I don't think the camera will cost more then 10k, and I stand by my guess of 7500, which for a camera similar to this would be about right I think.

Canon manufactures thousands of different lenses for (my guess) just as many applications. Saying that they will hit a stumbling block in adding a zoom function to an already existing APS-C lens seems just silly to me. Additionally this won't be a "broadcast" camera. Canon is also significantly larger then RED, and to be honest not as interested in pushing he development of new technology, but if they can take the sensor they're using for the 7d and drop it into the old xl body and sell more by doing less, then that's a good model.

I think the 7d and 5dm2 are good value but they still have a long way to go before they offer the same features as the xl- body cameras.

I think the XL style body is a pain. I'd much rather see something resembling JVC's small shoulder mount cameras from the HD100 onwards or the HPX300. I'd prefer V Lock battery plates, but maybe that could be an option, similar to how it was added to the JVC's HD100 line. Proper form factor, a bit of weight and a decent OIS would be great for handheld.

In order to achieve a greater zoom range, they could use an over sampled sensor and perform a digital zoom without any loss of resolution. That could turn an 8x into a 16x for example. It would be a digital 2x extender.

APS-C is pretty large for video, I certainly think FF like the 5D would be too hard to keep in focus consistently. maybe 4/3" would be a good compromise between DOF and focus.

An excellent VF is a must! At least on par with the EX3.

Nick-

I like the way you think....

Jim Martin

jim-

I hope canon likes the way i think too...

Mostly because I have a feeling I'll be in the market for a new camera in the next couple of months, but only if they release something like this. When they announced the xl-h1 and the h1s where and when were those announcements made?

Be careful what you wish for :)

I believe Canon will announce the Canon EOS 1D Mark IV next week. And I do think there will be some special video features. What I really hope is that Canon will announce an IO box with the formfactor of the battery grip with two XLR inputs and a few controls that are typical on videocameras. We'll just have to wait and see.

I think, and I'm just speculating here, there could be something in the 1st quarter of next year or at NAB.....again, it's just a guess. I'm also speculating that I'm going to win the lottery in the second quarter of next year and my screenplay gets picked up.

Jim Martin

Resurrecting an oldie (but a goodie).

The EF lens does not have to be heavier or more expensive at all, for one very important reason: f-number scales with sensor size. Check out this other thread for the full explanation:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eo...eeper-dof.html

The XL-H1s lens is 5.4-108mm. In order to have the same angle of view as the XL-H1s lens, an EF lens on a FF camera would need to be 32.5-650mm. Sounds pretty heavy, right? No. The reason is f-number. IN order to get the same DOF, light gathering power, and diffraction as f/1.6-3.4 on the XL-H1s, the EF lens only needs to be f/9.6-20.4. That's right: f/20! A 650mm f/3.4 would be quite heavy, but 650mm f/20 is very lightweight.

It may be surprising that f/20 on 35mm can really match f/3.4 on 1/3", but it's true. As explained in the other thread, it's easy to test for yourself. Compare the 7D and 5D2. If you shoot them both at f/11, then the 5D2 will have thinner DOF, less noise, and less diffraction. But what if you multiply the f-number by the crop factor? f/11 * 1.6 = f/17.6. Now compare the f/11 on 7D vs f/17.6 on the 5D2. Well, now the DOF is the same and diffraction is the same. But the 5D2 image will be too dark: increase the ISO, and they are the same. What may be surprising is that noise, too, is the same.

Of course, one of the big advantages of the XL-H1s is 3-chip. That gives it three times the light gathering capability of a single chip, without making DOF thinner. That would give it a low light advantage over a full frame lens set to the same DOF.

None of those are a problem if the f-number is scaled with the sensor size. Canon can make a 32-650mm f/10 - f/20 that has the same size as capability as 4.5-108mm f/1.6-3.4 on a 1/3" Bayer chip. Of course, it wont be any better: the low light performance will be just as dismal. f/1.6 on the 1/3" Bayer will have just as much noise as f/10 on the FF Bayer. If you want better low light performance, you have to have a f-number that is faster than f/10. The only way to do that is to make the lens heavier, or smaller zoom ratio.

