New Canon Pro HD Camcorders Announced: XF300 & XF305

I think the hpx300/370 series is a much better comparison for the new Canon's, but it's not a clear win for the Pannys. As for the 100mbps AVC-Intra, it's generally regarded that 50mbps MPEG is equivalent and they both meet all HD broadcast standards (chip size notwithstanding). The shoulder mount vs handheld can be a pro or con depending on the type of material you're shooting. Also, remember that the hpx300 has been a moderately troubled camera from the beginning (heavy noise, significant skew: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=171864), and has already been supplanted by the 370, which costs $2400 more than the Canon XF300 and $1200 more than the XF305. And don't forget to factor in media costs; CF cards are a flat-out bargain compared to P2.

The HPX300 is going for $7700, so that is still more than the XF300, but less than the 305. The HPX300 does include an interchangeable lens, SDI out and timecode genlock for that price, but from what I can tell so far, IQ suffers on the 300 when compared to what I've seen so far from the Canon XF line. The 370 I'm certain stacks up much closer to the XF's in IQ and just exceeds it in features, but you're paying 35-40% more for it + the cost of media.

In all honesty, it seems like the Canons are hitting a pretty nice price point in terms of features & IQ. I still wish they would come down by $800 or so, but I think they are priced according to the market for what they offer.
 
As for the 100mbps AVC-Intra, it's generally regarded that 50mbps MPEG is equivalent and they both meet all HD broadcast standards (chip size notwithstanding).
Click to expand...
AVC-I is 10bit intraframe. surely avc=i is way better color and compression wise

I dont think you can compare the 300 with the xf300 they're on a diff market
im sure the 300 is slowly being phased out
although 370 is certainly better in lowlight

if panny released an 170 with 370 sensors, thats the same market
 
Yes, it's rolling shutter CMOS with more than 2 megapixel so it should be same resolution with this Canon and 1:1 pixel resolution from sensor to format luma. They should be quite similar from an imaging point of view at the sensor level.
 
dcloud said:
AVC-I is 10bit intraframe. surely avc=i is way better color and compression wise
Click to expand...

At these bitrates (50 mbps MPEG & 100 mbps AVC-I) difference between AVC and MPEG-2 are minimal. EBU tested them both and the verdict was that their minimum acquisition requirements were either 100 mbps intra or 50 mbps long-GOP.
 
im not saying they cant look equal.
im saying there are advantages with 100mbps 10 bit Intra.. like in post processing or certain situations.
But definitely, the mpeg2 50mbps is enough for anything. but it cant be technically equal to avc-i100
 
dcloud said:
im not saying they cant look equal.
im saying there are advantages with 100mbps 10 bit Intra.. like in post processing or certain situations.
But definitely, the mpeg2 50mbps is enough for anything. but it cant be technically equal to avc-i100
Click to expand...

You are correct, sir. With 10-bit & it's smooth handling of of high-motion scenes, AVC-I 100 does have the edge!
 
Huy Vu said:
No, it is not. The HPX300 uses a completely different chip block that is full raster.
Click to expand...

then it would come down to lens and format and i guess my personal experience with P2's HD100 is difficult format to work with compared to the MPEG2 format which sounds (and from experience is) easy as working DV or HDV which to this shoot and edit guy is a "plus plus" let alone canon's super reputation for high end quality lenses.
 
drdimento said:
then it would come down to lens and format and i guess my personal experience with P2's HD100 is difficult format to work with compared to the MPEG2 format which sounds (and from experience is) easy as working DV or HDV which to this shoot and edit guy is a "plus plus" let alone canon's super reputation for high end quality lenses.
Click to expand...

???

P2 footage is VERY easy to work with. I haven't edited AVC Intra but I've worked with plenty of DVCPROHD footages as well as HDV and my experience is that DVCPROHD requires less processing time and is much smoother to work with due to its intraframe compression. Any Long GOP codec is going to be inherently harder to deal with in post.
 
