Great post, David; I agree.

Agreed. It gives 3-chip an advantage of 1+2/3 stops in low light. I think 3-chip is going to stick around for the low light deep DOF applications.

Simple, basic questions
 

Sorry to interrupt this interesting discussion, but my concerns are more basic. After having read Chris' article about the new Canon, I'm a bit disappointed.

It's quite likely, that it won’t comply with the EBU specification for HDTV not to mention certain national specifications – and that’s the major problem for me as a videojournalist. I am looking out for an affordable, compact cam that will meet German specifications (2/3” chips, 50 MBit data rate, XD CAM HD 422 or P2HD codec, 720 p 50 recording) on the long run but as far as I can see, there’s currently nothing on the horizon coming close to that. And yes, broadcasters sometimes make exceptions from specs – regarding their own equipment!!! As a freelancer / small service producer you better don’t rely on their mercy (“He’s got outdated gear, but he’s such a nice guy…”). Also, there’s a defined ‘transition time’ to get ready for the specs (in Germany until end of 2011) – but what then?

So, what do you think: Will ‘they’ bring out a prosumer cam meeting these specs? And if so: When will it probably happen?

Currently your best bet is the EX series with a Nanoflash, later in the year (assuming RED keep to their current time scale) the 2/3" Scarlet looks like a likely candidate for broadcast work - assuming you can live with the rendering times etc.

Personally, I feel the 2/3" is the best compromise format for many broadcast productions. No size fits all, so there will be a need for the 1/3" and the larger sensors depending on the particular needs of a production and its market.

The manufacturers may be waiting to see what the demand for the 35mm Scarlet actually is, although I've a feeling such a camera from other manufactures is likely to be in the EX3 type price ball park plus.

Quote: "What is of significance regarding diffraction is the actual physical dimension of the aperture, not the f stop."

That's semantics, for our purposes it amounts to much the same and I'm sure you know that's what I meant.

Quote: "Not quite. Diffraction will limit the smallest acceptable aperture, and engineering considerations will limit the largest aperture."

Yes, and these limits might even be all the way from the smallest to largest apertures, that's what I said.

Steve

Yes, I knew what you meant, but I suspect this whole subject is confusing to anyone who doesn't already understand. Why on earth should the diffraction problem start at f4 for one camera, and not until f45 for another?

My post was intended to give a bit of physics as to WHY. The wavelength of light is fixed, diffraction becomes an issue when dimensions come down to a given multiple of it, hence the problems set in when the iris is equal or less than X millimetres. For different chip sizes, different focal lengths are needed for equivalent angles of view, and since f no=size of aperture/focal length, it follows as to why the same physical size of aperture can be referred to as many different f stops.

I'm one of those who loses interest (or I suppose understanding) when the physics get too complex, but yes it is nice to have it there as reference material - good to have you here to give it!
Steve

Thanks Brian. The current EX 3 does not comply with these specs, but may be a new model would. I'm not too optimistic regarding 'Scarlett' - the release was postponed... how often? For the next months, I'll probably stay with my XH A1, keeping my eyes open.

The Nanoflash overcomes the problem with the EX3 codec.

That's the problem with telling everyone about your products during development (something that usually tends to slip), perhaps the Apple total secrecy is better in that regard.

Jan,

Pardon my assertion here, but I think you are waiting for the impossible. What you are looking for already does exist (PDW-700, PMX-350, HPX2100...), you just need to spend more and get a "professional" camera. I put quotes around the word because any camera with 2/3" chips and 4:2:2 50mbps recording will never be labelled "prosumer" and cost $5,000 USD.

Canon has a history of making still cameras, lenses and consumer/prosumer video cameras. These are their stated markets and they do not want to produce high end video cameras to compete with their provideo lens customers.

I am dissapointed that we will have another 1/3" chip camera on the market as well, but the possibility of this new camera being 2/3" with 4:2:2 is just not on the radar.

:)

WOOPS! Yes.... CANON. I own too many cameras :-)

After shooting with the 7D for several months and having owned a XHA1, I would love a camera with great low light capabilities, more generous DOF (read easier to focus), a big, beautiful monitor, and 20X lens. The XHA1 updated with a much lower noise sensor and perhaps a little shallower DOF (like a 2/3" sensor in conventional thought) would be great. Would like to use a less demanding compression scheme then H.264 or .mov if possible. I'd rather use larger cards and easier-on-my-pc compression. At 100Mbps, that would be around 50GB per hour with sound which means somewhere around 85 minutes on a 64GB card.

Oh, and give me more latitude in post (4-2-2?) and great audio!

I'd seen the EBU remarks, and the BBC position in the UK, but it's interesting to hear what is happening in practice in the rest of Europe. Just to clarify, don't you mean at least 1/2" chips? That's the EBU recommendation, and I don't see any likelihood of 2/3" in a compact camera.

You're right. Nothing on sale now or on the horizon meets the spec, and in principle I agree fully with Brian - currently, the EX cameras are the closest by far, and by adding an external recorder can be made to meet it fully. Yes, the nanoFlash is the obvious one, but if you're an FCP user it's also possible to record directly to ProRes, albeit at the expense of portability.

The position amongst broadcasters does seem to be hardening on minimum spec. Latest I've seen is via TVBE - TVB Europe : January 2010 - when the BBC's position for HD was underlined at a seminar. (See p10)

1/2" might be o.k. if they can get them to provide great low light.

Tim: Thanks, I do know, that there are already cams in the pro segment meeting the specifications. But considering the given salaries for Veejays in Germany, it is just not economic to buy them. Apart from that, most of them are too bulky for a 'one-man-show'. May be, switching to rental services is a solution for a 'transition period', until a) industry will offer suitable and affordable gear or b) the broadcasters will finally lower their demands a little bit. But considering Davids quote of the BBC position I doubt, that they'll do so.

David: No, I am quite sure regarding 2/3" Chips. My source is the 'Handbuch HD-Produktion',published end of Nov. 2009 (Peter Vogel, Andreas Effenberg (HG), edition: Schiele&Schön, Berlin) that is putting together these guidelines.

Quote (p. 157, referring to the public broadcaters ARD, ZDF, ORF, translated by me): "Camera sensors should have native 1920 x 1080 pixels and should at least be as large as 2/3".

Additionally, some exceptions are defined (p 155):

"HD Low-Cost and Consumer formats are solely acquisition formats and will only be used for special purposes like video journalism, newscasting from crisis areas, etc." Sounds moderate at the first look, but: "Therefore, a further processing of these formats has to be avoided. For example, XD CAM EX, HDV and AVCHD are not professional HDTV formats."

And that means, as far as I do understand it, that you may -occasionally- shoot on these formats. But for the post, you have to transfer it to professional plattforms and formats.

While we're spec'ing out the new A1 prime, can we add mechanical focus and zoom instead of pure servo controls?