The real problem is Marketing. Photographers are not aware that f-number scales with sensor size. They think f/1.6 on 1/3" is better in low light than f/11 on 35mm, when in fact they are the same for noise. If Canon really did come out with an f/11 - f/20 20X video zoom for 35mm, no one would buy it, even if it did allow them to get the exact same shots as their f/1.6-3.4 zooms. Even a f/8 or f/5.6 zoom would be a hard sell. But I would really like to see it happen, so I hope that Canon can somehow find a way to educate enough customers for it to sell well.

I agree with much of your reasoning, and especially about f-numbers, though feel it important to add that it assumes the same number of pixels on the chips under comparison. In that case, a 35mm sensor will have bigger pixels than a 1/3" one, hence each pixel need less light, hence a smaller aperture for the same performance.

Another way of putting it is to say that for a given technology, the low light performance is defined by the chip resolution and the diameter of the lens front element.

The only thing I wonder about is whether an f20 650mm lens really would be the similar in size/weight to an f3.4 108mm. True, we would be talking about the same size front element for all the reasons you explain, but would the greater focal length not inherently make the 650mm lens bigger and heavier?

Actually, my position is that it doesn't assume that: 4 small pixels yield the same noise (when taken together) as one large pixel. For example, if you crop the 5D2 down to the same size as the 7D, you are left with an 8MP vs 18MP. The 5D2's pixels have over twice as much area. Yet the noise is the same. I could go into this topic in much more detail, but we really should save it for a thread that is specifically dedicated to pixel size.

It's hard to draw on specific examples because most photographic lenses are designed for phase detect autofocus which requires f/5.6 or faster. But there are a few more examples than the ones I already gave. Like how the Canon 400mm f/2.8 adapted for Four Thirds weighs about the same as 800mm f/5.6 on 5D2 (and both have the same angle of view and depth of field). You can compare size of Medium Format lenses with 35mm lenses of similar design to see they are about the same weight. Refractor telescopes of a similar design also tend to weigh the same as long as f-number scales with focal length.

It will certainly make it inherently bigger (longer), but I'm not so certain that it will make it heavier. I am not a lens designer, but the little I have read and seen seems to indicate that longer, slower lenses can weigh the same as shorter, faster ones.

Daniel,

I'm sure you would agree that it would border on absurd to make a large sensor camera w/ a very slow lens so it could mimic the performance of a smaller sensor camera. While it's possible to do, it makes little sense.

I do agree that w/ your statements about three chip designs. They don't get a lot of love around here it seems, but I think that's mostly b/c most of the acquisition is 4:2:2, so the extra chroma resolution (as compared to a Bayer pattern) gets lost. And people seem to forget that a mask allows only 1/3 of the light to reach any one photosite (I am unfairly assuming that there is an equal proportion of R, G and B in the composition).

Three chips are more complicated and heavier, but they do have the advantage of truly co-sited color. I also believe the chromatic aberration that is more prevalent in three chip designs has to do with the fact that the color resolution is finer than in masked designs. So how the diffraction pattern varies ever so slightly for different wavelengths of light becomes more apparent. On the other hand, I think the demosaicing process by it's very nature softens the resolution and blends the color info. thereby acting as a defacto CA filter. BTW, the HVX has a built-in electronic CA filter, which works quite well. So there are ways to remove CA in three chip cameras during acquisition.

Anyway, I went off on enough of tangent. I, like everyone else, am waiting to see Canon's latest offering.

The 3-chip cameras will always have an advantage in deep DOF over single chip cameras of the same size because they have more light gathering capability. More light means they can stop down further and increase gain higher for the same amount of noise.

However, when you compare a large single-chip camera vs. a small single-chip camera, there is no advantage in deep DOF. That is because the large chip can stop down for DOF and increase ISO to get the same brightness, as discussed here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eo...eeper-dof.html

That's the least of their worries. Canon already has all the resources it needs to build a FF 4X video lens. All it needs is a market.

Personally, I think the reason why we haven't seen a FF Canon video camera is the same reason that the RED ONE weighs over 10 pounds: 9 MP at 24 FPS and takes a lot of hardware. How much more for 21 MP at 30 FPS? It's a data rate of 8,800 Mbps! Of course, the 5D2 side-steps the problem by just skipping 2 out of every three rows and binning 3 pixels. That gets it down to just 980 Mbps, which a single DIGIC IV can handle.

