Press Release: Canon's New XF305 and XF300 Professional HD Camcorder

[Tom Roper]

CMOS has a lot to offer over CCD, better sensitivity, no smearing. Low power figures into lighter weight rigs, longer run time, more time in the field.

Skew happens when objects move across the frame. Shooting a bird in flight by panning with it will have no skew.

[John Vincent]

Seems to be a side-step or perhaps a baby-step forward. Other than the 4:2:2 codec, I'm not sure why I wouldn't pick up the EX-1/EX-3. I don't hate on the CMOS as much as others, and I think it gets better with every new camera....

That said, having gone the Canon DSLR route, it would take more than this camera has to go away from the depth of field and lens selection.

Purely personal, as I only shoot feature narratives and commercials, but I think any 1/3" chip camera is treading water at best. Too many other cheaper options (again for me) or - if I need the codec - higher end cams that don't cost that much more.

My first video camera was the XL-1 and I loved it, and I have a Canon T2 now, but I'm really not sure who this camera is aimed at at that price range. It seems that Panny already has a huge chunk of the TV market, and Sony has the rest... Strange.

john

[Steve Phillipps]

Originally Posted by Tom Roper

Skew happens when objects move across the frame. Shooting a bird in flight by panning with it will have no skew.

That's not true I'm afraid, I've tried it. If there is any background you see it skew, especially, strangely enough on up and down movements, ie if a bird comes in to land, it looks horrible.
As I've said before, there are reasons why we don't use them on big BBC Natural History projects, even though they do have lots of advantages. Why wouldn't the producers choose them if they were good enough? Latest massive Discovery wildlife series (as big as Planet Earth) - what are they using? CCD Varicam HPX2700. Why not use EX3s and get more lens power and a camera we can actually carry?
Steve

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by John Vincent

Seems to be a side-step or perhaps a baby-step forward.

I just don't see how you can call it a side-step or a baby step. It really is
a radical departure from the XH series; that is, it's honestly so much more
than just a "tapeless version" of the XH camcorders.

What this offers that a D-SLR doesn't have, is a proper video lens with AF
and an 18x zoom range that can be operated remotely from the tripod pan
handle. Not to mention the ability to record non-stop for hours if needed
(longer than 12 minutes per clip, anyway). I own three HD-equipped D-SLRs,
but they can't compete with real camcorders for most types of professional
videography applications.

[Steve Phillipps]

It is a step forward Chris, even just the 50 mb/s codec vs hdv is pretty major. But its spec puts it firmly amongst the competition and I think some were expecting it to blow them away.
Agree entirely about the video camera v DSLR thing.
Steve

[Thomas Smet]

There have been some very good examples of CMOS skew. I personally have seen very little of it but clearly it is a concern for some people. I still say it is mostly us that think things like birds look odd. Personally I think Canon has done the best job with HD CCD's but even then 1/3" just wasn't where it needed to be. Panasonic I still say was pretty bad with 1/3" CCD's but that is of course my opinion.

It would be nice if Canon would make a version of the A1 that recorded to a single CF card with the 25 or 35 mbit codec. I think this alone might be enough for most users who still prfer CCD. The main problem with the A1 isn't the camera itself it is the HDV tape.

[Thomas Smet]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

I just don't see how you can call it a side-step or a baby step. It really is
a radical departure from the XH series; that is, it's honestly so much more
than just a "tapeless version" of the XH camcorders.

What this offers that a D-SLR doesn't have, is a proper video lens with AF
and an 18x zoom range that can be operated remotely from the tripod pan
handle. Not to mention the ability to record non-stop for hours if needed
(longer than 12 minutes per clip, anyway). I own three HD-equipped D-SLRs,
but they can't compete with real camcorders for most types of professional
videography applications.

Not to mention proper video without aliasing or moire. These are just as bad to the image as rolling shutter is to some other people. Try doing a long steady zoom with a DSLR as well or 60i shooting. Heck even the 60p is pretty bad on these cameras right now due to the really bad method of scaling the DSLR cameras use right now. These cameras also tend to overheat after an hour or so of shooting. I just couldn't tell my client we have to wait 15 minutes because the camera is overheating. DSLR's are getting very good but they just are not there yet. They need proper low pass filtering for video and proper scaling. Not to mention 60i support.

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Steve Phillipps

Why wouldn't the producers choose them if they were good enough? Latest massive Discovery wildlife series (as big as Planet Earth) - what are they using? CCD Varicam HPX2700. Why not use EX3s and get more lens power and a camera we can actually carry?
Steve

Who shot it, and what do they own?

If I owned 20 Vari-Cams, I would not go buy EX3s to shoot a series. I'd use what I had invested in. Especially since would leverage my investment in 2/3" glass.

Heck, the HPX2700 isn't even available for purchase any more.

[Steve Phillipps]

The company making the series for Discovery didn't own anything, they kitted up about 3-4 months ago, from scratch deciding what was the best kit for them to use. They bought 5 HPX2700s and a 3700 plus lenses, tripods etc.
Same goes for a BBC team making a new series on Africa, they're kitting up with 2700s too.
It's news to me that you can't get 2700s any more, they're still listed for sale here.
Steve

[Jonathan Shaw]

But the 3700 is and I believe that's what the Beeb upgraded too.

Although it has 1/3" chips it will be interesting to see how it compares with it's images. At the end of the day that's what counts.

Personally 1/2" would have made me feel more confident for low light.

[Steve Phillipps]

The 3700 is no good for wildlife though as it'll only go to 30fps.
Steve

[Dan Brockett]

Can anyone decipher this this Chuck Westfall quote from Studio Daily?
"Asked about sticking with MPEG-2 rather than moving to MPEG-4/H.264, Westfall suggested the decision had to do with concerns about picture quality. “One of the most important things we were looking at was the overriding quality we were trying to achieve with this camcorder,” he told StudioDaily. “We didn’t want to degrade the image quality beyond the absolute minimum.” You’ll be able to judge the camera’s quality for yourself next week at Canon’s NAB booth, where about 10 working models should be available in a shooting environment."


"We didn't want to degrade the image quality beyond the absolute minimum?" Is Chuck meaning that he feels that AVCINTRA 100 degrades image quality more than MPEG 2 50MBPs? I just can't figure out the logic of this quote.

Anyone?

Dan

[Alister Chapman]

1/3" restricts you to a very narrow range of useable aperture. With lower definition HD cameras and SD cameras the softening is less noticable, but when you get in to the realms of full resolution 1080 cameras it's a big deal. It's such a shame Canon didn't produce the camera all the broadcasters want (in the UK at least). They could have gone from also rans to Market leaders overnight. So close.

[Steve Phillipps]

In an attempt to not break with tradition, I'll disagree with you Alister!!! Partially at least.
I'm not sure how big a deal this "limited aperture range" is really. Due to the increased depth of field (one of the other main criticisms of 1/3" chips) you'd not want to go beyond about f5.6 anyway for artistic reasons. I would have thought that as long as you have a 2, 4 and 6 stop ND in the camera you'll be able to get correct exposure in most situations just using f1.8-f5.6.
Steve

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett

"Asked about sticking with MPEG-2 rather than moving to MPEG-4/H.264, Westfall suggested the decision had to do with concerns about picture quality.

My understanding was that the MPEG-2 decision had just as much to do with 3rd-party NLE support as well. It was much easier and faster to secure full NLE compatibility among all the majors in time for the shipping date than it would have been had they gone with MPEG-4. Not to mention most end-user's current editing systems can handle MPEG-2 without having to take on any significant hardware upgrades.