Canon adopts MPEG-2 Full HD (4:2:2) file-based recording codec for upcoming cam

Robert M Wright said:
I seriously doubt any of the majors are going to put out a motion picture camera (indeed designed primarily as a motion picture camera - not a still camera that is able to record motion pictures as a secondary function) combining anything akin to a 35mm, APS-C or 4/3 imaging chip with a recording format like AVCHD (AVCCAM). There just simply isn't a viable market for such a beast.

If Panasonic (or one of the other majors) puts out a camera with a large imaging chip like that, truly designed as a motion picture camera, it's going to be a camera with a price tag well into 5 figures, aimed at real feature film-makers with something at least resembling real budgets for making their films (not struggling ENG-like wedding and event shooters merely wishing they were major motion picture film-makers), and they aren't going to weigh it down with a low-end codec.
Click to expand...

Robert,

The majors have to be looking at how many 35mm DOF adapters have been sold as well as Canon 5D's, 7D's and the Scarlet anticipation. Building a prosumer level large sensor camera with low-end codec, VDSLR GH1 sensor that leverages technology already developed for the consumer market(Panasonic is first and foremost a consumer electronics company) wouldn't cost that much money.

There is a market at a sub $10K price point, IMO. Were this not the case, RED would not be coming out with the Scarlet family of cameras. Panasonic need only raid their parts bins and leverage their consumer technology investment.
 
Robert M Wright said:
I seriously doubt any of the majors are going to put out a motion picture camera (indeed designed primarily as a motion picture camera - not a still camera that is able to record motion pictures as a secondary function) combining anything akin to a 35mm, APS-C or 4/3 imaging chip with a recording format like AVCHD (AVCCAM). There just simply isn't a viable market for such a beast.

If Panasonic (or one of the other majors) puts out a camera with a large imaging chip like that, truly designed as a motion picture camera, it's going to be a camera with a price tag well into 5 figures (at least), aimed at real feature film-makers with something at least resembling real budgets for making their films (not struggling ENG-like wedding and event shooters merely wishing they were major motion picture film-makers), and they aren't going to weigh it down with a low-end codec.
Click to expand...

basing on the gh1, i would say having a camera with m43 sensor wouldnt be far off since the gh1 has an almost video like quality in autofocusing.. but of course I think its very unlikely to happen now but in the next couple of years.
 
I'd be pretty surprised if a Scarlet with anything bigger than a 2/3" imager costs less than $10k.

Sure, there's indeed a market for a killer sub $10k motion picture camera with a 35mm imager - not big enough to sell enough cameras to recoup R&D costs though. A camera with an imager that large just doesn't have much use for ENG like purposes, and if it's going to come in under $10k, it's not going to be robust enough to be used for major motion pictures either. You just aren't going to ever find many films shot with semi-pro like (prosumer) cameras that record AVCHD playing in major theaters - won't happen. Essentially it would be a hobby level cam for wish-I-was-a-film-maker types (a relatively small market).
 
All this talk of APS-C sensor video cameras... while a nice thought, I don't see happening right away, at least not until the Scarlet hits and the majors (Canon, Panasonic, Sony, & JVC) can gauge whether the market for those types of cameras is big enough yet.

What I would like in a pro/prosumer AVC-HD (HMC150) or high-end MPEG-2 (EX-1/this new Canon) style cameras, would be for them to move towards a single but really capable 2/3 sensor, or a 3 CCD/CMOS 2/3 sensor block. This way the low light capabilities are going to have a lot more room to improve, as well as giving everyone from event videographers to low budget indie dudes better latitude and depth-of-field. Event and news shooters might not need full 35mm Hollywood Panavision depth-of-field glory. As an event shooter, I will say that I definitely do need some for creative purposes. Sure there are ways to do it on a 1/3 camera, but 2/3 would be a decent step towards more control and also be would probably be good enough for many of us for filmmaking purposes as well.

Also, competitive specs against the upcoming 2/3 sensor Scarlets would be good for the major camera companies to have on their slate.

