Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

SD is near its last breath

FoxyKaye said:
Since major companies are still manufacturing record players, cassette tape players, and obviously DVD players, I'd venture that as long as the everyday person can pick up a SD camera, shoot video and play it back then the format isn't "dead". Heck, I just bought a brand new slide projector for my partner for Christmas.
Click to expand...

I was trying to think of exactly how I felt, and this really helped put it in perspective.
Being a freelancer/ pro/ small biz owner, I overlook this exact point and its truth. Yeah.;)
 
Another Nail in the SD Coffin

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Sonys-HD-Strategy-in-A-Busy-Market.htm

The new HDR-FX7 makes for seven HD camcorders from Sony. From top to bottom, they include: the pro-line HVR-Z1U ($5946), the prosumer HDR-FX1 ($3700), HDR-FX7 ($3500), HVR-A1 ($3100), and the consumer HDR-HC3 ($1500), the HDR-HC3 ($1500), HDR-SR1 ($1500), and the HDR-UX1 ($1400).

The manufacturer with the next closest number of HD products anywhere near this price range is Canon, with only four models, the XL H1 ($8999), the XH G1, the XH A1, and the HV10 ($1299)

Why buy SD camera anymore ?? With those prices, you get two camera as you can shoot both in SD or HD.
 
Alpinism said:
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Sonys-HD-Strategy-in-A-Busy-Market.htm

The new HDR-FX7 makes for seven HD camcorders from Sony. From top to bottom, they include: the pro-line HVR-Z1U ($5946), the prosumer HDR-FX1 ($3700), HDR-FX7 ($3500), HVR-A1 ($3100), and the consumer HDR-HC3 ($1500), the HDR-HC3 ($1500), HDR-SR1 ($1500), and the HDR-UX1 ($1400).

The manufacturer with the next closest number of HD products anywhere near this price range is Canon, with only four models, the XL H1 ($8999), the XH G1, the XH A1, and the HV10 ($1299)

Why buy SD camera anymore ?? With those prices, you get two camera as you can shoot both in SD or HD.
Click to expand...

Why buy SD (specifically MiniDV)? Because, speaking in generalities:
1. DV cameras are cheaper, and HD cameras will only come down in price the longer you wait. $1400 is a nice chunk of change to spend on a consumer camera. $700 today on an DV camera and $700 3-4yrs from now on an HD camera might be money better spent.
2. DV cameras have better low light performance.
3. DV doesn't use an interframe compression scheme so the image is less likely to breakdown due to fast movement in frame or fast movement of the camera.
4. HDV for use in iMovie (and FCE, IIRC) requires a transcoding step that makes capturing longer than realtime.
5. HDV requires a reconform render at the end before you can put your footage back to tape.
6. DV cameras (all most all of them) will allow you to monitor your video on a TV while editing (computer->Firewire->camera->analog->TV) which can be very helpful since TVs and computers monitors display the images differently. Because of reason number 5 you cannot use an HDV camera in this fashion.

All though I don't know for sure, I think AVCHD cameras suffer similar shorting comings as HDV cameras (reasons 3, 5, 6) because they both use interframe compression schemes. Of course, AVCHD, AFAIK is not yet support by very many NLE's including all of Apple's.

:)

Lethal
 
awww c'mon, u mean everybody in the business of video doesnt have that dual 30" lcd monitor yet ?? :p

My XL 2 is going on to ebay and my name is already on the A1 preorder list :D

LethalWolfe said:
Why buy SD (specifically MiniDV)? Because, speaking in generalities:
1. DV cameras are cheaper, and HD cameras will only come down in price the longer you wait. $1400 is a nice chunk of change to spend on a consumer camera. $700 today on an DV camera and $700 3-4yrs from now on an HD camera might be money better spent.
2. DV cameras have better low light performance.
3. DV doesn't use an interframe compression scheme so the image is less likely to breakdown due to fast movement in frame or fast movement of the camera.
4. HDV for use in iMovie (and FCE, IIRC) requires a transcoding step that makes capturing longer than realtime.
5. HDV requires a reconform render at the end before you can put your footage back to tape.
6. DV cameras (all most all of them) will allow you to monitor your video on a TV while editing (computer->Firewire->camera->analog->TV) which can be very helpful since TVs and computers monitors display the images differently. Because of reason number 5 you cannot use an HDV camera in this fashion.

All though I don't know for sure, I think AVCHD cameras suffer similar shorting comings as HDV cameras (reasons 3, 5, 6) because they both use interframe compression schemes. Of course, AVCHD, AFAIK is not yet support by very many NLE's including all of Apple's.

:)

Lethal
Click to expand...
 
LethalWolfe said:
6. DV cameras (all most all of them) will allow you to monitor your video on a TV while editing (computer->Firewire->camera->analog->TV) which can be very helpful since TVs and computers monitors display the images differently. Because of reason number 5 you cannot use an HDV camera in this fashion.
Click to expand...
I know you were speaking in generalities, but #6 is overcome with the help of a High Definition monitor connected to the Matrox MXO.

