbit/s h265 (in the case of the Fuji XT-4) for 4K/25p video is visually as good as ProRes HQ at 737 Mbit/s for the same resolution and frame rate... 
 
EDIT: The real issue with h264 and h265 are not the codecs themselves, but that manufacturers - treating them as consumer codecs - bake all kinds of overdone image processing (aggressive denoising, artificial sharpening, pushed contrasts) into material recorded with them. ProRes, being conversely treated as a "pro" codec, doesn't get those over-processed images. This is why we think that ProRes is better...

Maybe then you should stop posting on this forum, telling bullshit about stuff you now even admit you don't know.
And you're in no position of shouting.

DJI Osmo Pocket. Seriously, that camera is amazing for its price, and really fits the bill of an ultraportable run-and-gun camera. Its image is astonishingly good within the limitations of its small sensor and 8bit 4:2:0.
 

Maybe then you should stop posting on this forum, telling bullshit about stuff you now even admit you don't know.
And you're in no position of shouting.

Maybe then you should stop posting on this forum, telling bullshit about stuff you now even admit you don't know.
And you're in no position of shouting.

ProRes is factually a derivative of MPEG-2, that's why it's so light on CPUs. It compensates its old codec technology through high bitrates, thus the generally good quality.

h264 and h265 will always be better than ProRes at the same bitrates, provided that a decent codec implementation (with high profile and 10bit color depth) is being used.
So the question is whether 400 Mbit/s h265 (in the case of the Fuji XT-4) for 4K/25p video is visually as good as ProRes HQ at 737 Mbit/s for the same resolution and frame rate... 
 
EDIT: The real issue with h264 and h265 are not the codecs themselves, but that manufacturers - treating them as consumer codecs - bake all kinds of overdone image processing (aggressive denoising, artificial sharpening, pushed contrasts) into material recorded with them. ProRes, being conversely treated as a "pro" codec, doesn't get those over-processed images. This is why we think that ProRes is better...

Maybe then you should stop posting on this forum, telling bullshit about stuff you now even admit you don't know.
And you're in no position of shouting.