R5 does amazing super slow motion equivalent to 240 fps

Your editing skills are amazing.

That’s the first time I have seen the 240fps in action. It looks fantastic. I’ve got a bit carried away with slo-no as it seems to mak the birds look more natural at times, especially with birds like waders when they are feeding.

Rudy Pohl wrote:

How great is that?

Can't be.

Everything Canon is bad. I heard it here, on DPReview.

Case in point, the R5...you only managed to get this because it is winter. The main characteristic of this camera (...again, according, to DPR users...), is that it overheats.

Sorry for the irony...

Loved this clip. Well done! 👍

PK

Rudy Pohl wrote:

One thing I really like about the R5's video capabilities is that the image quality of its 4K120p ALL-I format, which outputs at a staggering 1880 Mbps, is so good that you can slow down the footage another 50% in post giving you effectively 240 frames per second—and it still looks good.

Have a look at the last clip in this little sequence and see what you think.

Rudy

By the way, this is the area where I grew up and still live today and it just happens to be the best Snowy Owl country in Eastern Ontario. How great is that?

Totally in love with your video and the snowy owl. Love it!!! Would like to see one in my life.

Do you do something special to use the 120fps at 240fps in Da Vinci or only 50% more slow down?

Thanks a lot.

Bramble9 wrote:

Rudy; Once again I really enjoyed your video of the snowy owl. I especially liked the fence and posts going slowly by. Very cool-- no pun intended-- and well done. I grew up in North Dakota so know about snow, cold, and farmsteads. We would occasionally see-- and enjoy snowy owls. Thanks for posting.

Cheers. Bramble9

Hi Bramble9,

Thanks so much for your feedback and your very kind and encouraging words. I really appreciate it. Although my wife and I live in a thoroughly modern suburb just on the edge of the countryside seen here, I still am and always will be a country boy at heart. I'm sure I would feel right at home in North Dakota.

Cheers,
Rudy

Distinctly Average wrote:

Your editing skills are amazing.

That’s the first time I have seen the 240fps in action. It looks fantastic. I’ve got a bit carried away with slo-no as it seems to mak the birds look more natural at times, especially with birds like waders when they are feeding.

Hi Phill,

Thanks for your kind words regarding the editing. I've been video editing for a while now and it's some thing that I've always enjoyed doing. Years ago I used to use Adobe Premiere Pro, but last year after being away from doing video for years I discovered Davinci Resolve and was truly amazed at the power and quality of the free professional editing software. I love it.

Regarding slow motion footage, I just can't say enough about the 120fps and 240fps quality of the Canon R5, it is a real powerhouse of a camera. I've only had it for 4 months but I'm loving it more each day.

Cheers,
Rudy

PhotoKhan wrote:

Rudy Pohl wrote:

How great is that?

Can't be.

Everything Canon is bad. I heard it here, on DPReview.

Case in point, the R5...you only managed to get this because it is winter. The main characteristic of this camera (...again, according, to DPR users...), is that it overheats.

Sorry for the irony...

Loved this clip. Well done! 👍

PK

Hi PK,

A big LOL regarding your tongue in cheek comment about the overheating and the negative naysaying on DPReview.

Mind you, the overheating of the R5 was a huge consideration for me when doing my research in preparing to move to Canon after 12 years a Nikon DSLR shooter. I knew what I wanted to do with wildlife videos and the R5 was the only camera I could find that checked all the boxes for me... but the overheating was a deal breaker.

Then last summer Canon came out with the 1.6 firmware update somewhat mitigating the problem and extending the useability of the camera. All the reviews of this firmware update were positive, plus for my short wildlife videos I only do very short clips of 4K120p, so I bought the camera. Very glad I did.

Glad you loved the clip!

Cheers,
Rudy

Occams Razor wrote:

Nicely done and great use of the 120 fps capabilities of the R5. t

Thanks Randy, I really appreciate your feedback.

Cheers,
Rudy

CC88 wrote:

Totally in love with your video and the snowy owl. Love it!!! Would like to see one in my life.

Do you do something special to use the 120fps at 240fps in Da Vinci or only 50% more slow down?

