Do I have to have a HD monitor to do proper editing? I have read of "enhanced artifacting" from the software encoder/decoders. Is that based on the quality of the decoder and better ones will be released or is it an inherent quality of previewing mp2-ts on CRT's?
Why I'm asking is that I'm ready to jump on the camera but can't afford a HD monitor at the same time. Will I be editing blind(so to speak) on my 19" crt?

The simple answer is "no."

You can see what you are editing on your computer's RGB monitor in 16:9.

But, color correction will be less accurate although certainly not impossible.

Can I connect the camcoder to a ordenary vga display? And if so, what port on the camera do I use? Explain more!!
/j

Not sure what you mean by High Definition. True High Definition is considered 1920 x 1080 which would take
a large CRT monitor and capable video card.

I have never tried to display directly through my computer monitor but I would think it would be possible through the firewire port with the appropriate software.

If I want to play back directly from the camera I go though my DVHS firewire to projector. The resolution of my projector is only 1280 x 720 and is not true HD.

Ok, thanks! Than I understand...

<<<-- Originally posted by John Eriksson : Can I connect the camcoder to a ordenary vga display? And if so, what port on the camera do I use? Explain more!!
/j -->>>

You connect your VGA monitor to your computer. And monitor using it.

<<<-- Originally posted by Randall Morton : The resolution of my projector is only 1280 x 720 and is not true HD. -->>>

1280 x 720 is considered high-def, just as 1920 x 1080 is high-def. The original spec called for 1280x720 at 60p, whereas 1920 x 1080 was at 60i. But both resolutions are included in the standard for HDTV.

While you can't directly connect your JY-HD10U to a PC/RGB monitor you can use Viewsonics NextVision 6 which accepts HD component input and that can be hooked to an RGB monitor.

High Definition Standard is 1080i. This is 1920 x 1080 @ 60fps interlaced. Anything less than this is not true high def by definition.

Take a look at the ATSC Table 3 before you talk about TRUE HD. You are simply wrong as there is no such thing in the USA.

Samsung has a nice line of HD capabable monitors (LCD, and Plasma)

here is one that I saw at a retailer and the price was about $600

http://www.samsung.com/Products/Monitor/LCDMonitor/Monitor_LCDMonitor_172W.htm

It is better quality than the Viewsonic wide LCD model.


here is a review:

http://www.monkeyreview.com/reviews/review.php?num=240&page=1

Let me know what you decided on, I will also be configuring an editing setup on a budget.

Samsung has a nice line of HD capabable monitors (LCD, and Plasma)

here is one that I saw at a retailer and the price was about $600

http://www.samsung.com/Products/Monitor/LCDMonitor/Monitor_LCDMonitor_172W.htm

It is better quality than the Viewsonic wide LCD model.


here is a review:

http://www.monkeyreview.com/reviews/review.php?num=240&page=1

Let me know what you decided on, I will also be configuring an editing setup on a budget.

I just bought a Samsung 1575W from Office Depot here in Vancouver. Great price of only $849.00 canadian. Thats about $611.00 US.

Wide screen and everything.

Cheers

DBK

"Take a look at the ATSC Table 3 before you talk about TRUE HD. You are simply wrong as there is no such thing in the USA".

I'd forgotten about this thread but was reading a review on a JVC and they were talking about true HD. Regardless of what the ATSC table says, most people do not consider anything less than 1920 x 1080 true HD. Here is the link.

http://www.hifi-writer.com/blog/20031009.htm#20031011-1732

"most people do not consider anything less than 1920 x 1080 true HD"

Then they are ignorant.

Well I guess you are right if you go by the defintion set by the TV manufaturers. I still contend that many people(As the writer of the article I linked above) do not consider anything less than 1920 x 1080 "true HD".
Of course the TV manufaturers would set the definition of 720P as HD so that they would be able to label these sets HD.

I also have a 720P display and the JVC HD10 and they both provide an outstanding picture in HD. But, I don't consider it "True HD" and I will remain ignorant, along with many others, on this matter.

Then by that argument, there is no HD at all! As the high end cameras do not put 1920 lines to tape, only 1440, at least that is my understanding of it, and that's why there's so little difference in look (if any) between 1080 and 720p HD.

In my argument I am distinguishing between HD & "True HD". I'm saying that many knowledgeable people in the video & film industry do not consider anything below 1920 x 1080 "true HD".

The following is only a quote from a link below.

"Digital cinema, as is implemented today, is in the HD video format (1920*1080 pixel). Its mastering is usually done with a telecine process, which converts film to video, along video-based color correction technologies."

The above is full "true HD" resolution and the difference can be seen especially on larger screens.

Link to article.
http://www.imagica.com/newsrelease/00009e.html

Sure , many years ago, I also considered the lower than 1900 across versions not HD, but that was then and this is now.
Now there are different 'flavors' considered HD. Confusing to dumb consumers, yes.
You mention 'big screens', well, most digital theaters have been showing 1280 material, and compared to the usual out of focus and poorly projected film, it looked better.
Well projected film still looks better. ( Read: not the mall theaters ).
It's fun to be an HD 'phile' , but it's all meaningless to me. Having a $3K 1280 camera, now that's really something!
-Les

For those who have seen both (1080i & 720p) what are your thoughts on how they compare?
ken

If we look at the standards 1920x1080i and 1280x720p60 the pixel rate is nearly indentical (the amount of visual information.)

1920x1080x30 = 62208000 pixels per second
1280x720x60 = 55296000 pps

If you take the fact that much of the 1080i cameras samples at 1440 (or less) horizontally.

1440x1080x30 = 46656000 pps

720p60 is often perceived as the best HD format for live shooting. This is the format that is best for sports, news and anything that is shot live.

If 24p film was the originating source

1920x1080x24 = 4976640 pps is clearly better than 720p24:

1280x720x24 = 22118400 pps.

This is way both standard exists as both are best at something. Both are true HD.

Well, it looks like I have been wrong on this, but there were a lot of other people that gave me that impression. I agree about 720P looking like true HD. It looks great on my 92" screen. The HD10 also looks great. Thanks for the education.