Only posted for the fun of all...

Understood! I guess ultimately that's what Area 51 is all about. Thanks Laurence,

How could Canon possibly justify that price range? The JVC HD-100 is about $6,000, as is the Panasonic HVX200. The former has removable lenses -- the XL2's only real advantage -- while the latter offers an arguably better HD format (actually two), as well as variable frame rates. To compete, Canon has to offer a reason to choose the "XL3" over the other two. My suggestions:

1. Three half-inch 1,920 x 1,080 CCDs or CMOS chips, or one bigger chip
2. 14-bit A/D converter
3. Interchangeable lenses
4. The same complement of formats that Panasonic offers: DVCPRO HD/50/25 and DV (1080/60i, 1080/24p, 1080/30p, 720/60p, 720/24p, 720/30p, 480/60i, 480/24p, 480/30p), including variable framing rates
5. A full 1,440 x 1,080 format that includes 24p
6. The ability to take P2, Compact Flash, or a hard drive (with the controller circuity built into the camera)
7. Recordable uncompressed output, preferably built-in Reel Stream 4:4:4, 42-bit, ultra-def output (e.g., for greenscreen compositing)

Wake up, Lawrence. Time for breakfast! :-)

You're dreaming...I guess you're allowed to do that in Area 51.

I do not expect an XL3 announcement this month. I do think we will get the GL3 that is similar to the SONY cameras...HDV, but still 1/4" CCD's. It's been a while since Canon came out with a totally new design for a product...it's usually an offshoot of existing series. Same here...GL3 will be similar to GL2, but with HDV.

If you're expecting a 1/2" CCD w/ all the HD bells & whistles to come out of Canon's consumer division, yes the one that currently makes the XL2 and GL2...well, go back to sleep. :-O

Kevin

Had you bothered to read my post, I was suggesting ways that Canon could offer a competitive HD "XL3" product, not a me-too product. If Canon pursues HDV, the whole removable-lens advantage has been lost to JVC, which charges about $6,000 for its 24p HDV offering. Putting aside the problems associated with licensing DVCPRO HD (not to mention Canon's likely lack of desire to do so) -- Canon would have to offer something beyond the HVX200, should they decide to license the format from Panasonic. The issue was whether an HD XL3 would justify $8,000 to $10,000, and unless they offer much of what I suggested, they're going to have a hard sell at $7,000, let alone $8,000 or more.

The low-light capabilities of SD quarter-inch imager already suffer. Those of third-inch HD cameras likewise suffer, because of the increased pixel density. So you're now telling me that Canon -- whom you accuse of failing to introduce anything innovative in recent years -- will produce acceptably functional quarter-inch HD imagers. I guess dreaming's contagious.

Geez Lawrence, that'd be a sweet camera but out of all of that, all Canon could potentially offer to keep it under $10k would be three 1/2" CCD's or one really wicked CMOS solution.

How so? You know that Canon has to offer a removable lens on the "XL3." It has to offer 24p. And I believe it really has to offer a usable hard-disk option. A 14-bit A/D converter doesn't seem like a stretch. If it licensed DVCPRO HD (which is unlikely), it should be able to offer all that Panasonic offers (the full 1,440 x 1,080 is admittedly unrealistic) and would probably be obligated to include P2 (the DVCPRO HD tape heads alone are like $10,000), which may or may not preclude also offering a Compact Flash option. Including Reel Stream technology out of the box may seem unrealistic -- the Andromeda mod costs about $3,500. But how low would Reel Stream be willing to go if they could get a lump-sum licensing fee of, say, $5,000,000? I admit that the half-inch sensors are the least likely, but I would hardly call them a fantasy. I think it's only a matter of time before somebody offers them.

Well, even so, why the Andromeda thing? If Canon were to do that, all they'd have to do is rig the camera to use the fullest possible resolution possible. Plus, the Andromeda is still in beta testing and I can't see it being a good thing to put in camera right off the bat. It's simply too overexposed and open for most users to take full advantage of. Remember, most of the people that buy XL2's are people doing weddings and nature stuff for broadcast. You don't hear too much about filmmakers with the XL2, heck, most of those Blockbuster and Hollywood video straight to video horror D-movies are probably shot on a DVX100/A. Plus, they haven't even gotten an Andromeda device for any other camera than the DVX100/A working yet.

I agree, Compactflash would be an interesting storage medium, but I don't think it will work all too well for HD video. I remember reading something about that somewhere but the conclusion was that it wasn't possible yet. =P darn.

Now if a DVCPRO/HD tape mechanism is $10k, can you imagine what a hot swappable HDD mechanism would cost to be built into the camera? Probably the same or maybe more for all I know!

I don't know what Canon is going to do. It seems like JVC just jumped up and wedgied them doesn't it? =) We'll just have to wait and see.

No, no... much less. Much, much less. The FireStore FS-3 had hot-swappable drives and it runs under $2000. HD tape decks are incredibly expensive, but direct-to-disk solutions for HD need not be. This is in fact one of the many big advantages of tapeless solutions. I don't know about a built-in swappable HDD chassis, but the external version pretty much exists already, save for the HD firmware upgrade, and it would be only about a third or a fourth of the cost of an HD tape transport.

hi folx,

what size would those hard drives be? 2.5? 3.5?

how much space (in gigabytes) would an hour of 720p or 1080p hi def footage take up?

Considering that Panasonic's outlook for 1080i DVCPROHD would take up about 4 minutes real time on a 4gb P2 card, then I would guess it would be about one gigabyte per minute depending on what resolution you're shooting with. I may be wrong on that figure, but if I'm right then HDD solutions would seem to be the best bet for the finest quality recording.

Thanks for clearing that up for me BTW Chris! I was just going on speculation =).

jack,

so a 60minute (1 hour) raw footage of 1080i HD would be roughly 60GB? aren't people editing on HD platforms now? is this true? what about 1080p, how much would that take up120GB since it'll have twice the info?

Well, it depends mostly on the camera. The resolution being used is the big thing, 1080i on 1920x1080 is much bigger than the 1440x1080 the HVX200 is using. So to make the earlier estimate correct, 1080i at 1440x1080 resolution is roughly one gigabyte per minute. 1920x1080 would be much more of course. But yeah, 120gb HDD's would hold roughly 120 minutes of footage, more like 118 minutes but you get the point. But there currently aren't Firestore modules at any drive size bigger than 80gb. Unless you're in a closed set and using a laptop to record the video on to, even then using external drives, then you can record however much you can afford.

if there are adaptors that work with sata hard drives, couldn't you just buy a 500gb hard drive and hook it up? 500gb is roughly 7+ HOURS!

Well of everything that was said- I find the GL3 HDV camera to be the most exciting.........I'm imagining a flourite lens with around 20X zoom and HDV progressive 720 (I hope they don't go the interlaced route) and the current form factor of the GL series (maybe change the color to black)...if they can keep it under $3000 they'd likely sell as many as they could produce...I'm keeping my fingers crossed!