Go Back   b-roll.net FORUM > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-07-2010, 07:10 PM
b-roll's Avatar
b-roll b-roll is offline
Founder
Kevin Johnson
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,663
b-roll will become famous soon enough
Default BBC Approves Canon XF300 305 for Independent Productions

From: XDCAM-User

According to the recently updated BBC HD Production Guide, the Canon XF300 (and 305) are approved for independent productions. These Canon’s are now the first 1/3″ chips allowed in HD shows, even though their guidelines require a 1/2″ sensor.

Are small-chip cameras just getting that good, or are standards being loosened?

Let the debate begin.

Read the entire post here
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-08-2010, 07:15 AM
dhart's Avatar
dhart dhart is offline
PRO user
Dennis Hart
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,317
dhart is on a distinguished road
Default

Interesting. Of course Panasonic and Sony were going to block any Canon move into the larger imaging cameras (Canon makes way more money selling them zoom lens). Surprised to see the 50mbs spec. I have a XH A1 and other than being tape based, it's a nice little camera. The body of this new camera is pretty much the same as the A1. Now if they only improved the viewfinder...
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-08-2010, 12:42 PM
zac love's Avatar
zac love zac love is offline
Member
Zachariah James Thiessen Love
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,137
zac love is on a distinguished road
Default

I'm now encouraged to look into this camera a little more. It seems like they did a lot of great improvements on this camera (I like that the LCD is more of a Sony Z1U style, which I think is the best design for LCD screen).

I wonder if the MPEG-2 codec will shorten the life span a little as H.264 is much "newer."


But I'm not bugged by the fact that it is 1/3" CMOS, what matters to me is 3 things...
1. Who wants me to use the camera. (aka If I use this camera will I make money.)
2. How I use the camera. (Are the switches, buttons, rings, nobs... in the right place, & does it fit into a good workflow.)
3. What the picture looks like.

#3 is #3 for a reason, when a phone can shoot HD it means that nearly every camera looks good, and when that is the case I think that #1 & #2 is what sets a professional camera apart from a consumer camera.
__________________
there are two types of film students:
those who make bad movies
& those who don't make any

Last edited by zac love; 07-08-2010 at 12:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-08-2010, 08:13 PM
AlexLucas's Avatar
AlexLucas AlexLucas is offline
Member
Alex Lucas
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 825
AlexLucas is on a distinguished road
Default

In my humble opinion, a phone cannot shoot HD.
Most phones don't even have lenses, they have pinhole cameras.

The XF300 is shooting 4:2:2 50meg. Whoa. That's as good as a Sony 700 XDCam. Also, the camera is 3CMOS. It's not 3CCD. CMOS has higher light sensitivity.

I've been a screamer about imager size for years. Now, I'm rethinking it.
With the differences of the 5D vs. 7D being terribly academic now, short of a one stop difference, it's starting to seem less of an issue.

I think this Canon might be a great camera. I doubt if I'm going to buy it, because I literally sold the XHA1 last month.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-09-2010, 04:47 AM
SimonW's Avatar
SimonW SimonW is offline
Member
Simon Wyndham
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,283
SimonW is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
CMOS has higher light sensitivity.
Not quite true. Noise is an issue with CMOS, and light sensitive areas of the chip are reduced because of the amount of extra bits and bobs needed on them compared to CCD's.
__________________
www.simonwyndham.co.uk
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-09-2010, 09:36 AM
zac love's Avatar
zac love zac love is offline
Member
Zachariah James Thiessen Love
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,137
zac love is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexLucas View Post
CMOS has higher light sensitivity.
I think the real difference between CMOS & CCD is higher performance at lower price. Sony has 2/3" 1920x1080 CMOS & CCD cameras & a couple dozen $k between the cameras. Personally I'll give up my obsessive use of whip-pans & strobe lights to gain resolution & sensitivity at the same price point.

