PDA

View Full Version : Sony releases lower end HDV camera




LethalWolfe
May 17, 2005, 09:48 PM
This happened sooner than I expected it to.
Link (http://news.sel.sony.com/pressrelease/5930)


Lethal



dejo
May 17, 2005, 09:54 PM
I read on news.com that this camcorder has a resolution of 1440x1080 (i.e. 1.33:1 aspect ratio) and therefore not widescreen (which would be 1920x1080) and not , as far as I'm concerned, "true" HD.

ChrisFromCanada
May 17, 2005, 10:21 PM
It has really been pissing me off lately, the number of MR members that think anything less than 1920x1080 is not "TRUE HD". Listen now:

The official HD spec considers 1280x720 (Progressive) TRUE HD video!

Not stop with all the true or not true HD bull!

EDIT: to the above poster this is not directed solely at you because you are correct this is not widescreen. But my point still stands. You don't need 1920x1080 for HD

dejo
May 17, 2005, 10:31 PM
EDIT: to the above poster this is not directed solely at you because you are correct this is not widescreen. But my point still stands. You don't need 1920x1080 for HD

Yeah, no offense taken. To be HD is just needs to be at least 720p. But it also needs to be the correct aspect ratio. So my next question is: a few of the new QT HD movie trailers are 1280x544. Would you consider these "true" HD? I would since they have a wider aspect-ratio (2.35:1) and there is no sense in Apple encoding these with black bars just to pump them up to 720 lines of resolution. Thoughts?

Phat_Pat
May 17, 2005, 10:37 PM
The official HD spec considers 1280x720 (Progressive) TRUE HD video!


Ohh you tell 'em! That sould be a sticky in the Digital Video fourum. :cool:

LethalWolfe
May 17, 2005, 10:49 PM
I read on news.com that this camcorder has a resolution of 1440x1080 (i.e. 1.33:1 aspect ratio) and therefore not widescreen (which would be 1920x1080) and not , as far as I'm concerned, "true" HD.

It probably has a 1440x1080 sensor and interpolates that data into a 1920x1080 picture.


Lethal

Lacero
May 17, 2005, 10:59 PM
It probably has a 1440x1080 sensor and interpolates that data into a 1920x1080 picture.lNot even. Its actually 960x1080. It gets pixel shifted to 1440x1080 and on playback, stretches the picture to 1920x1080.

LethalWolfe
May 17, 2005, 11:07 PM
Not even. Its actually 960x1080. It gets pixel shifted to 1440x1080 and on playback, stretches the picture to 1920x1080.

Aha! "pixel shifting" that's the term that I couldn't think of. Thank you. :)


Lethal

Poeben
May 17, 2005, 11:07 PM
It probably has a 1440x1080 sensor and interpolates that data into a 1920x1080 picture.


Lethal

1080i HD has a 1920x1080 image. The Sony cameras use the 1080i as other manufacturers use 720p, JVC and Panasonic if I recall. The HD trailers from Apple, I believe, were shot using 1080p.

MacFan25863
May 17, 2005, 11:19 PM
Cool, but how much? I didn't see a price.


I would say $500 to $600 is the sweet spot for this type of thing.

LethalWolfe
May 17, 2005, 11:29 PM
The Sony cameras use the 1080i as other manufacturers use 720p, JVC and Panasonic if I recall.

IIRC JVC is offering an HDV solution that does 720p, but no form of "i", and Panasonic is using it's DVCPro HD codec and cameras that can shoot the gambit of HD specs variants.


The HD trailers from Apple, I believe, were shot using 1080p.

The trailers were shot on film(;)), but Apple compressed them into 720p and 1080i IIRC (too lazy to go to the trailer page and look).


Lethal

LethalWolfe
May 17, 2005, 11:31 PM
Cool, but how much? I didn't see a price.


I would say $500 to $600 is the sweet spot for this type of thing.


$1700.


