I think that's a pretty good summary Dan.
Think you'd get some debate (though not from me) about whether AVCI is better than 50mb/s MPEG.
I think you'd have to sum up this new Canon as "interesting" rather than "killer".
Steve

Randy, when Canon announced the codec in February they were even then talking about massive support for it from Apple, Avid etc. I'm sure it'll go in fine - with software updates from the NLE folks.
Steve

According to the press release, Apple, as well as AVID and all of the other big editing software companies has worked with Canon to implement this new Canon CF codec into their apps, including FCS. You should be able to edit it natively without having to transcode to ProRes.

Dan

To Dan's fine summary of camera options, I would add the recently announced JVC ProHD GY-HM700 for under $12k including lens.

That'd be my pick for the wildlife guys too Chris - thinking about getting one for a few small projects and personal stuff. 1/3" chips gives good lens reach, CCDs so no skew, 60P slow motion, small and light. It ticks a lot of boxes - but it's still only a 720 sensor. Hmmm, scary.

BTW - I was right about there being lots of posts once the Canon was announced!

Steve

t it's still only a 720 sensor.No, it's a 720 sensor with pixel offset -- that's a big difference.

The number of pixels on the sensor is only one part of the camera's output resolution capability. There are a variety of pixel offset technologies, and all of them positively impact the camera's recorded resolution in a beneficial way. The pixel count on the chip doesn't tell the whole story.

No, but it does tell a massive part of it. I've been an HPX2700 owner and defended it to the hilt on this forum. BUT it's certainly true that whatever techniques you use you can't make detail that isn't there in the first place. 1920x1080 chips capture twice as much detail as 1280x720 ones, and that's a fact.
Steve

I was so excited... right up to the CMOS bit.

Same here. XH-A1 for me then.

Put a fork in CCD, it's done.

Absolutely not. Professional high-end applications still need it for Matchmoving and etc. Flash banding is also the big issue.

I agree. CCD is quickly being phased out.

In the Prosumer market, this is very true. But like I said, it's the pro market that won't phase it out until affordable global shutters hit the CMOS market (which I don't think will happen in the near future)

Just more strength to the argument that the CMOS cameras are not quite good enough yet - even with all their advantages the high end folks are just not using them.

Couldn't agree more.

even with all their advantages the high end folks are just not using them.
Steve

I call BS. RED, SI2K, and even the Arri D20/D21 are all CMOS and all have been projected on the silver screen. All have been involved in either Oscar winning, or Oscar nominated films.

To say that high end folks are not using it is just flat untrue.

Perrone is quoting digital cinema. That's not the only high-end market and I don't think that's what Steve was referring to.

I was really talking about the overall picture. Of course there are some CMOS users. I use one fairly frequently with the Phantom HD - but it's not an everday camera or suitable for every situation.
Steve

I am one of those diehard Canon fans and I still own my XL1 but I just don't see myself buying this camera. The price to me is a problem but only when you consider what you get for the price. 4:2:2 and 50 mbits is great but for me not that much more then AVCHD progressive scan. For me no matter what I convert to Prores so there is very little advantage to shooting mpeg2 over AVCHD. AVCHD at 24mbits is going to be about equal to 50 mbit mpeg2 except for the 4:2:2 color. Personally whenever I have a VFX shoot I always use live HDMI or HD-SDI capture anyway so the native 4:2:2 shooting isn't a deal breaker for me. Yes if the price was right I would like to always shoot 4:2:2 especially if I have to shoot interlaced. The reality of it however is that shooting native 4:2:2 isn't as important to me as it used to be. There have been a lot of VFX shoots done with 4:2:0 progressive cameras that have turned out very good so the argument that you can only key with 4:2:2 just isn't true anymore. Even 4:2:0 interlaced if filtered properly to shift the chroma fields back in order can give very good results.

I am kind of surprised Canon doesn't mention native Sony Vegas support. A few people at my work use it and I know it works very well with native 50 mbit mpeg2 and can even use it as a capture format.

