Something isn't right with the 'I took out the cell battery and I could record again' story. They make it sound like it is simply a timer in firmware but we know that that is definitely not the case. No Life's video showed that you could record to external recorder for hours without overheating. It's pretty clear that without the cards in the body the camera doesn't get as hot when recording externally. This would not have been the case if it were a matter of a timer in firmware.
Sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one. In this case that may be that when heat is generated near one or more sensors the camera is programmed to limit recording and when you remove the cards obviously a lot less heat will get generated (we all know how hot high performance cards get when written to at full speed for extended periods).
The biggest issue here, IMO, is the lack of communication from Canon.
I don't know what the resolution of this whole brouhaha will be, but I soooo hope the limit is artificial...because if it is then Canon has literally made an engineering breakthrough of the first order. If they managed to create a camera that can do 8K from a FF sensor for reasonably long periods of time in that relatively tiny body (for an 8K camera), then those engineers deserve a Nobel Prize in physics.
It would be like someone complaining that the DeLorean in Back to the Future has been artificially limited to 87 mph, and overlooking the fact that when it hits 88 mph it time travels.
I agree with Tony Northrup here...if Canon pulled this off and it is a purely artificial time limit, for whatever reasons, then it is a major major breakthrough.
Jay and I collaborated before on an R5 test (typical video run-time tests) and I pinged him today with the idea of defeating the battery door. He was game and tried it today and by initial measures it appears to work.
He documented the full experiment here:
Notes:
In the video he demonstrates how the camera flashes the overheat warning and is close to shutting down. He pulls the battery with the door-sensor taped down and when the camera comes back it shows 5:00 available. He doesn't demonstrate it in the video but he did that three times in a row back-to-back, each time recording about 6-7 minutes and then pulling the battery before the camera would shtudown - without the hack he only gets 1:00 after restarting the camera (he demonstrates this later in the video)...and it would take an hour to get 5:00 of available indicated time back
Also not in the video but he then let the camera cool for an hour and without the hack it only showed 5:00 but after recording for close to 5:00 and doing an orderly restart it came up with the warning immediately and only showed 1:00 and that's about what it lets him record, repeating what he's seen previously in actual use. So the hacked behavior is definitely giving him a lot more time.
I'm guessing the camera is showing 5:00 instead of the full cooled-down time due to the actual temperature of the camera triggering the throttle in real-time vs the usual thermal management algorithm heuristics limiting the time prematurely. He's planning some more experiments, including doing more than three back-to-back 5:00 records w/hack to see if the camera lets him do that repeatedly.
Another possibility for the 5:00 is that the camera may be periodically updating NVRAM even during the session with the thermal stats...so pulling the battery at the end of the video recording session may only be inhibiting the most recent update, and since that update would be at 5:00 -> 0:00 available that's why the camera returns to 5:00 after restarting.
snapsy wrote:
Jay and I collaborated before on an R5 test (typical video run-time tests) and I pinged him today with the idea of defeating the battery door. He was game and tried it today and by initial measures it appears to work.
He documented the full experiment here:
Notes:
In the video he demonstrates how the camera flashes the overheat warning and is close to shutting down. He pulls the battery with the door-sensor taped down and when the camera comes back it shows 5:00 available. He doesn't demonstrate it in the video but he did that three times in a row back-to-back, each time recording about 6-7 minutes and then pulling the battery before the camera would shtudown - without the hack he only gets 1:00 after restarting the camera (he demonstrates this later in the video)...and it would take an hour to get 5:00 of available indicated time back
Also not in the video but he then let the camera cool for an hour and without the hack it only showed 5:00 but after recording for close to 5:00 and doing an orderly restart it came up with the warning immediately and only showed 1:00 and that's about what it lets him record, repeating what he's seen previously in actual use. So the hacked behavior is definitely giving him a lot more time.
I'm guessing the camera is showing 5:00 instead of the full cooled-down time due to the actual temperature of the camera triggering the throttle in real-time vs the usual thermal management algorithm heuristics limiting the time prematurely. He's planning some more experiments, including doing more than three back-to-back 5:00 records w/hack to see if the camera lets him do that repeatedly.
Another possibility for the 5:00 is that the camera may be periodically updating NVRAM even during the session with the thermal stats...so pulling the battery at the end of the video recording session may only be inhibiting the most recent update, and since that update would be at 5:00 -> 0:00 available that's why the camera returns to 5:00 after restarting.
Interesting thanks. Another option is a $30 dummy battery.
Is the hacked behaviour indicating that we are tricking the algorithm which manages the heat but at the risk of damaging something inside? Maybe there aren’t as many internal temp sensors as we might hope, and as you suggest the orderly shutdown writes timings to nvram whereas the trick prevents this. Which may indicate as others have suggested that Canon controls it more by firmware and timings and less by temp sensors, and thus tricking may impact the longevity of some components inside the camera?
sturgis wrote:
Is the hacked behaviour indicating that we are tricking the algorithm which manages the heat but at the risk of damaging something inside? Maybe there aren’t as many internal temp sensors as we might hope, and as you suggest the orderly shutdown writes timings to nvram whereas the trick prevents this. Which may indicate as others have suggested that Canon controls it more by firmware and timings and less by temp sensors, and thus tricking may impact the longevity of some components inside the camera?
