Resfest - Info on new HD cams - Canon = wow!
- Thread starter mgalvan
- Start date
Damon Botsford
Court Jester
Damn, I wish I wouldn't have read this thread...
Now I'm only 99.99% sure that I'll buy a HVX! I think that when they finally get this thing fully revved up, the 24p @ 1080 oughta blow everybody away. I hate the fact that they're showing footage from an unfinished camera. I'll bet they didn't want to reveal footage just yet, but wanted to stick to their word (which I really respect). Now let's put some lipstick on this pig and knock this baby out.
Now I'm only 99.99% sure that I'll buy a HVX! I think that when they finally get this thing fully revved up, the 24p @ 1080 oughta blow everybody away. I hate the fact that they're showing footage from an unfinished camera. I'll bet they didn't want to reveal footage just yet, but wanted to stick to their word (which I really respect). Now let's put some lipstick on this pig and knock this baby out.
..the thingis that everyone is scared of pixel shifting. like its a bad thing, and i dont know why. pixel shifting can give you higher resolution without any loss in quality. I think people just dont understand what pixel shifting is, and they automatically assume its a bad thing since the CCD's are not some naitive resolution in and of themselves. thruth be told a 4:2:2 camera will have BETTER performance and can still have FULL NAITIVE resolution through pixel shifting, and would actually perform worse if using the same size chips at naitive resolution to the spec. so why on earth would a canon rep smile about the panasonic camera using pixel shifting? its the smartest thing the could possibly do. and canon would be smart to do it too. they just say things like that to try and scare people when in fact hes not really stating much at all but that panasonic is being smart.
Digigenic
Well-known member
Awesome Res Report MG :thumbsup:
I remember attending last year’s DVExpo East Conference when Canon unveiled the XL2. Even in the face of many who were seemingly disappointed for its lack of HDV (myself included), the Canon reps remained optimistic and very open about the product. Naturally, their confidence rubbed off on everyone who helped themselves to handling one of the many working XL2's they had on the showfloor. To see the transformation on every disgruntled videographer's face that approached the booth with a frown and walked away with a smile was no different than seeing the face of a recently pacified crybaby. Everybody came in cranky and whining at the fact it had no HDV (myself included), then Canon simply shoved the cameras into our hands and we shut up. For Canon, actions speak louder than words, and because of this, they'll remain deeply rooted within the indie film/video community for however long they remain capable of meeting and/or exceeding the demands of those within that community.
I remember attending last year’s DVExpo East Conference when Canon unveiled the XL2. Even in the face of many who were seemingly disappointed for its lack of HDV (myself included), the Canon reps remained optimistic and very open about the product. Naturally, their confidence rubbed off on everyone who helped themselves to handling one of the many working XL2's they had on the showfloor. To see the transformation on every disgruntled videographer's face that approached the booth with a frown and walked away with a smile was no different than seeing the face of a recently pacified crybaby. Everybody came in cranky and whining at the fact it had no HDV (myself included), then Canon simply shoved the cameras into our hands and we shut up. For Canon, actions speak louder than words, and because of this, they'll remain deeply rooted within the indie film/video community for however long they remain capable of meeting and/or exceeding the demands of those within that community.
Graeme_Nattress
Red Team
Pixelshift is not evil if:
a) not abused to get too much resolution
b) done so that you meaningfully get bigger photosites for better dynamic range and lower noise
c) have good enough, ie sharp enough, glass on the front of the camera to pass through enough resolution
with a 1/3" camera, c) would seem to be the real sticking point. I know Canon can make some nice lenses, but like everyone, can make some right stinkers too.
I really see three approaches here:
Sony, medium resolution chip + pixel shift, + poor lens
Canon, higher resolution chip, no pixel shift, + currently unknown, but suspected good lens
Panasonic, with, we're guessing lower resolution chip + pixelshift, + good enough lens to get the benefit.
Three different compromises, three different ways of looking at the problem and three solutions, with Panasonic and Canon at the extremes, and Sony stuck in the middle.
Time will now tell all.......
Graeme
a) not abused to get too much resolution
b) done so that you meaningfully get bigger photosites for better dynamic range and lower noise
c) have good enough, ie sharp enough, glass on the front of the camera to pass through enough resolution
with a 1/3" camera, c) would seem to be the real sticking point. I know Canon can make some nice lenses, but like everyone, can make some right stinkers too.
