that would be a difference of 7.6x resolution, so you would really need a 10mp sensor in there to do 1080 off 1/3

Most of that spec doesn't seem too wild, but 50Mbs AVC-HD? I didn't think the AVC-HD spec went up to such bitrates? I wonder if it should have been 50Mbs 4:2:2 MPEG2? (Same as the Sony PDW700/800.) Immediately accepted by most editing systems, EBU approved, and not need transcoding for most applications. (Unlike AVC-HD.)

You're right. If it's 50mbps, then it's not AVCHD. This is why these "a little bird told me" kinds of rumors do more harm than good. They're worse than useless, which is why I'm loathe to entertain them here.

It's probably AVC-Intra, no?

They would need a licensing agreement with Panasonic for it to be AVC-Intra.

Not impossible, but not likely either.

Licensing apart, I'd say far more likely to be 50Mbs MPEG2. AVC-Intra 50 is subsampled and 4:2:0 - XDCAM 4:2:2 50Mbs isn't. AVC-Intra 50 is not fully approved by the EBU - XDCAM 4:2:2 50Mbs is. Seems like a far more efficient use of 50Mbs of bandwidth to me.

It may not be directly the same as Sonys codec, but may be 50 Mbs MPEG2 wrapped differently (as with the basic JVC HM700 and the 35Mbs codec)

Sorry guys, I didn't realize AVC-Intra was proprietary to Panasonic. My bad.

I hope to hold the XL-H2 at IBC in a week or two.

But I don't hold my breath.

Although I hope to see a 5D mark II sensor in a video body, with an EOS mount and some EOS motorized zoom lenses, I also hope they don't rush it. I hope they take all the complaints, concerns and praises that they can from the 5D user base, look at what they are creating and what they want to have the most. Then work from there. I don't think the 5D has been around long enough to have gotten all these comment and concerns to build into a full video camera yet, although if they hang out here or a number of other forums on the internet they probably have a good idea.

I really want this dream video camera body with the 5D tech, some less features that are photo specific and some more features that we would like in a video camera, although I don't want them to release a product that later this year we are all complaining about because it doesn't do this, or it doesn't do that and how could they release a camera that is for professionals that doesn't do these specific things.

I think with the 7D that has just come out, we should wait for canon to learn from that camera and those mistakes, before they dive into throwing this new technology into video cameras that we all need to make our living off of. Its not like the SLR, those are all great cameras, but we all have our regular every day XL-H1's or our XH-A/G1's as a fall back, knowing that they work this way, or that way. This way we won't have to abandon canon for EX3's just because they no longer make a solid product... I don't want the Canon camera on the market to be a "test", to see what prosumers would want in their camera. Although we all know that is a FF sensor and an EOS mount, but that really loses a lot of the features we are already used to.

Good points, Louis... I still think the biggest challenge to this concept is the lens. For videography / filmmaking / any kind of motion pictures, a still photo EF lens is not enough. The lens needs to have a motorized zoom and a decent zoom ratio. Whether the sensor size is FF or APS-C, even a fast 10x lens will be a seemingly expensive proposition. In my opinion, with the 7D shipping in less than a month and the 5D Mk. II having been out for nine months, the reason why we haven't yet seen a dedicated video camera equivalent from Canon is the issue of the video lens.

Chris-
I would add that if a new camera arrives next year with a full size chip, aside from figuring out the lens situation, I would hope Canon would have adapters availible to use film prime lenses i.e. PL Mount. Wouldn't that be nice...

Jim Martin

ps- How's things in the Lone Star state? Still a little smokey here in LA.

And for a VIDEO camera, I'll reiterate my plea for NO rolling shutter artifacts. For artistic work, one can generally work around it. For some documentary work of fast moving objects/events, it is an unacceptable limitation. As I told the Canon reps at NAB last spring, other nice HD cameras already do rolling shutter. Don't be "me too." Advance the the technology and put out a larger sensor, very low light video camera withOUT rolling shutter and you won't be able to build enough of them.

