It would make sense to redesign it to from 1440 to 1920 since it probably won't be recording in a format w/ anamorphic pixels. As I think about this more, I doubt Canon will abandon 1/3" in their pro line, esp. if they will be coming out with an interchangeable lens model. There is simply too much demand for 1/3".

AVCHD at that bitrate might look like XDCAM during playback but certainly won't work the same through the postproduction workflow. Streamlined production is all about workflow, process, and interoperability. That's one thing that Sony has done well in this business.

That depends on your workflow. If you transcode to an intermediate (like Cineform's), there's no serious difference. Editing natively, the gap in performance (speed) between AVC and MPEG-2 will be closing pretty rapidly (as future generations of CPUs roll out and software support improves).

I would still agree with Jad, after serious grading and effects the XDCAM codec will be more robust

High bit rate AVCHD is more diffcult to work with in post b/c the codec is very computationally intensive, but I can think of no reason why it would be less gradeable in post.

XDCAM EX has a MUCH more established workflow that will make working with it considerably easier. But that doesn't mean it's visually superior or can be pushed more when being graded.

I think it depends which XDCAM codec. AVCHD and XDCAM EX are both 8bit 4:2:0, so I'm not sure there's much difference there. But XDCAM HD422 is 4:2:2 (also 8-bit, I think) so it would be better for grading.

That all depends. The 35 Mb/s from the Sony EX is for the picture only. Sound is extra on top of that. While I seem to recall that the 24Mb/s rating of AVCHD includes the sound datarate in that total.

Even uncompressed audio is well under 10% of total bandwidth - and compressed audio, far less.

AVC, at roughly 2/3 the bandwidth of MPEG-2, can produce roughly similar quality, if the codec is efficient. AVC is still fairly young, so some modest improvements on in-camera compression efficiency are likely over the next few years, but right now it looks like codec efficiency in prosumer level AVCHD camcorders is already quite respectable. The major camcorder manufactures have had more than a couple years of experience, producing consumer AVCHD camcorders. In this industry, that's a whale of a long time really.

To put numbers on the data rate,
48 KHz 16 bit PCM stereo sound requires 1.536 Mbps.
The compressed MP3 sound that normally piggybacks on HDV and AVCHD uses ~376 Kbps.

A lot has been said in the UK recently about the BBC HD channel and bitrates. The coding system is H264, and until a few months ago the bitrate was around 16Mbs, then it was announced (to howls of protest) that it would be reduced down to 9.7Mbs. The argument was that they had got new coders, much more efficient, and this is what allowed them to reduce the bitrate for comparable quality.

I was sceptical when I heard what was proposed, but my own subsequent experience is that what they say seems accurate - I'm noticing virtually no difference in picture quality. This is all referenced at BBC - BBC Internet Blog: The Hitchhiker's Guide to Encoding: Life, Encoders and Everything (Or a brief history of HD encoding)

I'll quote just a bit of that:
Yes - a couple of years ago even expensive broadcast real time encoders weren't that much more efficient than MPEG2. It's only relatively recently that the theoretical promises of AVC have started to be realised in practice, at least for real time encoding.

(Blu-Ray is different, when the coding is done in non-real time, and two-pass becomes possible, for camcorders you obviously need a real time encoder.)

So if that was the situation for real time broadcast a couple of years ago, and I don't find it credible that the AVC-HD encoder in a prosumer camera such as the HMC150 was substantially better.

That is not to say the situation won't change, so my feeling is that future improvements will be more than modest, but AVC-HD in cameras whose design is a year or two old is not that much better than MPEG2.

Very interesting. This stuff is complex, but it is important to stay on top of it all.

Hang in there.......you may be very surprised by the end of 2010. That's all I can say.

That sounds interesting!

It would be uncharacteristic for Canon to introduce a new model, and then top it in the same year. If there is something else coming out, it probably is different enough not to threaten sales on this prototype.

Thinking about this and reading what everyone has posted, if I were Canon I'd continue w/ the 1/3" for as long as I could get away with... maybe move up to 1/2" or at the most 2/3" in another pro video line.

And I'd let the DSLR continue to merge w/ digital cinema camera needs. But I would not create a specifically designed "Red killer" camera, as I don't want to get into a fight over such a small market.