If they decide to use Progressive chips than I wouldn’t be surprised if it gets less pixels than 1440x1080 unless Canon came up with some breakthrough technology to keep the heating under control and use 1920x1080 progressive chips. Today’s technology should be easy to do 1280x720 progressive but maybe the chips are something like 960x1080 progressive. Since you don’t hear anything about 720 60p than maybe the chips are 1920x1080 interlaced. I’m really hoping that it’s progressive chips because 720 60p is wonderful to have.

Sensor blocks in the XH and XL H series camcorders employed H-axis pixel offset, which provided greater-than-full-raster resolution. Nobody ever complained of image softness in those cameras. The number of pixels on the chip is only one part of the total equation that determines recorded resolution.

Do you mean because it's CCDs? With CMOS it's easy (look at EX1 and others).
Steve

Yes, CCDs heat up more.

Yes, I understand that means that you need a bigger body for larger sensors like 2/3" but does it actually affect how many pixels you can put on the chip?
Steve

A 1/2 inch CCD block, with the new codec, with out the problems of CMOS? Yessssssss. I think that would really up the ante Canon!

For me, the dream would be a shoulder mount version of that. Hey maybe it would look like an EX3!

I doubt very seriously that it will be one-half inch. For numerous reasons that
I have stressed many times previously, it will most likely be one-third inch.

I tend to think you're right Chris, only seems strange as if they are meeting broadcast specs with the 50 mb/s codec that they don't meet it with the chips too. For sure if they did a lot of people would buy it for broadcast use - rather than an EX1/3 with Nanoflash - but maybe that's not a big enough market for them to be concerned with.
Steve

Broadcast specs can vary from one channel to the next. While the BBC, Discovery HD and PBS have certain stringent technical barriers to entry, others do not. Take for example the Lifetime Channel series "Lovespring International," acquired entirely on the 1/3rd-inch Canon XL H1 camera, or Discovery's "Deadliest Catch" which used numerous 1/3rd-inch Sony Z1U camcorders. For better or for worse, content from small-chip camcorders goes to air all the time these days.

I have a question pertaining to 4:2:2 acquisition. As a event videographer what added benefits does this have over 4:2:0? I know it helps in vastly in the broadcast arena and also for chroma keying. As a event videographer what added benefits would this color space bring? Thanks!

32Mbps is outside the AVCHD spec, and so is 4:2:2. That's irrelevant. Both are well within the AVC spec.

Edius Neo 2.5 is already offering to edit up to 3 or 4 streams of AVCHD at once.

Apparently editing AVC actually is manageable for professional purposes, at least somehow! Otherwise, a lot of Panasonic (and soon to be Sony) camera owners are in deep doo-doo. (I know it's a well kept secret, but Cineform still works pretty good - even better than it did on the computers we had back when HDV was new!)

Indeed, the lower the bitrate, the greater the image quality difference between AVC and MPEG-2 compression. That doesn't mean there is no point in going above 24Mbps with AVC, or that AVC is somehow worse than MPEG-2 at higher bitrates! I read something recently, that the gist of it boiled down to Sony concluding it was practical to get about the same image quality with AVC at 30-35Mbps as with MPEG-2 at 50Mbps, which is a pretty reasonable assessment to make. This isn't science fiction, nor very debatable really.

What spec is 422 outside of? It's OK for the EBU.

Chris, of course there is variability in what standards are acceptable, with the lower grade channels having lower grade standards (in general). But for those aiming high in broadcast to have a full EBU/BBC/Discovery approved camera in a sensible price bracket has long been on a lot of folks' wishlist. The EX cameras almost get there as does the Panny 301, but without add-ons there is still no sub $10k or even sub £10k that ticks all the boxes - but maybe there soon will be (with Scarlet if not the Canon!) And even with Scarlet, unless they have a non-RAW workflow I think a lot of broadcasters would still be pretty scared of it. MPEG (and HDCam, DVCPro, AVC) is familiar to the editors and therefore very desirable.
Steve

3 years from now (and quite awhile after-wards most likely) the HD codecs used for recording, in prosumer camcorders, from the major manufactures, will almost assuredly be essentially the same as they are right now - variations of DVCPRO, MPEG-2 and AVC. It's more than a bit of a stretch to imply that if Canon had gone with AVC in this new cam, they would somehow have effectively conceded their place in the pro market - not hardly.