So I am hoping this camera will actually be APS-C sized for this very reason!

I'd second the APS-C size sensor. And hopefully the Canon 7D is an indication they're moving in this direction. It's going to be a lot easier to build a decent, lightweight and affordable lens for this sensor size rather than a FF 35mm sensor. Focusing would be a lot easier too.

I like shallow DOF as much as the next person, but from a practical standpoint there is no way I want to attempt to focus in a run and gun scenario with a FF 35mm sensor. The indie filmmaker market isn't the only market out there. And personally, I think they're a little too obsessed with shallow DOF. For me APS-C or 4/3 is the ideal balance of DOF control, light sensitivity, lens compatibility and ability to focus.

While it doesn't have a servo zoom on it. The stock lens on the Panasonic GH1 seems like a reasonable compromise of quality and functionality. I would think it should be possible to make something like that for APS-C size. You could add a digital 2X extender assuming the chip would have some resolution to burn. So that would give you 28mm-560mm out of the box.

I hope Canon suprises us and develops a 3-chip APS-C sensor for the camera. A single chip, bayer filter camera seems so retro.

To me, three-chip is even more retro than single-chip... these days there's no significant difference between them in color accuracy like there used to be. A single-chip design can be larger and less expensive than a three-chip design.

Chris, that's true for 4:2:2 acquisition. But we really don't have a lot of examples comparing 3-chip 4:4:4 to Bayer 4:4:4 for the same size chip.

Something that builds on this as a foundation?

Canon | 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Autofocus Lens | 9322A002AA

Do you realize just how huge that total sensor block would be?

Ok it's Area 51, but I think this is going too much along the lines of "what I'd like to see" and not enough of the lines are "what's likely to happen? What would make business sense for Canon?"

And my gut feeling is that the next step is more likely to be something along the lines of the EX or the HPX301 - CMOS, 1920x1080 three chip, and 1/2" 0r 1/3". (And I hope 1/2") But we'll see.

In a way, it's the codec and media choice I see more interesting, and the more I think about 50Mbs MPEG2 on to Compact Flash, the cleverer a move it would be. Think about it. Cheap media, unlike SxS or P2. Better codec than the EX or the JVC cameras, giving 4:2:2. Better quality, and none of the editing problems of AVC-HD.

The other thing I would like to see are all three main formats (and the 60Hz equivalents): 1080i/25, 1080p/25, and 720p/50.

#1 is reasonable if you assume Canon does NOT build on what it has done in the 5DM2 and 7D. Otherwise, you are out of luck.

#2 All those formats I believe are in the 7D. So the remaining missing piece is the video camera itself, and the appropriate lenses.

My assumption is that an "XL-H2" is more likely to build on an XL-H1 than a 5D2 - I regard the latter as a (very good) still camera with a video mode. In that respect, the move to higher than HDV quality would be answering what Sony have done with the EX and JVC have done with the HM700.

H264 would be one answer, but that is difficult to edit natively. It's no better quality than MPEG2 necessarily, just achieves a given level at a slightly lower bitrate. In a camera like this, MPEG2 at 35/50Mbs seems a good compromise - relatively easy to edit, high quality, but still a low enough rate to fit on SDHC/CF cards. Going to 50Mbs wouldn't just yield 4:2:2 - it would put clear marketing water between it and Sony and JVC at 35Mbs.
Well, not quite - I don't think the 7D does 1080i/25, and I didn't think the XL-H1 did 720p/50. I'd see the ability to record 1080i/25. 1080p/25 and 720p/50 (as on the EX) as a very good thing.

You don't have to take my word for what the Canon 7D can do.
Have a look at this web page, click on the Features tab, and have a good read.
The format+framerates the 7D will do are right at the top.

Canon EOS 7D Digital SLR

Yes, and from that it's as I thought:
no 1080i/25.

At 1920x1080 you just get 30p, 24p, and 25p.

