Canon XL-H2- when?

[Tyge Floyd]

Originally Posted by David Heath

In a way, it's the codec and media choice I see more interesting, and the more I think about 50Mbs MPEG2 on to Compact Flash, the cleverer a move it would be. Think about it. Cheap media, unlike SxS or P2. Better codec than the EX or the JVC cameras, giving 4:2:2. Better quality, and none of the editing problems of AVC-HD.

That about sums it up for me except one other point, form factor. Chris related to this in the second post on the thread. I don't care what Canon calls the new offering but please, please let it be SIMILAR to the XL line in form factor. It needs to be a true shoulder mounted camera, not the form factor of the EX3. It needs to also have at least a 16x or 18x lens, 20x would be my vote. 10x and 12x lenses don't cut it in my line of work and are deal killers.

[Nick Hiltgen]

Since I believe this thread is about completely wild speculations here's my guess.

The XH-EF will be the next XL body style released from canon. It will in effect have the same sensor as the 7d size wise (aps-c) but I believe it will be less mega pixels (let's say 10) to give it good low light performance. I think it will have adjustable frame rates up to 60fps with the option to do 1080p instead of 720 (like the 7d) The stock lens will be an APS-C sized lens designed to be able to shoot wider as opposed to longer. There will not be a new series of lenses to go along with it, perhaps a second motorized zoom, either wider or longer but that is all.

The biggest improvement people will talk about is the viewfinder with something akin to the 5d-7d zacuto setup. the outputs will have an option for HDMI or HDSDI, hdmi being a grand cheaper. It will record to some media (CF, SXS, SDHC whatever) in a format that is use able and high quality but not readily inject-able into most editing systems. it will start at either 7500 or 1000 more then i can get if i sell all my current camera equipment, whichever is more. It willl be announced in late October early November and ship by the end of December.

[Mayer Chalom]

Don't u understand. Canon sells the xl h1 now with a lens for 6k. If they come out with an xl h2 with a full frame body the price would be very very high. That is why the 7d and 5d provide such a value now. Another issue that arises is the problem of lenses, canon would probably have to make a new lens line. I don't see this coming, even the red scarlet has an advertised 2/3' sensor not s35 (7d) or full frame (5d). Now 2/3' broadcast cams cost 15k+. And alot of you are expecting 4:4:4 color space and what not. Maybe canon will make a new line of cams that have aps c sensors or 2/3 but its not going to be the same price the xl h1.

[Jack Zhang]

Originally Posted by David Heath

Isn't that what 35Mbs or (even better) 50Mbs MPEG2 are? The latter (as XDCAM 422HD) has (like AVC-Intra 100) gaining full acceptance for future broadcast acquisition, according to recent EBU tests. Based on HDV (as MPEG2), but a much higher quality, and giving 4:2:2 in the 50Mbs version.

For a prosumer camera, 50Mbs means easily recordable onto fairly cheap memory cards.

Why bother with H264? It won't necessarily give any better quality than MPEG2, just give the same at a slightly lower bitrate. Against that is lack of support from NLEs, and a likely need to transcode before editing.

I'm talking about a codec that can survive passes/generations of recompression, in the end the best looking even on heavily compressed HD cable. MPEG-2 is horrible when it comes to this so naturally, AVC-Intra is gaining ground. Just remember, not everyone has access to CineForm.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Jack Zhang

I'm talking about a codec that can survive passes/generations of recompression, ............

Can I refer you to this - http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/general-...dec-tests.html - thread? And in particular the EBU document I refer to? Specifically referring to their main conclusion that : "All tested codecs have shown quasitransparent quality up to at least 4 to 5 multi-generations,.........
". That includes 50Mbs MPEG2 and AVC-Intra 100.

MPEG-2 is horrible when it comes to this so naturally, AVC-Intra is gaining ground.

Comparing codecs makes no sense without defining bitrates, and you're also ignoring the ADVANTAGES that MPEG2 has over other codecs. Practically, some codecs are better for some applications, others in other cases. MPEG2 quality may indeed be "horrible" for SD transmission at 2Mbs, but far from it at 50Mbs. Same with H264 - that's really horrible when used for mobile phone compression!

