Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

If you are aware of all the shortcomings of the 5D & 7D chips in a dslr configuration (HEAT, moire, can't do quick pans,etc), it takes alot of time & research to overcome those hurdles. So, to say they can whip up a big chip camera in a XF100 body and sell it for close to the same price is......no

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

I hope a new camera is in my future and I am trying to understand lens selection better.

The EF "L" series lens by Canon is a staple among pro still photographers. Few would disagree that their lenses, especially their newer lenses like the 70-200L II, 85L, 35L are top notch. Here is where my lack of knowledge starts. A 5D Mk II requires a great lens, and Canon definitely makes them in their L series. The amount of lens data/resolution/perfection needed for a single shot from the 5D II is more than a frame from video correct ?? As long as the electronics ( Aperture, IS, etc ) work, why isn't a top notch still lens an absolute marvelous lens for a video camera ?? Yet many here do not speak well of the still lens selection, but my thinking is that a still lens would have to be held to higher standards, Is that wrong ??

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

Because there is no way to change focal length smoothly and quietly during a shot.

If you never have to zoom during a shot, then a photo lens isn't a problem.

Said by a guy who thinks there's too much zooming during shots as it is, but recognizes the need for that capability.

A guy who thinks you can tell wonderful stories using moving images without ever changing focal length during a shot.

If it's a video lens, then it has a (very quiet) motorized zoom. Photo lenses don't.

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

Thanks Chris

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

Some of you are dreaming pretty big, so I'll just hope it has an awesome ON/OFF switch.

Mark

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

A few more reasons why photo lenses are not preferred for video versus ENG zoom lenses and PL mount cine lenses:

1) with PL Cine lenses, you get a standard film pitch for the aperture and focus (and zoom if a zoom lens). Most sets of lenses all have the same location of iris and focus gears so changing between lenses is faster and easier because you don't have to move the follow focus. One good example is Cooke and their Panchro set and more expensive S4 and S5 lenses. Each set has identical iris and focus placement.

2) most Cine lenses do NOT breathe (slightly changing focal length when focusing) whereas most SLR lenses DO breathe. With still images, breathing is not a problem but with video, it is very noticeable, and in my humble opinion, breathing makes the video look cheap. However, some SLR lenses do not breathe such as the Zeiss ZF2 and the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS (first version - I have not seen the newer 'II' version yet). On the cine side, the Zeiss CP.2 do breathe but the Cooke Panchro, S4 & S5 do not in addition to most ENG lenses.

3) On SLR lenses, the aperture has 'steps', usually in 1/3 stop increments (a few have 1/4 stop increments). With Canon lenses, you don't even have an aperture ring so using a follow focus on the iris is not possible in addition to the inherent issues of not having an iris ring.

4) Almost all SLR zoom lenses are vari-focal which means the focus plane moves as the the focal length changes when zooming. Thus, when zooming during a shot, you must also pull focus at the same time. Almost all ENG and Cine zooms are par-focal which means the focus plane remains constant throughout the zoom range.

5) On a related note, many SLR lenses change length when zooming and/or focusing. This is a major problem with a mattebox and follow focus. All of the best 24-70 lenses change length (Canon L, Nikon, Sony/Zeiss). Many prime lenses change length when focusing including the Sony/Zeiss 85mm/1.4 and 135mm/1.8 as well as many Canon L primes.

6) My personal favorite reason why I prefer cine lenses: many of them have more than 9 aperture blades, which make gorgeous bokeh. The best bokeh I have ever seen is from the Scheider Cine-Xenar lenses with 18 EIGHTEEN blades! I posted a video in the F3 forum showing a comparison of the Xenar and CP.2 lenses which show this amazing bokeh. Even the CP.2 have 12 or 14 blades and some Xenar's have 12, 14 or 18 blades. I know of only 1 SLR lens with more than 9 blades, the Sony 135mm T4.5/F2.8 'STF' (Smooth Trans Focus) with 10 blades. This lens is designed to create amazing bokeh and it has the best bokeh of any SLR lens I have seen.

7) Lastly, Cine lenses use a T-stop rather than F-stop. The T-stop is the actual amount of light being transmitted whereas the F-stop relates to the size of the iris. Most SLR lenses have a different T-stop from the actual F-stop. With a F2.8, the actual amount of light can be T2.4 or T3.0.

