SO YOU GET THE CAMCORDER HDV YOU EDIT HDV ,CAN YOU WATCH HDV ON THE COSTUMER REGULAR DVD PLAYER?

SO ALL THAT QUALITY BUT AT THE END THE COSTUMER NEED HDV DVD PLAYER , RIGHT ?

OR IAM MISSING SOMETHING,
YOUR ANSWER ARE WELCOME.....

if you consider that DVD is the only way to look at video, then yes, you got a problem.

To mention other methods

D-VHS (no, tapes doesn't sucks, what about you DV cam ?)
computer files on DVD , played with computer.
playing directly from computer Harddisk
using your HDV cam to play back.
using a compatible HD DVD (Bravo or others coming next)

Anyway the storage media is not the only problem.
Do you own an HD compatible screen ?

The movies you rent from Blockbuster aren't HD DVD. It's all down converted to SD. If its half as good as HD and better than DV. It'll give us a better image.

It's always better to start out with the highest quality. Then work your way down from there if needed.

SO AT THE END THE CANON XL2 16:9 CAN DO ALMOST THE SAME JOB LIKE SONY HDR-FX1 HDV , SINCE THE COSTUMER WILL BE WATCHING ON DVD WITH HI DEF TV LIKE I WATCH RENTAL MOVIES....

YOU MUST THINK AHEAD. THERE WILL BE HD-DVD SOON, AND WHO CARES ABOUT THE DVD FORMAT. DV CAMERAS SHOULD BE TREATED LIKE A WEB CAMERA, IN A FEW YEARS THEY WILL ALL BE IN A THRIFT SHOP, OR MAYBE KIDS WILL LIKE THEM.

No need for all caps, gents. Interesting discussion, though!

heath

well, in fact if you have an HDV source to go to RGB and downsize to SD, then you would have a 4:4:4 SD master to work from and that is very nice ;)

Not exactly 4:4:4, more like 4:2:2 :) Consumer HD is not likely to be that common for at least a decade. There are still a lot of VHS out there and DVD is beginning to be a widely used standard even though it has been there for years. I know a lot of people still buying VHS tapes even though I've totally stopped buying them for 6 years now. A lot of interlace 4:3 television sets are still being bought and not much true HD broadcasting yet. DV will be around for quite some time still even though we, the indie filmmakers, (some but not all of us) have already decided to switch, we are far ahead of the average consumer market (except the guys eager to impress their neighbors with their hi-tech gadgets...) :D.

The XL2 might have been a mistake from an "HD indie fan" point of view but it will most definitely fill a large demand, like it or not.

So you think it will be posible to shot HD 16:9 edit on SD 16:9 and delivered a 16:9 dvd ,if they have a 16:9 tv set thats fine, what if they have a regular tv 4:3....

a 16:9 DVD should automatically adjust to fit your screen's ratio, it does not matter if your TV is 4:3 or 16:9

<<<-- Originally posted by Ruben Senderey : So you think it will be posible to shot HD 16:9 edit on SD 16:9 and delivered a 16:9 dvd ,if they have a 16:9 tv set thats fine, what if they have a regular tv 4:3.... -->>>

Many (if not most) DVD players will letterbox a 16:9 image to fit on a 4:3 screen. It's a matter of going into your DVD player's settings.

Alternatively, these days you can find consumer 4:3 TVs with raster compression, which would give even better resolution because all the TV lines go into the image, instead of being wasted on blank space.

I just had this discussion the other day with a friend that still has SD clients and will want future SD projects. He felt that HDV would not be good for him right now. Not true, he can shoot the project in HD, edit HD and the make a SD version from that HD final master. The positive side, he will have a HD master for his client down the road, and archive the HD master. It's no different if you were doing a photo shoot and you had a choice between shooting with a 3MP or a 11MP digital SLR. I would start out with the best and go from there.

You are right. Still, upgrading to HD acquisition is a thing, upgrading to HD editing is another when you already have a SD workstation and you want to make the most out of it. The push to do the changes will not be as efficient to everybody, people will wonder why they should pay more for a similar result. I would, because of the final product being better when shot in HD downsized but the client often are unable to see the difference and won't pay more for an equivalent result. It's all a question of demand from the clients.

well its nice to know that we just need the hdcam ,the editing investment will come later...

Any news on HDVTR's
(i normaly edit on my MatroxDigisuite and
record to Dvcpro to keep the master, Rather then Dvd Master)

No,no.
Downsizing in RGB colorspace a source of 1440x1080 YUV 4:2:0 gives a 720x540 master with 4:4:4.
Anything different is wrong (sorry if I sound a little selfish :) )

ok thanks for the info , i will keep a dvd....

I am not sure if you are right about this 4:4:4 because 1080 HDV is interlaced, not progressive. it is very difficult to transfer a 540 lines field onto a 240 lines field (of course a 270 lines should be easier since it is half of it) but 720 X 540 is a square pixel 4:3, not a DV or DVD 4:3. I do not know the technicalities of a 1080 to 480 downconversion but i guess it should involve a de-interlace / re-interlace process in order to keep the fields aligned thus a loss. I may be wrong on this.

Actually, that's quite interesting...

Throw away one field and you'll have a 1440 x 540 piece of footage that was captured all in one moment in time... effectively no different than "progressive scan". Sampled at 4:2:0 it would, after downsizing, effectively be 4:2:2.

Then chop it down again in half on the X axis, and you'd indeed have 720 x 540, this time (assuming color was preserved perfectly) 4:4:4.

Very interesting...

