Jump to content
Andrew Reid

Canon EOS RP specs leaked, features 26MP sensor and 4K video

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
12 hours ago, Mako Sports said:

Ima just leave this here.. https://www.pdnonline.com/gear/cameras/the-best-cameras-for-color-reproduction-ranked/ 

same goes for video when you drop footage SOOC into an NLE and view it on a Vectorscope.

But in your defense I am one of those people that believe "color science" is 100% subjective, whether its accurate or not SOOC. 

 image.png.830d3c88b6393a3310b1b5252852cf33.png 

Awesome Page. There are some very interessting facts, which explain the Canon / Sony Color Discussion: 

A7III: 

Color reproduction by the Sony Alpha 7 Mark III is accurate, with only one color showing a strong deviation from the original. ∆E ranges from 8.9 at ISO100, to a small range between 9.7 and 10.0 at ISO400 to ISO 1600.

Photo: The automatic white balance implemented by the Alpha 7 Mark III is excellent, with values between 0.0 and 0.2 at all ISOs measured between ISO100 and ISO25600.  
Video: Automatic white balance is not excellent, with scores of 1.5 (low ISO) and 1.4 (high ISO).

Just for the record - DR:

Photo: The dynamic range exhibited by the Alpha 7 Mark III is very good: over 10.1 f-stops (up to 10.3) at all ISOs tested between ISO100 to ISO800. Dynamic range remains high as ISO increases (9.8 f-stops at ISO1600) up to ISO6400 (9.2 f-stops). However, once again, ISO12800 shows poorer results, with a drop of nearly a full f-stop to 8.3. The extended ISOs are even worse: for example, 6.9 f-stops at Hi1.

Video - Dynamic range is good: 9.0 f-stops at low ISO and 8.0 at high ISO. 

EOS R: 

Color reproduction is good, with only 6 colors deviating strongly, five of which are reds. ∆E is consistent and ranges from 10.3 to 10.6 at all ISOs tested.

Photo: Automatic white balance is very good, ranging between 0.3 and 0.6 at all ISO s tested from ISO 100 to ISO 12800.

Video: Automatic white balance is decent at high ISO  (0.7) but poor at low ISO (1.2). Color reproduction is nearly as good as in still images, with a ∆E of 11.7 at both high and low ISO .

Just for the record - DR:

Photo: Maximum dynamic range: 14.1 f-stops measured at ISO 800. Dynamic range is more than 10 f-stops at all ISO s from ISO 100 up through ISO 3200. At ISO 100, dynamic range is measured at 10.9 f-stops, at ISO 400 12.9, and at ISO 1600, 11.0. Dynamic range is poorer at the higher ISO s, with a minimum tested among the native ISO s, or 7.9 f-stops at ISO 25600.

Video: Dynamic range is good in video (9.7 and 9.0 f-stops for low and high ISO , respectively). Automatic white balance is decent at high ISO  (0.7) but poor at low ISO (1.2). Color reproduction is nearly as good as in still images, with a ∆E of 11.7 at both high and low ISO. 

Conclusion: 

Color Reproduction and Color "Beautyness" are two different shoes. And Auto White Balance makes a different, too. Imho, the 5 deviating reds and the better AWB is the key, why a lot of people might prefer canon colors over sony - in terms of video. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Blancblue said:

 

Color Reproduction and Color "Beautyness" are two different shoes. And Auto White Balance makes a different, too. Imho, the 5 deviating reds and the better AWB is the key, why a lot of people might prefer canon colors over sony - in terms of video. 

 

They prefer the Canon colors because they have been conditioned by the preceeding body of professional work, much of which has been shot on Canon cameras. So it becomes the "right" color, even if inaccurate. Basically it is a Pavlovian response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mokara said:

They prefer the Canon colors because they have been conditioned by the preceeding body of professional work, much of which has been shot on Canon cameras. So it becomes the "right" color, even if inaccurate. Basically it is a Pavlovian response.

Eh I don't know. A lot of people prefur Fuji color and their aren't even any pro Fuji cine cameras. You could say its just marketing I guess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mokara said:

They prefer the Canon colors because they have been conditioned by the preceeding body of professional work, much of which has been shot on Canon cameras. So it becomes the "right" color, even if inaccurate. Basically it is a Pavlovian response.