With what you say Thomas, and comments from others too, it's hard to see many people choosing this camera over an EX1 with Nanoflash for sure.
Steve

This camera ends up being a large question mark for me. Will these new Canons be good? Undoubtedly. Is there some impressive new technology in both of them? Definitely. Are they going to be perceived by the market as a good value? That I question.

I question it as well.


If you compare specs to the competition, the price does seem kind of high for what you are receiving. The list on the XF305 is $8,000.00. The list on the AG-HPX370 is $9,200.00. The list price on the EX3 is 9,800.00. Both the Canon and the Panasonic are 1/3" sensors and full raster, while the Sony is 1/2" full raster.

Why are you comparing it to the EX3? It should be compared to the EX1r which also has a fixed lens. And which is cheaper than the Canon. When Canon announces a removable lens version, then that should be compared to the EX3.



The AVCI 100MBPs codec will be better than 4:2:2 50MBPs, but the Canon's codec is superior to the creaky 4:2:0 35MBPs that the Sony EX3 has. Granted, CF cards will be cheaper than P2 cards or SxS cards. Fixed lens on the Canon versus a detachable lens on the Panasonic and Sony. Prosumer batteries on the Canon and Sony versus pro batteries on the Panasonic. Neither the Canon (so far) or the Sony offer a true studio configuration while Panasonic does off a real co-axial and CCU solution.

Canon's codec is likely EXACTLY the same as the codec in the EX1/EX3. Just using a different implementation. It will likely be susceptible to exactly the same failings. Yes, it probably uses the 50Mb/s 4:2:2 that Sony uses in the Optical Disk variants of it's cameras. Honestly, I've seen that variant, and I'd bet money that if you put 10 people in a room at normal viewing distances, you couldn't tell the 50Mbps variant from the 35. Been there, done that. Move that to a 100Mbps and you might have a case.

Also The EX1 and EX3 can shoot to SDHC which are cheaper than the CF cards the Canon will shoot. And unlike the CF cards in the Canon, they can be write write protected.


Handheld form factor on the Canon versus a hybrid "sort of" shoulder mount form factor on the Sony, while the Panasonic retains a broadcast shoulder mount form factor.

Yep. Awesome if you're looking for an ENG camera... only. If you want to take the camera OFF your shoulder then things get a bit more interesting with the news production style cameras.


I don't see this camera being much a force in the market, I think Canon die-hards will obviously buy it but I am not so sure about non-Canon die hards. I guess Canon always have the option of dropping the price if it does not sell, as Panasonic did with the HPX300/301. Once the camera is available though, $8,000.00 list should street for closer to $6,800.00. It is an interesting niche they are trying to hit but other than a better codec than HDV or XDCAM EX, I don't see anything too exciting.

If I was in the market for a camera in this price range right now, I'd buy an EX1 with a NanoFlash. A few more bucks, better sensor, better codec by miles.

That's definitely the contender Steve, if this can't match an EX1r as far as imagery goes, I don't see myself getting this camcorder. Low light and usability are the biggest things for me at this point. I can live with the 1/3rd chips if it somehow produces that much better imagery with the new codec.

Perrone is quoting digital cinema. That's not the only high-end market and I don't think that's what Steve was referring to.

You're right. It's not the ONLY high end market. But it is a viable and important one. And the statement that high end users aren't using CMOS, left unqualified, is patently false. Especially when paired with the comment that "CMOS isn't quite good enough." If it's good enough for the Academy to award it "Best Picture" I'd say that it's good enough.

To say that high end broadcast/ENG cameras aren't using CMOS would have certainly been a stronger argument.

Chris,

Red isn't just for digital cinema. We have a Sony F900 at work and we also have Red. We now use the Red for almost all video related projects. We are not the extreme high end either. We do corporate and broadcast work. In many ways Red has totally blown away the F900. My rule has always been if you are shooting something that looks bad with CMOS then chances are it is not being shot correctly. 99% of good production shooting will look perfectly fine with CMOS. A camera whip is bad regardless if it is skewed or not.

We have now seen amazing material not only from Red for cinema projects but the EX1 and DSLR's such as the 5d and 7d.

