New Canon MPEG-2 Codec chosen for file-based professional video camcorder
promises compatibility with industry-standard editing & processing software

TOKYO, February 2, 2010 — Canon Inc. announced today the Company has adopted an MPEG-2 Full HD (4:2:2) file-based recording codec for a new professional video camcorder currently under development. The Canon MPEG-2 Codec will enable high-quality imaging and audio performance with up to 50 Mbps data recording and twice the color data of HDV*1 profile formats. File-based recording helps video operations realize greater efficiencies during post-production processing, making it an ideal format for many industry applications such as newsgathering, documentary filmmaking and event videography.

* MPEG-2 Full HD compression and 4:2:2 color sampling
The adoption of MPEG-2 Full HD (MPEG-2 4:2:2P@HL compliant) compression enables the recording of 1,920 x 1,080-pixel full high-definition video. Additionally, compared with the 4:2:0 profile format used in HDV and other standards, 4:2:2 color sampling offers twice the volume of color data, providing double the level of color resolution.

* Maximum 50 Mbps data recording
With approximately twice the data volume of HDV, the Codec supports higher resolution and increased color data to enable the recording of high-quality video.

* Industry-standard MXF*2 file format
MXF (Material eXchange Format) is a widely supported open source file format for the recording of video and audio and metadata, developed to suit the latest editing systems used by broadcasters.

Canon partners with major editing and processing software

With the adoption of the MPEG-2 Full HD (4:2:2) file-based recording codec, Canon is working in cooperation with Adobe Systems Incorporated, Apple Inc., Avid Technology, Inc. and Grass Valley to ensure compatibility with major editing and processing software programs widely used within the video imaging industry. Additionally, at future industry events, Canon intends to demonstrate the overall video-production workflow, from initial video capture to clip-trimming and final editing, with video clips stored in a file-based recording system and using industry-standard software applications.

Advantages of File-Based Recording
File-based recording enables video and audio data to be managed and stored by file, much in the same way as computer data. It supports efficiency throughout the production process, from initial video capture to final editing through the entire workflow. Additionally, file-based recording provides users with the flexibility to utilize different editing environments and workflow solutions without the restrictions associated with some other video recording formats, helping to reduce investment costs.

*1 HDV is a standard for the recording and playback of high definition (1,440 x 1,080 pixels) video and audio on DV-format cassette tapes
*2 A format for professional digital video and audio media defined by the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE)

Looks like Peter is going to have to upgrade to MC 4.0.5... :) AMA is the future Peter!I'm holding out for a color correction overhaul in MC and better audio. Hopefully, MC 5 will be all mine.

"File-based professional video camcorder" refers to this article: Canon Reveals Their Next Pro Video Cam (http://www.dvinfo.net/features/canon-reveals-their-next-pro-video-cam.html)

Previous discussion thread (read only): Canon Reveals Their Next Pro Video Cam -- Discussion Thread (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-video-industry-news/470731-canon-reveals-their-next-pro-video-cam.html)

Wow, that is MASSIVE news.
Steve

Note that they have "adopted an MPEG-2 Full HD (4:2:2) file-based recording codec". So is this a new implementation of Mpeg-2 at 50Mb/s or are they using the XDCAM HD 422 codec and file structure? I hope it's the later as this means no extra importers or new codecs and the system will work out of the box.

It's what is not revealed in the announcement that is interesting. Form factor, sensors, recording medium.. it might not even be solid state.

From the release it sounds like it won't be the XDCam version as they are talking about working with Apple etc to get compatibility sorted which they wouldn't need to do if it was XDCam.
Also, I suppose you're right about it not implicitly stating it's solid state but I think it's a safe bet - what else could it be, do you mean optical discs or something similar, what else is there?
Steve

There's pictures on the Canon article which shows the form factor - not going to keep shoulder shooters happy - and also has size that indicates 1/3" chips and CCDs. Maybe the pictures were a red herring and they've done a complete redesign. After all the article predicts AVCHD codec!
Steve

Might not be the same camera. There could be more than one new camera. According to Vincent we'll hear more on the 8th.

My money would also be on solid state, but it would be nice if the MXF files were the same as the XDCAM ones, in the same way that the NanoFlash 50Mb/s MXF files can be directly written to an XDCAM disc. This would be better for everyone in the long run creating an industry standard but giving us end users a choice of camera manufacturers.