MPEG4 type codecs are actually based on MPEG2, they do all that MPEG2 does, but have the ability to use other features as well. If a coder was to use all the features, it may (theoretically) achieve comparable quality to an equivalent MPEG2 one at approx half the bitrate. Practically, at the moment, it's unlikely to achieve that quality at much less than about 75% (ball park figure only) of the MPEG2 figure for what we're talking about here. This all assumes equal GOP length etc.

Hence, yes, you could say that an H264 based codec at about 38 Mbs could give equivalent results to an MPEG2 version at 50Mbs. But is it worth it? The price to pay for the efficiency is a codec that is far, far more difficult to edit natively than MPEG2.

Go to AVC-Intra and it's the opposite argument. You need an even higher bitrate to give the equivalent quality to MPEG2 - hence the EBU equating it at 100Mbs to MPEG2 at 50Mbs.

Apply all that to this new hypothetical Canon camera and if you were the designer, you have to decide where you make the compromises. If I was in that position, then 50Mbs MPEG2 onto Compact Flash would make sense. The bitrate is low enough to fit onto even cheap CF easily, give relatively small file sizes, yet be high enough to be considered a "true" broadcast codec, as approved fully by the EBU.

H264? Yes, it would be even more efficient in bitrate terms, but my opinion would be that the editing issues wouldn't be worth the further bitrate saving. This is the conclusion that many manufacturers have come to - Sony, JVC, Ikegami, and Convergent Design to name four. If I were designing a consumer camera, or one for the absolute top end, it would be a different story.

[Nick Hiltgen]

Originally Posted by Mayer Chalom

Don't u understand. Canon sells the xl h1 now with a lens for 6k. If they come out with an xl h2 with a full frame body the price would be very very high. That is why the 7d and 5d provide such a value now. Another issue that arises is the problem of lenses, canon would probably have to make a new lens line. I don't see this coming, even the red scarlet has an advertised 2/3' sensor not s35 (7d) or full frame (5d). Now 2/3' broadcast cams cost 15k+. And alot of you are expecting 4:4:4 color space and what not. Maybe canon will make a new line of cams that have aps c sensors or 2/3 but its not going to be the same price the xl h1.

I don't think the camera will cost more then 10k, and I stand by my guess of 7500, which for a camera similar to this would be about right I think.

Canon manufactures thousands of different lenses for (my guess) just as many applications. Saying that they will hit a stumbling block in adding a zoom function to an already existing APS-C lens seems just silly to me. Additionally this won't be a "broadcast" camera. Canon is also significantly larger then RED, and to be honest not as interested in pushing he development of new technology, but if they can take the sensor they're using for the 7d and drop it into the old xl body and sell more by doing less, then that's a good model.

I think the 7d and 5dm2 are good value but they still have a long way to go before they offer the same features as the xl- body cameras.

[Mike Marriage]

I think the XL style body is a pain. I'd much rather see something resembling JVC's small shoulder mount cameras from the HD100 onwards or the HPX300. I'd prefer V Lock battery plates, but maybe that could be an option, similar to how it was added to the JVC's HD100 line. Proper form factor, a bit of weight and a decent OIS would be great for handheld.

In order to achieve a greater zoom range, they could use an over sampled sensor and perform a digital zoom without any loss of resolution. That could turn an 8x into a 16x for example. It would be a digital 2x extender.

APS-C is pretty large for video, I certainly think FF like the 5D would be too hard to keep in focus consistently. maybe 4/3" would be a good compromise between DOF and focus.

An excellent VF is a must! At least on par with the EX3.

[Jim Martin]

Originally Posted by Nick Hiltgen

Since I believe this thread is about completely wild speculations here's my guess.

The XH-EF will be the next XL body style released from canon. It will in effect have the same sensor as the 7d size wise (aps-c) but I believe it will be less mega pixels (let's say 10) to give it good low light performance. I think it will have adjustable frame rates up to 60fps with the option to do 1080p instead of 720 (like the 7d) The stock lens will be an APS-C sized lens designed to be able to shoot wider as opposed to longer. There will not be a new series of lenses to go along with it, perhaps a second motorized zoom, either wider or longer but that is all.

