What's Up Canon at DVinfo.net

Dan Eschenfelder · July 9th, 2005, 09:30 AM

Any word on what Canon will bring to the table? Will they follow in JVC and Sony's footsteps and go HDV or will they be brave enough to get with the true HD ranks of Pany?

Personally, I'd love to see Canon come out swingin' with true hd. They have the best true hd lenses, obviously, so they should be able to offer the best glass to go with their creation... and at a lower price since it's their lens.

I'd love to see them come out with a combination of all three cameras (JVC, Sony, Panisonic)...

JVC's:
-Interchangeable professional lenses
-24p @ 720
-All the professional functions
-Shoulder mountable

Pany's:
-True HD acquisition
-Memory Card Technology
-DV tape recording deck

Sony's:
-1080 Resolution (but I'd like to see progressive)
-down conversion to a lesser format (that's if they come out with HDV)

I'd like to see true hd, shooting to memory cards (at least a 15GB card at cost of a tape), with the capability of shooting directly to an off the shelf generic hard drive in real time. I'd like to see them go with at least a 1/2" lens, if not the alll mighty 2/3" at a prosumer price. (Keep dreamin' right)

If they have to come out with another HDV camera, I'd like to see one better then the current GOP technology. I don't like the idea of one frame deciding what the next 14 look like.

Come on Canon... bring it!!!

Shannon Rawls · July 9th, 2005, 06:45 PM

Define "true" HD please.

p.s.
Canon will win this race...i'm sure of it.

Jacques Mersereau · July 10th, 2005, 02:01 PM

>>Define "true" HD please.

IMO, true HD means:

a) 4:2:2 color space (or better :).
b) I frame codec (no GOP compression).
c) Enough bandwidth to handle panning across a complex image
without a loss of resolution and/or macroblocks.

DVCPro 100 would be one format that comes close. Varicam HDSDI
output to a D5 deck is there. Sony 950 HDSDI 4:4:4 duel link output to
Sony SR deck is more than there. Viper is there.

Steven White · July 10th, 2005, 05:07 PM

Wow. So I guess your 'true HD" can't exist as a broadcast signal can it? How disappointing that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray won't be true HD. And how odd that HDCAM isn't true HD. Darn that 3:1:1.

By the same logic, all those 4:1:1 and 4:2:0 DV cams aren't true SD either eh? Rats.

I'm surprised you didn't put
d) Must have a 1.0 pixel aspect ratio.

"and as long as I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony." - Susie Derkins

-Steve

Jack Zhang · July 10th, 2005, 05:11 PM

Check out my first post. If it is even invented, THAT would be True HD: 1080p60!

P.S have you guys even thought of mini-BD-RAM?

Jacques Mersereau · July 10th, 2005, 06:43 PM

<<'true HD" can't exist as a broadcast signal can it? >>

I would call it faux HD, yes. Kinda like gold plated watch. Looks okay
until you examine it close . . . like on the big screen?

<<How disappointing that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray won't be true HD.
And how odd that HDCAM isn't true HD. Darn that 3:1:1>>

Oddly enough, yes, you are right, but the images will look much
better than the current broadcast standard of which you speak as both of
those formats will be an MPEG4 variant.

That said, many pros complain that HDCAM in the production vernacular 'sucks'
(although I don't really agree but I think you should know that
Sony is working miracles under the hood. They are the codec masters).
However, if everyone thought as you do, then Sony wouldn't
be marketing solutions that top HDCAM's specs (much less HDV).

I also thought that the broadcast HD Olympic images
STUNK ON ICE to put it bluntly.
As long as the action was frozen, the image was
nice and clear, but as soon as motion was introduced there were hideous
macroblocks all over the place. I never thought I would say it,
but YES, give me an old broadcast analog NTSC COMPOSITE signal
compared to some things I've witness since the "digital revolution."

Now, when a more modern codec like H.264 takes over, 19 mbps will look
pretty darn good given good acquisition formats and post production care.

<<By the same logic, all those 4:1:1 and 4:2:0 DV cams
aren't true SD either eh? Rats.>>

DV barely hangs at 25mbps imo. It is definitely soft on the big screen, even when
well shot and looking great on TV.
Do you claim by quadrupling the pixel count and constricting the bandwidth to
19 mbps and using ol' MPEG2 is a recipe for great images? Not on the big
screen imo.

<<I'm surprised you didn't put d) Must have a 1.0 pixel aspect ratio.>>

No, if it did then there wouldn't be clean circles :)

Radek Svoboda · July 11th, 2005, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacques Mersereau

>>Define "true" HD please.