I hope it's 1/2" CCD's. It would tick all the right broadcast spec boxes and be good for all the lightning filming that I do.

Could they do that? The XDCam file structure etc is not property of Sony?
I'm sure this will sart up the rumours again. If they are going for EBU spec 50 mb/s will they also go for EBU spec 1/2" chips? They mention full 1920x1080 so presumably that's what it'll be, and 720 seems easy to implement a la EX3. So, we'll have a 1/2" CCD camera, 50 mb/s, full rater 1080 and 720, with variable frame rates upto 60 in 720, and an off the shelf adapter for Canon SLR lenses. I'll have one!
Steve

I expect the file structure on the XDCAM discs is proprietary. But the 50Mb/s Mpeg2 within the MXF file is probably not and this is the important bit. With a NanoFlash you can shoot 50Mb/s mpeg2 MXF's and dump these MXF files directly on to an XDCAM disc. The XDCAM device creates the full file structure, all you need is a compatible MXF file.

There's pictures on the Canon article which shows the form factor - not going to keep shoulder shooters happy
I'm the author of that article. In it I have mentioned the strong possibility that yet
another new model waits in the wings; a shoulder mount version of the mock-up (http://www.dvinfo.net/features/canon-reveals-their-next-pro-video-cam.html#evolution)
which is the subject of the article.

Maybe the pictures were a red herring and they've done a complete redesign.
No, neither Canon nor DV Info Net do red herrings. Remember, this piece was shown
under glass by Canon at InterBEE and at HD Expo, just as they did before with the
XL H1 at IBC in 2005. It is for real -- trust me.

After all the article predicts AVCHD codec!Not anymore. I have updated it per the info about the new codec:
Canon Reveals Their Next Pro Video Cam -- Announced Format (http://www.dvinfo.net/features/canon-reveals-their-next-pro-video-cam.html#format)
Hope this helps,

Might not be the same camera. There could be more than one new camera.There most likely is more than one new camera; the other being a shoulder-mount version of the XH replacement we've been talking about (in other words, an XL H replacement). Rest assured however that the press release about the new codec is most definitely tied to this specific camera (and other versions of it, which very possibly include a shoulder-mount form factor).

If it does tick the broadcast HD specs, organisations like the BBC could buy hundreds to replace the Z1s assuming Sony don't match it

Only problem I see is that it's not likely to be 1/2" CCD as that would push the price too high for where they would probably be aiming. The only way they could go 1/2" would be CMOS and apparently they are not going to.
Steve

That's right. I'm pretty sure it's three 1/3rd-inch CCDs, although I'd love to be wrong.

CCDs plus 4:2:2 is going to be big competition for the HPX300, heck, the EX series is going to have huge competition from this announcement too. I'm thinking they must go full raster on the CCDs making this a full blown sub-10K PDW-700 with Solid State memory... Shame the current mock up is handheld size, but a XL-H1 sized cousin could suit the shoulder shooters.

IMO, Sony's gonna have to go 1080p60 to beat this.

Convergent Design has proven whith its NanoFlash that it is possible to record MPEG2 @ 180Mb/s on a Compact Flash card. So why would Canon limit the bitrate to 50Mb/s whithout giving any choice to the customer? (for instance 100Mb/s is a good bitrate for a good quality and an acceptable file size).

Sorry, bit rate does *not* determine image quality.

Given that Canon's most recent formats (HDV and AVCHD) were maximized at 25Mbps and 24Mbps, it's hardly accurate to say that 50Mbps is "limiting." You cannot make an informed determination about image quality just from the bit rate.

IMO, Sony's gonna have to go 1080p60 to beat this.I bet Sony will update the EX3 to the 4:2:2 50Mbps (EX3R) can't wait til NAB.

Once you start going above 50 Mb/s with 4:2:2 1920x1080 Mpeg2 the increase in quality gets less and less. For the kind of projects that most people will be using a small form factor camera, 50Mb/s is probably all they will ever need and it should be very good as has been proven by the 50Mb/s XDCAM HD cameras. You have to remember that the NanoFlash can only use a small selection of tried and tested high speed CF cards. Larger files also means slower transfers and copies, especially if your using USB. I think 50 Mb/s is a good compromise for most applications. Of course many will want to extend the cameras capabilities and devices such as the NanoFlash and Ki-Pro will make that possible.

