MPEG2 Based Codec for 5D Mark III?

[Canon Rumors]

<div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=6154" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=6154"></a></div>
<strong>At least we aren’t talking about RAW video!</strong>

Codec talk has been running rampant for a while in regards to the 5D Mark III, is most of it fact or wishlist?</p>
<p>According to <a href="http://www.eoshd.com/content/577" target="_blank">EOSHD</a>, Canon is working on an MPEG2 based codec for the 5D Mark III. It will have a 4-2-2 color space. Another feature will be a variable bitrate up to 50mbit. The codec will be an improved version from the XF305</p>
<p>The move is motivated by the desire to avoid paying Sony and Panasonic a licensing fee for AVCHD/H.246.</p>
<p>Adobe and Apple have already taken up the format, so applications for native editing will not be a problem.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong>

 

[transpo1]

EOSHD has little to back this up, but it would be great if true. If the new 5DIII has this codec or raw video HDMI out, I would pre-order it immediately.

 

[photowurks]

I wouldn't put much weight on that reasoning. The license cost would be part of the price of the unit and passed on to the consumer. Probably other reasons are at work.

 

[gene_can_sing]

This would be incredible. As most as revolutionary as the when the 5D2 brought Shallow focus HD to the masses. Please let it be Canon. And RAW ext. record wouldn't be bad either.

 

[rubbskin]

<div id=\"fb_share_1\" style=\"float: right; margin-left: 10px;\"><a name=\"fb_share\" type=\"box_count\" share_url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=6154\" href=\"http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php\">Share</a></div><div><script src=\"http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share\" type=\"text/javascript\"></script></div><div class=\"tweetmeme_button\" style=\"float: right; margin-left: 10px;\"><a class=\"tm_button\" rel=\"&style=normal&b=2\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=6154\"></a></div>
<strong>At least we aren’t talking about RAW video!</strong>

... The codec will be an improved version from the XF305</p>
.<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong>

This is utter cr*p - the MXF format used by 305 is industry standard - plus you are forgetting the 12min recording limit used by the 32bit FAT - doesn't add up to me. At the end of the day this camera is a stills camera with video added on - its not a video camera that does stills - so gotta keep all this video wishfulness under control. Go buy a video camera XF305 is a good one if u want 50mbs pictures

 

[unruled]

going back to mpeg2 would balloon filesizes out of control... i dont see it happening

 

[CJRodgers]

Hey, sorry i dont know much about codecs. Why would it be MPEG 2 and not anything else like a newer MPEG version such as MPEG 4?

Looking on wikipedia it looks like XDCAM format MPEG HD422 fits the increased 50Mbit and more chroma detail description that the original source was talking about.

Also what are the chanced of 64bit CPU in the camera now its alot more popular in PCs? Would that increase minimum length times of the video?

Just post a link to educate me if you dont want to write out a proper response!

 

[shorthand]

The last time I checked with the MPEG LA, the license fee for a MPEG-2 encoder was $2.00 and the adder for H.264 was a few cents more. However, the H.264 encoder semis are far more expensive than the MPEG-2 ones at the moment.

I don't think this is a cost saving measure, though. If you walk the floor of a broadcasters convention (any of them), its all about MPEG-2 4:2:2 encoding for internal professional production work flows. They don't use H.264 because its too hard to edit and because higher bit rate MPEG-2 video has fewer artifacts. (JPEG2000 is also used, but that's just MPEG-2 video where every frame is a key frame.)

H.264 is only used as the final encode for distribution and broadcast.

Its a pro move as opposed to a prosumer one and I think it gives a good indication of how important Canon feels that the pro video segment can be for the 5D III.

 

[Justin]

its all about MPEG-2 4:2:2 encoding for internal professional production work flows. They don't use H.264 because its too hard to edit and because higher bit rate MPEG-2 video has fewer artifacts.

Yes this is what it is all about. This would help Canon differentiate their products further and apart from the likes of Panasonic and Sony. Something they need to do like yesterday.

 

[gene_can_sing]

This is utter cr*p - the MXF format used by 305 is industry standard - plus you are forgetting the 12min recording limit used by the 32bit FAT - doesn't add up to me. At the end of the day this camera is a stills camera with video added on - its not a video camera that does stills - so gotta keep all this video wishfulness under control. Go buy a video camera XF305 is a good one if u want 50mbs pictures

Unfortunately for fixed lens, video cameras like the XF305, nobody is buying those anymore. I work in Commercials in Los Angeles at small to mid-size studios, and since the 7D came out, I don't know one person who has bought a fixed zoom lens style video camera. For big jobs, it's mostly the RED, and for the low-budget jobs it's the 5D / 7D.

Once the video guys tasted the freedom of good, interchangeable glass, nobody is going back. Canon realizes that if they want to sell more than 5 video cameras a year, it has to be large sensor, interchangeable lens cameras.

 

[DWalla]

I'm not aware of MPEG2 having lower artifacts at higher bit rates. In my experience H.264 is superior to MPEG2 in every way.

