There have been some very good examples of CMOS skew. I personally have seen very little of it but clearly it is a concern for some people. I still say it is mostly us that think things like birds look odd. Personally I think Canon has done the best job with HD CCD's but even then 1/3" just wasn't where it needed to be. Panasonic I still say was pretty bad with 1/3" CCD's but that is of course my opinion.

It would be nice if Canon would make a version of the A1 that recorded to a single CF card with the 25 or 35 mbit codec. I think this alone might be enough for most users who still prfer CCD. The main problem with the A1 isn't the camera itself it is the HDV tape.

Not to mention proper video without aliasing or moire. These are just as bad to the image as rolling shutter is to some other people. Try doing a long steady zoom with a DSLR as well or 60i shooting. Heck even the 60p is pretty bad on these cameras right now due to the really bad method of scaling the DSLR cameras use right now. These cameras also tend to overheat after an hour or so of shooting. I just couldn't tell my client we have to wait 15 minutes because the camera is overheating. DSLR's are getting very good but they just are not there yet. They need proper low pass filtering for video and proper scaling. Not to mention 60i support.

Who shot it, and what do they own?

If I owned 20 Vari-Cams, I would not go buy EX3s to shoot a series. I'd use what I had invested in. Especially since would leverage my investment in 2/3" glass.

Heck, the HPX2700 isn't even available for purchase any more.

The company making the series for Discovery didn't own anything, they kitted up about 3-4 months ago, from scratch deciding what was the best kit for them to use. They bought 5 HPX2700s and a 3700 plus lenses, tripods etc.
Same goes for a BBC team making a new series on Africa, they're kitting up with 2700s too.
It's news to me that you can't get 2700s any more, they're still listed for sale here.
Steve

But the 3700 is and I believe that's what the Beeb upgraded too.

Although it has 1/3" chips it will be interesting to see how it compares with it's images. At the end of the day that's what counts.

Personally 1/2" would have made me feel more confident for low light.

The 3700 is no good for wildlife though as it'll only go to 30fps.
Steve

What is Chuck Talking About Here?
 

Can anyone decipher this this Chuck Westfall quote from Studio Daily?
"Asked about sticking with MPEG-2 rather than moving to MPEG-4/H.264, Westfall suggested the decision had to do with concerns about picture quality. “One of the most important things we were looking at was the overriding quality we were trying to achieve with this camcorder,” he told StudioDaily. “We didn’t want to degrade the image quality beyond the absolute minimum.” You’ll be able to judge the camera’s quality for yourself next week at Canon’s NAB booth, where about 10 working models should be available in a shooting environment."


"We didn't want to degrade the image quality beyond the absolute minimum?" Is Chuck meaning that he feels that AVCINTRA 100 degrades image quality more than MPEG 2 50MBPs? I just can't figure out the logic of this quote.

Anyone?

Dan

1/3" restricts you to a very narrow range of useable aperture. With lower definition HD cameras and SD cameras the softening is less noticable, but when you get in to the realms of full resolution 1080 cameras it's a big deal. It's such a shame Canon didn't produce the camera all the broadcasters want (in the UK at least). They could have gone from also rans to Market leaders overnight. So close.

In an attempt to not break with tradition, I'll disagree with you Alister!!! Partially at least.
I'm not sure how big a deal this "limited aperture range" is really. Due to the increased depth of field (one of the other main criticisms of 1/3" chips) you'd not want to go beyond about f5.6 anyway for artistic reasons. I would have thought that as long as you have a 2, 4 and 6 stop ND in the camera you'll be able to get correct exposure in most situations just using f1.8-f5.6.
Steve

My understanding was that the MPEG-2 decision had just as much to do with 3rd-party NLE support as well. It was much easier and faster to secure full NLE compatibility among all the majors in time for the shipping date than it would have been had they gone with MPEG-4. Not to mention most end-user's current editing systems can handle MPEG-2 without having to take on any significant hardware upgrades.

AVCIntra 100 and 50Mbps 4:2:2 mpeg2 should be pretty evenly matched in terms of image quality. Using a 100Mbps codec would have meant very tight restrictions on the CF cards that would work reliably and the camera would eat through them twice as fast. For this type of camcorder that would not have made sense IMHO.

What other codec could Canon have used that is accepted by NLEs and offers realistic bit rates for compact flash? Avchd must have been a consideration, but it's only 4:2:0 and but above 24Mbps your outside the Avchd specs. Besides which if you can go to 50Mbps there is little difference in the quality of mpeg2 and Avc/h264, yet mpeg2 is easier to decode etc.

Alister, what camera did the broadcasters want? larger chips? Form factor?