I still say the only problem rolling shutter has is that we are used to CCD. If we started out with CMOS and never had CCD then rolling shutter wouldn't be an issue for us. It is because of the perspective we all look at it that it seems bad to us. We see jello cam and say to ourselves there must be something wrong because CCD doesn't do that. Saying CMOS isn't good enough for the highend market is like saying water colors are not good enough for fine artists. If Canon had to use 1/3" then I am very glad they used CMOS instead of CCD.

With what you say Thomas, and comments from others too, it's hard to see many people choosing this camera over an EX1 with Nanoflash for sure.
Steve

Heck if you want full sensor get a Panasonic HMC40 with a Nanoflash. Yeah the low light sucks but that is one heck of a rig with decent lighting.

I just read a review of the new Panasonic 1/3" camera by Barry Green. He was testing the skew by shooting some semi trucks driving by.

The trucks were all diagonal in the frames. How can it be said that this is improperly shot?

If FOX sports was to shoot a nascar race with CMOS, would it hold up to the standards previously set by CCD?

I just don't agree that skew is from user error or that it is something we just need to get used to.

Whew! Glad I didn't jump the gun and unload my A1's. I was afraid this camera was going to devalue those but it looks like just the opposite could happen. In an earlier statement from Canon they described the Camera's new price as "amazing". (something like "amazing footage at an amazing price".) And to be honest, yes I am amazed, but not in a positive way. Like Thomas Smet in an earlier post, I find the quality fine for my workflow. I have been burning Blu-Ray since 2006 but truth be told I spend 10 times the amount of time downscaling footage than I do burning to Blu-Ray discs. I was hoping for better low-light capabilities and a tapeless workflow but not at twice the price.

You're right. It's not the ONLY high end market. But it is a viable and important one. And the statement that high end users aren't using CMOS, left unqualified, is patently false. Especially when paired with the comment that "CMOS isn't quite good enough." If it's good enough for the Academy to award it "Best Picture" I'd say that it's good enough.

To say that high end broadcast/ENG cameras aren't using CMOS would have certainly been a stronger argument.

Well I did mention Varicams and F900s.
Steve

Sorry Chris, post edited.

Easy does it, fellows... I insist.

I just read a review of the new Panasonic 1/3" camera by Barry Green. He was testing the skew by shooting some semi trucks driving by.

The trucks were all diagonal in the frames. How can it be said that this is improperly shot?

If FOX sports was to shoot a nascar race with CMOS, would it hold up to the standards previously set by CCD?

I just don't agree that skew is from user error or that it is something we just need to get used to.

I agree Tim. It's only user error when you're shooting things that you can control. Wildlife is a classic example, the peregrine just won't fly slow even when you tell it too! And it also won't come to within 10' so you can use a wide angle lens. Just for fun I tried some video on a Nikon D300 (I know it's at the poor end of the skew stakes) and it was laughable! I've saw issues immediately when I tried an EX3 that a production company I work for has.
Steve

I like Canon, but way over priced. Should be 1/2 inch chips. Get a Sony NX5. It's a great camera!

I just read a review of the new Panasonic 1/3" camera by Barry Green. He was testing the skew by shooting some semi trucks driving by.

The trucks were all diagonal in the frames. How can it be said that this is improperly shot?

If FOX sports was to shoot a nascar race with CMOS, would it hold up to the standards previously set by CCD?

I just don't agree that skew is from user error or that it is something we just need to get used to.

Other then us freaks on this forum are other people going to notice skewing trucks as much? I have seen lots of footage online of car races shot with CMOS and they usually look fine. Again it is all about our perspective of how we look at it. CMOS is always going to be different. It is us who have to come to terms with that. I would love to have a 2/3" CCD HD camera but if this new Canon at $8,000.00 is out of my budget then I really don't even need to think about CCD because it will never happen for me personally right now. I may be able to convince my work to buy a couple of these but not me.

CMOS has a lot to offer over CCD, better sensitivity, no smearing. Low power figures into lighter weight rigs, longer run time, more time in the field.