Thanks a lot.

Hi CC88,

Thanks for your feedback and I'm glad you liked it so much.... very encouraging for me to hear.

Regarding the 120fps => 240fps, nothing special is required in Davinci. Just drop the speed to 50% and you're good to go.

If you do use Davinci there's something I've discovered to help you get your panned footage to move smoothly and not be jerky like the fence footage in the above clip. When you use Davinci's Stabilization tool, make sure you select "Optical Flow" and "Enhanced Better" under the Retime and Scaling section. Without these setting you just can't get the pans to play back smoothly.

Cheers,
Rudy

N/t

JoeSchmoe007 wrote:

N/t

Hi Joe,

I'm turning 73 in May and I'm essentially a pretty uncool guy. So I haven't got a clue what N/t means. I've Googled it several times and still can't figure it out.

Could I ask you for a clarification pls so I know how to respond?

Thanks,
Rudy

Rudy Pohl wrote:

JoeSchmoe007 wrote:

N/t

Hi Joe,

I'm turning 73 in May and essentially pretty uncool. So I haven't got a clue what N/t means. Could I ask you for a clarification pls?

Thanks,
Rudy

If you can make videos like this you are totally cool in my book (I am in my 50-s).

N/t means "No Text". My whole question was in the subject ("What did you use to protect it from the snow?") but forum won't allow to leave the body of the message empty so people here often put N/T.

JoeSchmoe007 wrote:

Rudy Pohl wrote:

JoeSchmoe007 wrote:

N/t

Hi Joe,

I'm turning 73 in May and essentially pretty uncool. So I haven't got a clue what N/t means. Could I ask you for a clarification pls?

Thanks,
Rudy

If you can make videos like this you are totally cool in my book (I am in my 50-s).

N/t means "No Text". My whole question was in the subject ("What did you use to protect it from the snow?") but forum won't allow to leave the body of the message empty so people here often put N/T.

Ah... OK, got it! And thanks for your remark... I'll need to tell my wife that someone on the Canon forum thinks I'm cool! LOL.

Anyways, to your question.... On this occasion I didn't use anything to protect my camera or the lens from the snow because it was so cold that the snow was not sticking to them or melting on them.

I always carry a clothe towel in my camera bag to cover my camera and lens when it rains or there's wet snow. I never allow my gear to just get hammered by precipitation and when I do have to expose it to those elements during shooting times I quickly wipe off both the camera and lens with another little dry clothe I have in my bag. I also always wipe dry my lens barrel before zooming it back in. Finally, when I get home after such an outing I carefully dry everything with a clothe then I zoom out the barrel, remove the battery and memory cards and leave their doors open, remove the lens hood and then leave the entire kit like that overnight to dry completely,

I know I might sound a little obsessive about this, but I've never spent $10,000 Canadian on a camera and lens before and never thought I ever would.

Rudy

Markr041 wrote:

Rudy Pohl wrote:

One thing I really like about the R5's video capabilities is that the image quality of its 4K120p ALL-I format, which outputs at a staggering 1880 Mbps, is so good that you can slow down the footage another 50% in post giving you effectively 240 frames per second—and it still looks good.

Have a look at the last clip in this little sequence and see what you think.

Rudy

By the way, this is the area where I grew up and still live today and it just happens to be the best Snowy Owl country in Eastern Ontario. How great is that?

I am confused by what you did and what you are claiming.

How slow the 120 fps footage is in the rendered video depends on the frame rate you choose for the timeline. If you choose 60 fps, then stretch, the slowdown is 2X. If you choose 24 fps, and stretch, the slowdown is 5X. So by changing the timeline fps I can more than double the slow down with no loss of resolution.

So, what do you mean you can slow down another 50% in post exactly? And why is that equivalent to 240 fps?

Just to show I shoot 120P 4K with the R5:

I think I used a 30p timeline, so the slowdown is 4X. But I could have increased the slowdown by 25% with a 24p timeline to 5X. Now if I wanted more, then I would have to interpolate frames. Is that what you did?