IMO, true HD means:

a) 4:2:2 color space (or better :).
b) I frame codec (no GOP compression).
c) Enough bandwidth to handle panning across a complex image
without a loss of resolution and/or macroblocks.

DVCPro 100 would be one format that comes close. Varicam HDSDI
output to a D5 deck is there. Sony 950 HDSDI 4:4:4 duel link output to
Sony SR deck is more than there. Viper is there.

HD means high definiton, or resolution. SD means standard definition, or resolution, nothing more. HD starts at 1280x720, progressive, ends at 1920x1080, progressive. Color space, compression, etc. don't come to the definition.

a)

Panasonic Varicam records 960x720 progressive pixels, compressed about 7:1, 4:2:2 color space.

Sony HDCAM F900 records 1440x1080 progressive pixels, compressed about 4.5:1, 3:1:1 color space. It naturally records more color info than Varicam. It is used for major motion picture productions. Varicam not.

b)

Sony's best HD camera, F950 uses GOP, no I-frame only compression. Actually all Sony cameras released lately use GOP. F950 was used on Episode 3.

c)

Actually loss of resolution may be beneficial because stimulates loss of resolution of eye as it pans.

The no GOP is myth, the 4:2:2 is myth, the problem of loss of resolution on panning is myth.

Radek

Dan Eschenfelder · July 11th, 2005, 09:23 AM

I didn't mean to make this a "define true hd" discussion. I simply wanted to pull ideas from others about what you think Canon will bring to the table, and what you would like them to offer. Also to ask for your oppinions on the HDV format in general.

When I said "true HD" I was refering to Panisonic's P2 format of keeping it with DVC Pro HD... with the only compromise being a 1/3" lens.

Honestly I don't care if Canon comes out with something like Sony's F900 HD format or Panisonic's Varicam format. I just don't like the idea of "HDV". Panisonic is the only one who is trying to stay away from that all together.

Personally I think HDV will be here and gone before you can blink an eye. Why shoot to HDV when you can shoot DVC Pro HD (Varicam quality), at prosumer cost. If Panisonic were to come out with a new version of the P2 camera to include affordable 15G (at least) cards, and the option to record straight to a mountable (off the shelf) hard drive in real time... HDV will be history.

Just a thought...

Please respond to those ideas... not what "true HD" is.

Regards,
Dan

Alex Beaupre · July 11th, 2005, 10:45 AM

Just curious but what good would a 15 GB card be, raw DV from an SD camera comes out to about 13 GB for every 60 mintues, from what I have gatharded using HDV it takes up about 9 times more space, so to get 60 minutes it's about 117 GB (please correct me if I am wrong). Hence part of the reason Lace offers 1.2 TB harddrives. So would memory even be worth it at this point?

Alex B.

Dan Eschenfelder · July 11th, 2005, 11:47 AM

I was told at an Adobe convention in Orlando from a Lacie rep that the rule of thumb is: 1GB of HD video uses up about 1GB of space. So in essence... if you were to have a 15 gig card, you could shoot about 15 min. of HD quality video.

Obviously we would like to see two times that, but just wait. In a year or two, an 8GB card will look like a 215mb stick of memory. Gigs are just flying off the shelf these days. I predict VERY soon you will see an affordable 15GB card or more.

By the way... you know that Panasonic has opened up the P2 memory card technology to any company who wants to design a cheaper card. So, look for companies like Kingston, Creative Labs, Lacie or whoever to be coming out with a cheaper card.

As far as Canon is concerned... If they don't address these issues when they unvail their newest creation, Panasonic will continue to make better versions of the P2 and take the prosumer market by storm.

Philip Williams · July 11th, 2005, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Eschenfelder

Personally I think HDV will be here and gone before you can blink an eye. Why shoot to HDV when you can shoot DVC Pro HD (Varicam quality), at prosumer cost. If Panisonic were to come out with a new version of the P2 camera to include affordable 15G (at least) cards, and the option to record straight to a mountable (off the shelf) hard drive in real time... HDV will be history.

There are a couple of reasons that HDV will be here for a while (and most have probably already been discussed before):

1. Its an official format agreed to by several large companies, especially Sony which has invested heavily into the format and has seen success with it.

2. Its cheap. By the end of the year it should be pretty easy to pick up an HDV camcorder for about 1500 bucks (the HC1 or competing cams that haven't been anounced yet). And it shoots on $5 tapes.