Also, with a fast enough Mac, the transcoding to Apple Intermediate Codec can be done in realtime (just like DV).
 
Rod Rod said:
I know you were speaking in generalities, but #6 is overcome with the help of a High Definition monitor connected to the Matrox MXO.
Click to expand...
There are also HD capture cards that allow you to monitor HDV externally, but paying at least an extra thousand dollars to get the same function you get w/a DV camera out of the box still qualifies as a disadvantage, IMO. ;)


Lethal
 
LethalWolfe said:
There are also HD capture cards that allow you to monitor HDV externally, but paying at least an extra thousand dollars to get the same function you get w/a DV camera out of the box still qualifies as a disadvantage, IMO. ;)


Lethal
Click to expand...
It's worth it for the extra resolution. :)
 
Rod Rod said:
It's worth it for the extra resolution. :)
Click to expand...
For a professional application where you have clients willing to pay extra for HD I'd agree. For a consumer shooting little Bobby's 3rd b-day party I don't think it's worth it. :)


Lethal
 
I shot my cousin's 15th birthday party in HD, but I didn't go out and buy a $1000 add-on to monitor the colors. A typical consumer using DV most likely wouldn't set up a video monitor either. Monitoring the actual video signal for colors is more of a pro thing. Anyhow I agree with you.
 
LethalWolfe said:
. For a consumer shooting little Bobby's 3rd b-day party I don't think it's worth it. :)

Lethal
Click to expand...

Yeah but this thread is more about the "Prosumer" and not regular "Consumer" but still, when Bobby grows up, he will appreciate that you preserved his baby-years in HD instead of SD.

Plus by buying HD cam you are getting 2 cams at the same time, SD and HD. You cant lose.
 
Alpinism said:
Yeah but this thread is more about the "Prosumer" and not regular "Consumer" but still, when Bobby grows up, he will appreciate that you preserved his baby-years in HD instead of SD.

Plus by buying HD cam you are getting 2 cams at the same time, SD and HD. You cant lose.
Click to expand...

And like I keep saying if you make your living in video and your have enough of a client base wanting (and willing to pay more for) HD then, yes, you should start going HD. But if your clients aren't wanting HD yet then buying HD gear now is just a waste of money. The longer you wait the better value you'll get for your dollar.


Lethal
 
LethalWolfe said:
And like I keep saying if you make your living in video and your have enough of a client base wanting (and willing to pay more for) HD then, yes, you should start going HD. But if your clients aren't wanting HD yet then buying HD gear now is just a waste of money. The longer you wait the better value you'll get for your dollar.


I couldn't agree more. It seems that sometimes people blindly follow what is the 'newest' or 'trendiest' gadget out on the market without analyzing if it actually suits their workflow. I personally think HD is overkill for many uses, but eventually it will be the norm.

There are plenty of professionals still using SD and achieving beautiful results. For example, Laguna Beach and The Hills (only saw it because of my reality-tv-addicted wife!), is beautifully shot on a Panasonic AJ-SDX900. They could have shot HD, but chose not to. I think it's great that there are many more acquisition options than just 10 years ago. But hey, if you've got the money to spend and want to shoot in HD, then more power to you!
:)
Click to expand...
 
No it's not. HD is great but SD is going to be with us a long time. Heres the why-

-Low internet connection speeds are the majority. HD streaming content is not possible without a fast connection. Couple this with terrible HDTV services... Sky HD being (so far) a massive flop. There's no content coming to these HDTV's or enough to warrant a mass switch from SD.

-The market is governed by the masses, and HDTVs still aren't in the majority sold.When I was looking into buying a nice 40" TV a few weeks ago the guy said that stock isn't an issue, they ship more LCD TVs as they've dropped to the consumer hot spot price (around £300).

People who buy $8k cameras aren't going to govern the impact of HDTV to the masses. :rolleyes:
 
Alpinism said:
so, the scenario.

ASsuming I am a *pro-consumer* (as in my original post and not a *consumer* with limited budget), looking to get a new camcorder this coming fall. Therefore, I will have two choices ..

A) Buy a SD Camcorder

B) Buy a Hi-Def Camcorder

and most of you are picking option A ??

Currently I have a Canon XL2 that I use to shoot TV commercials for local businesses. With the majority of people buying HD tv sets, the lowering prices of blue Ray, HD-DVD drives and dvd setup player, the rumored blue ray support of the new mac, the upcoming PS3 with its blue ray drives ....etc, I anticipate all my clients are going to demand Hi-Def. If i cannot give it to them, they will simply go to my competitors.

No wise *Prosumer* shoppers should want to stay with SD no more. As much as I like the image and color production of the DVX100b, the new Canons are totally going to kill them. Panasonic really need to upgrade the DVX100b to high def with native 16x9 support without the outrageous P2 media technology.

OTOH, *Consumers* on limited budget might be forced to choose between 3 CCD or the Sony 1 ccd CMOS, which can be a good debate. Still, any Hi Def footage can be converted back to SD, often with a gain in image quality.

And yes, I am sticking with my original notion, SD is in a respirator machine now, and if you are a pro-consumer, high def is the definitely the wise choice.
Click to expand...