Skew happens when objects move across the frame. Shooting a bird in flight by panning with it will have no skew.

Seems to be a side-step or perhaps a baby-step forward. Other than the 4:2:2 codec, I'm not sure why I wouldn't pick up the EX-1/EX-3. I don't hate on the CMOS as much as others, and I think it gets better with every new camera....

That said, having gone the Canon DSLR route, it would take more than this camera has to go away from the depth of field and lens selection.

Purely personal, as I only shoot feature narratives and commercials, but I think any 1/3" chip camera is treading water at best. Too many other cheaper options (again for me) or - if I need the codec - higher end cams that don't cost that much more.

My first video camera was the XL-1 and I loved it, and I have a Canon T2 now, but I'm really not sure who this camera is aimed at at that price range. It seems that Panny already has a huge chunk of the TV market, and Sony has the rest... Strange.

john

Skew happens when objects move across the frame. Shooting a bird in flight by panning with it will have no skew.

That's not true I'm afraid, I've tried it. If there is any background you see it skew, especially, strangely enough on up and down movements, ie if a bird comes in to land, it looks horrible.
As I've said before, there are reasons why we don't use them on big BBC Natural History projects, even though they do have lots of advantages. Why wouldn't the producers choose them if they were good enough? Latest massive Discovery wildlife series (as big as Planet Earth) - what are they using? CCD Varicam HPX2700. Why not use EX3s and get more lens power and a camera we can actually carry?
Steve

Seems to be a side-step or perhaps a baby-step forward.
I just don't see how you can call it a side-step or a baby step. It really is
a radical departure from the XH series; that is, it's honestly so much more
than just a "tapeless version" of the XH camcorders.

What this offers that a D-SLR doesn't have, is a proper video lens with AF
and an 18x zoom range that can be operated remotely from the tripod pan
handle. Not to mention the ability to record non-stop for hours if needed
(longer than 12 minutes per clip, anyway). I own three HD-equipped D-SLRs,
but they can't compete with real camcorders for most types of professional
videography applications.

It is a step forward Chris, even just the 50 mb/s codec vs hdv is pretty major. But its spec puts it firmly amongst the competition and I think some were expecting it to blow them away.
Agree entirely about the video camera v DSLR thing.
Steve

There have been some very good examples of CMOS skew. I personally have seen very little of it but clearly it is a concern for some people. I still say it is mostly us that think things like birds look odd. Personally I think Canon has done the best job with HD CCD's but even then 1/3" just wasn't where it needed to be. Panasonic I still say was pretty bad with 1/3" CCD's but that is of course my opinion.

It would be nice if Canon would make a version of the A1 that recorded to a single CF card with the 25 or 35 mbit codec. I think this alone might be enough for most users who still prfer CCD. The main problem with the A1 isn't the camera itself it is the HDV tape.

I just don't see how you can call it a side-step or a baby step. It really is
a radical departure from the XH series; that is, it's honestly so much more
than just a "tapeless version" of the XH camcorders.

What this offers that a D-SLR doesn't have, is a proper video lens with AF
and an 18x zoom range that can be operated remotely from the tripod pan
handle. Not to mention the ability to record non-stop for hours if needed
(longer than 12 minutes per clip, anyway). I own three HD-equipped D-SLRs,
but they can't compete with real camcorders for most types of professional
videography applications.

Not to mention proper video without aliasing or moire. These are just as bad to the image as rolling shutter is to some other people. Try doing a long steady zoom with a DSLR as well or 60i shooting. Heck even the 60p is pretty bad on these cameras right now due to the really bad method of scaling the DSLR cameras use right now. These cameras also tend to overheat after an hour or so of shooting. I just couldn't tell my client we have to wait 15 minutes because the camera is overheating. DSLR's are getting very good but they just are not there yet. They need proper low pass filtering for video and proper scaling. Not to mention 60i support.

Why wouldn't the producers choose them if they were good enough? Latest massive Discovery wildlife series (as big as Planet Earth) - what are they using? CCD Varicam HPX2700. Why not use EX3s and get more lens power and a camera we can actually carry?
Steve

Who shot it, and what do they own?

