4:2:2 Colour Sampling for XF300

[Haitham Lawati]

I came across some of the cameras which have 4:2:2 colour sampling and maybe even 4:4:4, and found that these uncompressed high resolution can be captured via HD-SDI. Canon XF300 is not provided with HD-SDI bnc connection like its peer XF305 for capturing purpose. How can we obtain this high colour sampling? Is it the HDMI that provides this quality output?

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Haitham Lawati

How can we obtain this high colour sampling?

Record to the internal Compact Flash cards.

The XF300 (and 305) have the 422 50Mbs codec built in, so the native recordings are 4:2:2 by default. Why should you need an external recorder with this camera?

But don't put too much emphasis on the 4:2:2 aspect in comparing cameras anyway. It's a ratio of chroma pixels to luminance pixels - NOT an absolute value. A full raster 4:2:0 recording is likely to be better than a subsampled 4:2:2 one, and that's before you even start to think about the camera front ends....

[Robert Turchick]

Yeah...tech specs only tell part of the story. The 300/305 are fantastic cameras even with the 1/3" chips. Only camera close for around the same money is the sony ex1r. I have cut tons of footage from the ex1 and ex1r and stressing it's a bit subjective, I prefer the Canon.

If the 422 or better is important to you, I'll take a stab and guess you want to do some chroma key work. A huge chunk of my biz is greenscreen and I will say the XF does an amazing job. For a standalone camera under $10k you won't find anything better.

[Glen Vandermolen]

Originally Posted by David Heath

Record to the internal Compact Flash cards.

The XF300 (and 305) have the 422 50Mbs codec built in, so the native recordings are 4:2:2 by default. Why should you need an external recorder with this camera?

But don't put too much emphasis on the 4:2:2 aspect in comparing cameras anyway. It's a ratio of chroma pixels to luminance pixels - NOT an absolute value. A full raster 4:2:0 recording is likely to be better than a subsampled 4:2:2 one, and that's before you even start to think about the camera front ends....

...but in the case of the XF300, it already has full raster 4:2:2, along with an excellent front end - correct?

Not sure, but I suppose one could also record uncompressed through the HDMI port on the 300 version, if you wanted higher than 50mbps. But I think the codec is just fine as it is.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Glen Vandermolen

...but in the case of the XF300, it already has full raster 4:2:2, along with an excellent front end - correct?

Yes, correct. The previous statement was intended more in a very general sense.

It's a question of where lines are drawn. The front end of the XF300 is indeed very good, but that's not to say it's perfect - if only because of depth of field issues. But to get better, expect to pay a lot more - where do you draw lines?

[Glen Vandermolen]

Originally Posted by David Heath

It's a question of where lines are drawn. The front end of the XF300 is indeed very good, but that's not to say it's perfect - if only because of depth of field issues. But to get better, expect to pay a lot more - where do you draw lines?

I draw my line at the "expect to pay a lot more." That's why I'm so interested in the Canons. What other camera has a broadcast codec, 4" LCD, sharp lens, full raster 1920 x 1080 chips, professional inputs and outputs (from the 305), fully approved by the BBC, all for under $7,500? I can't think of any other.