The result, of course, is the most terrible aliasing problems ever to disgrace the Canon brand name. I think the only reason Canon even let it out the door was because they thought quality didn't matter for PJ web videos. If they have higher standards for actual video cameras (and I would like to think that they do), then they'll delay the release of the camera until they can address the aliasing problem.

There is a good reason why no 3-chip camera is larger than 2/3": the lenses are far too expensive due to the lens design necessary, such as extremely deep back focus. (They're bad enough for 2/3". I'd hate to see how much it costs for an APS-C 3-chip lens.)

Furthermore, 3-chip has terrible color accuracy. The shape of the spectral response of color filter array sensors can be finely tuned at every wavelength, whereas dichroic beamsplitters always have color overlap crossover at exactly 50%, and it can't be changed because it's the very nature of a prism. Their delta-E is orders of magnitude worse than Bayer for certain colors.

It doesn't give me that feeling at all. 3-chip will always have the advantage of gathering three times as much light without making DOF thinner (something no single-chip can do), so I think it will always have a place in low-light deep-DOF applications.

Thanks for the response, Peter.

Not at all! Quite the contrary, in fact. First of all, it will only mimic the performance (noise) of smaller sensor cameras when in low light. In fact, it would be much worse if they were upgrading from 3-chip to 1-chip. But in ample light, users will get the full benefit of the larger sensor, including far less noise, more dynamic range, etc. In fact, they will not ever have to use their ND filters, a nice side benefit. Not to mention the flexibility of switching lenses. On 1/3", you can't switch your f/1.6 for an f/0.1 to get better low light. But on FF, you could switch your f/11 for f/1.4, gaining a massive low light and thin DOF capability.

Second, there is no free lunch. I'm responding to the idea that it's impossible to make FF35 lenses that match the 1/3" lenses. It is possible, but one has to accept that they will only be the same, not better. If one is not content with the current low light performance on the 20X 1/3" lens, then there is nothing to be done about it without accepting higher cost, more weight, or smaller zoom range.

Third, I think there will be a bit of lens design advantage, since the 3-chip lenses have more considerations (back focus, etc.) than a mirror-less (E.V.I.L.) 35mm lens. Furthermore, to achieve the same contrast in the final image, the FF lens only needs 50% MTF at (say) 20 lp/mm, compared to much higher spatial frequencies on 1/3", say, 120 lp/mm. Of course, the larger image circle balances this out somewhat, but one thing that doesn't balance out is manufacturing tolerances, which have to be much tighter for the same MTF.

Fourth, the only sense in which I think it is absurd is the marketing challenge. It's the same problem as other industries. In astronomy, many people think the magnification of the scope is the most important factor in the buying decision, so they think a 1000X refractor (50mm) is better than a 30X newtonian (250mm). In fact, the 30X newtonian is an order of magnitude better. In the same way, camera buyers are now fixated on f-number as the most important factor. They think f/1.6 on a small sensor will give them a better picture than f/8 on a large sensor. In fact, the f/8 provide a far better picture in low light.

Since 3-chip gives a 1.6 stop advantage over 1-chip, it would be poetic for the f-number to be 1.6 stops faster, so that the user could at least do the same in low light (though it will mean accepting thinner DOF). Ideally, the lens will be as fast as they can make it without sacrificing angle of view or zoom range, while still hitting a price that is commensurate for electronics in the rest of the camera. Maybe they could get it as fast as f/11 or even f/8.

But Daniel,

You are ignoring the fact that the main reason people want large sensors is for shallow DoF. Better low light performance and less noise isn't going to be enough if the DoF gets no shallower than you'd get from a 1/3 or 1/2 chip.

It's like building a Ferrari and limiting it to 85 MPH. Nice leather, beautiful paint, faster 0 to 60 than a Lexus, but if it can't sniff 185 MPH I don't want it. It doesn't matter that I might never floor the car for a 1/4 mile, I just want to know that if I do, I'll be going 120 MPH.

And in truth, shallow DoF has been the trend in cinematography now for quite some time. So a low F stop couples w/ a large sensor is more than just a vanity issue. The deep focus shots we see in "Citizen Kane" and "Raise the Red Lantern" are seldom used now.

Great post, Peter.

That's only because large sensors, historically, have been prohibitively expensive. As they drop in price, people will use them for everything, not just shallow DOF.