If I owned 20 Vari-Cams, I would not go buy EX3s to shoot a series. I'd use what I had invested in. Especially since would leverage my investment in 2/3" glass.

Heck, the HPX2700 isn't even available for purchase any more.

The company making the series for Discovery didn't own anything, they kitted up about 3-4 months ago, from scratch deciding what was the best kit for them to use. They bought 5 HPX2700s and a 3700 plus lenses, tripods etc.
Same goes for a BBC team making a new series on Africa, they're kitting up with 2700s too.
It's news to me that you can't get 2700s any more, they're still listed for sale here.
Steve

But the 3700 is and I believe that's what the Beeb upgraded too.

Although it has 1/3" chips it will be interesting to see how it compares with it's images. At the end of the day that's what counts.

Personally 1/2" would have made me feel more confident for low light.

The 3700 is no good for wildlife though as it'll only go to 30fps.
Steve

Can anyone decipher this this Chuck Westfall quote from Studio Daily?
"Asked about sticking with MPEG-2 rather than moving to MPEG-4/H.264, Westfall suggested the decision had to do with concerns about picture quality. “One of the most important things we were looking at was the overriding quality we were trying to achieve with this camcorder,” he told StudioDaily. “We didn’t want to degrade the image quality beyond the absolute minimum.” You’ll be able to judge the camera’s quality for yourself next week at Canon’s NAB booth, where about 10 working models should be available in a shooting environment."


"We didn't want to degrade the image quality beyond the absolute minimum?" Is Chuck meaning that he feels that AVCINTRA 100 degrades image quality more than MPEG 2 50MBPs? I just can't figure out the logic of this quote.

Anyone?

Dan

1/3" restricts you to a very narrow range of useable aperture. With lower definition HD cameras and SD cameras the softening is less noticable, but when you get in to the realms of full resolution 1080 cameras it's a big deal. It's such a shame Canon didn't produce the camera all the broadcasters want (in the UK at least). They could have gone from also rans to Market leaders overnight. So close.

In an attempt to not break with tradition, I'll disagree with you Alister!!! Partially at least.
I'm not sure how big a deal this "limited aperture range" is really. Due to the increased depth of field (one of the other main criticisms of 1/3" chips) you'd not want to go beyond about f5.6 anyway for artistic reasons. I would have thought that as long as you have a 2, 4 and 6 stop ND in the camera you'll be able to get correct exposure in most situations just using f1.8-f5.6.
Steve

"Asked about sticking with MPEG-2 rather than moving to MPEG-4/H.264, Westfall suggested the decision had to do with concerns about picture quality.My understanding was that the MPEG-2 decision had just as much to do with 3rd-party NLE support as well. It was much easier and faster to secure full NLE compatibility among all the majors in time for the shipping date than it would have been had they gone with MPEG-4. Not to mention most end-user's current editing systems can handle MPEG-2 without having to take on any significant hardware upgrades.

AVCIntra 100 and 50Mbps 4:2:2 mpeg2 should be pretty evenly matched in terms of image quality. Using a 100Mbps codec would have meant very tight restrictions on the CF cards that would work reliably and the camera would eat through them twice as fast. For this type of camcorder that would not have made sense IMHO.

What other codec could Canon have used that is accepted by NLEs and offers realistic bit rates for compact flash? Avchd must have been a consideration, but it's only 4:2:0 and but above 24Mbps your outside the Avchd specs. Besides which if you can go to 50Mbps there is little difference in the quality of mpeg2 and Avc/h264, yet mpeg2 is easier to decode etc.

It's such a shame Canon didn't produce the camera all the broadcasters want (in the UK at least). They could have gone from also rans to Market leaders overnight. So close.

Alister, what camera did the broadcasters want? larger chips? Form factor?

Can anyone decipher this this Chuck Westfall quote from Studio Daily?
"Asked about sticking with MPEG-2 rather than moving to MPEG-4/H.264, Westfall suggested the decision had to do with concerns about picture quality. “One of the most important things we were looking at was the overriding quality we were trying to achieve with this camcorder,” he told StudioDaily. “We didn’t want to degrade the image quality beyond the absolute minimum.” You’ll be able to judge the camera’s quality for yourself next week at Canon’s NAB booth, where about 10 working models should be available in a shooting environment."