3. Its simple. Yup, for the average Joe Schmoe consumer the idea of P2 cards, slots and file offloading is a bit daunting. Maybe Pana can make a smaller HD cam with a 60 gig drive (ala the new JVC hard disk cams) that records 1280x720 that could be competitive pricewise. But even that would suck for a vacation or extended outing. Sorry, but right now the Panasonic route is pretty much for professionals and advanced hobbyists only, and we are not the majority of the camcorder market. Mr. Schmoe will pack his HDV camcorder and a couple cheap tapes for that disneyland vacation.

I'm sure there's more, but I think you see my point. I think DVCProHD is better than HDV too, but that has nothing to do with HDV's commercial viability and its lifespan in the consumer (and even professional) marketplace.

Philip Williams
www.philipwilliams.com

Jacques Mersereau · July 12th, 2005, 07:25 AM

<<<Sony's best HD camera, F950 uses GOP, no I-frame only compression. Actually all Sony cameras released lately use GOP. F950 was used on Episode 3.>>>

I heard that E3 was shot using 950's HDSDI out to a SR deck which via
duel link records 4:4:4 and *not to the camera's internal (HDCAM) recorder*.

I am also unaware of HDCAM utilizing a GOP compression codec, so can
you post a URL for that information please?

Shannon Rawls · July 12th, 2005, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacques Mersereau

HD means:

a) 4:2:2 color space (or better :).
b) I frame codec (no GOP compression).
c) Enough bandwidth to handle panning across a complex image
without a loss of resolution and/or macroblocks.

So there we have it...

Sony's F750, F900 & F950 CineAlta cameras = fake HD
George Lucas, you idiot!

lol

(lord have mercy on some people)

- Shannon W. Rawls

Dan Eschenfelder · July 13th, 2005, 09:29 AM

Phillip,
Good point. Never looked at it from a consumer stand point. Your probably right... that market would be fine with HDV for a little while. However, I predict HD to come down into the consumer's price range in the next few years. If Panasonic can make one right now for less then $10,000 (including two very expensive cards), then others will follow. Why would manufacturers stick with HDV for the consumer market when HD is coming down so low?

I don't know... maybe your right... maybe HD won't go under $4000. It'll come pretty damn close though. Pany's P2 camera's base price is around $6k not including the cards, isn't it? Something like that. If that's the case... when Pany comes out with it's next version which tops that one... the older ones will come down in price. I'm not saying this will happen this year or maybe not even next... but within two to three years I could see it.

So if you were to be in the market for a new consumer camera... why invest in a three year format. If you have to have a 3 chip camera RIGHT NOW... go get a cheapy to get you by until then.

If the consumer market won't go over $2000... you are right, HDV seems the best answer. If they are willing to pay around $3000-$4000, they may be able to afford HD in a few years. If they are willing to pay $3000-$4000 on a HD tv... why won't they pay $3000-$4000 for their camera?

Philip Williams · July 13th, 2005, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Eschenfelder

...
If the consumer market won't go over $2000... you are right, HDV seems the best answer. If they are willing to pay around $3000-$4000, they may be able to afford HD in a few years. If they are willing to pay $3000-$4000 on a HD tv... why won't they pay $3000-$4000 for their camera?

For the most part they are not willing to spend 3-4K on an HDTV. That's been the big barrier to HD, the excessive cost of the TVs. Fortunately you can go to Best Buy or Wal-Mart now and find 30" HDTVs in the $500-600 range. But even at those prices people aren't in a hurry to upgrade. Now I don't know about your financial situation, but not only will the average consumer not pay over $2000 for a camcorder, they typically won't pay half that.

Seriously, go visit your local Best Buy, Wal-Mart or Target. Look at their camcorders. Look at the average price. This is what average consumers, the bulk of the camcorder market, is purchasing. You'll be lucky to find an Optura 60.

As for HDV being a 3 year format and getting a cheap 3CCD camera for now and so on and so forth, again I think you've confused Prosumers (us super geek video hoby types) with Joe Schmoe consumers. Dude, Sony is STILL selling Digital8 camcorders. Also, you seem to classify HDV and HD as seperate entities. Although I believe there have been some holy wars fought over that debate, I must say that HDV is HD. Its highly compressed and can have issues when used under certain circumstances, but its got the pixels and lines to qualify as HD. Hey, you want bad HD? Did you see some of the 04 Olympics on the HDTVs at the stores? Looked great when nothing was moving, then as soon as an athlete would run and do something the whole picture turned into macro-blocks. Terrible. And HD.