Hope this helps :)

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

""Hope this helps :)""

Yes, ALOT thanks.

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

I updated it so be sure to refresh your browser to see the added info.

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

Wow, great post, Steve. I hope the Nov 3rd announcement includes some new Canon PL primes.

Minor correction: the T-stop is always slower than the f-stop. Also, the stops (both T- and f-) are only valid for infinity. The closer you focus, the more inaccurate it is. The degree of inaccuracy will depend on the lens design; specifically, pupil magnification. There's also a slight inaccuracy at very wide f-numbers (e.g. f/1 does not give double the light of f/1.4 due to the fact that f-number is only an approximation).

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

Nearly every 2/3" ENG zoom lens I've used breathes, the exceptions are usually the wide angle zooms which don't breathe (well to a noticeable extent).

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

Over at DxOMark, they test the Transmission of all lenses and I recall seeing a few Nikon lenses that were slightly faster than the F-stop. However, it might have been due to the camera, the D3, which is uber sensitive.

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

The definition of a T-stop itself makes it impossible. T-stop is defined as the f-number that would give the same light intensity if the lens had perfect 100% transmission. Since there's no way to transmit more than 100% of the light, the T-stop is always the same or slower than the f-stop.

Indeed. Maybe the Nov 3 announcement is Canon's chance to finally catch up with the sensitivity of the D3s. (If so, I wonder if it will be short lived -- a D4 may be around the corner.)

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

The exact price was not mentioned but this person's statement about competing with the F3 should give an idea about the price range. Personally, I hope its under $10k (it can be $9,999 and that would be ok). In addition, I want it to use CF cards since I already have many from my nanoFlash; has HD-SDI, Genlock and TC.

I just used the F3 on a shoot this weekend and I want to buy it even more; however, I don't need the added features of S-Log and dual-link 444. I want a camera like the F3 but without those added features which add a significant cost, and for <$10k.

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

The big question must then be whether we're talking about a "designed for video" large sensor, or a large sensor designed for stills (with high pixel count) which will inevitably be compromised in video mode. Hopefully the former.....
I think a lot of people will agree. Not want S-Log etc - but do want a broadcast quality codec like XDCAM422 or AVC-Intra100 without the expense and hassle of an external recorder.

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

Regarding breathing, all my Canon lenses breathe. I have yet to do a breathing test on our Zeiss lenses.

The winners in my collection are the 200/2.8L II and the 28/1.8. They breathe, but it's quite subtle. The EF 50/1.4 is so-so. The EF 85/1.8 breathes quite a bit. The 100/2.8 macro can suck the air out of a room it breathes so much, but that's partly due to its extreme focus range.

Let's add "lenses that don't breathe" to this thread's conjecture list. Add it to the "unlikely" column along somewhere above the "cloaking device" item. ;)

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

No question - it 'should' be a true video camera.

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

Or perhaps a "cinema" camera, given the location of the announcement. (Of course, there is a large overlap between video and cinema.)

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

Canon Video did state last year that all their cameras for the foreseeable future will be on the 50mb, 422 color MXF codec to compact flash cards.....That's better than the F3

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

As Daniel says, that's impossible. F-number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

For us in the US, 50Mb 422 is not really a big deal versus the 35Mb XDCAM EX. I have done comparisons of the internal 35Mb vs 220Mb I-frame from my nanoFlash and the difference is barely noticeable.

For a noticeable increase in quality for projects that need it, you need to record 10bit at 200Mb/s or higher. The PIX240 fits this need perfectly with its ability to record PR HQ and DNxHD - both 10bit.

On a side note, I have seen people say that Canon uses the Sony XDCAM HD codec but I have not seen it mentioned in Canon specs. Can someone confirm whether this is true or not? Its a big deal because it would allow archiving to Sony's XDCAM HD discs including the new 100GB quad-layer discs. Even though the nanoFlash has used Sony's XDCAM encoder from the beginning, it took C-D quite some time to make the 50Mb 422 recordings 100% XDCAM HD legal in order to support the writing to discs.

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

Not really. What is actually happening here is that both Sony and Canon are using the standard .MXF file format, which pre-dates both manufacturer's implementations of it. This is the reason why the folder structures are very similar and playable within each other's systems (the Sony XDCAM viewer can read and play back the Canon files, for example). Sony put it in their cameras before Canon did, but .MXF is certainly not exclusive to Sony. For what it's worth, Panasonic uses .MXF for their P2 HD file format as well.

