# EOS R External Recording Bit Rate



## dgbarar (May 21, 2019)

Hi All,

Does anyone have references to the HDMI out bit rate for the EOS R. While not published on Canon's website, I have seen bit rates of up to 480 Mb/s for internal recording. However, I have seen nothing for HDMI out bit rate at UHD, 10 bit, 30 FPS?

Don Barar


----------



## PureClassA (May 23, 2019)

Bit Rate will be determined by the external recording device. You get 10 bit 422 output over the HDMI into whatever recorder (and by extension, whatever codec and it's inherent bitrate) you like. The internal ALL I setting is still very robust at 480/sec but (as with almost all internal camera codecs) it's a very clunky file that is difficult to manipulate in post production with software like Adobe Premier, Final Cut Pro, Davinci, etc... 

The primary advantages of using the output are obviously the better bit rate and color depth with C Log, but even moreso the ability to natively record the footage in a very robust ProRes 422 or ProRes HQ that is very easily played back and edited with your typical software. The ProRes files tend to be a bit smaller (particularly 422) than the ALL I. It's NOT for a lack of quality however. The quality is (if executed correctly) better than ALL I even with smaller file sizes. It's simply that the Apple ProRes codecs were designed specifically to maximize capture quality with the most efficient file sizes and compression possible.

When you consider the price of buying FOUR high grade, super fast 256GB SDXC cards vs. buying a Ninja V and a 1TB super fast SSD, it's almost crazy not to record externally, especially when you factor the additional time and headaches of having to either render proxy files to edit, or convert your original video footage into ProRes (like with Adobe Media Encoder) before you actually start editing. You can fight with the original codec in Final Cut or Premier, but I'll never do it again. It's painful.


----------



## dgbarar (May 24, 2019)

HI PCA:

Thank you for your feedback. My plan was to use a Ninja V. I know that B&H often pairs the EOS R with the V, I just wanted to make sure that I was not over/under "specing" the external recorder.

Incidentally, I asked this same question of Canon's technical support team on 4 day ago and they have yet to get back with me. 

So, thank you again for your feedback.

Don Barar


----------



## PureClassA (May 24, 2019)

The Atoms Ninja V is THE perfect external recorder for the EOS R. The size and capabilities of the Ninja V match right up, even with built in data to match C-Log and the 10 Bit 422 output is a dead-on match for the ProRes HQ codec, which is what Canon made that output for. You can also use ProRes 422 which saves a bit more SSD space but still looks extremely good and is very gradable in post. However if you want the absolute BEST capture, use ProRes HQ. 

I would also suggest tailoring the Sharpness setting under the 10 bit C-Log menu in the EOS R. It defaults at ZERO, which you will probably find is too soft. It's almost Unsharpened. It's so soft you can't really fix it in post. I have mine dialed to FOUR (out of 7). Gives excellent results without any noise or artifacting


----------



## dgbarar (May 24, 2019)

Hi PCA:

Interesting comment on adding in-camera sharpening. I have always thought it best to sharpen in post. I may have to amend my thinking on this across the board. I will give it a try.

Don


----------



## PureClassA (May 24, 2019)

dgbarar said:


> Hi PCA:
> 
> Interesting comment on adding in-camera sharpening. I have always thought it best to sharpen in post. I may have to amend my thinking on this across the board. I will give it a try.
> 
> Don



I think in most cases you are correct, but with the Canon native settings being as soft as they are, there just doesn't seem to be enough inherent detail that post production sharpening has any real effect. The setting at 3-4 seems to give it a good solid baseline to work with in post to where you can add or subtract with greater flexibility.

Try watching this piece on the subject. It's explained very well here


----------



## dgbarar (May 25, 2019)

Gee. After watching this video maybe I should consider th3 Fuji XT-3.

Sharper.
External 4k 4:2:2 DCI/UHD output, Up to 60 FPS.
Crop factor of 1.5x. 
PDAF.
And here's the big one. Only $1,399.
Everyone seems to be attempting to chose between Sony, Nikon, Panasonic. Maybe Fuji is the real winner.

Don


----------



## dgbarar (May 25, 2019)

HI PCA:

I watched this video again and had more impressions about EOS R vs. the Fujifilm X-T3 as it relates to sharpness and sharpening filters.

Sharpening filters all essentially work the same way--they increase the contrast of edges to increase the apparent sharpness. By increasing this contrast they introduce an image artifact known as "ringing". Ringing is the black area adjacent to the white letters and lens-to-camera attachment around time 6:48 in the video for the EOS R/Sharpness = 4. There is essentially no ringing of the image produced by the X-T3--because the sensor is inherently sharp and does nor require a sharpening algorithm.

This YouTuber is claiming that he is fixing the sharpness of EOS R. But, not really. Because of the poor sharpness of the EOS R, Canon must resort to a sharpening filter to improve the apparent sharpness and subsequently damaging the image. The X-T3 does not require any such legerdemain to have similar performance without any ringing.

But why is the EOS R less sharp than the FujiFilm X-T3? Is it a function of the DPAF, pixel size, the lenses used in this video, etc. I do not know. But it would be interesting to understand why.