The biggest improvement people will talk about is the viewfinder with something akin to the 5d-7d zacuto setup. the outputs will have an option for HDMI or HDSDI, hdmi being a grand cheaper. It will record to some media (CF, SXS, SDHC whatever) in a format that is use able and high quality but not readily inject-able into most editing systems. it will start at either 7500 or 1000 more then i can get if i sell all my current camera equipment, whichever is more. It willl be announced in late October early November and ship by the end of December.

Nick-

I like the way you think....

Jim Martin

[Nick Hiltgen]

jim-

I hope canon likes the way i think too...

Mostly because I have a feeling I'll be in the market for a new camera in the next couple of months, but only if they release something like this. When they announced the xl-h1 and the h1s where and when were those announcements made?

[Floris van Eck]

Originally Posted by Nick Hiltgen

I have a dream that one day canon will release a 35mm ef to xl adapter and I'll have iris control and a 35mm dof of all my ef lenses, and it will be awesome...

Be careful what you wish for :)

I believe Canon will announce the Canon EOS 1D Mark IV next week. And I do think there will be some special video features. What I really hope is that Canon will announce an IO box with the formfactor of the battery grip with two XLR inputs and a few controls that are typical on videocameras. We'll just have to wait and see.

[Jim Martin]

Originally Posted by Nick Hiltgen

jim-

I hope canon likes the way i think too...

Mostly because I have a feeling I'll be in the market for a new camera in the next couple of months, but only if they release something like this. When they announced the xl-h1 and the h1s where and when were those announcements made?

I think, and I'm just speculating here, there could be something in the 1st quarter of next year or at NAB.....again, it's just a guess. I'm also speculating that I'm going to win the lottery in the second quarter of next year and my screenplay gets picked up.

Jim Martin

[Daniel Browning]

Resurrecting an oldie (but a goodie).

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Think: if the sensor size is 35mm full frame, as it is on the EOS 5D Mk.II, what kind of video lens would that require, and at what cost? Keeping in mind how large in circumference the front objective will have to be, and that the faster and wider the lens, and the higher the zoom ratio, the larger diameter that glass will require and therefore the more expensive it will be.

The EF lens does not have to be heavier or more expensive at all, for one very important reason: f-number scales with sensor size. Check out this other thread for the full explanation:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eo...eeper-dof.html

The XL-H1s lens is 5.4-108mm. In order to have the same angle of view as the XL-H1s lens, an EF lens on a FF camera would need to be 32.5-650mm. Sounds pretty heavy, right? No. The reason is f-number. IN order to get the same DOF, light gathering power, and diffraction as f/1.6-3.4 on the XL-H1s, the EF lens only needs to be f/9.6-20.4. That's right: f/20! A 650mm f/3.4 would be quite heavy, but 650mm f/20 is very lightweight.

It may be surprising that f/20 on 35mm can really match f/3.4 on 1/3", but it's true. As explained in the other thread, it's easy to test for yourself. Compare the 7D and 5D2. If you shoot them both at f/11, then the 5D2 will have thinner DOF, less noise, and less diffraction. But what if you multiply the f-number by the crop factor? f/11 * 1.6 = f/17.6. Now compare the f/11 on 7D vs f/17.6 on the 5D2. Well, now the DOF is the same and diffraction is the same. But the 5D2 image will be too dark: increase the ISO, and they are the same. What may be surprising is that noise, too, is the same.

Of course, one of the big advantages of the XL-H1s is 3-chip. That gives it three times the light gathering capability of a single chip, without making DOF thinner. That would give it a low light advantage over a full frame lens set to the same DOF.

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Also consider how expensive Canon's L-series of fast telephoto EF primes are. Then you'll get some indication of how the real limiting factor of an XL replacement isn't the sensor so much as it is the lens. The practicality of the lens requirements -- that it'll have to be motorized, will most likely include IS, will need a field of view at the wide end comparable to the mid-thirties in 35mm, and have some kind of usable zoom ratio of at least 5x or so, and not throw the camera cost off balance -- are the factors which will ultimately dictate the size of the sensor that Canon selects.

None of those are a problem if the f-number is scaled with the sensor size. Canon can make a 32-650mm f/10 - f/20 that has the same size as capability as 4.5-108mm f/1.6-3.4 on a 1/3" Bayer chip. Of course, it wont be any better: the low light performance will be just as dismal. f/1.6 on the 1/3" Bayer will have just as much noise as f/10 on the FF Bayer. If you want better low light performance, you have to have a f-number that is faster than f/10. The only way to do that is to make the lens heavier, or smaller zoom ratio.

