Tommy thanks for the post.

I have one of those "cheap" sony HD LCD displays witha DVI input so I could run it from my computer. WHen I select the monitor it gives me two options either 640x800 or 1920 x540 and for the life od me I couldn't figure out why that was now if only I could figure out how to get the 1280 x 720 resolution...

Also I may be mistaken but I believe even the cinealta camer when it's hooked up to a monitor only does 1080 48i so I agree VERY few 1080/24p displays exist.

Wow! I guess all you folks already have your Hi Def televisions?

I bought my first HDTV in 1998 and its been a long wait for widescreen (let alone HD) consumer cams.

if only I could figure out how to get the 1280 x 720 resolution...

Unfortunately digital TVs don't always cooperate with the output from your computer. I don't want to stray off this topic but you can try using Powerstrip to obtain a custom resolution that both your PC and TV will be happy with (ATI video cards are usually better for this). You can also check out the HTPC forums over at http://www.hometheaterforum.com and at http://www.avsforum.com.

I actually think an AVI based format would have been better then MPEG2. I mean lets look at the positives. Every editor out there is compatible with AVI. The bitrate's that we could be using would be "high" for any MPEG4 varients so the lack of quality that MPEG2 is brigning would actually be dismissed because they'd be high bitrates for MPEG4 there for giving us more data to play with and greater quality (which is what i want). Also every frame could be a K frame for perfect editing and quality as said. And all still with 1 hour on a tape (if not more). :P

But oh well no use dreaming we're stuck with shi*y MPEG2 for a long time now. Guess we'll just have to hope they dont choke it and the features to much. Come on Canon :)

<<<-- Originally posted by Nick Hiltgen : I have one of those "cheap" sony HD LCD displays -->>>

Which display do you have? Is it one of the 16:9 panels that is native 1280x768? I have a 17" Sony 16:9 LCD (SDM-V72W) and it supported 1280x768 right out of the box when plugged it into my Macintosh. I believe that all newer versions of Windows and MacOS should recognize the available display resolutions due to some self-configuring circuitry built into the monitor. Otherwise you might need to install some drivers, which should have been provided on a CD with the monitor.

A few more pics of the Sony HDV.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-12/74415/ceb6_01.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-12/74415/ceb6_02.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-12/74415/ceb6_03.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-12/74415/ceb6_04.jpg

nice pics. thanks. Well i must say i've not always been a fan of Sony's appearance (shallow bastard arent i! lol). But this cam doesnt look to shabby at all :)

> I actually think an AVI based format would have been
> better then MPEG2. I mean lets look at the positives.
> Every editor out there is compatible with AVI. The
> bitrate's that we could be using would be "high" for
> any MPEG4 varients so the lack of quality that MPEG2
> is brigning would actually be dismissed because they'd
> be high bitrates for MPEG4 there for giving us more
> data to play with and greater quality (which is what i want).

I can see where you are going Daymon, but AVI is not a codec and neither is (necessarily) MPEG4. MPEG4, which is actually a QuickTime-based media architecture, supports many codecs and some codecs also support a broad range of bit rates. There is actually at least one high bit rate HD aquisition system out there, I think Sony has something to do with it. The cool thing about ISO is that when it makes something part of the MPEG standards, you don't get jealous companies implementing their own propietary codecs. This is what has actually allowed the awesome development and masification of 'MP3' audio, MPEG1 and MPEG2 video and other great stuff like the internet itself. So using a nice and open ISO-blessed codec is the way to go, whether it's higher bitrate MPEG2 or MPEG4 or WM9 (Microsoft has submitted WM9 as the video codec for a next generation DVD-like standard and is surpisingly interested in opening up the codec's source code and all that).

Also, using a codec that can live inside a media file on your Mac or PC, you will be able to edit it un any application that supports your operating systems media architectures, i.e: Windows Media, QuickTime, etc.

Just like today you can work with AVI or QuickTime files that contain DV-encoded content, you should be able to work in your favorite NLE with MPEG4 files that contain WM9 video or whatever the camera spits out. As long as it's a standard, industry-endorsed codec everything will work, because everybody will want to support it, every operating system, media architecure, NLE, etc.