I just think it is more realistic and logical for them to move from 1/3 sensor cameras towards 1/2 or 2/3 ones, then after that bring on the 4/3 or APS-C large sensor cameras.
 
Unless Panasonic has a complete change of policy, you will not see 1/2" imagers in Panasonic cameras. Already been explored, there are reasons.

Dan
 
puredrifting said:
Unless Panasonic has a complete change of policy, you will not see 1/2" imagers in Panasonic cameras. Already been explored, there are reasons.

Dan
Click to expand...

I'm just thinking on an overall level, that moving from 1/3 to 1/2 or 2/3 sensors would be more feasible for most of the camera companies in the not too distant future, as opposed to jumping right into full frame or APS-C sensors.

I guess we'll have to wait and see. I will say that I am glad Canon is going with this MPEG-2 setup. I mean come on, 4:2:2 is not too shabby at all.
 
Nektonic said:
... I will say that I am glad Canon is going with this MPEG-2 setup. I mean come on, 4:2:2 is not too shabby at all.
Click to expand...

...especially if they put a genuine full raster imaging block in it that can approach resolving 1000 lines of detail cleanly, even if it is built around three "itsy-bitsy" little tiny 1/3" imaging chips.

Images that are as detailed as what the EX1 yields, only recorded with better compression (image quality wise - higher bitrate) and at 4:2:2 sounds dang good to me (even if it isn't quite as light sensitive as an EX1).
 
Last edited:
Robert M Wright said:
...especially if they put a genuine full raster imaging block in it that can approach resolving 1000 lines of detail cleanly, even if it is built around three "itsy-bitsy" little tiny 1/3" imaging chips.

Images that are as detailed as what the EX1 yields, only recorded with better compression (image quality wise - higher bitrate) and at 4:2:2 sounds dang good to me (even if it isn't quite as light sensitive as an EX1).
Click to expand...

I think we're on the same page. I just hope that Canon can improve the low light capabilities from the A1 to this camera, throw in 720 60p and native 24p and I'm ready to sell my A1 and buy this puppy.
 
dcloud said:
basing on the gh1, i would say having a camera with m43 sensor wouldnt be far off since the gh1 has an almost video like quality in autofocusing.. but of course I think its very unlikely to happen now but in the next couple of years.
Click to expand...

Taking the guts of a GH1 and designing a true motion picture camera, really would be pretty close to starting from square one.

The GH1 seems to me to perhaps be a really good example of a still camera that's got pretty neat video capability as a secondary feature (indeed a slick bonus in a still camera) - but, as a practical matter, what would be fairly weak and of only quite limited use, if the guts were transplanted (as-is) into a prosumer camcorder chassis.

It would need more than rudimentary audio. It would need a video codec that's at least a little better than what would be considered fairly lame in even a consumer camcorder. This is fundamental stuff, in a prosumer camcorder, that the GH1 simply lacks - never mind that kind of shallow DOF, on the whole, is indeed more a liability than a benefit for ENG-like pro video purposes (which again, at risk of sounding repetitive, really is what justifies the purchase of the vast majority of low-cost prosumer camcorders, and actually brings home the bacon - not feature film making for profit).
 
Nektonic said:
throw in 720 60p and native 24p and I'm ready to sell my A1 and buy this puppy.
Click to expand...

720p60 capability is pretty much a requirement, for me to even consider getting one of Canon's new camcorders, or any future camcorders for that matter. It is, by far, my preferred format to shoot most often. At this point, I'm pretty much done with camcorders that are not capable of recording 60p video. I'm pretty happy with the HMC40, and it will suit me just fine until there is a nicely affordable option for shooting 720p60 (or eventually 1080p60) with better light sensitivity. The HMC40 certainly isn't great in low light, but it's not the shoot-only-on-sunny-days-at-high-noon camera some folks seem to think it is.

I don't consider 1080p absolutely vital, but do like to have the ability to shoot 1080p, on occasion, that actually yields more detail than can be recorded with 720 lines - one of the main reasons I'm not very interested in an HMC150 at current prices. When the 150 goes under $2500, then I might seriously consider one if all the reasonably close to 1080 line capable cams are still close to or above $4k.
 