Alister, you've just described The Law of Diminishing Returns -- that's what I was missing. Thanks,

I agree Alister. 50 mb/s seems a pretty good compromise all round. Having the I frame codec option on the Nano is nice, but I think anyone who's not happy with a 50 mb/s 422 codec on the new Canon is frankly asking a bit much.
Brian, I thought I heard that it's not possible to uprate the EX3 to 50 mb/s? It would take a major redesign making it into a totally new camera.
Chris, the bit rate does not determine image quality but obviously it's part of the chain that does.
Jack, you have to assume it'll be full raster, they allude to it in the announcement, plus it'd be a massive backward step if it's not - in fact can't think of any recent pro or semi pro camera that's not full raster.
Steve

I bet Sony will update the EX3 to the 4:2:2 50Mbps (EX3R) can't wait til NAB.
Bet they don't. While no one knows yet just how good this camera will be, or at least those that do can't say (and knowing Canon it will be good). There is much more to any camera system than just the codec. A camera is a system and any weaknesses in that system can limit how the rest performs. A noisy sensor can negate any advantage given by a brilliant codec, for example. The EX3 and EX1 work very well as they are well balanced systems, with optics, sensors and codec all working at similarly high levels.

I think we are more likely to see a 50Mb/s PMW-350 before we see 50Mb/s in one of Sony's smaller cameras. Think back to the HVX200, a very capable codec at 100 Mb/s but rather let down by a less than optimum sensor. I hope (and expect) that Canon will have a good sensor, but track record suggests it will be 1/3" CCD. Good that it's CCD but bad that it may only be 1/3".

It will be interesting to see how the camera compares to the family started by the NX5 from Sony. The internal processing of the NX5 is clearly higher than the current recorded mode as the HD/SDI is full 4:2:2 10 bit and from the information so far internally the processing is at 60P. Lots of room for Sony to move to in the future and with all the choices one could record SD to cards, HD to the FMU and using a Nano etc record 4:2:2 10 bit at the same time !! Could be an interesting year.

Ron Evans

Chris, u r right. It will be a 1/3", I' certain.

However this is very interesting. This new Canon cam fills up the gap that Sony has left for us. Users who are looking for something to fit the missing gap for the 1/3" to go with a XDCAM EX. That said, if the price position is right. However I think it is likely to be higher than the NX5.

We'll see what happens when the 8th comes.

Hmm but I really think Sony is going to surprise again with a new cam during NAB10

Interesting news.

The hope of a 1/2" model for the shoulder is fun, but it would only work for me if Canon left the semi-shoulder design in the past and went with a more traditional shoulder mount. Maybe a la JVC's compact shoulder design.

I don't think they're ready to abandon the XL lens mount, which is a major part of the reason why I'm sure it'll be one-third inch.

This 50Mbps option is going to be rather interesting when it comes to media. At 35Mbps, the XDCamEX neatly puts about an hour of video onto a 16GB card. At 50Mbps, this is going to require a jump to 32GB cards for an hour. With a lot left over. So we'll be looking at 90 minute media. That's a pretty odd duck.

I'm a bit disappointed Canon chose to go with MPEG-2 compression in their new cam. That choice seems a little short-sighted (to me), when you consider that this cam (and siblings) is likely to constitute Canon's pro camcorder offering for the next half decade.

It won't be long until AVC is just as easy to edit (give it a year or two) as MPEG-2 is today, and editing AVC is quite reasonably manageable currently.

With AVC encoding at 32Mbps, Canon could have offered very close to the same image quality (or better), with some very nice side benefits.

At 32Mbps, recording to low cost media reliably is much easier than at 50Mbps. Even just decent class-6 SDHC is adequate for recording at 32Mbps, but will not be for this camcorder (recording at 50Mbps). (Hopefully they will at least offer recording to some sort of standard media, perhaps "class-10" SDHC for the moment with SDXC compatibility for the future, and not some wiz-bang proprietary crap that will cost an arm and a leg. SDXC might not be real cheap right away, but it will be over the long haul - and it does get away from the file size limitations of FAT-32. Proprietary crap never will be cheap, simply because it's limited scope of use will prevent mass production on the same sort of huge scale as with media that is standardized for a much wider range of uses. Just look how expensive P2 and SxS still are, even though those formats are no longer really even close to being on the bleeding edge of technology.)

