If you are aware of all the shortcomings of the 5D & 7D chips in a dslr configuration (HEAT, moire, can't do quick pans,etc), it takes alot of time & research to overcome those hurdles. So, to say they can whip up a big chip camera in a XF100 body and sell it for close to the same price is......no

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

I hope a new camera is in my future and I am trying to understand lens selection better.

The EF "L" series lens by Canon is a staple among pro still photographers. Few would disagree that their lenses, especially their newer lenses like the 70-200L II, 85L, 35L are top notch. Here is where my lack of knowledge starts. A 5D Mk II requires a great lens, and Canon definitely makes them in their L series. The amount of lens data/resolution/perfection needed for a single shot from the 5D II is more than a frame from video correct ?? As long as the electronics ( Aperture, IS, etc ) work, why isn't a top notch still lens an absolute marvelous lens for a video camera ?? Yet many here do not speak well of the still lens selection, but my thinking is that a still lens would have to be held to higher standards, Is that wrong ??

why isn't a top notch still lens an absolute marvelous lens for a video camera ?Because there is no way to change focal length smoothly and quietly during a shot.

If you never have to zoom during a shot, then a photo lens isn't a problem.

Said by a guy who thinks there's too much zooming during shots as it is, but recognizes the need for that capability.

A guy who thinks you can tell wonderful stories using moving images without ever changing focal length during a shot.

If it's a video lens, then it has a (very quiet) motorized zoom. Photo lenses don't.

Thanks Chris

Some of you are dreaming pretty big, so I'll just hope it has an awesome ON/OFF switch.

Mark

I hope a new camera is in my future and I am trying to understand lens selection better.

The EF "L" series lens by Canon is a staple among pro still photographers. Few would disagree that their lenses, especially their newer lenses like the 70-200L II, 85L, 35L are top notch. Here is where my lack of knowledge starts. A 5D Mk II requires a great lens, and Canon definitely makes them in their L series. The amount of lens data/resolution/perfection needed for a single shot from the 5D II is more than a frame from video correct ?? As long as the electronics ( Aperture, IS, etc ) work, why isn't a top notch still lens an absolute marvelous lens for a video camera ?? Yet many here do not speak well of the still lens selection, but my thinking is that a still lens would have to be held to higher standards, Is that wrong ??

A few more reasons why photo lenses are not preferred for video versus ENG zoom lenses and PL mount cine lenses:

1) with PL Cine lenses, you get a standard film pitch for the aperture and focus (and zoom if a zoom lens). Most sets of lenses all have the same location of iris and focus gears so changing between lenses is faster and easier because you don't have to move the follow focus. One good example is Cooke and their Panchro set and more expensive S4 and S5 lenses. Each set has identical iris and focus placement.

2) most Cine lenses do NOT breathe (slightly changing focal length when focusing) whereas most SLR lenses DO breathe. With still images, breathing is not a problem but with video, it is very noticeable, and in my humble opinion, breathing makes the video look cheap. However, some SLR lenses do not breathe such as the Zeiss ZF2 and the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS (first version - I have not seen the newer 'II' version yet). On the cine side, the Zeiss CP.2 do breathe but the Cooke Panchro, S4 & S5 do not in addition to most ENG lenses.

3) On SLR lenses, the aperture has 'steps', usually in 1/3 stop increments (a few have 1/4 stop increments). With Canon lenses, you don't even have an aperture ring so using a follow focus on the iris is not possible in addition to the inherent issues of not having an iris ring.

4) Almost all SLR zoom lenses are vari-focal which means the focus plane moves as the the focal length changes when zooming. Thus, when zooming during a shot, you must also pull focus at the same time. Almost all ENG and Cine zooms are par-focal which means the focus plane remains constant throughout the zoom range.

5) On a related note, many SLR lenses change length when zooming and/or focusing. This is a major problem with a mattebox and follow focus. All of the best 24-70 lenses change length (Canon L, Nikon, Sony/Zeiss). Many prime lenses change length when focusing including the Sony/Zeiss 85mm/1.4 and 135mm/1.8 as well as many Canon L primes.

6) My personal favorite reason why I prefer cine lenses: many of them have more than 9 aperture blades, which make gorgeous bokeh. The best bokeh I have ever seen is from the Scheider Cine-Xenar lenses with 18 EIGHTEEN blades! I posted a video in the F3 forum showing a comparison of the Xenar and CP.2 lenses which show this amazing bokeh. Even the CP.2 have 12 or 14 blades and some Xenar's have 12, 14 or 18 blades. I know of only 1 SLR lens with more than 9 blades, the Sony 135mm T4.5/F2.8 'STF' (Smooth Trans Focus) with 10 blades. This lens is designed to create amazing bokeh and it has the best bokeh of any SLR lens I have seen.