Philip Williams
www.philipwilliams.com

July 9th, 2005, 09:30 AM	#1
Dan Eschenfelder New Boot Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 20	What's Up Canon Any word on what Canon will bring to the table? Will they follow in JVC and Sony's footsteps and go HDV or will they be brave enough to get with the true HD ranks of Pany? Personally, I'd love to see Canon come out swingin' with true hd. They have the best true hd lenses, obviously, so they should be able to offer the best glass to go with their creation... and at a lower price since it's their lens. I'd love to see them come out with a combination of all three cameras (JVC, Sony, Panisonic)... JVC's: -Interchangeable professional lenses -24p @ 720 -All the professional functions -Shoulder mountable Pany's: -True HD acquisition -Memory Card Technology -DV tape recording deck Sony's: -1080 Resolution (but I'd like to see progressive) -down conversion to a lesser format (that's if they come out with HDV) I'd like to see true hd, shooting to memory cards (at least a 15GB card at cost of a tape), with the capability of shooting directly to an off the shelf generic hard drive in real time. I'd like to see them go with at least a 1/2" lens, if not the alll mighty 2/3" at a prosumer price. (Keep dreamin' right) If they have to come out with another HDV camera, I'd like to see one better then the current GOP technology. I don't like the idea of one frame deciding what the next 14 look like. Come on Canon... bring it!!!

July 9th, 2005, 06:45 PM	#2
Shannon Rawls Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 853	Define "true" HD please. p.s. Canon will win this race...i'm sure of it. __________________ Shannon W. Rawls ~ Motion Picture Producer & huge advocate of Digital Acquisition.

July 10th, 2005, 02:01 PM	#3
Jacques Mersereau Trustee Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 1,334	>>Define "true" HD please. IMO, true HD means: a) 4:2:2 color space (or better :). b) I frame codec (no GOP compression). c) Enough bandwidth to handle panning across a complex image without a loss of resolution and/or macroblocks. DVCPro 100 would be one format that comes close. Varicam HDSDI output to a D5 deck is there. Sony 950 HDSDI 4:4:4 duel link output to Sony SR deck is more than there. Viper is there. __________________ Jacques Mersereau University of Michigan-Video Studio Manager

July 10th, 2005, 06:43 PM	#6
Jacques Mersereau Trustee Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 1,334	<<'true HD" can't exist as a broadcast signal can it? >> I would call it faux HD, yes. Kinda like gold plated watch. Looks okay until you examine it close . . . like on the big screen? <<How disappointing that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray won't be true HD. And how odd that HDCAM isn't true HD. Darn that 3:1:1>> Oddly enough, yes, you are right, but the images will look much better than the current broadcast standard of which you speak as both of those formats will be an MPEG4 variant. That said, many pros complain that HDCAM in the production vernacular 'sucks' (although I don't really agree but I think you should know that Sony is working miracles under the hood. They are the codec masters). However, if everyone thought as you do, then Sony wouldn't be marketing solutions that top HDCAM's specs (much less HDV). I also thought that the broadcast HD Olympic images STUNK ON ICE to put it bluntly. As long as the action was frozen, the image was nice and clear, but as soon as motion was introduced there were hideous macroblocks all over the place. I never thought I would say it, but YES, give me an old broadcast analog NTSC COMPOSITE signal compared to some things I've witness since the "digital revolution." Now, when a more modern codec like H.264 takes over, 19 mbps will look pretty darn good given good acquisition formats and post production care. <<By the same logic, all those 4:1:1 and 4:2:0 DV cams aren't true SD either eh? Rats.>> DV barely hangs at 25mbps imo. It is definitely soft on the big screen, even when well shot and looking great on TV. Do you claim by quadrupling the pixel count and constricting the bandwidth to 19 mbps and using ol' MPEG2 is a recipe for great images? Not on the big screen imo. <<I'm surprised you didn't put d) Must have a 1.0 pixel aspect ratio.>> No, if it did then there wouldn't be clean circles :) __________________ Jacques Mersereau University of Michigan-Video Studio Manager

July 11th, 2005, 10:45 AM	#9
Alex Beaupre Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: michigan Posts: 80	Just curious but what good would a 15 GB card be, raw DV from an SD camera comes out to about 13 GB for every 60 mintues, from what I have gatharded using HDV it takes up about 9 times more space, so to get 60 minutes it's about 117 GB (please correct me if I am wrong). Hence part of the reason Lace offers 1.2 TB harddrives. So would memory even be worth it at this point? Alex B. __________________ have you ever wanted something so bad you couldent stop thinking about it? a car, a girl, a skate trick? thats what this video was to me it started as an addiction but turned into an obsession. -Adam Johnson