Don


----------



## dgbarar (May 27, 2019)

Hi All:

After more research it appears the sharpness of the X-T3 is a function of the Fuji's X-Trans sensor and no low pass filter when compared to the EOS R. However, the improved sharpness comes at the expense of color resolution (waxy skin tone and color bleed). Not sure if any of this has been resolved with the current release in X-T3. Here is an interesting article about the X-Trans from January 2017: https://petapixel.com/2017/01/27/x-trans-promise-problem/

Don


----------



## PureClassA (May 28, 2019)

dgbarar said:


> Hi All:
> 
> After more research it appears the sharpness of the X-T3 is a function of the Fuji's X-Trans sensor and no low pass filter when compared to the EOS R. However, the improved sharpness comes at the expense of color resolution (waxy skin tone and color bleed). Not sure if any of this has been resolved with the current release in X-T3. Here is an interesting article about the X-Trans from January 2017: https://petapixel.com/2017/01/27/x-trans-promise-problem/
> 
> Don



The video I just shot with the Canon EOS R looked beautiful. NO ONE (except spec nerds like us on this forum) pixel peep to 400%. I would much rather have the exquisite Canon Color Science and the over all filmic look that Canon delivers (which saves me a TON of time in post production as I have virtually ZERO color correction needed) plus a native EF/RF glass system. I was already heavily invested in Canon. I didn't want to go elsewhere. I'm personally VERY happy with the EOS R video for MY own needs.

All that said, if you are starting from scratch and are not invested in one system or another already and the larger feature set (like 60fps in 4k) is important to you, then the Fujis are fine cameras too. You have to make a choice on what characteristics are more important. In all fairness, if I ever need 60fs in 4k, I have a 1DX2. It's not in LOG and I have to convert the footage to ProRes in post, but that is only a very small percentage of what I would shoot.


----------



## dgbarar (May 29, 2019)

Hi PCA:

I agree, your video looks beautiful and the color is spot on. And, like yourself I also am heavily invested in Canon glass for my 5D Mark II.

The camera I am considering will be exclusively for video. I went to a local store and had the opportunity to test both the X-T3 and EOS R. After transcoding to ProRes 4:2:2 I was able to process both videos well with similar color. And, as you pointed out color correction was easier on the Canon, but the Fuji results were more detailed. But after adding some sharpening in post to the Canon it was difficult to tell the difference. Yet, on some videos I will need to "key frame" zoom in. The added sharpness of the Fuji will come in handy.

One of the things I liked about the Fuji were that important exposure controls were manual and easily accessed on the top of the camera vs.the heavily nested electronic controls of the Canon. But this camera is going to rest most often on a gimbal where the electronic controls can be accessed remotely. There is no gimbal for the Fuji that allows access to the controls. On a gimbal, those manual controls on the Fuji may become an issue.

Decisions!!!!!!!

Thank you again for your input.

Don


----------



## crazyrunner33 (May 31, 2019)

It might be worth seeing how well the Fuji can handle autoexposure on the gimbal. I've had decent luck with auto exposure on the GH5 with the old gimbal I'm using.

If you're considering a small video only camera instead of the hybrid with the Canon, it'd be worth looking at the Blackmagic Pocket 4K. You'll get all the flavors of codecs, compressed raw and raw. Plus, the sensor competes against the A7S 2 and A7III in low light. It's the same sensor that's used in the GH5S. The price is the same as the XT3, glass will be cheaper.


----------



## dgbarar (Jun 1, 2019)

Hi Crazy Runner:

I have been reading about X-T3 autoexposure issues. Apparently, there is some noticeable "stepping" of exposure when going from dark to bright. The effect is somewhat mitigated if using auto iso. The EOS M autoexposure transition is purported to be smooth. I have seen no reports on the EOS R.

The BMP4K is a product that I have strongly considered. But like the X-T3, there is no gimbal available today that will electronically control the camera. Plus, the BMP4K does not have autofocus. I am a one man operation and not certain how well I would get along with manually focusing the camera while attempting to capture the video.

Don

BTW. DJI is reporting that they will support the X-T3 on the Ronin S in a future firmware update. But who knows with DJI.


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Jun 6, 2019)

Good info! I still rely on manual focus for video and focus with my feet on the gimbal. I'd avoid the DJI, I'm not happy with the M due to the proprietary batteries that are expensive and fail quite often. The Crane 2 and Crane 3 seem like the ones to go with, especially since they use Samsung 18650 cells from power tool batteries. They're cheap and good enough for DeWalt and Hilti. 

Like yourself, I'm also a one man band. Currently, I'm still most comfortable with the GH5 for run and gun video. The stabilization is amazing when combined with the IBIS with an OIS lens. The downside is that the photos are not acceptable. The new full frame Panasonic might be the hot ticket, but I'm afraid to jump into a new full frame lens system.


----------



## dgbarar (Jun 8, 2019)

Hi CR,

I very much like the fact that Zhiyun Cranes use off-the-shelf batteries for power tools. Great idea!

Unfortunately, I broke down Wednesday evening after playing golf and ordered an X-T3/Ronin S--the day before you last message. Then, Friday afternoon DJI dropped the price of the Ronin S Essential Kit from $559 to $499.

Timing is everything. LOL.

Don Barar


----------



## alexmatthewfilm (Aug 9, 2019)

Does anyone know if the EOS R does 8bit 4:2:2 externally in 1080p?


----------