<<<-- Originally posted by Johann Adler : 1440x1080i is not a specific HD format. So technically, if Sony does not have a 1280x720p mode and it uses the 1440x1080i format exlusively, then it is not a true HDV camcorder according to specs.
-->>>

Not true. The only 1080 format specified in the HDV standard is 1440 x 1080. HDV has no provision for 1920 x 1080.

Also, Sony's HDCAM records 1440 x 1080. The camera images at 1920 x 1080, but the HDCAM format records 1440 x 1080.

Both formats will be up-rezzed to 1920 x 1080 when displayed on an HDTV set.

<<---
One concern about the resolution loss is that it is not a natively 16:9 resolution. This is a big deal, because it indicates that the CCD will be 4:3 and the video will be anamorphically squeezed to widescreen. This is similar to what High Resolution CCDs like the PDX-10 and Optura Xi/300 do now with DV's 720x480 format (a 4/3 resolution with non-square pixels).
--->>
That's what the current JVC HD1 and HD10 do. They have 4:3 CCD's (which they use to take 1280 x 1024 still photos), and they sample a 16:9-shaped patch off of them to get their 1280 x 720 video. Sony may implement 16:9-shaped CCD's or do it the subsampling way. Time will tell.

<<---The previous JVC 1280x720p is best for high motion filming (sports), but the increased resolution of 1440x1080i is significant enough to warrant its use for most cases.
--->>
I don't think that's quite the best use of the cam. The interlaced 1080i, running at either 60 or 50 fields per second, would be much more suited for high-motion video. The faster sampling rate will better capture motion. In fact, the ideal mode for sports may be the 1280 x 720 x 60p format.

Originally posted by Barry Green :
"Not true. The only 1080 format specified in the HDV standard is 1440 x 1080. HDV has no provision for 1920 x 1080."

You are right, I meant to say that the camcorder would not be an HDTV standard.

"Also, Sony's HDCAM records 1440 x 1080. The camera images at 1920 x 1080, but the HDCAM format records 1440 x 1080."

I linked to an article that also says that in the previous post. This is shocking, because HDCAM should conform to HDTV specs, but does not. Well, I guess Sony can do whatever it wants, because they call it HDCAM, not HDTV...sigh

"That's what the current JVC HD1 and HD10 do. They have 4:3 CCD's (which they use to take 1280 x 1024 still photos), and they sample a 16:9-shaped patch off of them to get their 1280 x 720 video. Sony may implement 16:9-shaped CCD's or do it the subsampling way. Time will tell."

That is simply inefficient considering that we all want to move on to HDTV. HDTV is 16:9. Of course, if they are thinking people want to be able to flip a switch and shoot dv, like the JVC HD1/HD10, then backward compatability can be achieved with 4:3 more easily than 16:9 (a 16:9 native chip shooting quality 4:3 would have to be larger, I believe).

"I don't think that's quite the best use of the cam. The interlaced 1080i, running at either 60 or 50 fields per second, would be much more suited for high-motion video. The faster sampling rate will better capture motion. In fact, the ideal mode for sports may be the 1280 x 720 x 60p format."

Well, I think you have used the JVC more than me (which is none). However, on theoretical terms, progressive is higher in resolution in motion than interlaced. If there is a 25% reduction in 1080i resolution in motion and interlaced averaging of lines reduces resolution by 25%, then 1080i in motion is 604.5 pixels -> less than 720p (in vertical resolution). Obviously, in strict vertical resolution terms 720p is better than 1080i in motion. Also, smoothness differences between 30p and 30i/60i (however you state it) is negligable, correct? (or am I missing something). Without a doubt 60p is ideal for motion.

And if you don't believe me, maybe ESPN holds more clout. They are swithing to 720p for all HDTV broadcasts. I will try to bring up that article I read from their head honcho in video.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tvlistings/espnhd/espnHDStory?id=1614556

That's not the same article I wanted, but it explains it a little.

Furthermore, NBC is going for 1080i, because of their sitcoms, news, etc. They also state why on their web page.

Edit: Just to clarify. I think you are misunderstanding 50/60 fields/second. That is really 25/30 interlaced frames/sec. That is similar to 25/30 progressive frames/sec. If I am wrong, please inform me.

Barry,

I found your post very informative and insightful.

Thank you!