7) Lastly, Cine lenses use a T-stop rather than F-stop. The T-stop is the actual amount of light being transmitted whereas the F-stop relates to the size of the iris. Most SLR lenses have a different T-stop from the actual F-stop. With a F2.8, the actual amount of light can be T2.4 or T3.0.

Hope this helps :)

""Hope this helps :)""

Yes, ALOT thanks.

""Hope this helps :)""

Yes, ALOT thanks.


I updated it so be sure to refresh your browser to see the added info.

Wow, great post, Steve. I hope the Nov 3rd announcement includes some new Canon PL primes.

With a F2.8, the actual amount of light can be T2.4 or T3.0.

Minor correction: the T-stop is always slower than the f-stop. Also, the stops (both T- and f-) are only valid for infinity. The closer you focus, the more inaccurate it is. The degree of inaccuracy will depend on the lens design; specifically, pupil magnification. There's also a slight inaccuracy at very wide f-numbers (e.g. f/1 does not give double the light of f/1.4 due to the fact that f-number is only an approximation).

. On the cine side, the Zeiss CP.2 do breathe but the Cooke Panchro, S4 & S5 do not in addition to most ENG lenses.


Nearly every 2/3" ENG zoom lens I've used breathes, the exceptions are usually the wide angle zooms which don't breathe (well to a noticeable extent).

Wow, great post, Steve. I hope the Nov 3rd announcement includes some new Canon PL primes.

Minor correction: the T-stop is always slower than the f-stop. Also, the stops (both T- and f-) are only valid for infinity. The closer you focus, the more inaccurate it is. The degree of inaccuracy will depend on the lens design; specifically, pupil magnification. There's also a slight inaccuracy at very wide f-numbers (e.g. f/1 does not give double the light of f/1.4 due to the fact that f-number is only an approximation).

Over at DxOMark, they test the Transmission of all lenses and I recall seeing a few Nikon lenses that were slightly faster than the F-stop. However, it might have been due to the camera, the D3, which is uber sensitive.

Over at DxOMark, they test the Transmission of all lenses and I recall seeing a few Nikon lenses that were slightly faster than the F-stop.

The definition of a T-stop itself makes it impossible. T-stop is defined as the f-number that would give the same light intensity if the lens had perfect 100% transmission. Since there's no way to transmit more than 100% of the light, the T-stop is always the same or slower than the f-stop.

However, it might have been due to the camera, the D3, which is uber sensitive.

Indeed. Maybe the Nov 3 announcement is Canon's chance to finally catch up with the sensitivity of the D3s. (If so, I wonder if it will be short lived -- a D4 may be around the corner.)

"Should" we expect it to be in a price point similar to the F3, or FS100?

The exact price was not mentioned but this person's statement about competing with the F3 should give an idea about the price range. Personally, I hope its under $10k (it can be $9,999 and that would be ok). In addition, I want it to use CF cards since I already have many from my nanoFlash; has HD-SDI, Genlock and TC.

I just used the F3 on a shoot this weekend and I want to buy it even more; however, I don't need the added features of S-Log and dual-link 444. I want a camera like the F3 but without those added features which add a significant cost, and for <$10k.

................ all I can say is that the camera 'should' be a large sensor video camera.

The big question must then be whether we're talking about a "designed for video" large sensor, or a large sensor designed for stills (with high pixel count) which will inevitably be compromised in video mode. Hopefully the former.....
I don't need the added features of S-Log and dual-link 444. I want a camera like the F3 but without those added features which add a significant cost, and for <$10k.
I think a lot of people will agree. Not want S-Log etc - but do want a broadcast quality codec like XDCAM422 or AVC-Intra100 without the expense and hassle of an external recorder.

Regarding breathing, all my Canon lenses breathe. I have yet to do a breathing test on our Zeiss lenses.

The winners in my collection are the 200/2.8L II and the 28/1.8. They breathe, but it's quite subtle. The EF 50/1.4 is so-so. The EF 85/1.8 breathes quite a bit. The 100/2.8 macro can suck the air out of a room it breathes so much, but that's partly due to its extreme focus range.

Let's add "lenses that don't breathe" to this thread's conjecture list. Add it to the "unlikely" column along somewhere above the "cloaking device" item. ;)

The big question must then be whether we're talking about a "designed for video" large sensor, or a large sensor designed for stills (with high pixel count) which will inevitably be compromised in video mode. Hopefully the former.....

No question - it 'should' be a true video camera.

No question - it 'should' be a true video camera.

Or perhaps a "cinema" camera, given the location of the announcement. (Of course, there is a large overlap between video and cinema.)