Indeed - we can trick the algorithm, but should we. I the algorithm sound? Perhaps it needs adjustment or tweaking through firmware.
Honestly, the problem isn't likely to affect me, but I'm very interested in how this is dealt with regardless.
sturgis wrote:
Interesting thanks. Another option is a $30 dummy battery.
Is the hacked behaviour indicating that we are tricking the algorithm which manages the heat but at the risk of damaging something inside? Maybe there aren’t as many internal temp sensors as we might hope, and as you suggest the orderly shutdown writes timings to nvram whereas the trick prevents this. Which may indicate as others have suggested that Canon controls it more by firmware and timings and less by temp sensors, and thus tricking may impact the longevity of some components inside the camera?
Yep, a dummy battery should work as well, for the same reasons.
I don't think it's a lack of thermal sensors but do believe it's Canon trying to protect the electronics and media cards, and not just from peak high temperatures but also total heat x total time. Roger C. has commented in the past how Lens Rentals would get the most issues on DSLR bodies that were used for video and many of those issues were PCB-releated. This is why I asked Jay to put the warning at the start of the video.
snapsy wrote:
Yep, a dummy battery should work as well, for the same reasons.
I don't think it's a lack of thermal sensors but do believe it's Canon trying to protect the electronics and media cards, and not just from peak high temperatures but also total heat x total time. Roger C. has commented in the past how Lens Rentals would get the most issues on DSLR bodies that were used for video and many of those issues were PCB-releated. This is why I asked Jay to put the warning at the start of the video.
Sorry not had chance to watch, but thanks for clarifying...
I partially watched but many people that commented the video ended up with different conclusion 😁
snapsy wrote:
Yep, a dummy battery should work as well, for the same reasons.
I don't think it's a lack of thermal sensors but do believe it's Canon trying to protect the electronics and media cards, and not just from peak high temperatures but also total heat x total time. Roger C. has commented in the past how Lens Rentals would get the most issues on DSLR bodies that were used for video and many of those issues were PCB-releated. This is why I asked Jay to put the warning at the start of the video.
After reading Andrew_EOSHD's reply to that, and the replies after that, I agree with you. The findings from his source is that there is a thermal plate and pad used to conduct heat from the CPU to the other PBC. The aluminum plate is not an EMC shield as Andrew_EOSHD claims.
snapsy wrote:
Jay and I collaborated before on an R5 test (typical video run-time tests) and I pinged him today with the idea of defeating the battery door. He was game and tried it today and by initial measures it appears to work.
He documented the full experiment here:
Notes:
In the video he demonstrates how the camera flashes the overheat warning and is close to shutting down. He pulls the battery with the door-sensor taped down and when the camera comes back it shows 5:00 available. He doesn't demonstrate it in the video but he did that three times in a row back-to-back, each time recording about 6-7 minutes and then pulling the battery before the camera would shtudown - without the hack he only gets 1:00 after restarting the camera (he demonstrates this later in the video)...and it would take an hour to get 5:00 of available indicated time back
Also not in the video but he then let the camera cool for an hour and without the hack it only showed 5:00 but after recording for close to 5:00 and doing an orderly restart it came up with the warning immediately and only showed 1:00 and that's about what it lets him record, repeating what he's seen previously in actual use. So the hacked behavior is definitely giving him a lot more time.
I'm guessing the camera is showing 5:00 instead of the full cooled-down time due to the actual temperature of the camera triggering the throttle in real-time vs the usual thermal management algorithm heuristics limiting the time prematurely. He's planning some more experiments, including doing more than three back-to-back 5:00 records w/hack to see if the camera lets him do that repeatedly.
Another possibility for the 5:00 is that the camera may be periodically updating NVRAM even during the session with the thermal stats...so pulling the battery at the end of the video recording session may only be inhibiting the most recent update, and since that update would be at 5:00 -> 0:00 available that's why the camera returns to 5:00 after restarting.
...Show more → sturgis wrote:
Interesting thanks. Another option is a $30 dummy battery.
Is the hacked behaviour indicating that we are tricking the algorithm which manages the heat but at the risk of damaging something inside? Maybe there aren’t as many internal temp sensors as we might hope, and as you suggest the orderly shutdown writes timings to nvram whereas the trick prevents this. Which may indicate as others have suggested that Canon controls it more by firmware and timings and less by temp sensors, and thus tricking may impact the longevity of some components inside the camera?
snapsy wrote:
Yep, a dummy battery should work as well, for the same reasons.
I don't think it's a lack of thermal sensors but do believe it's Canon trying to protect the electronics and media cards, and not just from peak high temperatures but also total heat x total time. Roger C. has commented in the past how Lens Rentals would get the most issues on DSLR bodies that were used for video and many of those issues were PCB-releated. This is why I asked Jay to put the warning at the start of the video.
I can't even tell you how often FMEA shows that components are underrated for the power, temperature, airflow, duty cycle, etc. encountered. I expect Canon will tweak the firmware to allow somewhat longer runtimes and higher failure rates, perhaps relying more on temperature than time.
snapsy wrote:
Yep, a dummy battery should work as well, for the same reasons.