<<<-- Originally posted by Ignacio Rodriguez :
I can see where you are going Daymon, but AVI is not a codec and neither is (necessarily) MPEG4. MPEG4, which is actually a QuickTime-based media architecture, supports many codecs and some codecs also support a broad range of bit rates.... etc etc -->>>

All this i realise. My point was exactly this. Put it in a none-broken, popular container and use the newer codecs (And standardise them) so we can have higher bitrates to saturate the stream and not choke it. AND so we can edit the stuff (properly) in the first place!

The 720P that ESPN will broadcast and the 720P that the JVC cameras record in are two different animals.

ESPN will broadcast in 720 60P (60 non-interlaced frames per second)

The JVC camera records in 720 30P (30 non-interlaced frames per second)

60P has TWICE the frame rate information as 30P.

The difference is staggering. 60P offers beautiful, fluid like motion. Perfect for capturing the fast screen action of a sporting event.

30P is more film like where the motion is blurred and jumpy. Fast action looks horrible on 30P.

-Chris Gordon
Promo Producer
KABC-TV

Barry Green wrote:

<That's what the current JVC HD1 and HD10 do. They have 4:3 CCD's (which they use to take 1280 x 1024 still photos), and they sample a 16:9-shaped patch off of them to get their 1280 x 720 video.>

Hate to burst your very informative bubble Barry, but 1280x1024 is a 5:4 format. So if they use a 1280x1024 panel in the JVC, then they chop pixels to get they're 4:3 video for SD DV. 1280x960 would be a 4:3 format.

1440x1080 50/60i or 1280x720 25/50/30/60p
4:2:0 sampling / MPEG-2
(Bit rate after compression: 19/25 Mbps)
Audio 48kHz (384 kbps after compression)

Prototype Camcorder:
Has multi-mode down-conversion:
(i.e. record at HD, replay SD - i or p)
Depending on format chosen, available as different outputs from camera (inc. iLink).
1080i
3 x HD CCD (1/3")
16:9 LCD & Viewfinder
SD/HD switchable: 4:3 SD/'Precision'* 16:9 SD & HD/ 'Best quality 16:9 SD'
* i.e. All 576 scan lines, full resolution
---------

60p! I'll believe it when I see it, but thats NFL quality video....

Are you sure 4:2.0 sampling for interlaced? It's a strange choice, makes a lot of sense for progessive, but is not all that good for interlaced I think. I also find it amazing that 60p be supported. That would be truly awesome!

What is 'inc.' when you are referring to the output?

All 576 scan lines, full resolution, that would be for the PAL version, right? Or is it a single camera for the whole world? (that would be great, switchable PAL/NTSC, wow!)

"inc." is short for including.........but I'm wondering, Michael, what's the source for those specs? It sounds too good to be true.

<<<-- Originally posted by Aldo Erdic : ".....It sounds too good to be true. -->>>

You know what they say... if it sounds to good to be true.. it usually is. Though i wont mind being supprised believe you me. :)

I'm not an expert on this but I remember reading that 1080-60i takes up more information per hour than 1080-24p. Since it's not that bit intensive relatively speaking, is there any reason to hope some cam manufacturer will go ahead and put a 1080p option on a prosumer camera?

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-12/74415/ceb6_04.jpg


is that a flip out LCD panel?? Or a mic mixer panel?? curious..

looks nice and the potential is exciting..

Cant wait to see the footage!

I don't think we'll see any footage from that camera for a while. The display model was a mock-up, which means it was solid inside...no electronics. Just for show, under glass.

We wont see a Canon anytime soon, since Canon gets its electronics from Sony.

It'll be a while before we have another camera but JVC to choose from in the HDV arena.

is that a flip out LCD panel?? Or a mic mixer panel?? curious..

Supposedly its a 16:9 LCD Panel that folds out and swivels.

If the top "panel" behind the mic is another LCD flip out screen, I'd be HAPPY!

heath

It's not actually an "additional" screen... it's the main LCD screen. As on the VX2100, the screen is on the side and the DV tape deck is on the other side where your hand goes. On this one, the LCD is moved to the front of the handle, the DV deck is moved to the left side so you don't have to remove your holding hand to switch tapes.
Also somebody mentioned earlier in this post that the 1, 2, 3 buttons might be focus presets? More likely, they are user memory buttons for camera settings (included would be white balance, shutter speed, iris, possibly mic levels, etc.).
(This is all speculation since the final product hasn't been introduced, but this is what can be gathered from numerous pictures I, along with others, have seen)

Anyway, I'm excited... looks like it'll be a solid product and it looks even more refined and user friendly than the current VX2100/PD-170.