AVCHD is a format that Sony and Panasonic came up with, that includes video encoding that is a pretty narrow subset of the full H.264/AVC/MPEG-4 Part 10 spec. 4:2:2 color steps outside the bounds of AVCHD, but is certainly not invalid for H.264/AVC/MPEG-4 Part 10 video encoding. The EBU had nothing to do with setting the H.264/AVC/MPEG-4 Part 10 or AVCHD specs (that I am aware of).

Sources tell me there will be ,in fact, a shoulder version. Again, as reported neither HDV or AVCHD.

Most engineering decisions involve compromises, and you have to weigh up pros and cons.

On the side of 50Mbs is that it is a relatively tried and tested solution. It's already well supported by NLEs, etc. Coders are relatively easy to make, and relatively cheap therefore. It meets oft-quoted minimum recommended spec requirements, no arguments. Yet at the same time, it's low enough to be easily recorded onto fairly basic consumer media - class 6 SDHC of a decent brand should be OK, the EX/SDHC limitation has more to do with the adaptor and interface than the media itself.

So why move to AVC-HD? (Or a form of long-GOP AVC that is outside the AVC-HD spec to enable 4:2:2.) The ONLY advantage I can think of is a lower bitrate, so more minutes can be recorded per GB. But is it worth it?

Against that, moving outside AVC-HD specs begs the question of what NLE support will be like, certainly for the first year or two. Even if supported, performance is likely to be down compared to working with MPEG2. Coders will have to be complex to code in real time and get anything like equivalence at the 32Mbs you mention - and that likely means much more expensive and power hungry. Or they could be simpler and less powerful and get equivalence at (say) 40Mbs maybe - but is the 20% saving then really worth it?

An analogy may be the differences between engineering decisions for a basic family car and a high performance racing car. For the latter, it may be necessary (if expensive) to use lightweight alloys to reduce weight to get the performance, for the former, it's unlikely the gains would justify the cost. In this respect, the complexity of AVC-HD may be well worthwhile when coding for transmission (and bitrate= big money), but much less so if all it does is save a few GB of fairly cheap memory.

As far as the longer future goes, then my expectation would be that memory will come down further in price, and bitrate reduction for acquisition become even less of an issue. Yes, computing power will likely increase, but it seems far more sensible to use this to enable wavelet codecs such as JPEG2000.

In the meantime, MPEG2 seems a good compromise for this level of acquisition recording, H264 for transmission and squeezing content on to such as Blu-Ray. (In the latter case, it's much easier - the coding doesn't need to be real time.)

What the chip size will be remains to be seen. My feeling is that it SHOULD be 1/2" to really give Canon the edge, when they could claim to meet all the desired broadcast recommendations. If they do go for 1/3", my vote would remain with the EX - you can always add a nanoFlash to a 1/2" camera, you can't add 1/2" chips to a camera with a 422 codec!!

The announcement also must be a wake up call for Sony. I've made no secret that I like a lot about the PMW350, but think it should have the 50Mbs codec. Now that Canon have included that in a far, far cheaper camera, what do you think it's going to be like for a Sony salesman? How many times is he going to have to put up with hearing "but why doesn't it have the 50Mbs codec?" at a tradeshow?

Probably as many times as the Panasonic salesman hearing "why does it cost $3200/hr to shoot on a $5k camera?"

Colors would contain less noise and the image could be processed more in post before 'falling apart.' The same thing that provides a smoother edge for chroma keying would also supply a smoothing looking fall off of, let's say, a color light on a stage or a presenter standing in front of a big power point presentation.


-Andrew

4:2:2 acquisition offers event videographers the same benefits it offers broadcasters - leeway in post production. Both event videographers and broadcasters deliver their final product encoded with 4:2:0 color. Actually, ENG for broadcast is event videography.

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

Yeah, 50Mbps MPEG-2 intraframe only compression would be a bit rough.

just when I thought that previous Canon announcement was pretty average, it looks like they have been listening.
Looking forward to see some images both of the cam and of what it can produce

Thanks for the explanation Andrew!

Don't suppose anyone has any info on when these cams might hit the shelf?
Steve

The difference between 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 is purely down to chroma resolution. It won't change the amount of chroma noise or the intensity of the colours. In interlace the difference is more pronounced and can be seen on fine strongly coloured edges as a slightly jagged edge. In progressive the difference is much less significant and often very hard to spot. Certainly 4:2:2 is preferable, but the camera will need good sensors to fully take advantage of it. Let's hope Canon don't disappoint!

