New Canon Pro HD Camcorders Announced: XF300 & XF305

Must be; even then it's hard to see how an interchangeable-lens large-sensor camera is competing with a fixed-lens 1/3" camera. I figured the HMC150 would be the most direct competitor (since they're both 1/3" fixed-lens long-GoP cheap-memory recorders).
 
Barry_Green said:
I figured the HMC150 would be the most direct competitor (since they're both 1/3" fixed-lens long-GoP cheap-memory recorders).
Click to expand...

This is one way of describing the plain technical similarities.
So you don´t think that the Canons 1/3" sensor and DSP will be more advanced than that of the HMC150?
And you do not expect the new Canon 50mbit 422 codec to perform any better than the HMCs AVCCAM...?
In that book the EX1 is probably also competing with the HMC and not the HPX170...
 
Spartacus said:
This is one way of describing the plain technical similarities.
So you don´t think that the Canons 1/3" sensor and DSP will be more advanced than that of the HMC150?
And you do not expect the new Canon 50mbit 422 codec to perform any better than the HMCs AVCCAM...?
In that book the EX1 is probably also competing with the HMC and not the HPX170...
Click to expand...
Where did Barry say that the HMC150 competes with the XF300? He just said that it is a more comparable to the XF300 than the AF100.

If anything, in his question to the other poster, he seems to state that the HMC150 does not compete with the XF300.
 
Spartacus said:
So you don´t think that the Canons 1/3" sensor and DSP will be more advanced than that of the HMC150?
Click to expand...
It had better be, seeing as the unit costs twice as much.

And you do not expect the new Canon 50mbit 422 codec to perform any better than the HMCs AVCCAM...?
Click to expand...
It had better, since it costs twice as much.

If it doesn't seriously outperform the HMC150, while costing twice as much, that'd be pretty embarrassing for them, wouldn't it?

In that book the EX1 is probably also competing with the HMC and not the HPX170...
Click to expand...
The HMC150 is a 4:2:0 long-GoP fixed-lens camcorder, and so's the EX1, so ... an argument could be made for that, yes. But the 170 has HD-SDI and variable frame rates, so the argument could be made there, too.

The EX1 is the closest direct competitor for the Canon. They're priced roughly comparable, and if the Canon is using the chipset from the HPX370, it'll outperform the EX1 in sensitivity, noise, and recording format.
 
dcloud said:
he "figured" because there are no other avccam product that is at the same price range.
Click to expand...
Right. What I was saying is, there is NO direct competitor to the XF300 in the AVCCAM lineup. The very topmost model in the AVCCAM line is less than half as expensive as the XF300, so it shouldn't be considered a direct competitor.

The only direct competitor to the XF300 on the market at all, that I can think of, would be the EX1. Fixed-lens, handheld, full-raster CMOS camcorders recording long-GoP 8-bit MPEG-2. And in that comparison, I think the XF300 will probably acquit itself very well and may even outperform the EX1.
 
The HMC has global shutter, and being Panasonic I would expect the color to be better than the Canon. Even though the Canon will probably rock in resolution and test charts, the HMC could be better in some applications.
 
Sorry I meant the af100 vs xf300. I know its a full frame vs 3x1/3cmos and its premature to actually seeing these cams in action. I was just saying 422 has the edge to me, so far in my opinion. HMC150 doesnt bear the avccam badge, the hmc40 was the first right? global is always my preference, but if the choice is between jellocams, I'd choose the one with better color.
 
They need to fix the avchd badge to avoid confusing dreary minded early morn chyron ops like myself. Do the new models ship with 'avccam' on the side?
 
Personally I'm totally "in love" with this camera from specs to hardware. I'm dead set on being one of the first owners and I'm poised to be there. I'll pay the 7 to 8K if that's what it takes and will be pleased to see how great this camera will stack up against my already totally satisfied XH-A1 which I will use as our second cams now that we went Media Composer and will be able to mix and match formats and codecs.

The turn ons are the lens range, fully manual with stops, excellent menu control system that Canon is known for with finite detail programming, and functionality. I can't wait to get my hands on one and will glady travel up to 300 miles for an opportunity if anyone knows someone who has one for testing?

Lastly, the CF was an excellent choice as we use it regularly with our Nikon pro cameras and love how robust the media are and have used them in -30 degree weather routinely. They are fast off loads and just the right size for handling compared to the small, lightweight, easily bendable, and easy to lose SD HC cards.

Thank you Canon for stepping forward a notch or two or three!
 
Thanks for the images... Nice quality...

The level of color correction in its menu really interests me, it is really thorough. Kind of a good idea having this as the main tripod cam and an A1 for handheld. Looks like you'll be setup nicely, doc.
 
Looks similar to HDV in blocking artifacts, which is normal:

25mbit 1440x1080 4:2:0 HDV encodes 1440x1080 luma and 2x720x540 chroma per frame. Which is only 36,450 8x8 blocks per frame.

4:2:2 1920x1080 encodes 1920x1080 luma and 2x960x1080 chroma per frame. This is 64,800 8x8 blocks per frame.

So, the new format needs 64,800/36,450=1.778x the dara rate of HDV to achieve the same compession ratio/ quantisation, which is 44.45mbit/sec. Since the new format is 50mbits/sec, that doesn't leave much room for improvement in artifacts. It is only there to keep up with the higher resolution. HDV will still compete and AVCHD could even look better in difficult scenes, both at half the rate.
 
Keep in mind, I don't know what compression quality was used on that clip, I only know recording format. It could have been 35mbit or 25mbit. That being said, these frame grabs smoke everything I've ever seen from HDV by a long shot. The AVCHD comparison is, of course, theoretical at the moment until a side by side comparison can be done - but I would guess that it is possible for AVCHD to look almost as good, but I highly doubt it would look better. When you get up to these higher bit-rates, the law of diminishing returns starts to take over.

edit: I also feel a major factor in setting these Canon's apart will be their alleged ability to record 12 stops of DR. Those screen grabs wouldn't really highlight that feature, if it is indeed true as the Canon reps have claimed
 
Last edited:
12stops is impossible on this pixel size. Canon actually mentioned 12 stops? So it will be better than any $50,000 to $200,000 camera in dynamic range? That's ridiculous. Red One cannot do that, no 2/3" shoulder mount can do that, even a Sony F35 cannot do that in regular video gamma.

The effective pixel area on this camera is:

2.6x smaller than of a Canon A1 (line summming 1440x1080i=1440x540 effective)
4.0x smaller than that of a Panasonic HVX (progressive 960x540) or any 1080p 2/3" professional ENG camera
10.7x smaller than that of a Canon 5D.

2x within the same sensor technology is 1 stops better, 4x 2 stops better, 8x 3 stops better. In the real world the difference is greater, a pixel 8x smaller performs like a pixel 16x to 32x times smaller due to additional design limitations inherent in small pixels. Then there is the higher frequency the video capable sensors have to operate in which adds noise vs a dSLR pixel.

So, judging by other Canon sensors and the state of the art in sensor technology, I would say 10 stops in a datasheet and 7 stops in the real world is the maximum it could hope to get. The samples look like 5 stops. The grays are already consumed by noise and artifacts. You wouldn't be able to discern that black shirt from its surrounding pixels if this was underexposed by two stops.

Being enthusiastic is good, but reality has to play some part in the expectations. The realistic expectation is that it will be sharper than the A1 in good light but the A1 will probably be better in dynamic range due to its far larger effective pixel size.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top