"We didn't want to degrade the image quality beyond the absolute minimum?" Is Chuck meaning that he feels that AVCINTRA 100 degrades image quality more than MPEG 2 50MBPs? I just can't figure out the logic of this quote.

Anyone?

Dan

Mpeg4 doesn't have to mean just AVCINTRA either. It can mean AVCHD. Although personally I would really question if 50 mbit mpeg2 is really all that much better then 24 mbit AVCHD. Barry Green did a test between 35 mbit mpeg2 and 21 mbit AVCHD and the AVCHD killed the native 35 mbit mpeg2 from the EX1. Now that extra 15 mbits helps out a lot but considering you have double the chroma data to deal with it would bring it pretty much on par. I agree with Chris that I think it had more to do with NLE support and ease of editing. Pretty much every NLE out there should be able to edit this stuff as a native format. It is also my understanding that AVCINTRA is I frame based. IPB video is much more efficient then I frame video so yes 50 mbit IPB can very much look better then 100 mbit I frame video as long as the scene isn't too complex for the encoder which is going to be fairly rare at 50 mbits.

Minimum 1/2" sensors, full 1920x1080, 50Mbps long GoP or 100Mbps I frame. All in a low cost package.

Perrone is quoting digital cinema. That's not the only high-end market and I don't think that's what Steve was referring to.

Even so, low speed scanning CMOS sensors is murder to 3D matchmoving. (except at low speeds, but what action film would match move at low speed these days?)

Plus, I clearly recall 2 major films with Flash Banding problems: Slumdog Millionare (SI2K) and 2012 (Done on the F23 for the majority of the film but a Unknown CMOS camera was used for 1 specific scene)

It would be nice if Canon would make a version of the A1 that recorded to a single CF card with the 25 or 35 mbit codec. I think this alone might be enough for most users who still prfer CCD. The main problem with the A1 isn't the camera itself it is the HDV tape.

Personally, I'd really prefer that over CMOS. To work with File based HDV at the moment, you either need a capture computer and a hard drive or a Sony/Firestone HDD or Compact Flash unit.

Alister, what camera did the broadcasters want? larger chips? Form factor?

That what I said in post 40. EBU stated 1/2" or larger chips and 50mb/s GOP codec or similar.
Steve

Steve, I would not consider the HPX2700, it's 720p.

Peregrine Falcons are not really uncommon where I live, I have some stock footage, as well of other varieties of birds and species of mammals, bear, reptiles and insects. Perhaps my low profile, wildlife seeming not to care if I was high end when giving up the shots. It would honestly be a struggle to find any of it that was wrecked by skew, I'm not sure I can. Perhaps it's the way I shoot or the lenses, but I've been pretty close up with peregrine falcons in particular, they prey on the pigeon population, basically right outside my window from the adjacent grain elevator.

I maintain, the (mfg) industry is moving away from CCD even at the high end. Let's wait and see what comes out.

Lets wait to judge the 1/3" CMOS until we actually see what it does. We should all know by now that not all 1/3" sensors are created equal.

In a review Barry Green just did of the new HPX370 he states that the 1/3" CMOS is as sensitive as the EX3. Perhaps the 1/3" on the canon will be the same.

In the broadcast world low light quickly starts to become not as important. Almost all of our shooting is either studio based or at a location where we setup lights. We use a 2/3" CCD F900 or Red but yet we always light when we shoot. Now of course this may not always be true for everybody but there are always ways to get around low light.

Agreed Thomas but going back to Alistair's comments, if your shooting for broadcast 1/3 even sensitive 1/3 may not be good enough.

Steve, I would not consider the HPX2700, it's 720p.


That's a response that comes up a lot on these forums. So the HPX2700 is good enough for a Discovery mega series with a budget of £1 million per programme but not good enough for you? Who on earth are your clients?
Steve