Why is there a prosumer HD camera? I have a theory.

Four years ago, when I bought my XL-1, I turned to my fellow video friends at my TV station and said, "One day this will be a $3500 HD camera."

HD isn't the future, it's now. For better or worse, the HD10 and HD1 are bringing the HD realm down to the consumer/prosumer level, because by 2005 (is it 2005, or is it 2007???), we'll have to be on HD across America, TV stations that is.

Of course, I've heard word that HD isn't cheap for TV networks, who have abandoned HD for 35 mm film again. And as more production houses buy HD, the "elite" film industry won't feel so exclusive (this is what my friend said, not me) and go back to film. True? Who knows, maybe partly, but, it's interesting.

That's my theory, anyway.

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : HD isn't the future, it's now. For better or worse, the HD10 and HD1 are bringing the HD realm down to the consumer/prosumer level, because by 2005 (is it 2005, or is it 2007???), we'll have to be on HD across America, TV stations that is. -->>>

Yeah, I think this is the start of the SD/ED/HDTV revolution. The federal mandate for digital TV is 2006 for all major broadcasters to be offering digital programming. Our analog signals will continue to be broadcast for another 10 years after, with only a tenative shut off date. There is no federal mandate or requirement to go to HDTV only digital SD. However, HDTV is taking off. The TV manufacturers will eventually only offer HDTV sets and HD programming is becoming much more prominent. HD is available to more than 95% of households in the USA in one form or another. As a comparison, broadband internet is only available to approximately 40% of households within the USA.

<<<-- Of course, I've heard word that HD isn't cheap for TV networks, who have abandoned HD for 35 mm film again. And as more production houses buy HD, the "elite" film industry won't feel so exclusive (this is what my friend said, not me) and go back to film. True? Who knows, maybe partly, but, it's interesting. -->>>

HD is getting cheaper. I would be very surprised if many networks are using 35mm. Some may be if they already have the equipment or wanted to go that route instead of investing in initial HD equipment offerings right off. The cost savings in film development alone will outweigh any difference in cost of HD cameras for any kind of regular production.

The future is digital no doubt about it. HD on the pro end, Super HD for Hollywood, SD for consumer with mixed SD/HD for prosumer. I bet within the next 2 years, most prosumer camcorders will be 16:9 native with 480p60. We may even see some 720p30/60 in some models as the market heats up.

Of course, this is all just my opinion and is merely speculation at this point.

As far as this JVC camera is concerned, like I said in another thread, it appears that JVC is just testing the market or throwing out an experimental concept to see what kind of market reception it gets. It's far from a polished product, even for a first release. But I have also not seen the HD10U version of the camera yet, so will reserve final judgement until then. However, good product or bad, JVC has most definitely taken the first step to head the market in a positive direction.


That's my theory, anyway.

heath -->>>

Good stuff, Jeff, as always. Forgive me, but what is ED?

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : Good stuff, Jeff, as always. Forgive me, but what is ED?

heath -->>>

ED[TV] is Enhanced Definition. It's a grey area where many people call it Enhanced, but aren't willing to call it HD. Some manufacturers recognize the terminology, some don't. Typically, it's used to describe widescreen 480p and some other oddball resolutions such as 720i and 4:3 720p.

Is EDTV (not the movie, the TV) what Gateway Computers is selling on their flatpanels? They're also selling the HD1 (they're trying to become the next Apple via video editing through their computers, almost like how Sony tried with their computers).

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Kilgroe : <<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : Good stuff, Jeff, as always. Forgive me, but what is ED?

heath -->>>

ED[TV] is Enhanced Definition. It's a grey area where many people call it Enhanced, but aren't willing to call it HD. Some manufacturers recognize the terminology, some don't. Typically, it's used to describe widescreen 480p and some other oddball resolutions such as 720i and 4:3 720p. -->>>

"HD is available to more than 95% of households in the USA in one form or another. As a comparison, "

It's not available in mine, and I'm in downtown Chicago! I don't think HD reaches nearly that many people. Cable companies are slow to adopt it, and OTA reception is iffy unless conditions are ideal.

EDTV is anything better than 480p that doesn't fall into an HD category. Widescreen 480p (Fox) would qualify.

I thought the HDTV standard called for 720p to be 60p, not 30p - so is the JVC really an HD camera?

<<<-- Originally posted by Peter Moore : "HD is available to more than 95% of households in the USA in one form or another. As a comparison, "

It's not available in mine, and I'm in downtown Chicago! I don't think HD reaches nearly that many people. Cable companies are slow to adopt it, and OTA reception is iffy unless conditions are ideal. -->>>

DirecTV and Dish Network both offer HDTV. Like I said, it's available just about everywhere in one form or another, people just have to buy, rent, or subscribe with the proper equipment and service for their area. The 95% statistic I threw out there is being used to promote HDTV equipment by manufacturers including Sony, Philips and Toshiba. Panasonic and Samsung both claim over 97%. DirecTV is available to an estimated 95% of all households in the USA plus several areas in Canada. The only ones that can't get it are those limited by geography (mountainous regions where the home is built on the side of the mountain shadowing the signal and such).

