Canon EOS 1Dx Mark III 4K Video takes up 256GB only gives 36 min. of recording, how can it sucks up that much?

Happy Hopping

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
6,764
https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...and-mirrorless-cameras/dslr/eos-1d-x-mark-iii

Click under Video SHooting:


Movie-recording Size Total Recording Time (Approx.) Movie Bit Rate /
File Size (Approx.)
64 GB 256 GB 1 TB
5.5K RAW
(5472 x 2886)
59.94 fps RAW 3 min.13 min.50 min.2600 Mbps
18711 MB/min.
29.97 fps
24.00 fps
23.98 fps
4 min.18 min.1 hr. 13 min.1800 Mbps
12937 MB/min.
4K DCI
(4096 x 2160)
59.94 fps ALL-I 9 min.36 min.2 hr. 21 min.940 Mbps
6734 MB/min.
IPB36 min.2 hr. 27 min.9 hr. 35 min.230 Mbps
1656 MB/min.
29.97 fps
24.00 fps
23.98 fps
ALL-I18 min.1 hr. 12 min.4 hr. 42 min.470 Mbps
3373 MB/min.
IPB1 hr. 10 min.4 hr. 40 min.18 hr. 17 min.120 Mbps
869 MB/min.
4K DCI cropped
(4096 x 2160)
59.94 fps ALL-I 9 min.36 min.2 hr. 21 min.940 Mbps
6734 MB/min.
IPB 36 min.2 hr. 27 min.9 hr. 35 min.230 Mbps
1656 MB/min.
29.97 fps
24.00 fps
23.98 fps
ALL-I 18 min.1 hr. 12 min.4 hr. 42 min.470 Mbps
3373 MB/min.
IPB 1 hr. 10 min.4 hr. 40 min.18 hr. 17 min.120 Mbps
869 MB/min.
4K UHD
(3840 X 2160)
59.94 fpsALL-I9 min.36 min.2 hr. 21 min.940 Mbps
6734 MB/min.
IPB36 min.2 hr. 27 min.9 hr. 35 min.230 Mbps
1656 MB/min.
29.97 fpsALL-I18 min.1 hr. 12 min.4 hr. 42 min.470 Mbps
3373 MB/min.
IPB1 hr. 10 min.4 hr. 40 min.18 hr. 17 min.120 Mbps
869 MB/min.
Full HD
(1920 x 1080)
119.9 fpsALL-I23 min.1 hr. 34 min.6 hr. 8 min.360 Mbps
2586 MB/min.
59.94 fpsALL-I47 min.3 hr. 8 min.12 hr. 14 min.180 Mbps
1298 MB/min.
IPB2 hr. 18 min.9 hr. 14 min.36 hr. 6 min.60 Mbps
440 MB/min.
29.97 fpsALL-I1 hr. 33 min.6 hr. 12 min.24 hr. 16 min.90 Mbps
655 MB/min.
IPB4 hr. 30 min.18 hr. 2 min.70 hr. 27 min.30 Mbps
226 MB/min.
IPB
(Light)
11 hr. 35 min.46 hr. 23 min.181 hr. 13 min.12 Mbps
88 MB/min.




 

Happy Hopping

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
6,764
So just to compare apple to apple, a mature subject matter film that we can all download, at 24 fps, 4K, is only about 10GB that gives easily 1 hr. of viewing time.

By comparison, at 24 fps, 4K, 1 hr. 10 min. takes up 64GB at IPB, and if you use ALL-I, you get a whoppy 18 min.

How can Canon sucks up so much more on storage space? And is those mature films uses IPB or ALL-i for the sake of comparison?
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,461
The very short answer is that Canon choose a very uncompressed, incredibly high bit-rate codec. It's one of the major complaints about the camera, that basically recording at maximum quality is unusable because the data rates are so high. In comparison, a cinema camera like the Sony FS7 or Sony FX9 uses XAVC-I at 380Mb/s, which is incredible. It's one of the most efficient codecs and it preserves both of those cameras 14-15+ stop dynamic range in a log profile while preserving maximum data and not being full RAW. (The FS7 is a Netflix approved camera, and it is expected that the FX9 also will be as it outclasses the FS7 in every way regarding visual fidelity).