Considering video capable DSLRs, their rolling shutter when it comes to their CMOS sensor is absolutely horrid. Using live view on the D90 and the Canon, I was getting huge amounts of rolling shutter artifacts. When it's actually recording, this would never be able to be used for matchmoving...

If Panasonic's AVC-Intra is a sign of what's to come, the consortium that made HDV should make a professional tapeless format that isn't consumer centered like AVCHD is.

Once that codec is out, a XL-H2 could be possible.

Well my feeling is with this supposed XL H2, they will probably go with CF cards and an H.264 codec very much in line with what's coming from the 7D. Of course, it'll have HD-SDI, or hopefully 3G HD-SDI for 4:4:4.

What will make this camera amazing besides the tech being built for video in mind (a specific APS-C sensor that will try to minimize/eliminate CMOS cons?), is the fact that it'll be a camera which focuses on video first.

I would think it's form factor will be somewhere very close to what the XL series is now.

Isn't that what 35Mbs or (even better) 50Mbs MPEG2 are? The latter (as XDCAM 422HD) has (like AVC-Intra 100) gaining full acceptance for future broadcast acquisition, according to recent EBU tests. Based on HDV (as MPEG2), but a much higher quality, and giving 4:2:2 in the 50Mbs version.

For a prosumer camera, 50Mbs means easily recordable onto fairly cheap memory cards.

Why bother with H264? It won't necessarily give any better quality than MPEG2, just give the same at a slightly lower bitrate. Against that is lack of support from NLEs, and a likely need to transcode before editing.

Canon Announcement September 29, 2009
 

"During this fall, Canon will make one of its largest and most important launches in the company’s history and we hope you can attend. During a luncheon, you are invited to listen to CEO Jouko Tuouminen, Marketing presiden Monica Forsberg and trend analyst Magnus Lindkvist, talking about tomorrows trends and factors of success in the continually more digitalized everyday life."

Hmmm ... could this finally be the video camera we're waiting for? Or a 1DMark4?

Or a new product line like Vacuum Cleaners with Optical Image Stabilization?

:)

A Mark7 XLH2 vacuum with OIS? But which codec?

The latest gossip from IBC is that the September Announcement is regarding a 21MP video camera. Canon Europe have the Business Design Centre in Islington Booked for a exhibition in early October...

You need a 21MP video camera for your 'digitalized everyday life'?

Ughh Yeeeeeeah ....

:)

Everybody at Canon in IBC was tight lipped about the Sep29 event but I got a hint that is about a video camera launch. On the other hand I cannot understand why they didn't launch it at IBC where it would have been more apropriate. Anyway if it is APS or bigger it must be Cmos because CCDs in small form cameras become very hot (thats why Sony put only a 1/2inch chip on EX1/3). If the 21Mp rumor holds then probably is FF. Ideally it will be FF 4/3 with the option for 16/9 APS

Emmanuel,

I'm not disputing that CCD is hotter than CMOS, but FYI the EX1/3's have 1/2" CMOS's not CCD's. BTW, Sony's F35 has one CCD, their F23 has three CCD's , Dalsa used a CCD, and I believe the Viper uses CCD's as well.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I meant that Sony decided to put a 1/2 CMOS instead of 1/2 CCD in a SMALL FORM camera like EX1/3 because such a small camera cannot deal with the heat emitted from the CCD's. SONY in the much bigger 1/2 3XX line of cameras, uses CCD. In the same manner all the cameras you mentioned (viper, dalsa, F23, F35), all are large cameras that can deal with CCD's heat.

I didn't make that out of my head. It was the response of a SONY tech in last year's IBC on why they used CMOS instead CCD in the EX1/3.

That about sums it up for me except one other point, form factor. Chris related to this in the second post on the thread. I don't care what Canon calls the new offering but please, please let it be SIMILAR to the XL line in form factor. It needs to be a true shoulder mounted camera, not the form factor of the EX3. It needs to also have at least a 16x or 18x lens, 20x would be my vote. 10x and 12x lenses don't cut it in my line of work and are deal killers.

Since I believe this thread is about completely wild speculations here's my guess.