The exact price was not mentioned but this person's statement about competing with the F3 should give an idea about the price range. Personally, I hope its under $10k (it can be $9,999 and that would be ok). In addition, I want it to use CF cards since I already have many from my nanoFlash; has HD-SDI, Genlock and TC.

I just used the F3 on a shoot this weekend and I want to buy it even more; however, I don't need the added features of S-Log and dual-link 444. I want a camera like the F3 but without those added features which add a significant cost, and for <$10k.

Canon Video did state last year that all their cameras for the foreseeable future will be on the 50mb, 422 color MXF codec to compact flash cards.....That's better than the F3

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Over at DxOMark, they test the Transmission of all lenses and I recall seeing a few Nikon lenses that were slightly faster than the F-stop.
As Daniel says, that's impossible. F-number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number#T-stops)
T-stops measure the amount of light transmitted through the lens in practice, and are equivalent in light transmission to the f-stop of an ideal lens with 100% transmission. Since all lenses absorb some quantity of light, the T-number of any given aperture on a lens will always be greater than the f-number.

Canon Video did state last year that all their cameras for the foreseeable future will be on the 50mb, 422 color MXF codec to compact flash cards.....That's better than the F3


For us in the US, 50Mb 422 is not really a big deal versus the 35Mb XDCAM EX. I have done comparisons of the internal 35Mb vs 220Mb I-frame from my nanoFlash and the difference is barely noticeable.

For a noticeable increase in quality for projects that need it, you need to record 10bit at 200Mb/s or higher. The PIX240 fits this need perfectly with its ability to record PR HQ and DNxHD - both 10bit.

On a side note, I have seen people say that Canon uses the Sony XDCAM HD codec but I have not seen it mentioned in Canon specs. Can someone confirm whether this is true or not? Its a big deal because it would allow archiving to Sony's XDCAM HD discs including the new 100GB quad-layer discs. Even though the nanoFlash has used Sony's XDCAM encoder from the beginning, it took C-D quite some time to make the 50Mb 422 recordings 100% XDCAM HD legal in order to support the writing to discs.

I have seen people say that Canon uses the Sony XDCAM HD codecNot really. What is actually happening here is that both Sony and Canon are using the standard .MXF file format, which pre-dates both manufacturer's implementations of it. This is the reason why the folder structures are very similar and playable within each other's systems (the Sony XDCAM viewer can read and play back the Canon files, for example). Sony put it in their cameras before Canon did, but .MXF is certainly not exclusive to Sony. For what it's worth, Panasonic uses .MXF for their P2 HD file format as well.

The trouble is that .mxf doesn't uniquely define the wrapper - Material Exchange Format - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_Exchange_Format) - which can lead to incompatability problems. Sony refers to it's variant as XDCAM MXF, as for the Canon version, then from the wikipedia link:
In 2010 Canon released its new lineup of professional file-based camcorders. The recording format used in these camcorders incorporates MPEG-2 video with bitrates up to 50 Mbit/s and 16-bit linear PCM audio in what Canon has called XF codec. Canon claims that its flavor of MXF is fully supported by major NLE systems including Adobe Premiere, Apple Final Cut Pro, Avid Media Composer, and Grass Valley EDIUS.
It seems that the essence is the same between them, and probably good compatability within NLEs, but in answer to the question Steve posed (a very good one) that doesn't guarantee the Canon files are 100% compatible with XDCAM discs.

Its a big deal because it would allow archiving to Sony's XDCAM HD discs including the new 100GB quad-layer discs. Even though the nanoFlash has used Sony's XDCAM encoder from the beginning, it took C-D quite some time to make the 50Mb 422 recordings 100% XDCAM HD legal in order to support the writing to discs.
Steve - it occurs to me that the XDCAM discs can be written to in two ways. It's a bit like DVD's - you have to write data to them in a very specific structure for them to be recognised by a DVD video player, but you can simply use them as a basic data file store.

But if you (say) just copied a set of MPEG files to a DVD disc, then whilst you may be able to play them back on a PC drive with something like media player, a dedicated DVD player would just reject the disc with an error message - it wouldn't have the correct file structure.

Hence, I don't think there would be any problem using XDCAM discs to backup the Canon files - what I'm not sure about is whether they would have full functionality in such as an XDCAM deck.

I was very close to purchasing a sony nex fs100 but started to lose steam a while back. Now with Canon's nov 3rd deal I'm wondering if this will be a camera and if so will I want it.

It's always tempting to get new stuff with new features, but really what do I really need these days. The picture quality seems so good now, how much better do we need. So many have said the quality is rarely appreciated since most is viewed on computers etc. For that matter Canon 7d footage is hitting the big screen and no one knows the difference.