Well most movies are shot on either film, Arri or Red. So I’m not sure what conditioning you are referring to? Personally, I just find Canon’s imagery more filmic overall. While colors are more pleasant and complementary. This is only my opinion of course. But if I don’t like the image... regardless of camera brand; it just means I have to do work in post to attempt to get it where I do like it. The closer it SOOC image is, the les work in post.

I would love to see Sony put out a camera that crushed it in all aspects. But so far... imo, they fall short on overall image, easy of use, speed of delivery etc... YMMV.

Share this post


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

Well most movies are shot on either film, Arri or Red. So I’m not sure what conditioning you are referring to? Personally, I just find Canon’s imagery more filmic overall. While colors are more pleasant and complementary. This is only my opinion of course. But if I don’t like the image... regardless of camera brand; it just means I have to do work in post to attempt to get it where I do like it. The closer it SOOC image is, the les work in post.

I would love to see Sony put out a camera that crushed it in all aspects. But so far... imo, they fall short on overall image, easy of use, speed of delivery etc... YMMV.

Well, Canon would have been trying to reproduce colors from film, which are equally inaccurate but stem from the limitations of the chemistry involved. So they are just an earlier Pavlovian subject. The point is, these colors are not accurate, but are an affection stemming from people wanting to imitate earlier work on the assumption that is what it is "supposed" to look like. So it all becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Sort of like people who want to imitate the work of a great director, so they imitate his/her work as hacks, rather than creating their own great work. The world is awash with those sorts, whose creativity is determined by someone else's creativity (in other words, they lack creativity). Which is fine, but they should at least admit it or otherwise be prepared to be laughed at.

If you want footage that accurately reflects the real world you probably don't want to use a Canon (unless you plan to do extensive post processing of course, then it doesn't matter).

Share this post


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

Well, Canon would have been trying to reproduce colors from film, which are equally inaccurate but stem from the limitations of the chemistry involved. So they are just an earlier Pavlovian subject. The point is, these colors are not accurate, but are an affection stemming from people wanting to imitate earlier work on the assumption that is what it is "supposed" to look like. So it all becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Sort of like people who want to imitate the work of a great director, so they imitate his/her work as hacks, rather than creating their own great work. The world is awash with those sorts, whose creativity is determined by someone else's creativity (in other words, they lack creativity). Which is fine, but they should at least admit it or otherwise be prepared to be laughed at.

If you want footage that accurately reflects the real world you probably don't want to use a Canon (unless you plan to do extensive post processing of course, then it doesn't matter).

Is the chart relevant for video? I am guessing its looking at RAW still image data. The XT3 is number one and the XH1 number 5, but they both look identical to the naked eye. 

Share this post


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

If you want footage that accurately reflects the real world you probably don't want to use a Canon (unless you plan to do extensive post processing of course, then it doesn't matter).

Someone should tell Picasso that his art does not accurately reflect real people.

1 hour ago, Mokara said:

The point is, these colors are not accurate, but are an affection stemming from people wanting to imitate earlier work on the assumption that is what it is "supposed" to look like.

Art doesn't exist in a vacuum, it is always created and viewed in reference to previous work. Over time, film has deviated from being completely in reference to the real world, and has developed its own conventions, symbols, and nuances. New films are viewed in reference to other films, not the real world. In the same way, narrative storytelling, sound design, musical scores, and all other aspects of filmmaking are built on previous films, not just real life

You seem to be implying the color should be accurate to real life unless the artist specifically wants it to be different. This implies that using color as accurate to expected film convention is the work of a "hack." I think this is false.

1 hour ago, Mokara said:

The world is awash with those sorts, whose creativity is determined by someone else's creativity (in other words, they lack creativity).

Would you consider Max Richter's album Vivaldi Recomposed to be creative?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mokara said:

If you want footage that accurately reflects the real world you probably don't want to use a Canon (unless you plan to do extensive post processing of course, then it doesn't matter).

Most here want their footage to look cinematic or filmic... I don't think the "real world" is either of those things. And I also feel most people want to look good on video... not ordinary... which of course the "real world" is. 

If you are trying to capture "real world"... well, don't worry about lighting... because no one has a gaffer following them around making sure they look good at every angle... and that the shadows hit their face just right. At least they don't in the "real world".