Lethal

solvs
May 18, 2005, 02:03 AM
It looks really cool (and is really making my old TRV-330 Digital8 camera look, well... old). I hear the newer DV cams are alot quieter now, but I still like the external microphones. I noticed it had mics listed in the accessories, but didn't see the port or the hotshoe in the pics. Must be under a flap or something.

I don't really care much about the specs. As long as it takes decent stills and video, and is quiet enough not to hear the motor on your recordings, it will make a nice addition to the new iMac I will be getting soon. I'll just put a nice, big third party battery in it and be a very happy man. Though I wonder if you can finally load tapes while it's still connected to a tripod.

Mr. Anderson
May 18, 2005, 09:20 AM
$1700

I wonder if the street price will be a little lower. This is something I'd be really interested in. I'd also like to see other manufacturers come out with them so that there'd be a little more competition. The breakthrough will be when you can get one under $1000.

And then you're off to buy and extra harddrive or 4 to handle all the extra storage you'll need. Have the come out with a cheaper prosumer video deck that you can hook up to your computer as well?

D

solvs
Jun 10, 2005, 02:18 AM
Noticed this (http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_DisplayProductInformation-Start?ProductSKU=HDRHC1&Dept=cameras&CategoryName=dcc_DICamcorders_HighDefinitionVideo) today. Looks like it will be $2000 MSRP. ETA is late-July. I don't expect to see it lower than $1700-1800 for awhile. :(

I still want one though. Especially considering the fact that it looks like all the accessories I already have will work with it. :D

Edit: According to this (http://hdvforever.com/hdv/hdrhc1/default.htm) the tape is bottom loading. I get why they had to do it, but still. :mad:

DeSnousa
Jun 10, 2005, 06:27 AM
[QUOTE=solvsProductSKU=Looks like it will be $2000 MSRP. ETA is late-July. I don't expect to see it lower than $1700-1800 for awhile. :( [/QUOTE]

Damn thats alot, i wonder how long before HD becomes standard.

asuidrok
Jun 22, 2005, 01:45 PM
I'm sorry to have to be the one to break it to all of you, but all of these HDV prosumer cameras are not true HD quality. Mini DV only records so much data, no matter how good the camera is. True HD cameras are recording on DVCpro 100, [whereas a Mini DV tape is closer to 20]. This means that they are only recording 20% of the data a true HD camera records. So even though the size of the image is the same 1080 or 720, the quality of the image is not even close. I know...I was very sad to discover this too. However....the new panasonic HD prosumer camera that uses the P2 card does allow you to record true HD if you are recording to the P2 cards....The only problem is the cards arent that big and they are reeaallly expensive. It is the cheapest way to do true HD. [It actually uses the same HD codec as the Vericam, and allows you to switch between 1080 and 720.]

LethalWolfe
Jun 22, 2005, 03:23 PM
I'm sorry to have to be the one to break it to all of you, but all of these HDV prosumer cameras are not true HD quality. Mini DV only records so much data, no matter how good the camera is. True HD cameras are recording on DVCpro 100, [whereas a Mini DV tape is closer to 20]. This means that they are only recording 20% of the data a true HD camera records. So even though the size of the image is the same 1080 or 720, the quality of the image is not even close. I know...I was very sad to discover this too. However....the new panasonic HD prosumer camera that uses the P2 card does allow you to record true HD if you are recording to the P2 cards....The only problem is the cards arent that big and they are reeaallly expensive. It is the cheapest way to do true HD. [It actually uses the same HD codec as the Vericam, and allows you to switch between 1080 and 720.]

It's a consumer camera. Do you expect it to perform on par w/a camera that costs 15 or 20 times as much?

MiniDV (especially consumer grade cameras) doesn't give you any where near the highest SD quality but it's still popular, and a great bang for the buck.

Panasonic is the only company that uses DVCProHD. Sony uses HDCAM/SR (which is higher quality than DVCProHD). There are also Thompson's Viperfilm stream camera, Panavision's Genesis, and Arri's somethingerother (I don't remember the name) which are even higher quality.