I really want to get a camera that I can use for the next 10 years, even 20. As with cameras and any other product the savvy marketing teams are always luring us with what we think are must haves. But if a camera can hit the big screen what else can I want, other than a steadicam built into the camera.

Not the most popular thinking here but I need to really begin to perfect the art of story telling. Is there a forum for that?

Monty

Frankly, what I'm looking for is all about the delivered video, not so much about ease of use and features. After making do with untwisting lenses, shining lights into the 5D2, and hitting exposure lock - and having that fixed in the firmware update - I'm not too worried about the operational side of the next gen.

For me, it's about image quality.
* Fix the aliasing issues.
* Reduce or eliminate rolling shutter.
* Give me more than eight bits of depth (along with a tall dynamic range)
* Reduce coding artifacts so I can translate that bit depth into smooth, graded images.

I also want a good price. I'm hoping that DSLR quality continues to improve. I like riding their volume curve and am comfortable with their usability.

* Give me more than eight bits of depth (along with a tall dynamic range)
* Reduce coding artifacts so I can translate that bit depth into smooth, graded images.
I find it odd that Canon is sticking with MPEG2, when AVC seems so much more efficient. So far, only Panasonic has announced any plans to implement a codec that should meet your criteria. AVC Long-GOP will support 24p, 25p, and 30p at 10-bit 4:2:2 at data rates up to 50 Mbps. It's too bad Panasonic didn't extend this to 60p at 80-100 Mbps. If they don't include AVC Long-GOP in the GH3 and maybe a cheaper, VG-20-level video camera, well, I'd be sorely disappointed.

I'm not sure why they would change.....their codec is a broadcast codec, approved by the BBC & Discovery HD, and basically equal to Pro-Res422....the same codec that is in the Arri Alexa.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

I find it odd that Canon is sticking with MPEG2, when AVC seems so much more efficient. So far, only Panasonic has announced any plans to implement a codec that should meet your criteria. AVC Long-GOP will support 24p, 25p, and 30p at 10-bit 4:2:2 at data rates up to 50 Mbps.
Well, the AVC nature means a bit more efficiency, but it's difficult to implement it well in real time, so the datarate saving may not be worth it. By AVC Long-GOP, do you mean AVC-HD? If so, that doesn't come in a 10 bit or 4:2:2 version, nor at 50Mbs. The more upmarket Panasonic codec is AVC-Intra, and the 100Mbs variant is seen as approximately equivalent to XDCAM422 - but that's not long-GOP.

What I personally would like to see is the ability to record EITHER XDCAM422, OR a RAW mode directly from the sensor. The former would then be preferable when time is important (and it's still a broadacst quality codec), the RAW mode would be far preferable for long term projects with the expectation of a long time spent grading etc, and be far the best for keeping all options open. The same principle as being able to save JPEG and/or RAW with a DSLR.

The advantages are less down to compression quality - far more being able to have a lot more post control.

Canon's DSLRs use h.264 (otherwise known as MPEG-4, Part 10, or AVC) rather than MPEG-2.

And, FWIW, RED compresses the RAW signal with Wavelet coding. I could live with that. ;)

I'm not sure why they would change.....their codec is a broadcast codec, approved by the BBC & Discovery HD, and basically equal to Pro-Res422....the same codec that is in the Arri Alexa.
I was under the impression that Canon's MXF format is 4:2:2 but only 8-bit, whereas Pro-Res422 supports 10-bit. But beyond that, H.264, being more efficient, would probably look better at 35 Mbps than MPEG2 at 50 Mbps (of course, that's an oversimplification). And lastly, Canon's HDSLRs are prosumer, and most consumer and prosumer cameras are trending to H.264.

Well, the AVC nature means a bit more efficiency, but it's difficult to implement it well in real time, so the datarate saving may not be worth it. By AVC Long-GOP, do you mean AVC-HD? If so, that doesn't come in a 10 bit or 4:2:2 version, nor at 50Mbs. The more upmarket Panasonic codec is AVC-Intra, and the 100Mbs variant is seen as approximately equivalent to XDCAM422 - but that's not long-GOP.
Panasonic recently announced details of its AVC-Ultra "family" of codecs. One is AVC Long-GOP which is indeed 10-bit 4:2:2 at up to 50 Mbps. Of course, nothing has been released sporting the new codec, but I expect the AF100's successor will do so, if not AVC-Intra at up to 200 Mbps. They'd be stupid not to include AVC Long-GOP in the GH3 and possibly also a VG-20-style camera. As to XDCAM422, my understanding is that it is, like Canon's format, only 8-bit.

I'm not sure why they would change.....their codec is a broadcast codec, approved by the BBC & Discovery HD, and basically equal to Pro-Res422....the same codec that is in the Arri Alexa.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Yeah, but Jim, the codec in the Alexa that everyone drools over is the 4:4:4:4 codec.

