Canon's new 50Mbps MPEG-2 Full HD (4:2:2) codec

[Brian Drysdale]

News is very different to programme production.

1/3" camera are used on SD programmes in the UK, commonly in factual output; an area that has come under increasing budget pressures in recent years. They're allowed up to a prescribed percentage on most HD programmes, although for specialised productions like "Deadliest Catch" they use them as the main production cameras - given the number of cameras that get written off perhaps they should be regarded as crash cameras. My understanding is that Discovery keep a close eye on the post workflow, so that the HDV is only used as the acquisition format.

Most current productions in the UK are still SD, although HD is increasing. I also know of HDV cameras that have never shot HD only DVCAM. Any HD broadcast productions I've shot have been very precise in their technical requirements, even down to the camera using a BBC set up - even if shooting HD for ITV.

This could be early days stuff like when stereo first came out when everything was specified in advance and in later years no one seemed to care, at least on bog standard TV programmes. Although, I suspect when this happens in UK HD there will be a number of options other than HDV available.

How acceptable the 1/3" Canon is for broadcast work may depend on the quality of their CCDs and how they compare to the 1/2" CMOS being used on say the EX series. Although they'll always have the real estate disadvantage where more helps in light gathering.

It should be added that different broadcasters have differing HD technical specs, so that a major broadcaster's flagship HD channel will be more demanding than the local cable channel.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Michael Galvan

Well what I've come to find about broadcast (specifically for the news realm) is it has to fit within the production skeleton that the network has in place. ..................

And yes, we should always strive to get the best content with the best technical quality possible. But the broadcast world is evolving; money plays the biggest role in these networks eyes and if they can achieve similar quality with these cheaper cams, they are all for it (and boy am I seeing them push for this).

My friend shoots some great stuff that you would never guess was the Sony V1U when you watch it on tv. And I know for a fact that that is setting a benchmark for other shooters within the network cause to the executives, they are seeing that quality at a much lower price.

OK, but as others have said, news has always had different priorities to other types of television. Speed, convienience have always taken a greater prominence than technical issues for very valid reasons. (And it often shows, it has to be said, but if it's a choice of seeing something in any quality, and not seeing it all, guess which I'd go for.)

As far as your second paragraph above, then what you're really saying is that money counts, and if smaller cameras save money, so be it. It only becomes an argument for 1/3" chips if they are the only way to get smaller, cheaper cameras. Unfortunately for the likes of Canon (and Panasonic and JVC, for that matter) the EX exists - it offers 1/2" chips for what has previously been 1/3" price and size. That's why many of us just don't see the new Canon as an "EX killer" - good though it may be in itself. What I DO see is it putting pressure on Sony to put the 50Mbs in more of it's range.

I don't know what type of material your friend shoots for CNN, but if the VIU has any drawbacks, it must be in terms of versatility rather than absolute quality under good conditions. I assume he doesn't do any live work with it, for example? Or use it with a radiocam back? So if the executives at CNN adopted it as their benchmark camera, would they then be content to not bother with live reports? Use it and a 2/3" camera in decent light and you may not notice too big a difference - use them in lower light levels and the V1U will fall apart well before the 2/3".

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Tom Roper

We all understand and appreciate the picture quality benefits of 50 mbps 4:2:2, but for event shooters and ENG users targeted by this cam, I don't think the advantages of HDV and XDCAM-EX are appreciated enough when understanding the potential savings .........

I'd hope that this forthcoming Canon camera will also include the 35Mbs codec as well as HDV, for precisely the reasons you say. Especially the 35Mbs mode, the problems with HDV or AVC-HD aren't so much that they look bad at first generation, but hold up far less well through a digital broadcast chain.

[Tim Polster]

Tom,

Are the time savings you are speaking of with HDV and the EX codec in taking the raw footage and putting it directly to Blu-ray without editing?

This would be to watch the raw footage through a Blu-ray player and a television?

[Jeff Kellam]

Okay, so what end user is this new Canon codec exactly aimed at?

IMO, it's not an event or wedding shooter.

[Tim Polster]

Jeff, why do you say this?

The codec offers higher image quality. Every type of shooter benefits from higher image quality.

[Greg Boston]

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

but the CineAlta badging really is Sony's pro line.

I'm sorry Perrone, that's not correct. The CineAlta badge might have originally appeared on a very pro, high priced camera. However, the CineAlta badge on a Sony camera signifies over/under cranking ability. Even if it shoots 24P, but doesn't over/under crank, it won't get a CineAlta badge on the side.