Mpeg4 doesn't have to mean just AVCINTRA either. It can mean AVCHD. Although personally I would really question if 50 mbit mpeg2 is really all that much better then 24 mbit AVCHD. Barry Green did a test between 35 mbit mpeg2 and 21 mbit AVCHD and the AVCHD killed the native 35 mbit mpeg2 from the EX1. Now that extra 15 mbits helps out a lot but considering you have double the chroma data to deal with it would bring it pretty much on par. I agree with Chris that I think it had more to do with NLE support and ease of editing. Pretty much every NLE out there should be able to edit this stuff as a native format. It is also my understanding that AVCINTRA is I frame based. IPB video is much more efficient then I frame video so yes 50 mbit IPB can very much look better then 100 mbit I frame video as long as the scene isn't too complex for the encoder which is going to be fairly rare at 50 mbits.

Minimum 1/2" sensors, full 1920x1080, 50Mbps long GoP or 100Mbps I frame. All in a low cost package.

Even so, low speed scanning CMOS sensors is murder to 3D matchmoving. (except at low speeds, but what action film would match move at low speed these days?)

Plus, I clearly recall 2 major films with Flash Banding problems: Slumdog Millionare (SI2K) and 2012 (Done on the F23 for the majority of the film but a Unknown CMOS camera was used for 1 specific scene)

Personally, I'd really prefer that over CMOS. To work with File based HDV at the moment, you either need a capture computer and a hard drive or a Sony/Firestone HDD or Compact Flash unit.

That what I said in post 40. EBU stated 1/2" or larger chips and 50mb/s GOP codec or similar.
Steve

Steve, I would not consider the HPX2700, it's 720p.

Peregrine Falcons are not really uncommon where I live, I have some stock footage, as well of other varieties of birds and species of mammals, bear, reptiles and insects. Perhaps my low profile, wildlife seeming not to care if I was high end when giving up the shots. It would honestly be a struggle to find any of it that was wrecked by skew, I'm not sure I can. Perhaps it's the way I shoot or the lenses, but I've been pretty close up with peregrine falcons in particular, they prey on the pigeon population, basically right outside my window from the adjacent grain elevator.

I maintain, the (mfg) industry is moving away from CCD even at the high end. Let's wait and see what comes out.

Lets wait to judge the 1/3" CMOS until we actually see what it does. We should all know by now that not all 1/3" sensors are created equal.

In a review Barry Green just did of the new HPX370 he states that the 1/3" CMOS is as sensitive as the EX3. Perhaps the 1/3" on the canon will be the same.

In the broadcast world low light quickly starts to become not as important. Almost all of our shooting is either studio based or at a location where we setup lights. We use a 2/3" CCD F900 or Red but yet we always light when we shoot. Now of course this may not always be true for everybody but there are always ways to get around low light.

Agreed Thomas but going back to Alistair's comments, if your shooting for broadcast 1/3 even sensitive 1/3 may not be good enough.

That's a response that comes up a lot on these forums. So the HPX2700 is good enough for a Discovery mega series with a budget of £1 million per programme but not good enough for you? Who on earth are your clients?
Steve

But if it is as good as the 1/2" you were going to buy then what exactly is the difference?

Is the sensitivity a massive issue anyway?
Because you have more depth of field you'd tend to want to use wider apertures anyway, does that not level things out a bit? If you've got 2 stops less sensitivity over a 2/3" chip camera and you shoot at f2 instead of f4 you'll get the same exposure and off the top of my head probably similar dof.
Steve

I have confirmed through Canon USA that the PAL upgrade does indeed include 50p when recording in 720.

So in 1080 mode you'll get 50i and 25p, and in 720 mode you'll get 50p and 25p.

Hope this helps,

Bit crap that it's not standard isn't it? Why not? It's the general rule these days I thought.
Steve

I believe their line of thinking is that you don't have to pay for overseas compatibility
unless you really need it -- therefore it's an optional upgrade. Although I have to say,
at these prices you'd think they'd just include it. At any rate, this has been their SOP
for several years now since the XL2 days.

Buffff, very expensive.
I was thinking something like XH A1s+50%. 5.000 $, more or less. Add 500$ if you want (is money).
And only one model: with SDI.
A mix of XH A1s+Sony NX5.

I've been waiting for Canon's announcement before I did some equipment purchasing this year. And now that its here...

Do you guys think it would be worthwhile to get a Canon XF or get a Nanoflash for my current XL H1S?

I do have to say that I've been extremely happy with the XL H1S and it provides a fantastic image, usability, versatility... just an overall excellent camera experience. Right now, I feel like adding a Nanoflash to it would make for a better upgrade overall, but just seeing what you guys think.

If it was a question of one or the other, I would just wait.

Difference is if the client (broadcaster) will pay for it or not, most probably if the footage is good you will get away with it but if the broadcaster asks you what you shoot on and it has 1/3" chips it could be a deal breaker. Why not make life easier and shoot with what they already approve of i.e. EX1R with nano flash or equiv, and lets face it, it isn't any more expensive.

Anyone here plan on buying or renting one? No rentals (at least for new gear) around me....

john

I just saw the same sales spec sheet at a local Canon shop here on the 7th - and then found this post, where everyone is already miles ahead as usual.