And isn't 4K four times the data of 1080? Is 50Mbps really enough?

Yeah, but Jim, the codec in the Alexa that everyone drools over is the 4:4:4:4 codec.

And isn't 4K four times the data of 1080? Is 50Mbps really enough?

50Mbps is good enough for BBC HD and Discovery HD. That says a lot.

Keep in mind the Alexa is approaching the $100K mark. Do you want this new Canon (if there really is a new Canon) to compete in that price range?
A large sensor, interchangeable lens, 50mbps, 4:2:2 codec video camera for under $10 grand sounds really good to me. 10 bit would be nice, too.

Panasonic recently announced details of its AVC-Ultra "family" of codecs. One is AVC Long-GOP which is indeed 10-bit 4:2:2 at up to 50 Mbps. Of course, nothing has been released sporting the new codec, but I expect the AF100's successor will do so, if not AVC-Intra at up to 200 Mbps.
Ah, OK, found this - AVC-Intra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVC-Intra) . AVC-Ultra has been talked about for a while, but I'd only heard it referred to an I-frame only version at 200Mbs - presumably more intended to rival HDCAM-SR. They now seem to have widened the meaning, so the version I was aware of is now "AVC-Intra Class 200".

According to wikipedia, what you're referring to is:
AVC-LongG enables compression of video resolutions up to 1920x1080 @ 23.97, 25 and 29.97p, with 10 bits of pixel depth at 4:2:2 color sampling, at data rates as low as 25 Mbit / sec.
Well, we'll have to see. (But no standard for 1080p/50?) It's important to bear in mind that there's no magic here. All the current compression systems are fundamentally based on MPEG2 I frame only. That's extendable (to give better efficiency) by AVC techniques, long-GOP, etc to give the same quality at lower bitrates. The snag is that these extensions all require more computer power to process, so it's in to a law of diminishing returns. Why use the most complicated system if you can get the same result by just using a slightly higher datarate? Would you buy a car with highly advanced, highly efficient engine costing $10,000 more to get a fuel saving of $500 a year? There's an example when "efficient" doesn't always mean "sensible".

There's also the case of "good enough". It would be foolish design to engineer a camera with a codec far more capable than the front end is producing. "10 bit" for encoded video sounds "wow" on paper, and is great for marketing people, but it's only really worth it if the front end is up to it - otherwise you're just throwing 20% of your bitrate away on coding noise! And as regards your reference to the AF100, I suspect the Panasonic engineers realised that only too well, and that explains why it was only released with AVC-HD and not AVC-Intra. There will be little point in using a 10 bit codec with any successor unless that has a much lower noise floor - which will effectively mean a new designed-for-video sensor (as with the F3), not adapting one that was designed for stills.

Times will move on, but as Glen says, XDCAM422 is not bad for now.......

All this applies to cameras that record processed signals - video ready to be displayed and viewed. It's a completely different story when you talk about RAW - the unprocessed data effectively straight from the sensor photosites. In these cases 8 bit is nowhere near enough, probably not even 10 either. But the processes of de-Bayering, matrixing, gamma correction, gain, colour balance etc that then have to be done are so likely to raise the noise that it may be pretty pointless to output more than 8 bits after all this has been done.

The real reason for 10 bit is not that it will enable any big difference to be seen on the first generation, but that it provides more headroom for post processing - if the original signal is up to it. I'd rather skip that and go straight to some form of RAW recording for a camera of this type.

50Mbps is good enough for BBC HD and Discovery HD. That says a lot.

Keep in mind the Alexa is approaching the $100K mark. Do you want this new Canon (if there really is a new Canon) to compete in that price range?
A large sensor, interchangeable lens, 50mbps, 4:2:2 codec video camera for under $10 grand sounds really good to me. 10 bit would be nice, too.

If it's a 4K sensor creating an HD frame size, then fine. But if it's creating a 4K frame size, then I don't see how 50 Mbps is enough.

And ten bits wouldn't be nice, it would be essential. Eight bits simply doesn't allow enough levels of gradation to record the full dynamic range of modern sensors out today.

...
All this applies to cameras that record processed signals - video ready to be displayed and viewed. It's a completely different story when you talk about RAW - the unprocessed data effectively straight from the sensor photosites. In these cases 8 bit is nowhere near enough, probably not even 10 either. But the processes of de-Bayering, matrixing, gamma correction, gain, colour balance etc that then have to be done are so likely to raise the noise that it may be pretty pointless to output more than 8 bits after all this has been done.

The real reason for 10 bit is not that it will enable any big difference to be seen on the first generation, but that it provides more headroom for post processing - if the original signal is up to it. I'd rather skip that and go straight to some form of RAW recording for a camera of this type.