The thing that gets me is I saw on another forum that someone was saying that it will be odd to see 'such a lack of DOF' on TV now that the BBC is adopting 1/3" cameras. Goodness... the BBC has been shooting a ton of their shows on video for ages (compared to a lot of Hollywood), and 2/3" cameras really aren't known for shallow DOF.
__________________
there are two types of film students:
those who make bad movies
& those who don't make any
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-17-2010, 09:29 AM
Newspaper-Video Newspaper-Video is offline
Member
Chuck Fadely
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 30
Newspaper-Video is on a distinguished road
Default

Just saw this about the new Canon XF305: Head of marketing for the camera is Larry Thorpe.

According to TV News Check, "Thorpe's accomplishments include heading the design team that built the groundbreaking RCA TK-47, the first automatic studio camera introduced in 1979. Later at Sony, he was integral to the launch of the Betacam ENG gear, the company's first studio camera and then its early high-definition cameras. He took an early retirement package from Sony and joined Canon USA in 2004."

I think Canon is serious about this.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-18-2010, 10:44 AM
geezer geezer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 325
geezer
Default

Does this new Canon have a digital tele extender?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-18-2010, 10:56 AM
AlexLucas's Avatar
AlexLucas AlexLucas is offline
Member
Alex Lucas
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 825
AlexLucas is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zac love View Post
I think the real difference between CMOS & CCD is higher performance at lower price. Sony has 2/3" 1920x1080 CMOS & CCD cameras & a couple dozen $k between the cameras. Personally I'll give up my obsessive use of whip-pans & strobe lights to gain resolution & sensitivity at the same price point.

The thing that gets me is I saw on another forum that someone was saying that it will be odd to see 'such a lack of DOF' on TV now that the BBC is adopting 1/3" cameras. Goodness... the BBC has been shooting a ton of their shows on video for ages (compared to a lot of Hollywood), and 2/3" cameras really aren't known for shallow DOF.
Why do we keep coming back to chip size as the factor on overall look?
Why is it we, insist, over and over again, that a small camera can't have a 'big look?'
It's been proven, over and over again, that especially now, it is completely WRONG.

DOF is set by the lens. That is it. There is no other factor.
You speak as though a 2/3" camera can't get killer depth. That's true, if your ENG camera has a crappy 'Midnight Special' 3.0-5.6T lens on it. If you're rolling with a Canon 1.8T on it, because you spent real money on lenses, you can get killer depth, all the time. Also, your look, no matter what, is better.

You can get the same DOF from a 2/3" or 1/3" camera with the same lens.
The only real advantage in this day and age with imager size is overall light intake.
If you have ample available light, then the glass is the difference.
In news, that's an issue... we're slaves to what conditions we're given.
But don't think that for production that you need to play that way.

I don't want to get technical, but once again, we all have to acknowledge this lens fact, because we're living in the age of small cameras with Letus35 and RedRock adapters, and DSLRs that use super fast/depthy lenses and tiny, crappy sensors, and they're getting absolutely cracking results with them. Sure, some of them are, mildly, NOT a Red Camera. But guess what? It's also under $2000. Seriously. We can fool you with a $2000 camera kit.

You're saying 'it's a crappy 1/3" camera.' What you should be saying is, 'it's a great, bright, 1/3" camera that has a junk, slow, short throated, non-bayonetted crap 4.0T lens on the front of it, that ruins the effect of the camera.'

Overall light intake is highly important, (its huuuge in ENG when you don't have constant control of the world) but so is not spending an extra 25,000 USD on a camera that could easily, without joke now, be defunct as a production usable camera in under two years.
The cycle is SUPER-fast now.

Back to Canon. They made slow sensors for video. They had good glass on their cheap cameras. Now that they have good glass, with competing tech, I call this one a winner.

Last edited by AlexLucas; 07-18-2010 at 11:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-18-2010, 11:30 AM
Tippster's Avatar
Tippster Tippster is offline
The Fly on the Wall
Tipp McClure
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,923
Tippster is on a distinguished road
Default

You're wrong. DoF is dependent on 2 things - Aperture and sensor size. Shoot a picture at f/2.8 and the same distance/framing on a G11 and on a 5D Mk2 - you'll get very noticeably different depth of field.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...igitaldof.html
__________________
I am bored. I am FILLED wiz boredom."
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 1996-2009 b-roll.net

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:53 PM.