Shhhh! It's a secret!!

[Chris Hurd]

An accurate description, Richard!

Sorry I had to pull the quote from Kevin's post above... our policy is that we will not copy material from other message boards... if you weren't the original author, then it's an infringement, even if it was deleted. We can link to such material, but we can't copy it in full. Oh, wait -- that link is broken, isn't it? Well, what does that tell you.

[Marco Leavitt]

I agree that the fact the original post has been purged speaks volumes about how reliable this is. But this is Area 51. Perhaps someone can at least paraphrase the contents of that post? Anybody who wasn't lucky enough to catch it the first time around is going to be extremely agitated over it, more agitated than should be warranted. People should at least be able to judge things for themselves, otherwise rumors just expand, inflate, and morph into even more bizarre conclusions. It seems counterproductive.

[Pete Bauer]

The copied comments that Chris rightly deleted were absent any real specifics; they just paraphrased our speculation: Wunderkam! (See: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost....&postcount=74) The implication was that Canon's new offering(s) will knock our socks off, but how so was left unsaid. Whether it is merely Canon's solitary opinion of their own camera, or we are truly about to see a Wunderkam...I guess we'll begin to know the answer in about mid-September. ;-)

[Chris Hurd]

Marco:

"...otherwise rumors just expand, inflate, and morph into even more bizarre conclusions..."

Behold, the impetus behind Area 51. That's what this board is for.

Seriously, I had to yank the quote that Kevin left because it's our policy. We can't allow a discussion from some other message board to be transplanted into this one... especially if it was deleted. It wouldn't be fair to that other board, you know, in the political scheme of internet message boards that would be rather dastardly if I allowed that sort of thing. That's no reflection on Kevin at all for posting it; it's just a one admin to another kind of thing. I wouldn't want some other message board doing that to us, so I'm certainly not going to allow it here. Sort of like the Golden Rule, do unto others... you get the picture.

If anybody is upset about not seeing the content of that original post, then please take it up with the message boards at cinematography.com, since they're the ones who deleted it in the first place. That's where it originated, so it's an issue between you and them. Hope this helps,

[Damon Botsford]

I couldn't imagine how Canon could possibly top Panasonic's offering. I mean, at Panasonic's price point, most people are already drooling for the HVX200 and have been for a very long time (since I saw that super 8 looking mock up even). I guess if I HAD to complain about something, it would be the 1/3 inch chips. But for 6 grand compared to 70 G's for Varicam, I find it tough to complain. Hmmmmm, I suppose Canon could keep the XL-1/2 form factor which seems to have a cult following. Pop some 1/2" chippers or maybe even a new advanced CMOS chip (or 3!!!!) in there. Interchangeable lens? Keep the price just under 10 grand? Maybe there is a little room for improvement after all. Wrap THAT camera up with a bow and I'll take it. Of course, if I even remotely smell the scent of HDV... no dice... already been down that nasty route. Anybody want to buy a camcorder?

[Kevin Wild]

No problems with that, Chris. I guess the post-pullers CAN defeat me!

I'm fine with your take on it and it is your site. I also can see the other side that once something like that is posted, it's sort of in the public domain. Maybe I shouldn't have copied/pasted, but surely it's okay to pass on information. Unfortunately, people, there wasn't much. Just the date of the supposed announcement (9/22) and that something is coming...but we knew that already, didn't we? It really gave no information of value.

I gotta get out of Area 51. You guys are scaring me in here. :-)

Kevin

[Chris Hurd]

Thanks Kevin,

"once something like that is posted, it's sort of in the public domain."

Maybe so, but the exact words that were used in that post are very much the property of the message board they were posted on. That's where the ugly head of infringement begins to raise itself.

The good news for you guys is that it turns out this post wasn't deleted, it was simply moved, without the benefit of a re-direct. So if you still want to check it out, you can find it located at:

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2...showtopic=8622

[Matthew Wauhkonen]

Canon's part of the HDV consortium, right? That makes me sad.

How could a new Canon "revolutionize" anything when an HD XL2 already exists in the JVC? It may be hype, it may just be a GL3 that's affordable and great, but hopefully it's something CMOS-related and genuinely innovative. I know Sony has the most advanced CMOS technology when it comes to video, but Canon's dSLRs are amazing. Two things have stopped them from brining this technology to video, though: the need for large photosites and the fact that the thing can't dump data fast enough to do 60fps. The large photosite issue is also why none of their point and shoot cameras are CMOS.

Oh well, I'm REALLY curious. But I still think the HDX will be the best of the next generation.

[Lawrence Bansbach]

Originally Posted by Matthew Wauhkonen

Canon's part of the HDV consortium, right? That makes me sad. . . . How could a new Canon "revolutionize" anything when an HD XL2 already exists in the JVC?

If indeed Canon's HD offerings are HDV (nothing says it can't support multiple standards), there's probably a lot more to the HDV spec that it could implement. After all, everybody thought and said that 24p wasn't supported, and then JVC came along and said that it had been part of the spec from the get-go. Canon could offer higher bit-rates, 24p, and 4:2:2 color sampling. It could offer usable uncompressed output. It could offer half-inch imagers. There's quite a lot that Canon could do.

[Nick Hiltgen]

I think we spoke about this for our wish list with the xl2 but I'll throw it in there for this new cam, if canon really wanted to revolutionize the camera they would build in a mini 35 adapter, that way it would be the first 1/3 inch ccd (or cmos or lmos or almost or whatever) camera with a 35mm imager. I jsut wonder if they could still have thier famous backwards compatability between lenses. If they did do that those EF adapters would be worth their weight in gold. (actually with the rate that gold is going for these days it's possible it already is worth it's weight.) I don't know that's just my two cents.

On a side note birns and sawyer is getting the first production models of the jvc hdv cam today, they got the decks in yesterday which appear to be pretty cool.

[Boyd Ostroff]

But is it going to have a cup holder? That was also on the XL2 wish list....

[Marco Leavitt]

I've wondered if we'll ever see an integrated mini35 type ground glass system as well. Hard to believe that would really be cheaper than just making a great big CMOS chip.

[Nick Hiltgen]

I only think it would eb cheaper because so many dvi-ers have been able to make thier own mini 35 for so cheap, the only problem was flipping the image, I imagine if you built the camera the flipping image thing wouldn't really be so difficult. But i guess you'd have a lot of issues with the whole lens size thing. But I still like the sound of that cup holder...

[Michael Wisniewski]

It's unbelievable in this day and age not to have a cup holder.

[Boyd Ostroff]

I'm glad this thread has finally gotten down to reality!