David, you're ignoring the most important reason to use ten bits. Eight bits simply doesn't allow enough fine gradations to record more than about nine stops. And most modern sensors can record more than nine stops. So what happens is the cameras clip the highlights about a stop or two before the sensor itself clips, i.e. the pixels completely fill-up.

This is also why ten bits and S-Log provide real DR benefit to the F3.

Well, we'll have to see. (But no standard for 1080p/50?)

At the other end of the AVC line, a new 2.0 spec was introduced in July 11, introducing AVCHD Progressive, along with AVCHD 3D and the inevitable AVCHD 3D/Progressive alphabetti spaghetti.

Progressive denotes the 50p/60p version - the AVC-Ultra codec may also have it's own variant thereof. I guess the wiki-weasel words 'as low as 25 Mbits' seems to hint that would be the absolutely lowest mode and you'd have others to play with (like the AVCHD line). Sigh, the nice thing about standards is that there's so many to choose from.

All this depends on the market they're aiming the camera at. Recording the 10 bits on the F3 comes as an extra over the base price of the camera. If they have a 10 bit HD SDI on the new camera, how many people are going to go the extra mile if the camera has the broadcast accepted Canon XF 8 bit 4;2;2 codec on board?

Canon might do two versions: one version to compete with the F3 with its s-log and the Epic-S recording RAW REDcode and the other version to compete with the FS100 and AF100. These are two different markets, with differing budgets.

... I need to really begin to perfect the art of story telling. Is there a forum for that?

Monty

I think you'll find some useful threads over in the Documentary Techniques section of DVinfo or start a new one there:
Documentary Techniques Forum at DVinfo.net (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/documentary-techniques/)

The snag is that these extensions all require more computer power to process, so it's in to a law of diminishing returns. Why use the most complicated system if you can get the same result by just using a slightly higher datarate?
If it's so much more complicated, why is every manufacturer using H.264? I seriously doubt Panasonic would announce new codecs if it couldn't reasonably implement them. And I'm unaware of a commonly used 10-bit MPEG2 codec -- neither XDCAM422 nor Canon's MXF is 10-bit.

Would you buy a car with highly advanced, highly efficient engine costing $10,000 more to get a fuel saving of $500 a year? There's an example when "efficient" doesn't always mean "sensible".
Some people do it for the environment despite the added cost. As far as using a more complex codec, the analogy doesn't really hold. The car is mechanical, and I assume that, say, a complex hybrid engine and battery array are far more costly to manufacture than a conventional engine, at least for now. Camera codecs and associated processors are the products of constant technological evolution. By the time Panasonic implements AVC-LongG, it'll probably be as cheap to do so as AVC-HD is today.

There's also the case of "good enough". It would be foolish design to engineer a camera with a codec far more capable than the front end is producing. "10 bit" for encoded video sounds "wow" on paper, and is great for marketing people, but it's only really worth it if the front end is up to it - otherwise you're just throwing 20% of your bitrate away on coding noise! And as regards your reference to the AF100, I suspect the Panasonic engineers realised that only too well, and that explains why it was only released with AVC-HD and not AVC-Intra.
Possibly, but Panasonic claimed adding AVC-Intra to the AF100 would have added several thousand dollars to the cost.

David, you're ignoring the most important reason to use ten bits. Eight bits simply doesn't allow enough fine gradations to record more than about nine stops. And most modern sensors can record more than nine stops.
No, not true. What you are not taking into account are the gamma, knee etc processing which has the effect of compressing the dynamic range that the camera is capable of, into the dynamic range that the eye can see.

*AT ANY ONE TIME* the eye has a range of about 7 stops, but as you look from a shade area to something brightly lit the eye adapts. And the brain is clever enough to accept all this without realising what's going on, the impression is that the eye has a far better dynamic range. This is why 8 bits is enough for normal recording and viewing - it matches the range of the eye. It's easily proven by looking at greyscales and seeing how small the differences get before it merges into a continuous mass. (Corresponds to about 7 bits, or about 128 levels.)
So what happens is the cameras clip the highlights about a stop or two before the sensor itself clips, i.e. the pixels completely fill-up.
No. It may be that a doubling of light level in the mid tones may lead to a doubling of the recorded value. But as it gets brighter, the whole point of the knee is to introduce non-linearity, such that in the highlights a doubling of light level means maybe an increase in recorded value of (say) 25% - not 100%. Hence the headlights start to crush out gracefully (as with film) - not clip abruptly.
This is also why ten bits and S-Log provide real DR benefit to the F3.
S-log and 10 bits are indeed of benefit to the F3, but it's the combination that makes the difference - not either in isolation. The point is that the (say) 12 stops that the sensor resolves are now compressed not into about 8, but into 10. Looked at directly, it will look low contrast, flat and dull - but it's intended to be processed to give the effect of raising contrast - but allowing that to be done in a controlled way, not just as a camera set in a single way.