I really see three approaches here:
Sony, medium resolution chip + pixel shift, + poor lens
Canon, higher resolution chip, no pixel shift, + currently unknown, but suspected good lens
Panasonic, with, we're guessing lower resolution chip + pixelshift, + good enough lens to get the benefit.
Three different compromises, three different ways of looking at the problem and three solutions, with Panasonic and Canon at the extremes, and Sony stuck in the middle.
Time will now tell all.......
Graeme
..well its just silly. even HDCAM doesnt use full 1920 x 1080 for its compression. it uses less pixels and then displays differently on output. it just doesnt make sense to make full res chips that would have bad latitude when your going to downsample for compression anyway. what makes the most sense is to use the least amount of pixels you can to maintain latitude and sensetivity while using pixel shift to increase the resolution without any loss whatsoever to the resolution that the codec naitively compresses at. that makes tha most sense. you get the best CCD performance in terms of light sensitivity and latitude.. and the exact same detail and resolution as a "naitive res" CCD.
... right now my take on it is that canon has played the chip of: "look how high res our CCDs are" .. neato.. too bad they are interlaced chips, and will very likely have less sensetivity and latitude while giving a resolution no better than the HVX. so they gave up 24p or ANYTHING thats true progressive for that matter, and stuck some ultra packed little pixles onto little 1/3" CCDs for some reason. i dont know.. i dont get it.. perhaps thier whole marketing stratagy is built around people seeing those big pixel numbers and thinking bigger is better when in fact its very likely not. they also went the 15 GOP route which is just.. bah.. nevermind. I was really hoping they would do something innovative to yet further push the envelope, but instead theyve developed their own little proprietary fake progressive system just so they can use cheap interlaced chips in an HDV camera. .. i dont know.. id love to see some imagery.. im sure it looks great, but i dont think theyve really added anything new to the game really .. the camera has some other nice features though like genlock and such. If I were into the HDV thing id have a hard time deciding between cams. pending the price point of the canon it would make it a little easier, but I dont think theyve really dented the HVX with the HD canon on the table.. on paper at least. however ..im inclinded to believe that we'll all see that 1+1=2 soon enough though.
... right now my take on it is that canon has played the chip of: "look how high res our CCDs are" .. neato.. too bad they are interlaced chips, and will very likely have less sensetivity and latitude while giving a resolution no better than the HVX. so they gave up 24p or ANYTHING thats true progressive for that matter, and stuck some ultra packed little pixles onto little 1/3" CCDs for some reason. i dont know.. i dont get it.. perhaps thier whole marketing stratagy is built around people seeing those big pixel numbers and thinking bigger is better when in fact its very likely not. they also went the 15 GOP route which is just.. bah.. nevermind. I was really hoping they would do something innovative to yet further push the envelope, but instead theyve developed their own little proprietary fake progressive system just so they can use cheap interlaced chips in an HDV camera. .. i dont know.. id love to see some imagery.. im sure it looks great, but i dont think theyve really added anything new to the game really .. the camera has some other nice features though like genlock and such. If I were into the HDV thing id have a hard time deciding between cams. pending the price point of the canon it would make it a little easier, but I dont think theyve really dented the HVX with the HD canon on the table.. on paper at least. however ..im inclinded to believe that we'll all see that 1+1=2 soon enough though.
..well said Graeme,
.. the only reason im so bothered by it is because latitude is SOOOOO important in my book. so holding onto it when possible is like holding onto gold for me. IMHO i think its a BIG part of the filmlook, and can seriously improove imagery. part of the reason film looks so nice because its not compressing everything into shadows, or blowing things into white. and the ability to capture that wide range of light really helps when your trying to "paint with light and shadow. its like adding a whole new palate of paint to work with for every stop of latitude you gain. ... anyway yeah.. im not canon bashing.. i was just hoping for more innovation.. but of course IMHO its perfectly like canon to sit and see what other companys do innovatively , and then put out a clone which tries to claim its own special niche without much of a leg to stand on to set it apart. .. not saying they dont make good stuff.. they just dont innovate much is all. im sure the new canon HD will be very nice.. the XL2 is great.. so itll be a new game for canon peeps at least.