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

The trouble is that .mxf doesn't uniquely define the wrapper - Material Exchange Format - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - which can lead to incompatability problems. Sony refers to it's variant as XDCAM MXF, as for the Canon version, then from the wikipedia link:
It seems that the essence is the same between them, and probably good compatability within NLEs, but in answer to the question Steve posed (a very good one) that doesn't guarantee the Canon files are 100% compatible with XDCAM discs.

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

Steve - it occurs to me that the XDCAM discs can be written to in two ways. It's a bit like DVD's - you have to write data to them in a very specific structure for them to be recognised by a DVD video player, but you can simply use them as a basic data file store.

But if you (say) just copied a set of MPEG files to a DVD disc, then whilst you may be able to play them back on a PC drive with something like media player, a dedicated DVD player would just reject the disc with an error message - it wouldn't have the correct file structure.

Hence, I don't think there would be any problem using XDCAM discs to backup the Canon files - what I'm not sure about is whether they would have full functionality in such as an XDCAM deck.

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

I was very close to purchasing a sony nex fs100 but started to lose steam a while back. Now with Canon's nov 3rd deal I'm wondering if this will be a camera and if so will I want it.

It's always tempting to get new stuff with new features, but really what do I really need these days. The picture quality seems so good now, how much better do we need. So many have said the quality is rarely appreciated since most is viewed on computers etc. For that matter Canon 7d footage is hitting the big screen and no one knows the difference.

I really want to get a camera that I can use for the next 10 years, even 20. As with cameras and any other product the savvy marketing teams are always luring us with what we think are must haves. But if a camera can hit the big screen what else can I want, other than a steadicam built into the camera.

Not the most popular thinking here but I need to really begin to perfect the art of story telling. Is there a forum for that?

Monty

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

Frankly, what I'm looking for is all about the delivered video, not so much about ease of use and features. After making do with untwisting lenses, shining lights into the 5D2, and hitting exposure lock - and having that fixed in the firmware update - I'm not too worried about the operational side of the next gen.

For me, it's about image quality.
* Fix the aliasing issues.
* Reduce or eliminate rolling shutter.
* Give me more than eight bits of depth (along with a tall dynamic range)
* Reduce coding artifacts so I can translate that bit depth into smooth, graded images.

I also want a good price. I'm hoping that DSLR quality continues to improve. I like riding their volume curve and am comfortable with their usability.

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

I find it odd that Canon is sticking with MPEG2, when AVC seems so much more efficient. So far, only Panasonic has announced any plans to implement a codec that should meet your criteria. AVC Long-GOP will support 24p, 25p, and 30p at 10-bit 4:2:2 at data rates up to 50 Mbps. It's too bad Panasonic didn't extend this to 60p at 80-100 Mbps. If they don't include AVC Long-GOP in the GH3 and maybe a cheaper, VG-20-level video camera, well, I'd be sorely disappointed.

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

I'm not sure why they would change.....their codec is a broadcast codec, approved by the BBC & Discovery HD, and basically equal to Pro-Res422....the same codec that is in the Arri Alexa.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

Well, the AVC nature means a bit more efficiency, but it's difficult to implement it well in real time, so the datarate saving may not be worth it. By AVC Long-GOP, do you mean AVC-HD? If so, that doesn't come in a 10 bit or 4:2:2 version, nor at 50Mbs. The more upmarket Panasonic codec is AVC-Intra, and the 100Mbs variant is seen as approximately equivalent to XDCAM422 - but that's not long-GOP.

What I personally would like to see is the ability to record EITHER XDCAM422, OR a RAW mode directly from the sensor. The former would then be preferable when time is important (and it's still a broadacst quality codec), the RAW mode would be far preferable for long term projects with the expectation of a long time spent grading etc, and be far the best for keeping all options open. The same principle as being able to save JPEG and/or RAW with a DSLR.

The advantages are less down to compression quality - far more being able to have a lot more post control.

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

Canon's DSLRs use h.264 (otherwise known as MPEG-4, Part 10, or AVC) rather than MPEG-2.