And it's important to realise the difference between a signal processed for direct viewing and recorded to 10 bit, and one processed to S-log and recorded to 10 bit - 10 bit has far more benefit in the latter case.

But even better than S-log and 10 bit is RAW, which really needs at least 12 bit to do it justice. In this case there's no dynamic range compression or knee at all, and no other processing at all. But it's no good for direct viewing. The comparison with film is that a negative may have plenty of detail in highlight and lowlight, but will need to be printed onto a more contrasty stock. Varying print exposure will give preference to either lowlights or highlights.

But the problem with S-log and RAW is that although they give plenty of control, they HAVE to be graded, which takes time. Not a problem for some work, but bad for others.

Hence that's why I'd like to see any new camera with the option of both - use as appropriate. Ideally, 1080p via XDCAM422, and 4k with a RAW system. Forget about 10 bit, it falls between the stools of quality and convienience. The real ideal may be two cameras - one with just the 1080p XDCAM422 option, the more expensive one with both.

We'll see.

In my opinion the Sony F3 is the target. When I look at Sony's camera I can definitely see Canon coming up with a product that competes with it. The downside, however, is that you're never going to see a sub-$10k camera with those types of robust features.

At this point, though, it's only a guessing game as to what Canon's intentions are. The good news is that we'll all know soon enough. LOL!

But speculation is what's so fun about forums like these -- a collective of happy hand-wringers Mwahahaha'ing the possibilities.

If it's so much more complicated, why is every manufacturer using H.264? I seriously doubt Panasonic would announce new codecs if it couldn't reasonably implement them.
Such as H264 defines the DEcoder, not the coder. So H264 coders vary tremendously in complexity and performance - and price. Increase the complexity, increase the cost, possibily things like the difficulty of doing post work - the question has to be asked if it's worth it? Hence the analogy with the car. (Which wasn't intended too literally! ;-) )
Some people do it for the environment despite the added cost.
And the comparable situation may be when we're talking about broadcast transmission. Datarate may not be too significant when it just means using a bit more memory. But it's hugely important to a broadcaster with limited bandwidth - an increase in coding efficiency can mean several more channels in a multiplex! It may mean hugely expensive ( and efficient) coders which would not be viable if the benefit was just to save on memory costs - but a different story if it enables extra channel transmission.
Camera codecs and associated processors are the products of constant technological evolution. By the time Panasonic implements AVC-LongG, it'll probably be as cheap to do so as AVC-HD is today..
True - but memory costs are falling all the time as well, so the codecs, processors etc are chasing a moving target.
Possibly, but Panasonic claimed adding AVC-Intra to the AF100 would have added several thousand dollars to the cost.
It's difficult to see how that could be so. Look at the HPX250 and the AC160 - two recent models, fundamentally similar, but with the difference that the HPX250 has a few extra refinements and is P2/AVC-Intra to the AVC-HD of the AC160. With nowhere near "several thousand dollars" in cost between them - just over one thousand, but that includes more differences than just P2/AVC-Intra.

The AC160 is pretty much the same cost as the AF100. So how come the AC160 gets a P2/AVC-Intra big brother in the HPX250, but no equivalent for the AF100?

This is why 8 bits is enough for normal recording and viewing - it matches the range of the eye. It's easily proven by looking at greyscales and seeing how small the differences get before it merges into a continuous mass. (Corresponds to about 7 bits, or about 128 levels.)

Eight bits is enough when you...
1) Expose properly (that's the goal, but some extra headroom can save expensive, non-optimum footage.)
2) Get the S-curve and gamma just right, and
3) Don't grade.

But if you want to fix a non-ideally exposed image, mess with it's curve, and grade colors beyond reality while maintaining smooth gradients and natural texture, you need more bits.

Canon already has the basic camera. How about the price of a Canon XF100, only a little bit of tweaking from there-- add a different sensor, rearrange the body a bit, and add an EOS mount. Everything else can remain close to same.
Oh Chris! I've ignored this whole thread until your post. I have an XF100 and I can just imagine using my Canon lenses with a large sensor on that camera; OMG that would be nice!!

Eight bits is enough when you...
1) Expose properly (that's the goal, but some extra headroom can save expensive, non-optimum footage.)
2) Get the S-curve and gamma just right, and
3) Don't grade.

But if you want to fix a non-ideally exposed image, mess with it's curve, and grade colors beyond reality while maintaining smooth gradients and natural texture, you need more bits.