Part of the reason why Canon may have chosen to do what they did is processing power. 5.9k in a body that small is no small feat. The major consideration then is how fast that camera can process the data and how much heat it can expend. Using a more compressed, more efficient codec also means the processor has to be able to efficiently encode that data. Leaving it in a more uncompressed state is easier to do. But it isn't really useful for endusers.

The summary is that if you need an inexpensive cinema camera that shoots 6k, I wouldn't recommend the 1DXIII. The BlackMagic Pocket Cinema Camera 6k is a choice that makes far better financial sense and allows for compressed RAW amongst other more efficient codecs. Otherwise if you're interested in video production I'd recommend getting an actual cinema camera. A Canon C200 as an example can be had for the same $6000, which will give the option for RAW or 8-bit compressed. Similarly an FS7 can be had for near the same amount (depending on if you want an FS7 or FS7 Mark II. They're basically the same camera, the FS7 just has a few updated features like internal variable ND and more assighnable buttons amognst others). There is also the Ursa Mini II if you prefer Blackmagic's system (I'm personally not a fan), or the EVA-1 from Panasonic, as well as other options near or around those price brackets.

EDIT: As an aside there is a photo/video subforum: https://hardforum.com/forums/photography-video.51/
I realize that not a lot of people know about it or visit it however.

EDIT2: To directly respond to your other question, cameras capture way more data than what you get in a delivered piece. There is a big difference between capture formats and deliverables. RAW is just that, RAW. You're talking about video that has had all the decision data removed and is highly compressed. This is like the difference between recording audio in .WAV and then compressing it with .mp3 or .mp4 with AAC or whatever. One is all of the data and the other is a compressed format. A 5 minute .wav file is 10x larger than a 320kbps mp3. To reiterate, it's the same with video, but more so. Compressed video isn't video that can be used in productions or edited well if at all. Generally speaking cinema cameras or cameras designed for production work in general all have high data rates.
 
Last edited:

Happy Hopping

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
6,764
1) on your second paragraph, what is "5.9k"? Or you mean 5.5K Raw?

2) I never know there is a photography sub-forum in hardforum, that's a first. It could have moved to the main page

3) I need 60 fps, I would prefer ALL-I but like we all said, it's un-realistic, I use 100GB made in Japan blu-ray media, so I guess there is no sense to buy this camera. I can't switch over to the other camera, as I have 2 L-lens already that is $5K, I want to use it. Currently, I have the Mark II, so at 1920x1080 at 60 fps, it can do the job, and I can put a lot of video in a small 50GB blu-ray media. So I can wait for the next UHD camera.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,461
1) on your second paragraph, what is "5.9k"? Or you mean 5.5K Raw?
Sorry, both the EVA1 and C500 Mark II both shoot 5.9k RAW, so I made an erroneous assumption that the 1DXIII does as well.

2) I never know there is a photography sub-forum in hardforum, that's a first. It could have moved to the main page
Well, welcome.

3) I need 60 fps, I would prefer ALL-I but like we all said, it's un-realistic, I use 100GB made in Japan blu-ray media, so I guess there is no sense to buy this camera. I can't switch over to the other camera, as I have 2 L-lens already that is $5K, I want to use it. Currently, I have the Mark II, so at 1920x1080 at 60 fps, it can do the job, and I can put a lot of video in a small 50GB blu-ray media. So I can wait for the next UHD camera.
There are other Canon options that I would recommend first. Your post is also unclear. Mark II what?
5d Mark II? C300 Mark II? 1dx Mark II? C500 Mark II? A lot of Mark II’s from Canon.
A used 1dx Mark II might fit the bill. The data rates on it are still high, but not like this. It can do 4K 60. Otherwise like I said, you could consider actual cinema cameras or perhaps some cameras from other manufacturers.