I used a DVC30, but wanted to capture two different camera angles. So, last year I carefully considered buying a HD camera and shooting SD for awhile. But, I reminded myself of one of my technology purchasing axioms; buy for the technology needs you have NOW. Do not buy for future needs. And for your information, I have purchased a few million dollars worth of technology over the years. I bought a DVX100B.

Right now, none of my customers can play HD. I do not claim to have a crystal ball, but I will be surprised if 50% will be HD before 2008. But, even using that as an optimistic timeframe, I would expect to be able to purchase a considerably better HD camera, and cheaper one, than I could in 2005.

Personally, I find your position to be just opinion and lacking analysis. I can easily see situations where either choice would make sense. If you cannot see this, you might want to consider reading some course material on analytical thinking.
 
Demoman said:
Personally, I find your position to be just opinion and lacking analysis. I can easily see situations where either choice would make sense. If you cannot see this, you might want to consider reading some course material on analytical thinking.
Click to expand...

Even in my small town market the local cable station is strating to stream their service in HD the middle of next year. They already now shooting with the Sony Z1U. As a matter of fact, 25% of the people here shoot with the Z1U, preserved their footage in HD and downconvert it to SD for now. If I cannot compete with that, clients are going to go with my competitors.

Personally, I think its very simple, YOU GET TWO CAMERA FOR THE PRICE OF ONE. There is no either choice if you are "WISE". Your $3500 dvx100b, 4x3 SD camera is not much of a wise buy comparing to the Canon XH A1 which shoots all format in HD including 24f (24p). THe A1 also shoots in all format in SD(24f,60i). I promiseyou, you will see the impact of these new canon have in the marketplace especially to the 100b.

Everybody plans & buys for the future, only a fool wouldnt.
 
Alpinism said:
Even in my small town market the local cable station is strating to stream their service in HD the middle of next year. They already now shooting with the Sony Z1U. As a matter of fact, 25% of the people here shoot with the Z1U, preserved their footage in HD and downconvert it to SD for now. If I cannot compete with that, clients are going to go with my competitors.

Personally, I think its very simple, YOU GET TWO CAMERA FOR THE PRICE OF ONE. There is no either choice if you are "WISE". Your $3500 dvx100b, 4x3 SD camera is not much of a wise buy comparing to the Canon XH A1 which shoots all format in HD including 24f (24p). THe A1 also shoots in all format in SD(24f,60i). I promiseyou, you will see the impact of these new canon have in the marketplace especially to the 100b.

Everybody plans & buys for the future, only a fool wouldnt.
Click to expand...

In that case switching to HD would make since. Like Demoman (and myself and others) said, there are situations where upgrading to HD now makes sense and there are situations where sticking w/SD for the time being makes sense. You seem to be wielding HD like its right for everyone right now and it's not.

If YOU want to move to HD now because YOUR client base will support the transition that's great. But don't assume what's right for YOU is right for everyone else.


Lethal
 
Nope, I am not implying that all people (PRO-CONSUMER and NOT THE REGULAR CONSUMER) should ebay or sell their cam off just to get into HD.

However, if a ProConsumer is needing to get a new cam, it seems odd that they would rather spend their hard earned $3500++(min for a decent pro consumer cam like the dvx100b) into a SD cam, while for not much more money they can purchase a HD cam. A down converted HD to SD would produce a much more better looking SD footage anyways. :p
 
Alpinism said:
However, if a ProConsumer is needing to get a new cam, it seems odd that they would rather spend their hard earned $3500++(min for a decent pro consumer cam like the dvx100b) into a SD cam, while for not much more money they can purchase a HD cam.
Click to expand...
Maybe the rest of their gear is SD and they don't have enough clients interested in HD to warrant upgrading it all. It's not just a new camera. If they want the same level of functionality it's also a new monitor, an I/O card to connect the computer to the monitor (something you don't need w/DV), and a new deck. There are also people whose primary line of shooting is at odds w/the limitations current HD prosumer cameras have that their SD cousins do not. For example, the Z1U offers more res than it's SD counterpart, but at the cost of less dynamic range, inferior low light ability, and the use of a format that will artifact much more when recording an image w/lots of detail and/or fast motion. For some it's an acceptable trade off for other's it's not.

Obviously, they'll have to bit the bullet eventually, but the longer they can wait the better a camera they'll get.

Speaking of formats here's another thing. JVC, Canon, Sony and Panasonic all have prosumer HD cameras on the market and they are all incompatible w/each other. So people upgrading also have to make a more careful decision 'cause they aren't just buying a camera, they are buying into a system.

A down converted HD to SD would produce a much more better looking SD footage anyways. :p
Click to expand...
For the range of cameras we are talking about the difference between native SD and HD down-convered to SD ranges from slightly worse to slightly better. And once you put the final product on DVD the difference is even smaller.

The appearance of HDMI on some new HD devices is nice to see as it will lower the price for being able to connect HD devices together as well as help make dealing w/HDV easier. This Blackmagic card is only $295 and does a few things that used to require a $995 card.


Lethal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back