The quality of HDV can be very impressive especially if compared to MiniDV. But you have to take HDV for what it is, consumer grade video, just like MiniDV. And just like MiniDV, HDV can be appropriate for prosumer and professional level applications.



Lethal

Lacero
Jun 22, 2005, 03:25 PM
I'm sorry to have to be the one to break it to all of youI for one, am eternally grateful for your enlightened post. It really makes sense. I was so dumb before, but you made everything clear.

RedTomato
Jun 22, 2005, 04:24 PM
Most of my studio shooting (mostly material in British Sign Language) is reccorded via firewire straight to my 15'' Powerbook hard drive anyways, no tapes involved.

When PB disk space gets low, projects are moved to my external drives.

I still use tapes for outside shoots, but a lot of the time, if I'm visiting a location, it's simpler to just bring my PB and record to that instead.

It's lovely to be able to sit with clients/ actors and instantly scroll through the entire footage one second after shooting stops. I can do rough edits, take out unwanted or unpermitted material there and then, with the client's help.

[one nice thing about Sign Language is that being able to read the onscreen signing while runing the footage back and forth at high speed makes finding your rough edit points a lot easier :) ]

With shoulder mount cameras, there's certainly room to fit a 3.5 HD plus battery support for it.

(and what about a belt-mounted battery pack and drive array, attached to camera via FW400 or FW800 :) )

On consumer level cameras, a 100GB 2.5'' or a 40GB 1'' HD would go a long way (but please make them swappable!).

The bandwidth's there, the storage's there, the battery life is there..

End this tape storage madness please!

In 1983, I was recording onto tapes with my Acorn Electron, why am I still recording onto tapes in 2005??

[for US readers, the Acorn was kind of an earlier British 'education' version of a C64 or Sinclair Spectrum]

xoxo

Tomato

LethalWolfe
Jun 22, 2005, 04:31 PM
Where are the cameras that record to internal (camera mounted) hard discs?

Most of my studio shooting (for material in British Sign Language) is reccorded via firewire straight to my 15'' Powerbook hard drive anyways, no tapes involved.

When PB disk space gets low, projects are moved to my external drives.

I still use tapes for outside shoots, but a lot of the time, if I'm visiting a location, it's simpler to just bring my PB and record to that instead.

It's lovely to be able to sit with clients/ actors and instantly scroll through the entire footage one second after shooting stops. I can do rough edits, take out unwanted or unpermitted material there and then, with the client's help.

With shoulder mount cameras, surely there's lots of room to fit a 3.5 HD plus battery support for it.

(and what about a belt-mounted battery pack and drive array, attached to camera via FW400 or FW800 :)

On consumer level cameras, a 100GB 2.5'' or a 40GB 1'' HD would go a long way (but please make them swappable!).

The bandwidth's there, the storage's there, the battery life is there..

End this tape storage madness please!

In 1983, I was recording onto tapes with my Acorn Electron, why am I still recording onto tapes in 2005??

[for US readers, the Acorn was kind of an earlier British 'education' version of a C64 or Sinclair Spectrum]

xoxo

Tomato
Toamto


There are third parties that make FW HDD enclosures you can straight record to, and Panasonic is pushing it's P2 format which are basically solid state memory cards.

Tape is still around because it's cheap, proven, and mobile. Tapeless solutions are starting to become more and more of a reality, but tape is still gonna be around for years to come.


Lethal

asuidrok
Jun 22, 2005, 06:18 PM
"It's a consumer camera. Do you expect it to perform on par w/a camera that costs 15 or 20 times as much?"

No, I don't at all. But....

Most people think that these prosumer cameras DO perform on par w/a professional HD camera. HD is HD right? Wrong. That's why I posted to clear that up. I think it is misleading for them to call them HD because the common everyday person thinks that they are going to get the same thing you see on HDTV.

Some of these cameras shoot native Widescreen and do give a better picture than a lot of Mini DVs..Which would be nice....Worth more then other high end prosumer cameras? Idk...

However....these cameras still record 80% less information on much cheaper lenses and half of them aren't even 3CCD....I think you would be better off with a 3CCD camera like the GL2 than a 1 CCD Sony HDV. But that's just me.