Throw the rule of thirds... and every other rule out the window... the "real world" doesn't follow those rules. 

Gimbals... you don't need no stinking gimbals... "real world"!

You'll save a bunch of time... your footage might end up looking a bit ordinary... a bit too "real world", but if that's the look your going for... good for you. 

However when I shoot I do want my subjects to look good. I definitely want the end product to look cinematic. I may fail in this effort more often than not... but I will continue to try to achieve the look. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DBounce said:

Most here want their footage to look cinematic or filmic... I don't think the "real world" is either of those things. And I also feel most people want to look good on video... not ordinary... which of course the "real world" is. 

If you are trying to capture "real world"... well, don't worry about lighting... because no one has a gaffer following them around making sure they look good at every angle... and that the shadows hit their face just right. At least they don't in the "real world".

Throw the rule of thirds... and every other rule out the window... the "real world" doesn't follow those rules. 

Gimbals... you don't need no stinking gimbals... "real world"!

You'll save a bunch of time... your footage might end up looking a bit ordinary... a bit too "real world", but if that's the look your going for... good for you. 

However when I shoot I do want my subjects to look good. I definitely want the end product to look cinematic. I may fail in this effort more often than not... but I will continue to try to achieve the look. 

In terms of the real world the human body and eye does a great job stabilizing and seeing light. But yeah in general I agree. Light is not always flattering without manipulation and a color science that helps deal with the harshness that one might be shooting, can be useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mokara said:

They prefer the Canon colors because they have been conditioned by the preceeding body of professional work, much of which has been shot on Canon cameras. So it becomes the "right" color, even if inaccurate. Basically it is a Pavlovian response.

the preceding* body of professional work im influenced by was shot on film 

ariane179254_TheXFiles_3x20-JoseChungsFr

also, i can be objective about color, i went to art SCAD, SVA and Art Center, and took multiple color theory classes, because i was required to

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic has already been covered here. A73 may rank #1 in color accuracy, Sony is often considered last position as far as overall color science appeal (Venice excluded).

XT3 also ranks #1 in accuracy but offers some of the most pleasing color sciences imo as they are based on actual film stock (Eterna being my personal favorite).

EOS R also gives you the choice in between "classic" EOS color science & "neutral" a more Alexa like color matrix.

Of course this is all subjective. After all some people love shooting black & white. How is that for color accuracy?

I want my exposure metering & WB to be accurate. Color is a different matter. I'll shoot in neutral profile or even log if i want the least color science influence.

That test page also feels somewhat inaccurate/incomplete, as we know Sony AWB can fall apart under mixed lighting & XT3 can have weird color shifts when shooting Log.

 

Share this post


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

This topic has already been covered here. A73 may rank #1 in color accuracy, Sony is often considered last position as far as overall color science appeal (Venice excluded).

XT3 also ranks #1 in accuracy but offers some of the most pleasing color sciences imo as they are based on actual film stock (Eterna being my personal favorite).

EOS R also gives you the choice in between "classic" EOS color science & "neutral" a more Alexa like color matrix.

Of course this is all subjective. After all some people love shooting black & white. How is that for color accuracy?

I want my exposure metering & WB to be accurate. Color is a different matter. I'll shoot in neutral profile or even log if i want the least color science influence.

That test page also feels somewhat inaccurate/incomplete, as we know Sony AWB can fall apart under mixed lighting & XT3 can have weird color shifts when shooting Log.

 

FYI in that test, X-T3 was set to factory default setting and the measurements were done with an in-camera JPEG (Provia).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2019 at 9:50 AM, BTM_Pix said:

Maybe they've deliberately chosen the 14th to announce it as its Valentines Day and they want to show some love to their customers.

Or is it going to be a case of

Roses are red,

Violets are blue,

Canon is Canon,

No 4K for you.

Well, it looks like Canon really are getting into the spirit of handing out the love tomorrow and giving it 4K.

Still remains to be seen what SWALK will mean on their Valentine's card though.

1448052545_ScreenShot2019-02-13at22_55_08.png.c08c4751bdb578a79daa7833337f4d8e.png

Sealed With A Loving Kiss or Shipped With A Large Krop ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...