Huy Vu said:
??? . . . P2 footage is VERY easy to work with. I haven't edited AVC Intra but I've worked with plenty of DVCPROHD footages as well as HDV and my experience is that DVCPROHD requires less processing time and is much smoother to work with due to its intraframe compression. Any Long GOP codec is going to be inherently harder to deal with in post.
Click to expand...

not the same with us. our dvcprohd in our avid systems with 3.6GHz xeon x 2 with 8gb memory and fast 512mb ati cards, were very cumbersome and chopping in viewing. also, my understanding is that the canon isn't a high compression format but in fact mpeg2 which is what we had to use as a codec on the dvcprohd to even get the 100mb data work flow to work when the video was over 5 or 10 mins long which any pure mpeg2 original we have used is slick fast.
 
At the same time, NLE's have been editing long GOP formats for years, and MPEG2 has a very well established reputation and post workflow. AVC intra is newer, but has been quickly adopted by the top editing systems. At this point, if you can edit 50 mbps MPEG you can probably just as easily edit AVC Intra 100, & vice versa. Any differences in quality and processing time will be virtually imperceptible.
 
Datarate numbers do not tell the whole story.

According to almost everything I have read on the subject, including EBU material and for the SAME resolution and chroma sampling (same total pixels), AVCintra saves 10% over mpeg2, and AVC saves 40-50%. These are from metrics in real world video. In a synthetic test one could break the GOP codecs quite easily at any data rate.

100mbit AVC-Intra = 55-67mbit AVC = 110mbit mpeg2.
50mbit AVC-Intra = 27-34mbit AVC = 55mbit mpeg2.
24mbit AVC = 35-43mbit mpeg2 = 32-39mbit AVC-Intra (although the rate is a little low for intraframe, it could start performing worse at that point while the GOP formats will still be in their sweet spot).

So, AVCIntra will compete with mpeg2 even at the same rate.

The formats with lower resolution can get high quality at smaller total data rate (using same data rate per pixel):

25mbit mpeg2 1440x1080 4:2:0 has same pixel quality and compression ratio with 44mbit 1920x1080 4:2:2 mpeg2. They will start macroblocking at the same point, but the 1440x1080 4:2:0 blocks will be a 1.33x larger in luma horizontally, 1.33x larger in chroma horizontally and 2x larger in chroma vertically, a lot more visible. If you look in the different modes the cameras provide, they are always reducing the resolution and chroma when they need a lower rate (25mbit or 35mbit). Don't assume the 50mbit on the Canon will be better than its other modes, it needs the rate for the 1.78x higher pixel resolution it encodes but it could even break sooner due to CBR vs VBR encoding. It will be sharper though in easy scenes. And I bet it will break at the same point in difficult scenes but with smaller artifacts. 50mbit was a wise decision and the only way to get 1920x1080 4:2:2 with mpeg2.

AVCIntra is quite capable, better than DVCPROHD. It achieves 1920x1080 4:2:2 at the same rate DVCPROHD achieves 1280x1080 4:2:2 and with comparable pixel quality. That's 1.5x the data at the same data rate.

AVCHD needs that 24mbit even though it is a lot more efficient than MPEG2 (25mbit) because it compresses more pixels. 1920x1080 4:2:0 is 1.33x the pixels of 1440x1080 4:2:0.

AVCHD can do 1440x1080 4:2:0 at mpeg2 25mbit quality at a data rate of 14-17mbit. At 17mbit is certainly capable. But in order to match its pixel quality at the 1.33x higher 1920x1080 4:2:0 resolution, it needs 17*1.33=22mbits. Which explains the increasingly common 24mbits.

A datarate that didn't took the pixel number into consideration would result in AVCHD that would break very easily. Many consumer camcorders have these low data rates and perform terribly.
 
Last edited:
cowpunk52 said:
. . . .Any differences in quality and processing time will be virtually imperceptible.
Click to expand...

so then why load down the computer with more processing requirement and double storage space if there is not MARKED improvement but nearly the same of nearly the same within say 8 to 12% worth?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top