AVCIntra 100 and 50Mbps 4:2:2 mpeg2 should be pretty evenly matched in terms of image quality. Using a 100Mbps codec would have meant very tight restrictions on the CF cards that would work reliably and the camera would eat through them twice as fast. For this type of camcorder that would not have made sense IMHO.

What other codec could Canon have used that is accepted by NLEs and offers realistic bit rates for compact flash? Avchd must have been a consideration, but it's only 4:2:0 and but above 24Mbps your outside the Avchd specs. Besides which if you can go to 50Mbps there is little difference in the quality of mpeg2 and Avc/h264, yet mpeg2 is easier to decode etc.

Alister, what camera did the broadcasters want? larger chips? Form factor?

Mpeg4 doesn't have to mean just AVCINTRA either. It can mean AVCHD. Although personally I would really question if 50 mbit mpeg2 is really all that much better then 24 mbit AVCHD. Barry Green did a test between 35 mbit mpeg2 and 21 mbit AVCHD and the AVCHD killed the native 35 mbit mpeg2 from the EX1. Now that extra 15 mbits helps out a lot but considering you have double the chroma data to deal with it would bring it pretty much on par. I agree with Chris that I think it had more to do with NLE support and ease of editing. Pretty much every NLE out there should be able to edit this stuff as a native format. It is also my understanding that AVCINTRA is I frame based. IPB video is much more efficient then I frame video so yes 50 mbit IPB can very much look better then 100 mbit I frame video as long as the scene isn't too complex for the encoder which is going to be fairly rare at 50 mbits.

Minimum 1/2" sensors, full 1920x1080, 50Mbps long GoP or 100Mbps I frame. All in a low cost package.

Even so, low speed scanning CMOS sensors is murder to 3D matchmoving. (except at low speeds, but what action film would match move at low speed these days?)

Plus, I clearly recall 2 major films with Flash Banding problems: Slumdog Millionare (SI2K) and 2012 (Done on the F23 for the majority of the film but a Unknown CMOS camera was used for 1 specific scene)

Personally, I'd really prefer that over CMOS. To work with File based HDV at the moment, you either need a capture computer and a hard drive or a Sony/Firestone HDD or Compact Flash unit.

That what I said in post 40. EBU stated 1/2" or larger chips and 50mb/s GOP codec or similar.
Steve

Steve, I would not consider the HPX2700, it's 720p.

Peregrine Falcons are not really uncommon where I live, I have some stock footage, as well of other varieties of birds and species of mammals, bear, reptiles and insects. Perhaps my low profile, wildlife seeming not to care if I was high end when giving up the shots. It would honestly be a struggle to find any of it that was wrecked by skew, I'm not sure I can. Perhaps it's the way I shoot or the lenses, but I've been pretty close up with peregrine falcons in particular, they prey on the pigeon population, basically right outside my window from the adjacent grain elevator.

I maintain, the (mfg) industry is moving away from CCD even at the high end. Let's wait and see what comes out.

Lets wait to judge the 1/3" CMOS until we actually see what it does. We should all know by now that not all 1/3" sensors are created equal.

In a review Barry Green just did of the new HPX370 he states that the 1/3" CMOS is as sensitive as the EX3. Perhaps the 1/3" on the canon will be the same.

In the broadcast world low light quickly starts to become not as important. Almost all of our shooting is either studio based or at a location where we setup lights. We use a 2/3" CCD F900 or Red but yet we always light when we shoot. Now of course this may not always be true for everybody but there are always ways to get around low light.

Agreed Thomas but going back to Alistair's comments, if your shooting for broadcast 1/3 even sensitive 1/3 may not be good enough.

That's a response that comes up a lot on these forums. So the HPX2700 is good enough for a Discovery mega series with a budget of £1 million per programme but not good enough for you? Who on earth are your clients?
Steve

But if it is as good as the 1/2" you were going to buy then what exactly is the difference?

Is the sensitivity a massive issue anyway?
Because you have more depth of field you'd tend to want to use wider apertures anyway, does that not level things out a bit? If you've got 2 stops less sensitivity over a 2/3" chip camera and you shoot at f2 instead of f4 you'll get the same exposure and off the top of my head probably similar dof.
Steve

I have confirmed through Canon USA that the PAL upgrade does indeed include 50p when recording in 720.

So in 1080 mode you'll get 50i and 25p, and in 720 mode you'll get 50p and 25p.

Hope this helps,

Bit crap that it's not standard isn't it? Why not? It's the general rule these days I thought.
Steve

I believe their line of thinking is that you don't have to pay for overseas compatibility
unless you really need it -- therefore it's an optional upgrade. Although I have to say,
at these prices you'd think they'd just include it. At any rate, this has been their SOP
for several years now since the XL2 days.