Whether or not it only appears only on pro cameras is up to Sony.

regards,

-gb-

[Michael Galvan]

Originally Posted by David Heath

OK, but as others have said, news has always had different priorities to other types of television. Speed, convienience have always taken a greater prominence than technical issues for very valid reasons. (And it often shows, it has to be said, but if it's a choice of seeing something in any quality, and not seeing it all, guess which I'd go for.)

As far as your second paragraph above, then what you're really saying is that money counts, and if smaller cameras save money, so be it. It only becomes an argument for 1/3" chips if they are the only way to get smaller, cheaper cameras. Unfortunately for the likes of Canon (and Panasonic and JVC, for that matter) the EX exists - it offers 1/2" chips for what has previously been 1/3" price and size. That's why many of us just don't see the new Canon as an "EX killer" - good though it may be in itself. What I DO see is it putting pressure on Sony to put the 50Mbs in more of it's range.

I don't know what type of material your friend shoots for CNN, but if the VIU has any drawbacks, it must be in terms of versatility rather than absolute quality under good conditions. I assume he doesn't do any live work with it, for example? Or use it with a radiocam back? So if the executives at CNN adopted it as their benchmark camera, would they then be content to not bother with live reports? Use it and a 2/3" camera in decent light and you may not notice too big a difference - use them in lower light levels and the V1U will fall apart well before the 2/3".

Yes, the V1U is used for segments, but not for live shots, those are mostly the 2/3" XDCAMs they have.

Again, if you read through this thread, all I was suggesting was that 1/3" HD is used and seen on broadcast everyday. The assumption that they are replacing the 2/3" cameras is simply misguided, although thats where this thread's conversations were headed for, for some reason.

What I meant by setting a benchmark is that quality work is being done with these smaller cameras that is getting noticed. In saying that, 1/3" is becoming used more and more, because of what you can achieve with them in relation to the price of them. And network execs love the use of less money. Doesn't mean the compromises of these cameras suddenly go away. Just that they are used more and more. What I am seeing is more attention and adoption to these cameras when compared to just a couple years ago.

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Greg Boston

I'm sorry Perrone, that's not correct. The CineAlta badge might have originally appeared on a very pro, high priced camera. However, the CineAlta badge on a Sony camera signifies over/under cranking ability. Even if it shoots 24P, but doesn't over/under crank, it won't get a CineAlta badge on the side.

Whether or not it only appears only on pro cameras is up to Sony.

regards,

-gb-

Thank you for the update.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

...there's a pretty darn nice piece of glass on the front of the EX1, and a 10bit 1.5GB pipe sitting right on the back of the camera...

Same with this camera too (the difference in sensor size is noted).

Originally Posted by Michael Murie

"We are pleased to invite you to a Canon Consumer Imaging Event." Might this be the new Rebel and/or 60D?

Looks like you're right about that -- it's the Rebel T2i (discussion at this link).

Originally Posted by Peter Moretti

I'm assuming this will be Long GOP, not I-frame only?

Yes, that is correct. It uses 15-frame Long GOP.

Originally Posted by Jeff Kellam

The announcement of the new "Pro" codec itself is misleading IMO. These are prosumer cameras.

Sorry, but I don't think the definition of "prosumer" includes HD-SDI, GenLock or Time Code input and output. Those are pro features.

[Robert M Wright]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Sorry, but I don't think the definition of "prosumer" includes HD-SDI, GenLock or Time Code input and output. Those are pro features.

The term "prosumer" is a fairly loose one.

As a noun, "prosumer" loosely means a person using products, designed primarily for non-professional purposes ("consumer products"), indeed for professional purposes.

I don't know that it is real accurate to label cameras with pretty robust manual controls, HD-SDI output, etc., or even cameras like the XH-A1 or Z1 (for example) as a products designed primarily for non-professional purposes. These are certainly low-end cameras, in the context of professional settings, but they clearly are designed with professional purposes in mind, and indeed are widely used for putting bread on lots of tables.

As an adjective (in describing cameras), the term "prosumer" would seem most commonly to be used for describing a camera as being at the low end of the range for cameras that are defacto designed for professional use (but do find significant use among serious amateurs as well).

[Chris Hurd]

Well, frankly I've always despised that non-word "prosumer."

"Confessional" has so much more appeal, on a variety of levels.

[Dom Stevenson]

Having watched the movies over on Rick Young's site, i'm beginning to get quite excited about this camera:

MacVideo - News - Latest

[Chris Hurd]

Rick is a great guy -- just had a drink with him last Thursday night at Hotel Serrano's bar in San Francisco (hi, Rick!)

[Jim Giberti]

And his site has an article on the new EOS FCP plug-in that is a real plus for workflow.