LethalWolfe
Jun 22, 2005, 07:35 PM
"It's a consumer camera. Do you expect it to perform on par w/a camera that costs 15 or 20 times as much?"

No, I don't at all. But....

Most people think that these prosumer cameras DO perform on par w/a professional HD camera. HD is HD right? Wrong. That's why I posted to clear that up. I think it is misleading for them to call them HD because the common everyday person thinks that they are going to get the same thing you see on HDTV.

I agree that people are going to get the wrong idea, but there is going to be quality tier in HD the same way there is w/SD and calling the low-end of the tier not HD is stupid because it's just wrong. And, not that this is here nor there, but going by data rate alone HDV is better than, if not on par, w/b'cast HD channels.

Some of these cameras shoot native Widescreen and do give a better picture than a lot of Mini DVs..Which would be nice....Worth more then other high end prosumer cameras? Idk...


All of them will shoot widescreen 'cause that is part of the HD spec, and there is no straight outta the camera MiniDV footage from a prosumer camera that I've seen that even comes close to HDV on a b'cast HD monitor.

However....these cameras still record 80% less information on much cheaper lenses and half of them aren't even 3CCD....

So is MiniDV NOT an SD format since there are better SD formats out there?

I think you would be better off with a 3CCD camera like the GL2 than a 1 CCD Sony HDV. But that's just me.

It depends on what your needs are and what the as-yet-to-be-seen footage from the 1 chip sony looks like.

The same argument you're making against HDV can be made against DVCProHD or HDCAM 'cause there are things higher up the quality food chain than those too.


I understand what you are saying, yer just not going about it in the best of ways.


Lethal

asuidrok
Jun 22, 2005, 08:05 PM
I think LethalWolfe is taking a very simple message way to far. All I was trying to say is HDV, or HD on MiniDV, is not the same as normal HD. This was purely to let people know they weren't getting a true, professional quality, professional bitrate, HD camera, before they throw away a few grand on something they expected to get.

Thats all. Stop confusing people with Numbers and Letters, as they mean almost nothing to most people. It comes down to what you shoot, not tech specs off the internet. People make a lot of crap with half-a-million dollar cameras.

LethalWolfe
Jun 22, 2005, 08:21 PM
I think LethalWolfe is taking a very simple message way to far. All I was trying to say is HDV, or HD on MiniDV, is not the same as normal HD. This was purely to let people know they weren't getting a true, professional quality, professional bitrate, HD camera, before they throw away a few grand on something they expected to get.

If all you wanted to communicate is the HDV is a consumer grade version of HD why didn't you simply say that in your first post?


Thats all. Stop confusing people with Numbers and Letters, as they mean almost nothing to most people.

Err... check out your first post in this thread. It's all about "Numbers and Letters" as you say.


It comes down to what you shoot, not tech specs off the internet.


So why did you make the stink about HDV not being HD in the first place?


Lethal

asuidrok
Jun 22, 2005, 08:48 PM
To help people. Not to be an ass. My first post just explained it a little more so it would make sense. Sorry to inconvience you.

Lacero
Jun 22, 2005, 08:49 PM
To say HDV is not HD is plain nonsense.

LethalWolfe
Jun 22, 2005, 09:02 PM
To help people. Not to be an ass.
Don't be so hard on yourself. I don't think anybody thought you were being an ass. Although your first post, IMO, had a bit of Capt. KnowItAll in it.


My first post just explained it a little more so it would make sense.

And I thought your logic was flawed, and you conclusion was wrong (HDV not being HD) so I tossed in my 2 cents.


Sorry to inconvience you.

No inconvenience, work was a bit slow today anyway.


What's even funnier about this whole thing is I'm really not a fan of HDV, especially Sony's "Cineframe 24" filter (at least JVC has true 24p in it's HDV camera). I think Panasonic has the right idea w/it's upcoming HVX200 (although it will have a mountain of hype to live up to by the time it hits stores towards the end of the year).


Lethal