50 mbits/s with mpeg2 is a darn good bitrate and even convergent design will tell you it is a perfect balance for high quality acquisition. The only time they suggest going higher is if you really need to know every frame is rock solid as perfect as the camera itself will allow. 35 mbits is already known as a pretty solid format and moving up to 50 mbits makes it even more rock solid.

Even if computers are capable of dealing with native AVCHD editing they will always be a step ahead with mpeg2 editing. If a system a few years from now can edit 3 streams of AVCHD then it would be able to handle 6 streams of mpeg2. The rendering will also be at least twice as fast which is a pretty big deal for a lot of professionals that need a quick turn around time. A lot of NLE's even have mpeg2 smart rendering so only the stuff you change gets rendered. I would rather render a project in 2 hours compared to 10 hours if I have a client waiting.

As for broadcast specs I wouldn't be as concerned about it. Stations can tell if you shot with a 4:2:0 camera but it is much harder to tell if you shot with a 1/2" camera. If you light carefully I doubt many people would notice. Sometimes there can be a slight difference in detail as most 1/2" or 2/3" cameras use full raster CCD's. Ironically HDCAM dumbs this down to a 1440x1080 3:1:1 color tape. So other then low light performance I expect the new Canon format to at least beat the pants off the HDCAM tape format.

Maybe I should finally sell my old XL1 to pay for the tax on this new camera. LOL

Sounds like a sound business decision to me. ;0)

That info will be included in the official Canon press release announcing the camera, whenever it is issued. Until then, nobody knows for sure (and those who do are restricted by NDA). So far, Canon has said only "sometime in 2010." Of course, DV Info Net always reports official news as it happens, so stay tuned to this site.

I hope they take a page from their consumer AVCHD line and include say 128GB or 256GB (to one-up the Sony NX cams.) on board flash memory.

What else would be nifty is a tape based acquisition system too... And also the ability to use removable media like SD cards.

3 types of storage....pie in the sky?

Sounds good to me Kyle. Any reason why that would be impractical? There may well be one, but I don't know it.
Steve

Take a look at the photos in my article... there's no tape transport mechanism on this model.

You know, I've sort of wondered at times, why Sony didn't take essentially a DVCAM approach (faster tape transport speed) and offer what amounts to recording XDCAM EX on MiniDV tape, years ago, shortly after HDV was first introduced. They could have done that right from the get-go with the Z1.

10-bit color would've been nice.

Chris, I did see the pictures in your article when you posted it originally. My thought was, it was just a rough mock up with the possibility of design changes still a reality.

If Canon was able to cover all the bases with tape, SD/CF, and built in storage, they would please a lot of people. Especially those of us who have some concerns about archiving, which currently is a lot easier with tape.

It's not as simple as that. DVCAM has a 50% higher linear speed, but everything else stays the same, all the speed increase does is give guard bands between the tracks to allow the possibility of insert editing on tape and better machine-machine compatibility.

To record the higher data rate to tape would require extra heads on an already small head drum. Possible, but likely to be expensive. Which is, I suspect, why the tape deck on the HVX200 was limited to 25Mbs and couldn't record DVCPro50 or DVCProHD.

I don't think so -- I'm confident that this is the final design, and there won't be any deviation to the form factor or its fundamental feature set. My basis for supposing this is the fact that the previous instances I'm aware of in which Canon has shown a non-working prototype (XL1, GL2 and XL H1), those occasions were very close to the actual introduction of production units (within weeks), with no physical change between prototypes and working models.


As David says above, this really wasn't feasible. DV tape transports are limited to 25Mbps (that's why HDV had that bit rate, in fact). There are Panasonic and Sony tape transports that can accommodate 50Mbps and higher, but they are prohibitively expensive and therefore obsolete for our purposes here.

Another thing I've wondered about on occasion, is how much benefit there really is in acquiring images at 10 bits of precision, when video is that highly compressed. (Acquiring at 8 bits of precision does not preclude intermediate rendering using 10 bits of precision in post.) Just the other day, I was questioning (in my mind) if there really is any practical benefit to the 50Mbps flavor of AVC-I using 10 bits of precision (50Mbps AVC-I being effectively even more highly compressed than long-GOP MPEG-2 at the same bitrate, on the whole, since AVC-I gains none of the image quality benefits of using interframe compression, which is quite significant with most typical footage).

Any word on the MSRP?

MSRP: Once again, that info will be included in the official Canon press release announcing the camera, whenever it is issued. Until then, nobody knows for sure (and those who do are restricted by NDA). Of course, DV Info Net always reports official news as it happens, so stay tuned to this site.