> Anyway, I'm excited... looks like it'll be a solid product and it
> looks even more refined and user friendly than the current
> VX2100/PD-170.

Hmm. I am sure it will be a very interesting product. I am also shure there is no way it will have the sensitivity to light that the VX2100/PD170 have. Also, it does not seem to feature XLR connectors so for demanding audio applications we will have to add some extra hardware not needen on cameras desgined for pro use like the PD150/170, PDX10, etc.

Let's hope Sony at least allows line level audio input in camera mode, then we could add a good preamp or mixer. I have a hunch that there might be two of these cameras in the works, one if the prototyped one, the other one having perhaps XLR inputs, maybe a better lens or some other feature to make it more appealing to professional videographers.

Yeah, you're probably correct about the light level sensitivety... it'll probably take a little while for the high def CCD's to catch up to the low light performance of the current VX2100 performance. On the XLR's, though... the prototype is labeled with a "DSR" which implies that it is the consumer version (no XLR's). There will probably be a "PD" version that adds XLR's... and at least $1500 to the price tag (booo!). The prototype did, however, have external audio level controls on the back side, which is definitely a good sign. The overall layout of the camera just seems to be very refined.
Well, I guess we've all got only a couple more days to find out the official details!

<<<-- Originally posted by Pasty Jackson : On the XLR's, though... the prototype is labeled with a "DSR" which implies that it is the consumer version (no XLR's). There will probably be a "PD" version that adds XLR's... and at least $1500 to the price tag (booo!). -->>>

Actually, DSR is the prefix for their professional cameras, like the DSR-PD150. Their consumer versions are DCR - like DCR-VX1000, DCR-TRVXXX etc.

David is quite right -- the designation "DSR" would imply that it actually does have built-in XLR connectors. Hope this helps,

The mock-up seen also had the Handycam logo stenciled on it's body... and there are no Handycams with XLR connectors, it's their consumer brand. Also... I don't see there being any space for XLR connectors.

Some of the photos of this camera said "DSR 0000" others did not. Some had a "3 CCD" decal, others did not. Let's face it, until Sony actually announces something this is just vaporware...

So what's the reasoning that it won't have the
light sensitivity of the VX/PD?

So what's the reasoning that it won't have the
light sensitivity of the VX/PD?

The millions of pixels would probably diminish any low light performance offered by the glass and (hopefully large) CCDs. At least that has been the case with most sub $5k USD cams offering over 1 million pixels per CCD.

There is something to be said about the VX2100 and PD170 with their relatively low pixel count (340k video actual) and 1/3" CCDs in regards to low light performance.

Re: "There is something to be said about the VX2100 and PD170 with their relatively low pixel count (340k video actual) and 1/3" CCDs in regards to low light performance."

And that thing to be said is, "for a fat girl you don't sweat too much."

> "for a fat girl you don't sweat too much."

Jajjaja, that's, well, sort of the nail on the head. I don't think the pixel size/light sensitivity ratio can get any better than that of the Sony VX2100/PD170. At twice the resolution I presume the CCD would have to be four times the size to have the same low light performance. Probably this is why JVC is going CMOS, not CCD, for their pro HDV offering.

I am buying this camera as soon as it comes out!

You'll have to wait at least a year or two. It's all vaporware (a word I just learned about!).

heath

I am the only person that sees no photos of the camcorder in the links?

Corey, this thread is pretty dated.

Here is a photo of the prototype Sony HDV

Click here (http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-12/74415/SonyHDV.jpg)

Thanks, Tommy!

It's a prototype (or vaporware) that is 3 chips! YOWZA! Oh, and did I mention full manual controls?

But it's rumored to be native 4:3...As my friend said, have to protect the big Sony HD cameras somehow...

heath

The original posts regarding 4:3 and 16:9 and HDV have been
split off into a new thread:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30264