<<<--EDTV is anything better than 480p that doesn't fall into an HD category. Widescreen 480p (Fox) would qualify.

I thought the HDTV standard called for 720p to be 60p, not 30p - so is the JVC really an HD camera? -->>>

When it all comes down to it, the ATSC standards are for digital TV broadcasts and data simulcasting. HD is terminology thrown about to describe digital video that exceeds standard resolutions. However, many folks have decided that a lot of mid-range resolutions shouldn't qualify. So it's more a matter of perspective and depends on who you ask. It varies between manufacturers as to what they consider HD. Some of them like to call anything less than a certain resolution ED. The common requirements for calling video HD seem to be 16:9 aspect ratio, and at least 1280x720 resolution. It gets real fuzzy when starting to depate interlace vs. non-interlaced and FPS. A lot of manufacturers like to label anything of 1 Mpixels or higher as HDTV. Of the TVs labeled as EDTV, which seems to be very prominent with Plasma displays, they seem to be less than 1280x720 res -- like 852x480. Not really proper to call them HDTV, but they don't want to call the SDTV.

"DirecTV and Dish Network both offer HDTV"

You can't get either of these unless you a) have control over your roof, b) are lucky enough to have a deck with an unobstructed southern view, or c) your building subscribes to it (in which case they probably don't subscribe to HD. So for a huge portion of the population that lives in apartment buildings or rents their home, this is not an option. Further, neither of them to my knowledge offer HD on anything other than a small handful of channels (HBO, Showtime, Discovery, and maybe now ESPN-HD). The local networks are not given in HD! The transition is a trickle and it's extremely frustrating, and more attention needs to be paid to distribution because the current methods are not adequate.

<<<-- Originally posted by Peter Moore : "DirecTV and Dish Network both offer HDTV"

You can't get either of these unless you a) have control over your roof, b) are lucky enough to have a deck with an unobstructed southern view, or c) your building subscribes to it (in which case they probably don't subscribe to HD. So for a huge portion of the population that lives in apartment buildings or rents their home, this is not an option. Further, neither of them to my knowledge offer HD on anything other than a small handful of channels (HBO, Showtime, Discovery, and maybe now ESPN-HD). The local networks are not given in HD! The transition is a trickle and it's extremely frustrating, and more attention needs to be paid to distribution because the current methods are not adequate. -->>>

Well, I suppose one could look at it that way. Those who live in apartments may not have HD available to them via satellite if the property owners don't install the proper HD capable units. And exposure does play a role, but outside of seriously mountainous areas (which we have a lot of where I'm at) there's really no reason satellite TV can't be had. Both DirecTV and Dish have business programs that work with land-owners where they will come out and provide the dish antenna[s] and install it/them to send a feed into every apartment unit. Then it's up to each individual renter to provide their own set-top box or to rent one much like one would rent a cable box. If you live in an apartment and they won't provide satellite TV for you if the cable is sub-standard, then the property owner/manager isn't trying very hard to accomodate their tennants.

As for homeowners, the FCC grants all property owners the right (under federal statute) to mount any antenna necessary to receive whatever commercial and public broadcasts they wish. No homeowners' association, covenence or neighbors with nothing better to do, can override this right. I went through this with my homeowners' association when I put up my dish -- they told me I can't have a dish in the neighborhood so I copied the FCC Comm. Act of '86 which grants my right to do so for them and told me if they had a problem with it, they can contact my lawyer. Since then, everyone here has a dish on their house since our cablel in the area is crap - not even a pay per view channel.

The only exception to this, where a homeowners' association or a city or other governing body can deny the right to receive certain broadcasts is if they provide an alternative method that will deliver the same services with the same quality for the same price.

People who rent houses are in a different situation - more like apartment tennants. While the owner of the house can mount the dish, it's a different matter as to whether or not they will allow a tennant to mount a dish on their property.

Other than that, I agree that more needs to be done in terms of delivery - especially for the delivery of local channels in HD. DirecTV is "looking into it" right now so that's hopeful. The last time the went "looking into" HD, subscribers came out with HDNET, HD PPV and HBO HD 8 months later. As of July 1, DirecTV will have HD PPV, HDNET, HDNET Movies, HBO HD, ShowTime HD, ESPN HD, and Discovery. I believe Dish will offer the same. In other words, they're both offering all the HD that's out there with the exception of local market channels.