32Mbps recording would also produce some conveniently sized files. Perhaps it is really not a big deal, but personally I think it would be nice having 16GB cards record almost exactly 1 hour of footage (32GB cards record almost exactly 2 hours of footage, etc.). It's just plain nice and neat (easier on the brain). (Along the lines of neatness, I also think it would be nice if flash memory manufacturers offered 24GB cards. That would be pretty convenient for simply copying source footage recordings directly to Blu-Ray disks for long term storage.)

AVC will almost assuredly eventually actually offer performance advantages, for editing related purposes - when decoding (and eventually rendering/encoding) speeds exceed sustained throughput speeds to/from HDD. Yes, hard drive performance will continue increasing as time goes by, but not nearly at the rate decoding (and rendering/encoding) speeds should increase, especially when the potential of massively parallel processing GPU acceleration finally starts really getting unleashed - and ever faster CPUs, as well as more efficient 64bit apps, won't hurt a bit either.

That said, bringing (full raster) 4:2:2 image recording to the table is very nice. 4:2:0 source does work quite adequately for a lot of purposes, but is a bit on the weak side for acquisition generally. I do think AVC at 32Mbps would have been more ideal on the whole (and especially over the long term), but 50Mbps MPEG-2 is certainly a reasonable way to go for achieving quality acquisition of full raster HD footage at 4:2:2. I hope Canon brings the XH-A1 like version of this cam in under $4k. If they do that, we will indeed have a more robust range of genuine choices, among affordable three 1/3" imaging chip camcorders that record to solid state media. Diversity and competition are good things.

Chris,

I do find it interesting that this camera has a different lens than my A1s. (More space between the focus and zoom rings and a little window that I can see) One would have thought that change unnecessary if they were only changing it to "file based recording professional camera". And if we see you listing any XL mount equipment in the next day or two with "reduced for quick sale" as a heading, it could be suspicious. :)

Dave

Joe Bogacz of Canon will present the first US public introduction of Canon's new MPEG-2 Full HD (4:2:2) file-based recording codec and workflow to the industry and will also introduce the first US public preview of Canon's upcoming file-based professional video camera at the San Francisco SuperMeet. Oh yeah!

Still tickets left. Be the first on your block to see this.

Ninth Annual San Francisco SuperMeet (http://supermeet.com/)

I'm a bit disappointed Canon chose to go with MPEG-2 compression in their new cam. [...]

It won't be long until AVC is just as easy to edit (give it a year or two) as MPEG-2 is today, and editing AVC is quite reasonably manageable currently.


But AVCHD only supports 4:2:0, so I'm guessing they had to use something else if they wanted to offer 4:2:2.

...if we see you listing any XL mount equipment in the next day or two with "reduced for quick sale" as a heading, it could be suspicious.
Ha. Well, I can say that I've been planning to sell my XH A1
for awhile now, but haven't had a chance to do so yet.

I'm attending the FCP SuperMeet that Michael refers to in his
post above, and would be delighted to meet with any fellow
DVi members while there.

It wouldn't surprise me if the "under glass mock-up" is shown
there, since Canon USA's presentation is based on its codec.

Edit: Oops, I missed this earlier: "...will also introduce
the first US public preview of Canon's upcoming file-based
professional video camera" -- so let's say that I'm looking
forward to seeing it there!

I didnt know you were coming Chris. Thats awesome. Finally found a guy who will buy me free drinks.

Can you please keep us up to date once you have had the super meet. I wish I could be there but already went to Aitutaki for the holidays so I don't think my wife will let me fly off to the states.

Chris, will you update your article after the supermeet?

Michael, r u planning to have a supermeet down under for the aussies and kiwis? (sorry for the change of subject chris)

Cheers
Ratu

I'm a bit disappointed Canon chose to go with MPEG-2 compression in their new cam. That choice seems a little short-sighted (to me), when you consider that this cam (and siblings) is likely to constitute Canon's pro camcorder offering for the next half decade.

It won't be long until AVC is just as easy to edit (give it a year or two) as MPEG-2 is today, and editing AVC is quite reasonably manageable currently.