For example, if a vidoegrapher goes to the video store, and the XL-H2 (1/3") is $8,000 and the XL-5D (36x24mm) is $8,000, and they both have a 20X zoom with the same DOF, it would be perfectly acceptable to choose the XL-5D, even if the videographer doesn't plan on using it with thin DOF. He'll get the huge advantages when in ample light (far better image quality than 1/3"). In fact, if Canon could make them both for the same price, they might as well not bother even making the XL-H2, since the XL-5D could do everything it can, and more. (The trick is convincing the customer that 650mm f/11 really is just as good as 108mm f/3.4.) Other customers can buy the exact same camera, but instead of a 20X f/11 zoom, get the 4X f/4 (say, 28-135). Still others can go with 3X f/2.8 zooms or f/1.4 primes.

I guess my point is that it's possible to "first, do no harm." If Canon came out with a new video camera that did not have a 32-650mm zoom, then the previous owners that depended on that functionality could not upgrade. If they kept 20X but added 10 pounds to the camera (by making it f/5.6), that too would hinder many buyers. But if they preserve the existing light-weight 20X functionality (and they can), then everyone can upgrade. Not that they will: just that they can.

Wouldn't a combination of both color filters placed on the R, G and B sensors and the camera's image processing be able to compensate for this?

Essentially, mask each sensor so it doesn't receieve crosstalk from the the adjacent color. Then estimate how much color was lost to the filters by evaluating each sensor's border wavelength values. It sounds complicated and imprecise, but I would think it's easier and more accurate than demosaicing. Is this not done? Does it make sense?


P.S. I'm not convinced the filters would even be necessary, just the internal image processing "should" be enough.

Anyway, thanks very much all your input, Daniel. It's always a learning experience reading your posts ;).

Thanks, Peter.

Yes, I would guess that filters could re-shape the spectral response, but only at great cost to sensitivity, probably enough to undo the advantage of having three sensors in the first place. The reason is that filters can only increase relative sensitivity in one wavelength by reducing response in all other wavelengths.

Actually, the problem with 3-chip is that they don't have *enough* crosstalk. In human vision, there is significant overlap in the green and red, so that there are many colors that look the same to us (we can't tell the difference), but look different to the 3-chip (because it doesn't have so much overlap).

In one sense, 3-chip goes beyond the capability of human vision; it's too precise to approximate our more relaxed perception.

Image processing would be able to achieve excellent color accuracy if every pixel stored a chart of how much of the light came from each wavelength. 5% from 550nm, 10% from 560nm, etc. But it doesn't: all the wavelengths are mixed together in the pixel.

You make some good, well thought out points, Daniel. I may not be 100% convinced, but...... :-)

In answer to one of Peter's points ("it would border on absurd to make a large sensor camera w/ a very slow lens so it could mimic the performance of a smaller sensor camera") then I suppose the answer is you get more options. Initially, I confess, I felt the same as Peter.

Either get a long zoom with small max aperture (to mimic small sensor performance) or get a fast short ratio zoom (or prime) if DOF or low light ability is of more importance.

Take a Canon EF-S 18-200 f/3.5-5.6. Motorize it. Problem solved ;)

Oh! Canon! Get it together.
 

Canon. You burst on the scene with the famous XL1. Everybody wanted one. Then as the other manufactures got going to play catchup the cry from your loyal diehard troups began chanting.

"Where's the XL2?" Out came the wishlists and the prophesy of how it will be. We waited with baited breath, couldnt sleep at night. Then, Drumroll, it's coming. Out poped a XL1s.
Umm we all said, "Looks a bit like the xl1" we thought. Canon assured it was a totally new camera. Only the paint was the same, but it's innards are entirely new. So we grabbed one, raved over it. Many said this is the xl2, but it's got a new name. We were still loyal Cannonites and hung in there with religious verver.

In the mean time we looked over our shoulders and saw Sony, and Panasonic and others leaping ahead and were breaking into HDV.

Were's the xl2, Surely as God made apples the xl2 hd version will be released at the next NAB. We waited, waited, and anticipated the new xl2 in hd. After a long gestation out poped another camera. They'd run out of red paint so used white. and gave birth to the xl2.
This what indie and ENG , pro's and wannabe pros were waiting for. A totally new camera Canon boomed again. The only thing that's not new is the microphone. We thought the only thing not new was it's SD. So we rushed out, bought one and found when we're in a media bunfight we were the only ones with a white camera and not hd capable.