.. the only reason im so bothered by it is because latitude is SOOOOO important in my book. so holding onto it when possible is like holding onto gold for me. IMHO i think its a BIG part of the filmlook, and can seriously improove imagery. part of the reason film looks so nice because its not compressing everything into shadows, or blowing things into white. and the ability to capture that wide range of light really helps when your trying to "paint with light and shadow. its like adding a whole new palate of paint to work with for every stop of latitude you gain. ... anyway yeah.. im not canon bashing.. i was just hoping for more innovation.. but of course IMHO its perfectly like canon to sit and see what other companys do innovatively , and then put out a clone which tries to claim its own special niche without much of a leg to stand on to set it apart. .. not saying they dont make good stuff.. they just dont innovate much is all. im sure the new canon HD will be very nice.. the XL2 is great.. so itll be a new game for canon peeps at least.
iamloser said:
Well the thing is this Canon camera can output uncompressed HD and therefore bypass any in-camera compression, so the native pixel count is of vial importance to them. The rep almost didn't even want to talk about the HDV portion of it .... He even said he personally wouldn't want to shoot in HDV, even with this camera ... goes to show that they are really trying to play off this uncompressed ability.
Again, although I only saw footage from the EVF/LCD, it did indeed look nice. And 24F did look like 24P. But again, he stressed "we'll be doing a filmout really soon to show how 24F holds its own."
Graeme_Nattress
Red Team
SDI output is really nice, and for a select few people, useful, but for the vast majority it will sit there and do nothing, just as most XL1 users never change their lens - they can, but they never do, yet they probably bought the camera for that "feature".
Personally, I don't know why Canon didn't make two cameras, one for shooting, one for studio, and priced and featured accordingly? That is, unless the SDI was really cheap to implement.
I'd like the HVX200 to have SDI also, and as I have a HD SDI card, that would be useful-ish for me.
However, given that a 2/3" HD camera needs a lens 2.7 times sharper than a top end 2/3" SD camera (according to Canon), that would make a 1/3" HD camera need a 5.4 times sharper lens, so although the output will be "uncompressed", you'll be seeing imperfections in the lens before you see lack of resolution in the CCDs, even on lower resolution CCDs......
Graeme
Personally, I don't know why Canon didn't make two cameras, one for shooting, one for studio, and priced and featured accordingly? That is, unless the SDI was really cheap to implement.
I'd like the HVX200 to have SDI also, and as I have a HD SDI card, that would be useful-ish for me.
However, given that a 2/3" HD camera needs a lens 2.7 times sharper than a top end 2/3" SD camera (according to Canon), that would make a 1/3" HD camera need a 5.4 times sharper lens, so although the output will be "uncompressed", you'll be seeing imperfections in the lens before you see lack of resolution in the CCDs, even on lower resolution CCDs......
Graeme
Haakon said:I'm sure he's going to say anything that puts his company/product in the best light. Really, all the jargon and phrase-twisting that's surrounded these cameras lately just feels like politics to me. There are a lot of posts being made that stretch concepts so far to make the point for their preffered camera that it's making my head spin. The worst thing is that none of these cameras are available yet (save the offerings from Sony), so even though we have "specs," most of people's outlooks are pure speculation. Well, he's right... Panasonic did announce their camera eons ago. They also said it would take eons to make. And hey, Canon's camera, although it's being released quite shortly after they've announced it, is still coming out at just about the same time as the HVX. So really, the release situation for both cameras is near identical... one company just happened to open their mouths (much) sooner. None of it will matter when the footage is released.
It's interesting how people perceive different things, isn't it? I'm sure some people scurried over to get the JVC just because it "looked cool." And of course, by realistic standards, that's the last reason you should really be purchasing a camera. I'm sure Canon feels they have a winner (would they bother working on a camera that they thought was a loser?)but obviously their enthusiasm was enough to rub off on you and get you thinking as well. The funny thing is, these little things do make a difference... some salesperson can rub someone the right or wrong way and change their mind based on their experiences and perceptions. Did I mention this whole thing feels like politics? Lol...
It's easy to not be shy when the brute numbers are in your favor. It's sounding more and more like the HVX is going to have smaller native CCDs overall just based on the comments Jan has made and the fact that they haven't released any information yet. Note that this isn't necessarily a bad thing - more pixels on the same size chip means smaller pixels, which can translate into less latitude, more noise, and greater seceptibility to a myriad of other problems. Raw resolution is just one part of the giant puzzle. (Though it is funny how some of the same people who were saying we didn't need the HVX because HD isn't here yet and no one can view it, blah blah, are now saying the Canon is superior because its chips are likely bigger and have greater resolution.) *rolls eyes*
The proof will be in the pudding. At the end of the day, it's pretty awesome that any of these new generation of cameras are going to be able to capture spectacular images that we were never able to before at anywhere near this price point. Still... as someone on the "other" forum put it, "24F... what the F?" Haha...