And, FWIW, RED compresses the RAW signal with Wavelet coding. I could live with that. ;)

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

I was under the impression that Canon's MXF format is 4:2:2 but only 8-bit, whereas Pro-Res422 supports 10-bit. But beyond that, H.264, being more efficient, would probably look better at 35 Mbps than MPEG2 at 50 Mbps (of course, that's an oversimplification). And lastly, Canon's HDSLRs are prosumer, and most consumer and prosumer cameras are trending to H.264.

Panasonic recently announced details of its AVC-Ultra "family" of codecs. One is AVC Long-GOP which is indeed 10-bit 4:2:2 at up to 50 Mbps. Of course, nothing has been released sporting the new codec, but I expect the AF100's successor will do so, if not AVC-Intra at up to 200 Mbps. They'd be stupid not to include AVC Long-GOP in the GH3 and possibly also a VG-20-style camera. As to XDCAM422, my understanding is that it is, like Canon's format, only 8-bit.

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

Yeah, but Jim, the codec in the Alexa that everyone drools over is the 4:4:4:4 codec.

And isn't 4K four times the data of 1080? Is 50Mbps really enough?

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

50Mbps is good enough for BBC HD and Discovery HD. That says a lot.

Keep in mind the Alexa is approaching the $100K mark. Do you want this new Canon (if there really is a new Canon) to compete in that price range?
A large sensor, interchangeable lens, 50mbps, 4:2:2 codec video camera for under $10 grand sounds really good to me. 10 bit would be nice, too.

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

Ah, OK, found this - AVC-Intra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . AVC-Ultra has been talked about for a while, but I'd only heard it referred to an I-frame only version at 200Mbs - presumably more intended to rival HDCAM-SR. They now seem to have widened the meaning, so the version I was aware of is now "AVC-Intra Class 200".

According to wikipedia, what you're referring to is:
Well, we'll have to see. (But no standard for 1080p/50?) It's important to bear in mind that there's no magic here. All the current compression systems are fundamentally based on MPEG2 I frame only. That's extendable (to give better efficiency) by AVC techniques, long-GOP, etc to give the same quality at lower bitrates. The snag is that these extensions all require more computer power to process, so it's in to a law of diminishing returns. Why use the most complicated system if you can get the same result by just using a slightly higher datarate? Would you buy a car with highly advanced, highly efficient engine costing $10,000 more to get a fuel saving of $500 a year? There's an example when "efficient" doesn't always mean "sensible".

There's also the case of "good enough". It would be foolish design to engineer a camera with a codec far more capable than the front end is producing. "10 bit" for encoded video sounds "wow" on paper, and is great for marketing people, but it's only really worth it if the front end is up to it - otherwise you're just throwing 20% of your bitrate away on coding noise! And as regards your reference to the AF100, I suspect the Panasonic engineers realised that only too well, and that explains why it was only released with AVC-HD and not AVC-Intra. There will be little point in using a 10 bit codec with any successor unless that has a much lower noise floor - which will effectively mean a new designed-for-video sensor (as with the F3), not adapting one that was designed for stills.

Times will move on, but as Glen says, XDCAM422 is not bad for now.......

All this applies to cameras that record processed signals - video ready to be displayed and viewed. It's a completely different story when you talk about RAW - the unprocessed data effectively straight from the sensor photosites. In these cases 8 bit is nowhere near enough, probably not even 10 either. But the processes of de-Bayering, matrixing, gamma correction, gain, colour balance etc that then have to be done are so likely to raise the noise that it may be pretty pointless to output more than 8 bits after all this has been done.

The real reason for 10 bit is not that it will enable any big difference to be seen on the first generation, but that it provides more headroom for post processing - if the original signal is up to it. I'd rather skip that and go straight to some form of RAW recording for a camera of this type.

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

If it's a 4K sensor creating an HD frame size, then fine. But if it's creating a 4K frame size, then I don't see how 50 Mbps is enough.

And ten bits wouldn't be nice, it would be essential. Eight bits simply doesn't allow enough levels of gradation to record the full dynamic range of modern sensors out today.

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

David, you're ignoring the most important reason to use ten bits. Eight bits simply doesn't allow enough fine gradations to record more than about nine stops. And most modern sensors can record more than nine stops. So what happens is the cameras clip the highlights about a stop or two before the sensor itself clips, i.e. the pixels completely fill-up.

This is also why ten bits and S-Log provide real DR benefit to the F3.