So here we are again. The remenant, waiting for a revolutionary new super lens one inch chip daddy of em all canon hd camera. In reality so many I know have given up. The EX1 and EX3 have finally done it. All the loyal Canon users here are leaving or have left their Canon and embraced the EX1 and EX3, buying them in ones, twos and threes.

So I've had a xl1, xl1s and a xl2. I'm about to go to hd. I've been loyal to Canon for 10years, but it's time to stop waiting and look else where. I've been loyal to Canon all the way through. I even had a Super 8 Canon film camera once. It's nearly next year, I'll wait a bit longer, but not forever.

Canon's always slow, Canon's always late, but Canon always comes with high quality products. I think the XL-H1 or whatever it will be called will be a revolution again. You can't be market leader for 10 years in a row in this industry.

And the build quality of the EX1 and EX3 is so poor. Fisher price plastic microphone holders that break, paint that peels off... my XL-H1 still looks new. The EX1 and EX3 have a nicer chip and great image quality but their build quality makes me cry.

I agree. Everything about the Canon XL H1S is fantastic, from build to image quality. I sure hope Canon delivers again!

I absolutely love my Canon XL H1S and the fantastic HD images it creates. All of my clients have found it's footage stunning and it has paid itself off over and over again already, so I am ready to buy if the next camera meets or exceeds our expectations.

Patience young Skywalker....thoughts you control...dreams come true, soon they may

Yoda Martin

Owen I don't know if you recal or not, but the xl-h1 came out just a year after the xl2 (I two was about to buy one and fortunately I had my vendor stop me and say, hey, are you sure want to buy an SD camera, see what happens by the end of the year, then the xl-h1 came out. Also it was the Second HDV camera to hit the market (well third both the z1u and the fx1 came out and it smoked both of them) it beat the hvx200 to shipping and edged out the the jvc-hd1u. Now, yes after that release they slowed things down again quite a bit, but I really don't believe its fair to say canon was late to the market with an HD camera. In fact, uh I mean, if you really want to split hairs, canon developed and released the 5d and 7d in the time it took red to announce, and change, and announce, (and change again) the scarlet.

The Ex-x are good cameras but let's not say that canon hasn't offered up suitable cameras, yes I want to see the next xl just as much (probably more) as any one else but Canon has actually really pushed things and delievered a lot of aspects that filmmakers and eng-ers want and for a multi-billion (maybe trillion?) dollar company to innovate that fast is pretty impressive.

Of course having said all of that, I think now a days it's probably silly to just stand by and wait for a camera from any specific manufacturer, I too have been in the canon camp for a while but if I was in the market for a better camera and the specs I was looking for were being offered by Sony I'd get the Sony. Camera's aren't supposed to badges that we wear they're supposed to be tools that we use... unless, uh, canon wants to sponser me then, ya know, uh, brand loyalty all the way...

Nick.....you're a poet

Jim Martin

The latest rumors on the elusive camcorder is 12MP APS-CMOS sensor, support for EF and EF-S lenses, fully manual controls, shoot 720p/30/60 and 1080p/24/30/60 to 56Mbit/s MPEG-4, and sporting a $8000 price tag.
They look pretty reasonable to me, although I really cannot understand why to utilize such a large sensor if they have to skip lines for HD, unless of course they can do full resolution different aspect ratio frames like 1.85 and 2.35 by utilizing the extra pixels of the sensor. That would be awesome.

Sounds interesting. But are the rumors from a reliable source, or mere speculation?

The one and only "reliable source" is the manufacturer itself. So yes, this is all just mere speculation and it's
important to understand that's all it ever can be until an official press release is issued -- whenever that is.

I have to agree with Chris. After a bit of search, I found the same rumor on a post in Gizmondo dated beginning of March. IMO the only certain feature of the new camcorder will be the large sensor.

And hopefully there will also be PAL frames rates so we can all have the whole spectrum

24, 25, 30, 50 and 60p... and imagine if you could ramp up frame rates! Then we would be talking.
And how magic would it be if they use the same batteries etc as the H1, A1 and G1 so we don't need to double up.

56 mbps... sounds good too... if someone is making up why pick 56???? God I love rumours ; )

Sorry just dreaming

Well, now you know:

Canon Reveals Their Next Pro Video Cam at DVInfo.net

That's it for this thread -- direct any replies to this new one.