If you’re using Canon EF lenses then basically you can adapt that to any system. You won’t have autofocus but a lot of cinematographers still use EF stills glass to shoot video production work on.

The BlackMagic pocket cinema camera 6k as an example actually uses an EF mount. It lacks a lot of convenience features but the quality it shoots is incredibly high. If you know how to use a camera, it can net incredible results. It also has 60p options.

People have adapted EF lenses onto Canon R using Canons own mount adapter. They’ve used EF lenses on cameras like the Panasonic GH5 and GH5S.

The Canon C200 is a serious option as well if you’re looking for a cinema camera. Data rates are high on Canon raw-lite. But you could convert them to ProRes or some other easier to digest format and then get rid of the original files if you wanted. Not sure if it shoots 4K 60, but I know it has 1080p 60 scan modes.

You can use EF lenses on an adapter from Metabones on a Sony FS7 like I mentioned earlier. Which would net you 4k60p or 1080p180p. It’s also in that $6000~ price range.

There are a number of cameras you could use that could take your lenses and also shoot 4K 60p. But you don’t seem to have any criteria past that. So if that’s all the criteria then there are already like half a dozen suggestions as listed now in this thread. As also noted, most won’t give you autofocus. But most cinema productions don’t use autofocus. The c200, 1dxii and canon r are both exceptions that would be able to autofocus with Canon glass.
 
Last edited:

Happy Hopping

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
6,764
I got the 5D mark ii back in 2015.

I can look into how many min. we get from those camera per 100Gb for me to decide. I just switch over to 100GB blu-ray media, as the price has come down from years ago. I was using 50Gb media for many years. This is the reason that I start looking into 4K 60 fps camera, and maintain about 11 to 14 fps on continuous shooting. I wouldn't be surprise if Canon release a 1DX Mark 4 in the future that fixes this problem
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,461
I got the 5D mark ii back in 2015.

I can look into how many min. we get from those camera per 100Gb for me to decide. I just switch over to 100GB blu-ray media, as the price has come down from years ago. I was using 50Gb media for many years. This is the reason that I start looking into 4K 60 fps camera, and maintain about 11 to 14 fps on continuous shooting. I wouldn't be surprise if Canon release a 1DX Mark 4 in the future that fixes this problem
If your limitation is always going to be 100GB BD media, then upgrading to any camera that shoots 4k is a mistake. Even on my 8-bit Sony Cameras at 100 Mb/s 128GB is less than 3 hours. I personally would never recommend it. Any Cinema camera is going to have data rates far higher. The FS7 as mentioned before is over triple the data rate, meaning 128GB's records less than an hour.
If you want another step up camera I would likely look at a used Canon C100 Mark II [or another video here] (I recommend used as it's a 5 year old camera that stores still charge $2200 for). It shoots oversampled 1080p. It uses a 4k sensor and downsamples to 1080 (it does not allow for 4k recording). As a result though it's actual resolution is much higher than a native 1080p camera due to the way the debayering works. It shoots at a moddest 24Mbps, which will allow 12 hours to be stored on a single 100GB BD disc, which is a much more economical format. It will look far better than 5D footage. It also records 60 fps and has C-Log as well as dual pixel AF. If you want to see how much better it will do for you, I'd rcommend a rental which can likely be done for a $100 or so for 3 days.

Also as a side note, I would guess that the 1DXIII will be the last camera of its kind from Canon. The next 1D will likely be mirrorless. Canon themselves know and have stated that EF production is decreasing and RF is increasing. Which has to do with market forces. There is going to be a new R camera confirmed by Canon, the R5 which will shoot 8k, 30fps, full frame, internal, which is supposed to be the continuation of the 5D line (as stated by Canon themselves). The 1D series will likely follow in another 3-5 years. But even if they did make another 1DX, I doubt the data rates would go down, if anything they'd go up. All the numbers always go one way.
 