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

At the other end of the AVC line, a new 2.0 spec was introduced in July 11, introducing AVCHD Progressive, along with AVCHD 3D and the inevitable AVCHD 3D/Progressive alphabetti spaghetti.

Progressive denotes the 50p/60p version - the AVC-Ultra codec may also have it's own variant thereof. I guess the wiki-weasel words 'as low as 25 Mbits' seems to hint that would be the absolutely lowest mode and you'd have others to play with (like the AVCHD line). Sigh, the nice thing about standards is that there's so many to choose from.

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

All this depends on the market they're aiming the camera at. Recording the 10 bits on the F3 comes as an extra over the base price of the camera. If they have a 10 bit HD SDI on the new camera, how many people are going to go the extra mile if the camera has the broadcast accepted Canon XF 8 bit 4;2;2 codec on board?

Canon might do two versions: one version to compete with the F3 with its s-log and the Epic-S recording RAW REDcode and the other version to compete with the FS100 and AF100. These are two different markets, with differing budgets.

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

I think you'll find some useful threads over in the Documentary Techniques section of DVinfo or start a new one there:
Documentary Techniques Forum at DVinfo.net

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

If it's so much more complicated, why is every manufacturer using H.264? I seriously doubt Panasonic would announce new codecs if it couldn't reasonably implement them. And I'm unaware of a commonly used 10-bit MPEG2 codec -- neither XDCAM422 nor Canon's MXF is 10-bit.

Some people do it for the environment despite the added cost. As far as using a more complex codec, the analogy doesn't really hold. The car is mechanical, and I assume that, say, a complex hybrid engine and battery array are far more costly to manufacture than a conventional engine, at least for now. Camera codecs and associated processors are the products of constant technological evolution. By the time Panasonic implements AVC-LongG, it'll probably be as cheap to do so as AVC-HD is today.

Possibly, but Panasonic claimed adding AVC-Intra to the AF100 would have added several thousand dollars to the cost.

Re: Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...
 

No, not true. What you are not taking into account are the gamma, knee etc processing which has the effect of compressing the dynamic range that the camera is capable of, into the dynamic range that the eye can see.

*AT ANY ONE TIME* the eye has a range of about 7 stops, but as you look from a shade area to something brightly lit the eye adapts. And the brain is clever enough to accept all this without realising what's going on, the impression is that the eye has a far better dynamic range. This is why 8 bits is enough for normal recording and viewing - it matches the range of the eye. It's easily proven by looking at greyscales and seeing how small the differences get before it merges into a continuous mass. (Corresponds to about 7 bits, or about 128 levels.)
No. It may be that a doubling of light level in the mid tones may lead to a doubling of the recorded value. But as it gets brighter, the whole point of the knee is to introduce non-linearity, such that in the highlights a doubling of light level means maybe an increase in recorded value of (say) 25% - not 100%. Hence the headlights start to crush out gracefully (as with film) - not clip abruptly.
S-log and 10 bits are indeed of benefit to the F3, but it's the combination that makes the difference - not either in isolation. The point is that the (say) 12 stops that the sensor resolves are now compressed not into about 8, but into 10. Looked at directly, it will look low contrast, flat and dull - but it's intended to be processed to give the effect of raising contrast - but allowing that to be done in a controlled way, not just as a camera set in a single way.

And it's important to realise the difference between a signal processed for direct viewing and recorded to 10 bit, and one processed to S-log and recorded to 10 bit - 10 bit has far more benefit in the latter case.

But even better than S-log and 10 bit is RAW, which really needs at least 12 bit to do it justice. In this case there's no dynamic range compression or knee at all, and no other processing at all. But it's no good for direct viewing. The comparison with film is that a negative may have plenty of detail in highlight and lowlight, but will need to be printed onto a more contrasty stock. Varying print exposure will give preference to either lowlights or highlights.

But the problem with S-log and RAW is that although they give plenty of control, they HAVE to be graded, which takes time. Not a problem for some work, but bad for others.

Hence that's why I'd like to see any new camera with the option of both - use as appropriate. Ideally, 1080p via XDCAM422, and 4k with a RAW system. Forget about 10 bit, it falls between the stools of quality and convienience. The real ideal may be two cameras - one with just the 1080p XDCAM422 option, the more expensive one with both.

We'll see.