July 10th, 2005, 05:07 PM	#4
Steven White Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 547	Wow. So I guess your 'true HD" can't exist as a broadcast signal can it? How disappointing that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray won't be true HD. And how odd that HDCAM isn't true HD. Darn that 3:1:1. By the same logic, all those 4:1:1 and 4:2:0 DV cams aren't true SD either eh? Rats. I'm surprised you didn't put d) Must have a 1.0 pixel aspect ratio. "and as long as I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony." - Susie Derkins -Steve

July 10th, 2005, 05:11 PM	#5
Jack Zhang Inner Circle Join Date: May 2005 Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada Posts: 3,053	Check out my first post. If it is even invented, THAT would be True HD: 1080p60! P.S have you guys even thought of mini-BD-RAM?

July 11th, 2005, 09:23 AM	#8
Dan Eschenfelder New Boot Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 20	I didn't mean to make this a "define true hd" discussion. I simply wanted to pull ideas from others about what you think Canon will bring to the table, and what you would like them to offer. Also to ask for your oppinions on the HDV format in general. When I said "true HD" I was refering to Panisonic's P2 format of keeping it with DVC Pro HD... with the only compromise being a 1/3" lens. Honestly I don't care if Canon comes out with something like Sony's F900 HD format or Panisonic's Varicam format. I just don't like the idea of "HDV". Panisonic is the only one who is trying to stay away from that all together. Personally I think HDV will be here and gone before you can blink an eye. Why shoot to HDV when you can shoot DVC Pro HD (Varicam quality), at prosumer cost. If Panisonic were to come out with a new version of the P2 camera to include affordable 15G (at least) cards, and the option to record straight to a mountable (off the shelf) hard drive in real time... HDV will be history. Just a thought... Please respond to those ideas... not what "true HD" is. Regards, Dan

July 11th, 2005, 11:47 AM	#10
Dan Eschenfelder New Boot Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 20	I was told at an Adobe convention in Orlando from a Lacie rep that the rule of thumb is: 1GB of HD video uses up about 1GB of space. So in essence... if you were to have a 15 gig card, you could shoot about 15 min. of HD quality video. Obviously we would like to see two times that, but just wait. In a year or two, an 8GB card will look like a 215mb stick of memory. Gigs are just flying off the shelf these days. I predict VERY soon you will see an affordable 15GB card or more. By the way... you know that Panasonic has opened up the P2 memory card technology to any company who wants to design a cheaper card. So, look for companies like Kingston, Creative Labs, Lacie or whoever to be coming out with a cheaper card. As far as Canon is concerned... If they don't address these issues when they unvail their newest creation, Panasonic will continue to make better versions of the P2 and take the prosumer market by storm.

July 12th, 2005, 07:25 AM	#12
Jacques Mersereau Trustee Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 1,334	<<<Sony's best HD camera, F950 uses GOP, no I-frame only compression. Actually all Sony cameras released lately use GOP. F950 was used on Episode 3.>>> I heard that E3 was shot using 950's HDSDI out to a SR deck which via duel link records 4:4:4 and not to the camera's internal (HDCAM) recorder. I am also unaware of HDCAM utilizing a GOP compression codec, so can you post a URL for that information please? __________________ Jacques Mersereau University of Michigan-Video Studio Manager

July 13th, 2005, 09:29 AM	#14
Dan Eschenfelder New Boot Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 20	Phillip, Good point. Never looked at it from a consumer stand point. Your probably right... that market would be fine with HDV for a little while. However, I predict HD to come down into the consumer's price range in the next few years. If Panasonic can make one right now for less then $10,000 (including two very expensive cards), then others will follow. Why would manufacturers stick with HDV for the consumer market when HD is coming down so low? I don't know... maybe your right... maybe HD won't go under $4000. It'll come pretty damn close though. Pany's P2 camera's base price is around $6k not including the cards, isn't it? Something like that. If that's the case... when Pany comes out with it's next version which tops that one... the older ones will come down in price. I'm not saying this will happen this year or maybe not even next... but within two to three years I could see it. So if you were to be in the market for a new consumer camera... why invest in a three year format. If you have to have a 3 chip camera RIGHT NOW... go get a cheapy to get you by until then. If the consumer market won't go over $2000... you are right, HDV seems the best answer. If they are willing to pay around $3000-$4000, they may be able to afford HD in a few years. If they are willing to pay $3000-$4000 on a HD tv... why won't they pay $3000-$4000 for their camera?