The XH-EF will be the next XL body style released from canon. It will in effect have the same sensor as the 7d size wise (aps-c) but I believe it will be less mega pixels (let's say 10) to give it good low light performance. I think it will have adjustable frame rates up to 60fps with the option to do 1080p instead of 720 (like the 7d) The stock lens will be an APS-C sized lens designed to be able to shoot wider as opposed to longer. There will not be a new series of lenses to go along with it, perhaps a second motorized zoom, either wider or longer but that is all.

The biggest improvement people will talk about is the viewfinder with something akin to the 5d-7d zacuto setup. the outputs will have an option for HDMI or HDSDI, hdmi being a grand cheaper. It will record to some media (CF, SXS, SDHC whatever) in a format that is use able and high quality but not readily inject-able into most editing systems. it will start at either 7500 or 1000 more then i can get if i sell all my current camera equipment, whichever is more. It willl be announced in late October early November and ship by the end of December.

an xl h2 will be big dough
 

Don't u understand. Canon sells the xl h1 now with a lens for 6k. If they come out with an xl h2 with a full frame body the price would be very very high. That is why the 7d and 5d provide such a value now. Another issue that arises is the problem of lenses, canon would probably have to make a new lens line. I don't see this coming, even the red scarlet has an advertised 2/3' sensor not s35 (7d) or full frame (5d). Now 2/3' broadcast cams cost 15k+. And alot of you are expecting 4:4:4 color space and what not. Maybe canon will make a new line of cams that have aps c sensors or 2/3 but its not going to be the same price the xl h1.

I'm talking about a codec that can survive passes/generations of recompression, in the end the best looking even on heavily compressed HD cable. MPEG-2 is horrible when it comes to this so naturally, AVC-Intra is gaining ground. Just remember, not everyone has access to CineForm.

Can I refer you to this - http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/general-...dec-tests.html - thread? And in particular the EBU document I refer to? Specifically referring to their main conclusion that : "All tested codecs have shown quasitransparent quality up to at least 4 to 5 multi-generations,.........
". That includes 50Mbs MPEG2 and AVC-Intra 100.
Comparing codecs makes no sense without defining bitrates, and you're also ignoring the ADVANTAGES that MPEG2 has over other codecs. Practically, some codecs are better for some applications, others in other cases. MPEG2 quality may indeed be "horrible" for SD transmission at 2Mbs, but far from it at 50Mbs. Same with H264 - that's really horrible when used for mobile phone compression!

MPEG4 type codecs are actually based on MPEG2, they do all that MPEG2 does, but have the ability to use other features as well. If a coder was to use all the features, it may (theoretically) achieve comparable quality to an equivalent MPEG2 one at approx half the bitrate. Practically, at the moment, it's unlikely to achieve that quality at much less than about 75% (ball park figure only) of the MPEG2 figure for what we're talking about here. This all assumes equal GOP length etc.

Hence, yes, you could say that an H264 based codec at about 38 Mbs could give equivalent results to an MPEG2 version at 50Mbs. But is it worth it? The price to pay for the efficiency is a codec that is far, far more difficult to edit natively than MPEG2.

Go to AVC-Intra and it's the opposite argument. You need an even higher bitrate to give the equivalent quality to MPEG2 - hence the EBU equating it at 100Mbs to MPEG2 at 50Mbs.

Apply all that to this new hypothetical Canon camera and if you were the designer, you have to decide where you make the compromises. If I was in that position, then 50Mbs MPEG2 onto Compact Flash would make sense. The bitrate is low enough to fit onto even cheap CF easily, give relatively small file sizes, yet be high enough to be considered a "true" broadcast codec, as approved fully by the EBU.

H264? Yes, it would be even more efficient in bitrate terms, but my opinion would be that the editing issues wouldn't be worth the further bitrate saving. This is the conclusion that many manufacturers have come to - Sony, JVC, Ikegami, and Convergent Design to name four. If I were designing a consumer camera, or one for the absolute top end, it would be a different story.