I think this is fantastic news, and if I had a spare 7 or 8K I would definitely buy it. I love my A1S and tapes, but this gives a whole new set of options for shooters. I do have an MRC1 but this new 422 50Mbps codec and internal CF system take it to the next level, and rounds out an already solid Canon lineup.

It appears that this new camcoder does not have any Standard Definition capability. I will be buying a camcoder any moment and for sure I cant be convinced to go canon way when EX1r is there with SDHC and the likes on the menu. Hopefully they will make an update later to include SD and probably reduce the price also, 4.2.2 is good but... i will still prefer nano for more varsatility.

I will be happy to see SD on thier specs 'cos around here most of the Jobs are still delivered in SD but HD is just around the corner, so i will like to future proof my puchase now.

If you have a client that concerned about quality then shouldn't you really be shooting for a higher end camera anyway and not a hand held form factor? Why not just go for a 20k+ camera then and have peace of mind. I mean if you have clients who are that concerned about quality I'm guessing they pay pretty well or at least they should be. From what I have heard on here it sounds like those clients would be much more concerned about CMOS then they would be about 1/3" chips.

I am looking forward to seeing how it actually performs.

I do wish it had a slightly lower price point. I was hoping for the $5,000 entry range.

nonetheless, unless something is really bad with it, I will just save a little longer and probably get one. All depends on early adopters and reviews though :)

the old GL1 has been a trooper for the past 11 years. Hope this new Canon will last just as long.

I'm sorry Olakunle, it appears that you are right about this. I put a
query into Canon USA and have received a prompt reply confirming
that there is no Standard Definition recording capability.

I have withdrawn a couple of posts from public view which stated
otherwise, just to avoid any possible confusion. Olakunle is correct;
the XF series camcorders do not have any Standard Definition
recording capability.

You know I was thinking back to the old days when the only option most of us had was DV. The only realistic step up for a better codec was DVCPRO50. In that case we were talking the only option was a 20k+ camera which cost a heck of a lot more then most of our Canon DV cameras. Now of course these were 1/2" or 2/3" full size cameras which made up a big chunk of the price. My point is that higher quality codecs especially those that offered 4:2:2 have always cost a huge premium. Well except for Panasonic with the HVX200. I guess my whole point is that yes the Canon camera is expensive when we compare it to other 4:2:0 cameras but what is the price like compared to other 4:2:2 cameras?

It all really comes down to how important is 4:2:2 to you. Just like in the DV days we had a choice to use 4:1:1 or sell our first born and use 4:2:2. If you really need 4:2:2 then this is a great camera at a steal of a price. How much do any of you think a EX1 with 4:2:2 would cost? None of us can really say what the cost of the codec is and it could be possible that if SONY did make a EX! with 4:2:2 recording that it would cost a lot more then the current EX1. Unfortunately we don't really have much to compare to right now to determine if the price is right or not for the new Canon cameras. I don't think it is really fair to compare it to a 4:2:0 EX1 even though that camera does use 1/2" chips. Codecs and chroma have always had a massive premium in this industry.

A 422 EX1 couldn't cost that much more than the current one - think about it, for £2000 or so you can buy an entire separate unit (Nanoflash) that has 422 upto 160mb/s! Incorporating it into the camera would be a hell of a lot cheaper as you'd not need the casing, connectors, flash sockets and all other software and hardware in the Nano.
Could it be that Sony are protecting their higher-priced ranges and a 422 EX1 would be getting a bit too close for comfort? Shame on me for thinking such a thing!
Steve

"422 EX1 would be getting a bit too close for comfort"

Agreed Steve. The Ex1 is such a bargain Sony will have to be careful about offering any more upgrades or they'll undermine their more expensive cameras.

As far as this camera goes, i agree it's a bit pricey but apart from the 1/3 chips this is a professional package that would have been undreamt of a couple of years ago. With its codec it probably deserves to be priced outside of the prosumer AVCHD options available from other manufacturers.

I'm interested to see what the glass is like on this camera, but knowing Canon it will be great, and i like the fact that it has the 82mm diameter.

We can only speculate what the chips performance will be at this stage, but this may well be a superb camcorder.

I look forward to seeing some side by side comparisons with the EX cameras, and wouldn't be surprised if Canon's latest effort is a serious contender.

Nothing to do with front element filter sizes Tom - all to do with f stops (actually no - to do with T stops) and chip design and processing. I'm always suspicious of any camera manufacturer 'forgetting' to tell me what the maximum aperture is at full telephoto. This is a camera! Would you happily buy a 250mm lens with no idea what its max aperture was?

Come on Canon... or have I missed it?

We shall see. It certainly looks a handsome beast whereas the Z7 and EX1 look as if they've been involved in rear end shunts.

tom.

You've missed it, Tom, but only because we haven't really been talking about it.

The maximum aperture at full telephoto on this camera is f/2.8 -- yup, that's right.