So are Canon supposed to wait another two or three years for computers to get to the point where they can edit 3 or 4 streams of native AVCHD in realtime or release a camera now which should be perfectly capable of producing top rate HD pictures? It's highly debateable as to whether AVCHD is better than Mpeg2 at 40Mb/s plus bitrates anyway. AVCHD is optimised for low bandwidth, sub 15Mb/s use and this is where it excels. Most of those optimisations do nothing other than increase CPU load when it's used at high bit rates.
What happens in 3 years time, sensors will have moved on, codecs will change etc. There is a market that exists now for easy to edit, high quality HD cameras, Canon can't ignore that if they wish to stay in the pro market.

Chris, will you update your article after the supermeet?You can count on it!

There is a market that exists now for easy to edit, high quality HD cameras...I think ultimately that's what they were looking at when they choose this codec... ease of editing with current NLE configs.

I am a bit disappointed if it has 1/3" sensors (which seems to be the general consensus). I love my Canon XL-H1 but the light sensitivity bothers me. I hope they improved the sensor a great deal like they did with their DSLR lines over the last few years.

It is going to be an interesting year with both Scarlet and this coming out. And I hope Panasonic will also release a camera or two this year.

It makes sense for Canon to release the new codec with a tried and true imaging section. It's not unlike Intel's tick-tock strategy where they alternate upgrades to the chip architecture with upgrades to the size of the process technology.

Once Canon establishes their new data strategy, the next shoe to drop would be sensor and other imaging changes.

But presumably they won't use the same chips as in the XL-H1 as they were 1440x1080 rather than full raster - that would be a real negative move.
Steve

If they decide to use Progressive chips than I wouldn’t be surprised if it gets less pixels than 1440x1080 unless Canon came up with some breakthrough technology to keep the heating under control and use 1920x1080 progressive chips. Today’s technology should be easy to do 1280x720 progressive but maybe the chips are something like 960x1080 progressive. Since you don’t hear anything about 720 60p than maybe the chips are 1920x1080 interlaced. I’m really hoping that it’s progressive chips because 720 60p is wonderful to have.

Sensor blocks in the XH and XL H series camcorders employed H-axis pixel offset, which provided greater-than-full-raster resolution. Nobody ever complained of image softness in those cameras. The number of pixels on the chip is only one part of the total equation that determines recorded resolution.

If they decide to use Progressive chips than I wouldn’t be surprised if it gets less pixels than 1440x1080 unless Canon came up with some breakthrough technology to keep the heating under control and use 1920x1080 progressive chips. Today’s technology should be easy to do 1280x720 progressive but maybe the chips are something like 960x1080 progressive. Since you don’t hear anything about 720 60p than maybe the chips are 1920x1080 interlaced. I’m really hoping that it’s progressive chips because 720 60p is wonderful to have.

Do you mean because it's CCDs? With CMOS it's easy (look at EX1 and others).
Steve

Yes, CCDs heat up more.

Yes, I understand that means that you need a bigger body for larger sensors like 2/3" but does it actually affect how many pixels you can put on the chip?
Steve

A 1/2 inch CCD block, with the new codec, with out the problems of CMOS? Yessssssss. I think that would really up the ante Canon!

For me, the dream would be a shoulder mount version of that. Hey maybe it would look like an EX3!

I doubt very seriously that it will be one-half inch. For numerous reasons (http://www.dvinfo.net/features/canon-reveals-their-next-pro-video-cam.html#sensor) that
I have stressed many times previously, it will most likely be one-third inch.

I tend to think you're right Chris, only seems strange as if they are meeting broadcast specs with the 50 mb/s codec that they don't meet it with the chips too. For sure if they did a lot of people would buy it for broadcast use - rather than an EX1/3 with Nanoflash - but maybe that's not a big enough market for them to be concerned with.
Steve

Broadcast specs can vary from one channel to the next. While the BBC, Discovery HD and PBS have certain stringent technical barriers to entry, others do not. Take for example the Lifetime Channel series "Lovespring International," acquired entirely on the 1/3rd-inch Canon XL H1 camera, or Discovery's "Deadliest Catch" which used numerous 1/3rd-inch Sony Z1U camcorders. For better or for worse, content from small-chip camcorders goes to air all the time these days.

I have a question pertaining to 4:2:2 acquisition. As a event videographer what added benefits does this have over 4:2:0? I know it helps in vastly in the broadcast arena and also for chroma keying. As a event videographer what added benefits would this color space bring? Thanks!