The real problem is Marketing. Photographers are not aware that f-number scales with sensor size. They think f/1.6 on 1/3" is better in low light than f/11 on 35mm, when in fact they are the same for noise. If Canon really did come out with an f/11 - f/20 20X video zoom for 35mm, no one would buy it, even if it did allow them to get the exact same shots as their f/1.6-3.4 zooms. Even a f/8 or f/5.6 zoom would be a hard sell. But I would really like to see it happen, so I hope that Canon can somehow find a way to educate enough customers for it to sell well.

[David Heath]

I agree with much of your reasoning, and especially about f-numbers, though feel it important to add that it assumes the same number of pixels on the chips under comparison. In that case, a 35mm sensor will have bigger pixels than a 1/3" one, hence each pixel need less light, hence a smaller aperture for the same performance.

Another way of putting it is to say that for a given technology, the low light performance is defined by the chip resolution and the diameter of the lens front element.

The only thing I wonder about is whether an f20 650mm lens really would be the similar in size/weight to an f3.4 108mm. True, we would be talking about the same size front element for all the reasons you explain, but would the greater focal length not inherently make the 650mm lens bigger and heavier?

[Daniel Browning]

Originally Posted by David Heath

I agree with much of your reasoning, and especially about f-numbers, though feel it important to add that it assumes the same number of pixels on the chips under comparison.

Actually, my position is that it doesn't assume that: 4 small pixels yield the same noise (when taken together) as one large pixel. For example, if you crop the 5D2 down to the same size as the 7D, you are left with an 8MP vs 18MP. The 5D2's pixels have over twice as much area. Yet the noise is the same. I could go into this topic in much more detail, but we really should save it for a thread that is specifically dedicated to pixel size.

Originally Posted by David Heath

The only thing I wonder about is whether an f20 650mm lens really would be the similar in size/weight to an f3.4 108mm.

It's hard to draw on specific examples because most photographic lenses are designed for phase detect autofocus which requires f/5.6 or faster. But there are a few more examples than the ones I already gave. Like how the Canon 400mm f/2.8 adapted for Four Thirds weighs about the same as 800mm f/5.6 on 5D2 (and both have the same angle of view and depth of field). You can compare size of Medium Format lenses with 35mm lenses of similar design to see they are about the same weight. Refractor telescopes of a similar design also tend to weigh the same as long as f-number scales with focal length.

Originally Posted by David Heath

True, we would be talking about the same size front element for all the reasons you explain, but would the greater focal length not inherently make the 650mm lens bigger and heavier?

It will certainly make it inherently bigger (longer), but I'm not so certain that it will make it heavier. I am not a lens designer, but the little I have read and seen seems to indicate that longer, slower lenses can weigh the same as shorter, faster ones.

[Peter Moretti]

Daniel,

I'm sure you would agree that it would border on absurd to make a large sensor camera w/ a very slow lens so it could mimic the performance of a smaller sensor camera. While it's possible to do, it makes little sense.

I do agree that w/ your statements about three chip designs. They don't get a lot of love around here it seems, but I think that's mostly b/c most of the acquisition is 4:2:2, so the extra chroma resolution (as compared to a Bayer pattern) gets lost. And people seem to forget that a mask allows only 1/3 of the light to reach any one photosite (I am unfairly assuming that there is an equal proportion of R, G and B in the composition).

Three chips are more complicated and heavier, but they do have the advantage of truly co-sited color. I also believe the chromatic aberration that is more prevalent in three chip designs has to do with the fact that the color resolution is finer than in masked designs. So how the diffraction pattern varies ever so slightly for different wavelengths of light becomes more apparent. On the other hand, I think the demosaicing process by it's very nature softens the resolution and blends the color info. thereby acting as a defacto CA filter. BTW, the HVX has a built-in electronic CA filter, which works quite well. So there are ways to remove CA in three chip cameras during acquisition.

Anyway, I went off on enough of tangent. I, like everyone else, am waiting to see Canon's latest offering.