Re: Canon R5 (Mark I) 8K video - worth it for future proofing?
Max_Pain wrote:
I see. I'm a Windows guy. I recently got DaVinci Resolve but I haven't had a chance to dig into how to use it. Using the Windows built-in editor has been enough for my simple uses of video content but I believe it caps out at 4K.
AI tells me that Resolve (the free version) will export only up to 4K UHD (3840 x 2160) and 60fps. I'm not sure if you can edit 8K and export at 4K. It's also apparently limited to 8-bit codecs. I've used it to edit R6II 4K and it was really good, I thought, though the learning curve was kind of steep considering the last time I seriously edited video was on FCP about 10 years previously...
As for capture at 8K vs 4K... 8K might be worth it for 'special' moments if it's not going to overheat and lockout the camera. And you can justify the storage. Maybe more important is whether you want to shoot in C-Log vs. a baked in camera profile. C-Log would potentially better avoid shadow/highlight clipping and provide more flexibility in post, but then you actually have to spend time in post to grade it. Before I was semi-comfortable with using C-Log and grading, I used the Neutral Picture Style with contrast at the lowest setting. SOOC this video still looked fine to the average person and I found it had enough flexibility in Resolve for basic grading if not pushed it too hard.
Thinking about 8K displays... often current 4K television programming is sub 4K and/or massively compressed. So usually people aren't viewing at optimum 4K quality. I can't imagine how much 8K will be butchered if 4K already is via transmission. Point being, I think if you present your viewers a high quality 4K video, with low compression, it will look great and often better than what they are getting over the air or via cable anyway. At least currently. And a massive 4K TV would be comparable to viewing massive prints. You generally are not right up close where you can see the pixels, but rather at a certain viewing distance relative to the size of the display. If 4K is already sufficient for general viewing in these situations, 8K might be splitting hairs. But like 4K vs. HD, or 45MP vs. 20/24, another advantage is cropping flexibility. It's one of the things I liked about editing 4K for HD delivery: cropping and creating camera movements from crops of stationary compositions. Same with oversampling for export to a lower resolution. The export generally will be cleaner/sharper than had the image/footage been captured at export resolution.
I'd say play around with 8K to figure out if it fits your workflow and storage budget even if only so you're comfortable working with it, and recognize the equipment's limitations, so that you're somewhat prepared if a situation arises when you definitely want to record in 8K. Worst case, if you had to, you could probably export 8K footage to 6K or 4K with low compression to free up storage, etc. It's a bit unfortunate the R5 doesn't offer a 6K option as a midway compromise.
Sep 04, 2025 at 10:59 PM
Previous versions of rscheffler's message #16884697 « Canon R5 (Mark I) 8K video - worth it for future proofing? »