Last edited:

Happy Hopping

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
6,764
if canon is going mirrorless, can these new mirrorless camera use all those current L lens?
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,461
if canon is going mirrorless, can these new mirrorless camera use all those current L lens?
Yes. But you also have to know the EF lenses in general are going to be more and more depreciated (also as a side note, it says "unless users demand them", but by demand, they mean people "buying" them, which they aren't). Not because they won't work or won't perform as well (Canon's mount adapters perform like native), but that EF lenses will be produced less and less and as a result won't be updated like RF lenses will be. Newer lenses have better AF algorithms, better coatings, and better lens designs. There is a big difference even between lenses designed over the past 2 years and 5 years ago. RF lenses perform better than their EF equivalents. You can do your own research and read about it on your own time, all that info is out there.

For now, EF is still widely used. But I would look to transitioning sooner than later if you can. Perhaps in the next 2 years on the outside. One thing Canon hasn't done is release an RF mount cinema camera. When that happens I expect the death of EF to accelerate. Ideally you want to be off platforms before that happens in order to sell your stuff for the maximum amount of money.
 
Last edited:

Happy Hopping

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
6,764
https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...ameras/dslr/eos-1d-x-mark-ii/eos-1d-x-mark-ii

the 1dX MArk II also sucks up a lot of space on a 64GB at 2160p, only 10 min.

As to moving from EF to Mirrorless, I read a youtube review on the pros / cons on mirrorless camera. At the end of the day, it has to have enough improvement over the existing L lens series to lure people to move over. We'll know in 5 yr. what the trend is. For now, this could be 1 of those sales pitch like 3D on LCD TV, it comes and it disappear
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,461
https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...ameras/dslr/eos-1d-x-mark-ii/eos-1d-x-mark-ii

the 1dX MArk II also sucks up a lot of space on a 64GB at 2160p, only 10 min.
Like I said before, if your limitation is 100GB BD discs, then there is no 4k camera's that I would recommend to you. None of them will give you more than 3 hours.

As to moving from EF to Mirrorless, I read a youtube review on the pros / cons on mirrorless camera. At the end of the day, it has to have enough improvement over the existing L lens series to lure people to move over. We'll know in 5 yr. what the trend is. For now, this could be 1 of those sales pitch like 3D on LCD TV, it comes and it disappear
If you can't see the writing on the wall then you have no vision. Mirrorless isn't going away. It's basically the market. If you think that either Canon or Nikon would put all this manufacturing into place to create all this hardware for a fad then you don't know the camera market.
Take a look at both of their lens offerings. Canon as an example has brand new L-Series glass that will never come to EF mount. Also, I literally gave you a link that Canon is no longer going to produce EF lenses. How can you say that you think it's a fad when Canon themselves are stating they aren't going to be making EF lenses anymore?

Canon and Nikon are both late to Market. At this point every other camera manufacturer has been making mirrorless for 10 years. Sony as an example is leading the mirrorless market and Canon is definitely trying to take it back. Hence their creation of the R5. There will be no mirror equivalent of the R5.

Also, look at the entire industry.
Sony makes zero cameras with mirrors. Fuji makes zero cameras with mirrors. Panasonic makes zero cameras with mirrors. Olympus makes zero cameras with mirrors.
Only Nikon and Canon make cameras with mirrors.
Nikon has made the new Nikon Z (Z6, Z7), and Z mount and invested a huge amount of money into brand new native glass. The Z6 is a replacement for the D7XX series while the Z7 is a replacement for their D8XX series.
Canon has made the EOS R and RP, the RF mount and invested a huge amount of money into brand new native glass. The Canon R5 is a replacement for the 5D. This has been stated by Canon.
 
Last edited:
Top