I don't think it's a lack of thermal sensors but do believe it's Canon trying to protect the electronics and media cards, and not just from peak high temperatures but also total heat x total time. Roger C. has commented in the past how Lens Rentals would get the most issues on DSLR bodies that were used for video and many of those issues were PCB-releated. This is why I asked Jay to put the warning at the start of the video.
More likely Canon is trying to protect their cine market. Anyway, as a compromise I expect Canon will release a firmware update that will extend recording times somewhat, but there's no way Canon's going to take the video choke chain completely off the R5 IMO.
Gary Irwin wrote:
More likely Canon is trying to protect their cine market. Anyway, as a compromise I expect Canon will release a firmware update that will extend recording times somewhat, but there's no way Canon's going to take the video choke chain completely off the R5 IMO.
If it was Canon trying to protect their cine market they wouldn't have given the R5 nearly-unlimited recording time over HDMI. Most professional videographers use external HDMI monitors+recorders.
snapsy wrote:
If it was Canon trying to protect their cine market they wouldn't have given the R5 nearly-unlimited recording time over HDMI. Most professional videographers use external HDMI monitors+recorders.
Perhaps, but I'm thinking the R5 is such a ground breaking camera for Canon maybe they were a little unsure as to how to best "fit it" within the broad imaging market. From what I can see Canon, more than some other manufacturers, has a tendency to "engineer" cameras to fit a specific market slot (i.e. by making use of the infamous "cripple hammer"). By initially restricting video performance through firmware gives them time to figure things out (and release other products that makes it clear where the R5 fits in). It also leaves Canon plenty of room to release future firmware updates with "dramatic" video recording improvements thus extending the market life of the R5. Regardless, it seems there's a lot more going on here than just thermal issues.
I'm sure Canon knows exactly what it's doing, and time will reveal their plans.
sturgis wrote:
May I ask then you never wish to do short videos after stills?
I think high burst stills will take longer but may have the same heating issue that may then prevent any of the high bitrate video modes...
Having had video-capable cameras since at least the 5D3, I can say that I really haven't had much urge to do short videos after, or before stills.
I'm only now playing around with video, but I've learned a few things already - the cost of going to 8K on the computer side would be enormous right now, even 4K is a space hog, and there's a pretty stiff learning curve into turning a few video clips into something presentable.
So to answer your question, I have never had that urge in the past and I don't think I'll likely start doing it in the future. I can't say 'never', of course, but it isn't my forte.
Gary Irwin wrote:
Perhaps, but I'm thinking the R5 is such a ground breaking camera for Canon maybe they were a little unsure as to how to best "fit it" within the broad imaging market. From what I can see Canon, more than some other manufacturers, has a tendency to "engineer" cameras to fit a specific market slot (i.e. by making use of the infamous "cripple hammer"). By initially restricting video performance through firmware gives them time to figure things out (and release other products that makes it clear where the R5 fits in). It also leaves Canon plenty of room to release future firmware updates with "dramatic" video recording improvements thus extending the market life of the R5. Regardless, it seems there's a lot more going on here than just thermal issues.
I'm sure Canon knows exactly what it's doing, and time will reveal their plans. ...Show more →
I don't believe Canon is trying to reserve all this video just for their yet to be announced R cinema cameras that will cost so much more and hasn't even been announced yet, while marketing this camera to filmmakers in their ads.
What is going to cost Canon more?
- People buying the R5 instead of some future camera
- Potential hardware failures on thousands of cameras 2 years out and lawsuits/recalls
I think one is a much higher risk factor and would decimate any profit on this camera, and therefore is more plausible. The software limitations of watching temperature rate changes and reducing recording times based on that and some hard max temp limits is what we are seeing. The temps are very warm indeed, approaching levels that could cause long-term hardware failure. The heat issue is real, the software is just so aggressively monitoring and shutting down different functions, and thus people get this illusion that Canon is just being stupid and making odd software rules to force them to buy other cameras.
Canon will do what Sony did, they will issue firmware that will shave down the cooldown period, they will increase the level at which the heating indicators kick in, and allow more recording time (but just a bit) by eating into these "risk reduction validation checks" in the firmware.
This quote from Andrew's blog is totally stupid and shows how he knows nothing about ethics.
"but if there is some sort of artificial countdown timer that segments the camera from Cinema EOS products, that is seriously unethical behaviour."
Did he get in an uproar when the 5D4 can only do 7fps, but could do much more? Or when a camera sporting the same sensor as another, but its fastest shutter speed is 1/4000?
The ability of manufacturers to do lean manufacturing but also to segment their different models and price points has been around forever. The manufacturer gets to decide how much the consumer can use of a product, not the other way around. Even if Canon did artificially limit video, there is no ethical debate. The only ethics involved is matching Canon's marketing claims to what the product is able to do, and nothing more.
How many cars through the years have had a corvette motor in them, and how many could even remotely meet a straightline race with one, factory to factory? Very, very few, yet nobody screams "lawsuit" and "ethics", they understand the business model.
