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?ChrisFromCanada said: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
It probably has a 1440x1080 sensor and interpolates that data into a 1920x1080 picture.dejo said: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.
Aha! "pixel shifting" that's the term that I couldn't think of. Thank you.Lacero said:Not even. Its actually 960x1080. It gets pixel shifted to 1440x1080 and on playback, stretches the picture to 1920x1080.
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.LethalWolfe said:It probably has a 1440x1080 sensor and interpolates that data into a 1920x1080 picture.
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.Poeben said:The Sony cameras use the 1080i as other manufacturers use 720p, JVC and Panasonic if I recall.
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).The HD trailers from Apple, I believe, were shot using 1080p.
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.LethalWolfe said:$1700
It's a consumer camera. Do you expect it to perform on par w/a camera that costs 15 or 20 times as much?asuidrok said: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.]
RedTomato said: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]
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.asuidrok said:"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.
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.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...
So is MiniDV NOT an SD format since there are better SD formats out there?However....these cameras still record 80% less information on much cheaper lenses and half of them aren't even 3CCD....
It depends on what your needs are and what the as-yet-to-be-seen footage from the 1 chip sony looks like.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.
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?asuidrok said: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.
Err... check out your first post in this thread. It's all about "Numbers and Letters" as you say.Thats all. Stop confusing people with Numbers and Letters, as they mean almost nothing to most people.
So why did you make the stink about HDV not being HD in the first place?It comes down to what you shoot, not tech specs off the internet.