A lot of landmark broadcast programmes have been shot using 8bit HDCAM, many of which have been graded in post. Exposing correctly is one of those skills DPs need to develop, although it's not as difficult with video as shooting reversal film. However, it's not always helped by the quality of the the LCD viewfinders found on the cheaper cameras, which are fine for framing but not really for the finer judgements you have to make in setting the exposre.

Oh Chris! I've ignored this whole thread until your post. I have an XF100 and I can just imagine using my Canon lenses with a large sensor on that camera; OMG that would be nice!!

Hey Charles, how about this one. You remember 16mm and 8mm cameras with three lense rotation mounts. How about an internal rotation mount for two different sensor chips on the XF-100 type camera. Then you could switch between current XF 100 chip, and a larger sensor. Add interchangealbe EOS lens capability and you have a lot of needs covered in one camera.

How about an internal rotation mount for two different sensor chips on the XF-100 type camera. Then you could switch between current XF 100 chip, and a larger sensor.
Well - I think that may be quite difficult to engineer. I can think of an easier way to sort of get what you want - what about the whole chip area being S35 and 4k sensor resolution. (Which I'll take to be the 16:9 version - 3920x2160.)

So either use the whole sensor, downscaling to 1080p or recording RAW - or just use the centre quarter area of the chip, which will be 1920x1080, and roughly equal to Super16 (?). (And with resolution equivalent to the XF100.)

One point that's worth mentioning is to do with the idea of two cameras sharing the same chip, a more expensive camera and a cheaper one, like the F3 and FS100. If we assume the S35 chip, and assume it to be a Bayer of 3920x2160, you could either read it in the normal way (to get such as 4k RAW) and then deBayer, OR treat it in a far simpler way.

It could be considered as a 1960x1080 matrix of blocks, each:

R G
G B

So treat each block as a single three colour pixel, and you very simply get full resolution 4:4:4 1080p. No need for de-Bayering, downconversion etc etc. So the more expensive camera gets full 4k ability (and possibly this mode as well), the cheaper one "just" gets the 4:4:4 1080p.

No need for de-Bayering,

Maybe I'm confused about what you're suggesting, but it sounds like you're describing a standard bayer filter, which would of course require debayering. Plus, taking four adjacent samples and reducing them to a single pixel would also be a form of downconversion. The only difference I see in your two scenarios is that one performs the downconversion & debayering in post, while the other does it in camera.

Maybe I'm confused about what you're suggesting, but it sounds like you're describing a standard bayer filter, which would of course require debayering.
Yes, a standard Bayer filter sensor. But a signal can be derived without a true deBayer process, which is exactly what happens with getting video from still camera sensors. The advantage of the system above is that the number of pixels (4x1960x1080, or about 8 megapixels) is optimum for the process. "DeBayering" tends to describe a fairly specific technique, and there's a good demo at HowStuffWorks "Demosaicing Algorithms: Color Filtering" (http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cameras-photography/digital/digital-camera5.htm)
Digital cameras use specialized demosaicing algorithms to convert this mosaic into an equally sized mosaic of true colors. The key is that each colored pixel can be used more than once. The true color of a single pixel can be determined by averaging the values from the closest surrounding pixels.
Hence it's complicated. It will give a 3920x2160 output - though the actual resolution won't be as high as that, and the luminance resolution will be better than chrominance. Each output pixel will be formed by computation from values of surrounding pixels. It will give a lot better than 1920x1080 performance - as you may expect from a 4k sensor, but obviously it won't be as good as three 3920x2160 sensors.
The only difference I see in your two scenarios is that one performs the downconversion & debayering in post, while the other does it in camera.
No, either could happen in camera. But the former does need to do a true deBayer, and because the result is a 4k output, then needs to downconvert to get 1080p. A lot of computing to do it well.

The simpler option is equivalent to reading from three 1920x1080 chips, directly getting a R,G,B value for each 1080 output pixel. So no deBayering, and no downconversion - it gives 1080 directly. The only difference is that the R,G,B photosites are sitting side by side, not on three separate chips. (And there are two green photosites in the 2x2 block, but they could be averaged together.)
Plus, taking four adjacent samples and reducing them to a single pixel would also be a form of downconversion.
I suppose that depends on definition. I see what you mean, but "downconversion" tends to be used in relation to taking a higher definition video signal, and converting to that to one of lower definition. That's not the same as would be happening here, the lower definition signal is being formed directly on read out.

A lot of landmark broadcast programmes have been shot using 8bit HDCAM, many of which have been graded in post. Exposing correctly is one of those skills DPs need to develop, although it's not as difficult with video as shooting reversal film. However, it's not always helped by the quality of the the LCD viewfinders found on the cheaper cameras, which are fine for framing but not really for the finer judgements you have to make in setting the exposre.

Everything after the F900 has been unncecessary :) ;).