Personally I think the 5D III needs two abilities:

1) Onboard 50Mbps 4:4:4 H.264
2) A RAW port connector where you can attach an external HD/SSD to capture RAW information straight off the head, similar to the REDcam. Maybe using the new Thunderbolt I/O.

I'm not looking for less... I'm looking for more.

As it stands right now... the 5D solution for shooting chromakey is pretty poor. I'd love to see a real chromakey solution for the 5D.... and please give us full colorspace instead of this gimped up solution we keep on receiving.

 

[yoavoy]

Actually, I believe Sony a while back showed that at high bitrates, MPEG2 and H.264 were indistinguishable, so I can imagine them considering mpeg-2 instead as it is much nicer for editting.

RAW is unworkable unless you can figure out a good way to compress it. RED uses a wavelet compression scheme, and I have no clue how good it is or if it's worth the time, and I doubt they'd license it to Canon. The last thing we need is a format that canon invents to support 'raw video', which isn't supported by ANYTHING other than canon tools.

As I mentioned in another thread, Apple ProRes would make an AWESOME addition though. It definitely requires a much higher bitrate than H.264, but still within the means of fast compact flash cards. It can also record in 4:4:4, and would require no transcoding when editting (final cut and avid support it.. don't think premiere does though).

 

[kawasakiguy37]

ProRes would be neat, but cineform would be much better. Actually, DNxHD would be the best. If canon were really serious about the professional market, a camera that could switch between mpeg2 compressed and DNxHD "raw" compressed would make a lot of sense. Sort of like how we get jpeg versus proprietary raw now for photos

Of course they would have to license it from avid....

 

[Bob Howland]

This is utter cr*p - the MXF format used by 305 is industry standard - plus you are forgetting the 12min recording limit used by the 32bit FAT - doesn't add up to me. At the end of the day this camera is a stills camera with video added on - its not a video camera that does stills - so gotta keep all this video wishfulness under control. Go buy a video camera XF305 is a good one if u want 50mbs pictures

Unfortunately for fixed lens, video cameras like the XF305, nobody is buying those anymore. I work in Commercials in Los Angeles at small to mid-size studios, and since the 7D came out, I don't know one person who has bought a fixed zoom lens style video camera. For big jobs, it's mostly the RED, and for the low-budget jobs it's the 5D / 7D.

Once the video guys tasted the freedom of good, interchangeable glass, nobody is going back. Canon realizes that if they want to sell more than 5 video cameras a year, it has to be large sensor, interchangeable lens cameras.

The BBC bought 50 XF305s.

 

[distant.star]

I agree with this (as long as it doesn't offend the forum nazi).

<div id=\"fb_share_1\" style=\"float: right; margin-left: 10px;\"><a name=\"fb_share\" type=\"box_count\" share_url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=6154\" href=\"http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php\">Share</a></div><div><script src=\"http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share\" type=\"text/javascript\"></script></div><div class=\"tweetmeme_button\" style=\"float: right; margin-left: 10px;\"><a class=\"tm_button\" rel=\"&style=normal&b=2\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=6154\"></a></div>
<strong>At least we aren’t talking about RAW video!</strong>

... The codec will be an improved version from the XF305</p>
.<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong>

This is utter cr*p - the MXF format used by 305 is industry standard - plus you are forgetting the 12min recording limit used by the 32bit FAT - doesn't add up to me. At the end of the day this camera is a stills camera with video added on - its not a video camera that does stills - so gotta keep all this video wishfulness under control. Go buy a video camera XF305 is a good one if u want 50mbs pictures

 

[kawasakiguy37]

I agree with this (as long as it doesn't offend the forum nazi).

<div id=\"fb_share_1\" style=\"float: right; margin-left: 10px;\"><a name=\"fb_share\" type=\"box_count\" share_url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=6154\" href=\"http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php\">Share</a></div><div><script src=\"http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share\" type=\"text/javascript\"></script></div><div class=\"tweetmeme_button\" style=\"float: right; margin-left: 10px;\"><a class=\"tm_button\" rel=\"&style=normal&b=2\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=6154\"></a></div>
<strong>At least we aren’t talking about RAW video!</strong>

... The codec will be an improved version from the XF305</p>
.<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong>

This is utter cr*p - the MXF format used by 305 is industry standard - plus you are forgetting the 12min recording limit used by the 32bit FAT - doesn't add up to me. At the end of the day this camera is a stills camera with video added on - its not a video camera that does stills - so gotta keep all this video wishfulness under control. Go buy a video camera XF305 is a good one if u want 50mbs pictures

Why couldnt we format CF cards in something thats not FAT32......

 

[bvukich]

Why couldnt we format CF cards in something thats not FAT32......

The camera needs to support format, and most only support FAT12/16/32.

SDXC brings with it the potential to use exFAT, a proprietary, licensed, patent encumbered file system, but that addresses the limitations of FAT32, though adding some of it's own. If they (SD Card Association) were smart, and not as easily swayed by Microsoft, they would have used something like ext2. Ext2 has none of the limitations of FAT32 or exFAT, and any manufacturer could use it freely.

 

[shorthand]

The BBC is not known in the industry for its rational decision making. New tech incubation yes - consistent, rational decision-making ... no so much.