Robert M Wright said:
720p60 capability is pretty much a requirement, for me to even consider getting one of Canon's new camcorders, or any future camcorders for that matter.
Click to expand...

I'd be pretty surprised if Canon, by obviously aiming at higher end users (compared to the A1 and HDV) with this new cam's MPEG-2 422 color space, did not put in a 720 60p mode. I'd be very surprised indeed if that wasn't in the specs.
 
Robert M Wright said:
There just simply isn't a viable market for such a beast.
Click to expand...
Says who? Please cite sources for this market research.

If Panasonic (or one of the other majors) puts out a camera with a large imaging chip like that, truly designed as a motion picture camera, it's going to be a camera with a price tag well into 5 figures (at least)
Click to expand...
Says who? Please site sources for this engineering and pricing research.

and they aren't going to weigh it down with a low-end codec.
Click to expand...
Sony released a $20,000 "CineAlta" camera with 35mbps MPEG-2. The HMC40 you have has a better codec than that.
 
Robert M Wright said:
I'd be pretty surprised if a Scarlet with anything bigger than a 2/3" imager costs less than $10k.
Click to expand...
They've already announced that it will be $7500. Of course, all things are subject to change, and that's "brain" only, and on and on and on...

Sure, there's indeed a market for a killer sub $10k motion picture camera with a 35mm imager - not big enough to sell enough cameras to recoup R&D costs though.
Click to expand...
Please cite your source for this declarative statement on the business of professional camcorder engineering.

A camera with an imager that large just doesn't have much use for ENG like purposes
Click to expand...
Agreed

and if it's going to come in under $10k, it's not going to be robust enough to be used for major motion pictures either.
Click to expand...
Well, first of all, depends on what you mean by "major", because major films can find uses for just about anything -- but no, I would certainly not expect a sub-$10k video camera to be used as the A-camera on a major feature film. But I think it's a safe bet to say there are tens of thousands of video production companies for whom such a product would be highly appealing, and that's just in the US.

You just aren't going to ever find many films shot with semi-pro like (prosumer) cameras that record AVCHD playing in major theaters - won't happen.
Click to expand...
Please cite your source for this declarative statement. Seeing as we've already seen dozens of films shot on miniDV, it seems perfectly reasonable to think that we will see similar adoption of even more-appropriate filmmaking tools, and I think it's also safe to say that AVCHD is infinitely superior to miniDV.

Essentially it would be a hobby level cam for wish-I-was-a-film-maker types (a relatively small market).
Click to expand...
How small? Small compared to what? How many hundreds of thousands of DVX100s and HVX200s and HPX170s and HMC150s and EX1s and HD100s and XHA1s and XLH1s and HV20s and HV40s and 7Ds and GH1s and 5Ds have been sold to that exact same market? My guess, combined, based on the research I've done with dealers and the books I've sold and the seminars I've given, plus the statements from the companies on how many they've sold, plus the membership of DVXUser, puts that combined number at probably around 300,000 to 500,000. A small market, yes, for an industry that sells 130,000 D90s every month, but not so small a market that it will be ignored.
 
Xian Messerschmidt said:
More surprises (and potential arguments) in store? http://www.hdwarrior.co.uk/2010/02/04/canon-to-announce-new-camcorder-at-bafta-in-london/
Click to expand...
The early info all points to a very high spec camcorder with 50 Mbs and 4:2:2 colour space, such specs don’t come in a prosumer hand held solid state 1/3″ camcorder or do they ?
Click to expand...
There is nothing that prevents having these specs on a sub-$1K consumer camcorder except for manufacturers' divide et impera policy.
 
Cranky said:
There is nothing that prevents having these specs on a sub-$1K consumer camcorder except for manufacturers' divide et impera policy.
Click to expand...

Not true.

Firstly, consumers wouldn't want those specs. Secondly, the hardware required to process that data would be much more expensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top