That is a good point. But for products that are seemingly so important to these companies, one would think that thesd companies would have all those representing them be knowledgeable and helpful in their explainations. Both companies had that ... with Jan for Panasonic and the Canon rep for Canon (I didn't get his name
).The thing is that it was Jan that knew everything and the rest were like Panasonic's minions, out there with no real practical knowledge and all they did was spew "P2 is great." Canon, on the other hand, had reps that really weren't sales people and didn't harass you about why this or that was great. I had a far better experience at the Canon area.
Things like this may seem trivial to some, but they can be a factor in the decision making process. As I said, I was all HVX till yesterday, and that had to do with Canon's willingness to answer my questions and their courteousness. Of course, I'll go for whatever camera will suite me best (and the HVX still seems to be that as of now), but for usch high profile products for each respective company, their public representation is very important, especially since their are those out there on the undecided line. And look at me, I was on line and Panasonic and it was enough to put me on the undecided line ....
..every single one of the new inexpensive HD cameras can output uncompressed HD. the issue is.. who is going to buy the equipment to capture or deal with uncompressed? its very very costly. and if your going to be using a 4:2:2 codec of any kind to edit with .. your playing the same game again. so unless your processing full 4:4:4 output.. its a somewhat a useless feature IMHO. I mean its cool to have it there, but not very practical on lower end budgets.
iamloser said:
Actually, the Canon is the only one that can really output uncompressed through HD-SDI. All the others can't ... they have Analog component out. HD-SDI will provide the pure signal ... This wouldn't be news if all of the other cameras had this ability ...
But again, I agree with you wholeheartedly on this ... though a great feature, this is something that very few will be able to utilize, especially indie filmmakers. This is a point I was trying to make at the Canon booth - why should I even care about this if I am using it for Indie filmmaking (I like playing devil's advocate).
But again, Canon said "we just announced this camera to the world in the last couple days. People now know what we are offering. I mean, Focus Enhancements cetainly knows what we have in mind." Take that with a grain of salt, but he was saying that 3rd party companies are now aware of their HD-SDI capabilities and are open to take advantage of it.
Barry_Green
Moderator
iamloser said:
You beat me to it. I thought i was gonna win the award for pointing out the irony in that statement. Oh well...
Yes, Canon was the biggest proponent of pixel shift that's ever lived. The original XL1 used CCDs with 250,000 pixels, and "pixel shift", to deliver a full-res image to the DV frame (345,600 pixels). For them to now imply that pixel shift is bad is... well, it's laughable, it's ironic, and it's downright suspicious. Because it forces them to either admit that six years of XL1 sales were all "bogus", or that they're lying now. That's a rock-and-a-hard-place conundrum I wouldn't want to be stuck in.
I think whoever said it above about the native-res-for-HD-SDI situation was probably right. In the multi-page essay I posted here a couple of months ago, I said that the only real, valid reason to stick to native-pixel CCDs would be specifically for something like HD-SDI output. Which is one reason why the VariCam uses 1280x720 CCDs, even though its recorded format is 960x720: because it also has HD-SDI output, so it does gain a benefit from using native-res CCDs. And if the Canon is touting that HD-SDI feature as important (and from what I can tell from those excited by this product, that's definitely one feature that they're most excited about) then yes, I would think native-res pixels would be important -- although it begs the question of why they're not 1920x1080 then...
Regarding latitude, Nate Weaver posted a side-by-side DVX vs. JVC HD100 test shoot over on DVInfo; you can download the DVD image and burn it and play it in a DVD player. Interesting thing to see the difference in latitude between the JVC and the DVX; if the native-res Canon has similar latitude to the native-res JVC, and the HVX is already claiming similar latitude to the DVX, I think there will be a stark difference between the images made by the two cameras.
And differences are good -- differences help customers make up their minds. Right now, with no footage at all from two of the contenders, and limited access to the third, and the only one in mass production being the one that filmmakers don't want, it's very tough to make up one's mind. Hopefully a couple of months from now we'll be able to clear some of this up.
mgalvan said:
yes, HD-SDI uncompressed capture equipment is WAAAAY cheaper than Analog uncompressed, so thats definitely a good thing goign for them, a decklink pro for capturing 4:4:4 is listed at 1,495.00 which is pennys compared to analog stuffs. but like you and i both said.. whos going to be ablke to or afford to use 4:4:4.. and again, if you capture at 4:2:2 .. then whats the point? they should have pixel shifted. but oh well.. it will be a great camera either way im sure.. its nice to have more choice at least. and continue the drive for competition and innovation for the future.