240p with with a 60 fps timeline is 4X, with a 30p timeline it is an 8X slowdown. Is that what you are showing from the 120 fps shot video? 8X?

Hi Mark,

Sorry for the confusion and that I wasn't clearer. Let me try that again.

- In the SHOOT1 menu I set the format to 4K-U 119.9P ALL-I.
- As you know, the R5 internally processes this footage and outputs it at 29.970fps.
- This output as I understand it is 120fps slowed down x4 or 1/4 normal speed.
- I place this 29.970fps output footage on a 29.970 timeline to maintain 120fps.
- I then reduce the Speed of the timeline by 50%, which halves the frame rate to 15.285fps (seen in DaVinci interface) which results in effect similar to 240 fps.

This footage was not originally sampled at 240fps, but at 120fps, so it should not be considered as true 240fps footage. I referred to it as "equivalent" to 240fps to make the distinction. However, the image quality of a true 240fps sample would be much higher than a 120fps sample so I probably should have referred to it as "somewhat similar to" 240fps instead of using the term equivalent.

Hope this clears things up a bit.
Rudy

Markr041 wrote:

Rudy Pohl wrote:

Markr041 wrote:

Rudy Pohl wrote:

One thing I really like about the R5's video capabilities is that the image quality of its 4K120p ALL-I format, which outputs at a staggering 1880 Mbps, is so good that you can slow down the footage another 50% in post giving you effectively 240 frames per second—and it still looks good.

Have a look at the last clip in this little sequence and see what you think.

Rudy

By the way, this is the area where I grew up and still live today and it just happens to be the best Snowy Owl country in Eastern Ontario. How great is that?

I am confused by what you did and what you are claiming.

How slow the 120 fps footage is in the rendered video depends on the frame rate you choose for the timeline. If you choose 60 fps, then stretch, the slowdown is 2X. If you choose 24 fps, and stretch, the slowdown is 5X. So by changing the timeline fps I can more than double the slow down with no loss of resolution.

So, what do you mean you can slow down another 50% in post exactly? And why is that equivalent to 240 fps?

Just to show I shoot 120P 4K with the R5:

I think I used a 30p timeline, so the slowdown is 4X. But I could have increased the slowdown by 25% with a 24p timeline to 5X. Now if I wanted more, then I would have to interpolate frames. Is that what you did?

240p with with a 60 fps timeline is 4X, with a 30p timeline it is an 8X slowdown. Is that what you are showing from the 120 fps shot video? 8X?

Hi Mark,

Sorry for the confusion and that I wasn't clearer. Let me try that again.

- In the SHOOT1 menu I set the format to 4K-U 119.9P ALL-I.
- As you know, the R5 internally processes this footage and outputs it at 29.970fps.
- This output as I understand it is 120fps slowed down x4 or 1/4 normal speed.
- I place this 29.970fps output footage on a 29.970 timeline to maintain 120fps.
- I then reduce the Speed of the timeline by 50%, which halves the frame rate to 15.285fps (seen in DaVinci interface) which results in effect similar to 240 fps.

This footage was not originally sampled at 240fps, but at 120fps, so it should not be considered as true 240fps footage. I referred to it as "equivalent" to 240fps to make the distinction. However, the image quality of a true 240fps sample would be much higher than a 120fps sample so I probably should have referred to it as "somewhat similar to" 240fps instead of using the term equivalent.

Hope this clears things up a bit.
Rudy

Yes, thanks. Perfectly.

One suggestion, by doing what you did DaVinci Resolve has to make up the missing frames. If you use the option "optical flow" to do that, it will do an even better job on interpolation. It is slow but works very well.

Hi Mark,

Glad this helped, again sorry for not being clear.

Regarding Optical Flow... I always use this option when I do Davinci-based post-production stabilization except for the odd times when it produces wonky results. For example, I found that it's nearly impossible to get my panned clips to play back smoothly without using Optical Flow. I also find that the "Enhanced Better" option in the Motion Estimation in the Retime and Scaling section works well with Optical Flow.

By the way, nice to chat with a fellow Davinci user.

Cheers,
Rudy