Yes, as 4:2:0 is 4:2:2 on one field and 4:0:0 on the other, if you get rid of the 4:0:0 field, you could have a "progressive" 4:4:4 but it would not be possible to have a 4:4:4 by keeping the interlace signal because of the 4:0:0 field. I wonder if there is a downconversion program or plugin that does that. I bet Graeme could write one... :)

Now that would certainly be interesting.... I wonder how hard it would be to write a program like that for, say, After Effects.... I'll have to try writing something sometime.

If you throw away one field, you will probably have some extra artifacts in the video. Remember, the remaining lines are not going to magically also sample the scene of the missing lines. A troublesome test might be filming a screen door. What happens to the image that was falling on the even lines? Gone? Might make for some interesting moire flashing effects.
-Les

The downsizing will greatly minimise the artefacting, if it is still visible at all, after all, one field is 540 lines and the SD definition has 480, I doubt it will be necessary to fill the gap, just downsizing will do the trick.

Eric,
The artifacting could be huge amounts of strobing and wild looking patterns!
Example: ( assuming that the Sony actually resolves the separate fields with any resolution )
Imagine filming a house with a screen door in the background. As the camera moves, for a few frames the lines that make up the screen door all pretty much line up with the lines of the even field. For 100 lines.
Now the camera, due to it's motion, slowly tilts up, and makes the screen door material line up with the ODD lines. The the Even lines again, The odd, at a rate of several times a second.

No problem so far,viewed as is, the screen door looks like a dark grey shade, and does not exhibit anything too strange.
OK,
Now delete the EVEN field and play the video. Now there are frames that don't see much of the screen pattern at all. Those frames are white. pretty much ALL white ( the Odd field was the one that 'saw' the screen, they are gone)
The video will strobe like a mo-fo at a rate of several time a second. Frames alternate between white and grey. Strobing. Moire patterns.

Doesn't have to be a screen door. Could be a suit, a cloth pattern, etc.

This is basic sampling theory. You don't get good images when the samples are missing information in between. The solution would be to blur the taking lens a little, so the samples don't alias like I described. Bluring the video won't help at all, as the whole frame is white, bluring white is white.
Keyword: Aliasing.

Does this make sense?

-Les

I see where you are going, it does make sense, interlace in 1080 is not the same as with 480, there is more than twice the number of lines but this problem could, as a matter of fact, indeed appear (de-interlacing is not like a progressive scan, no doubt...)

This would be a problem to deal with, the ideal would be some sort of intelligent de-interlacing, re-aligning the field when possible but then you would not get a 4:4:4 end downconversion because you would use the 4:0:0 lines to create the false progressive image.

I think that perhaps some of us might be forgetting some of the most basic laws of technology -- the most notable I can think of is MOORE'S LAW.

Printing was invented in the 1400's. It took 500 years to reach the masses. Only the rich could afford books up until 300 years ago.

It was a full 100 years between the time the telephone & airplane were invented and most of the people of the world actually saw or used one. Today they are ordinary and ubiquitous.

Television and radio took less than 50 years to proliferate around the world.

It only took less than 25 years for that to happen to VCR's and Microprocessors.

It took less than 15 years for that to happen to things like DVD players and cell phones.

Who on the planet earth is not aware of an airplane? In the more undeveloped regions of the world cellular telephones are more widely used than landlines.

How old is High Definition Television? Keep in mind, I'm not talking about the United States, but the entire planet earth. There is ENORMOUS opportunity in HDTV.

The content does not exist today - SOMEBODY has to make it.

It costs 20 times more to produce the mechanical device of videotape than it does the digital device of an HDTV broadcast. You could put a movie theater in Africa where it was impossible before -- for 1/1000 the cost - and earn 500 times the profit.

That's the nature of technology. That IS Moore's law. That's why HDTV is important - and HDV is especially important because it removes this technology from the hands of the 'lumbering giants' of Hollywood and television networks, and places it back in the hands of the ordinary tinkerers that actually create and invent things, until the barons and corporations can turn it into an effect and efficient business.

The opportunity that this shift in technology creates is enormous. I theoretically could have more power on my desktop than the entire television industry had in 1950.

<<<-- Originally posted by Bill Piedra: The content does not exist today - SOMEBODY has to make it. -->>>

Well, all film originated material is hd, so there is a lot of hd around...

Bill, forget technology. All I hear is technical specifications. Please for the love of God, if you guys who own an FX1 think it's so damn great, then please go out and MAKE something!

I haven't seen one single example of a finished production with an FX1. All I see is test footage and resolution charts.

The important thing is the talent behind the camera, and while a lot of people think they are somehow going to be the next Speilberg or Zhang Yimou because they have an FX1, I'm afraid they won't.

Now will somebody please make a damn cool music video, or short film using the FX1 for us all to see and give us a report on the pro's and cons of using the camera in a real world situation. Note that this doesn't mean taking it on a news job and showing it to the techie guys and telling us that they thought it looked cool.

Remember, if people were that concerned with resolution, 28 Days Later wouldn't have been as successful as it was. Neither would Blair Witch, or Deep Water.

And lastly, Japan. Japan has had high def since the 80's when it started in analogue form. Odd then that no company in Japan made a high def consumer cam before now. Often Japan does have high tech gadgets that the rest of the world never sees.

The FX1 will be great for film fesitvals. But people need to stop making utterly ridiculous comments such as SD is dead etc. No it's not, and won't be for a long time. I had to laugh when I saw one guy on this thread mention someone he knows who "still" has SD clients!

"Still"?! I dunno where you come from, but less than 7% of homes in the US had HDTV's. Even less in the rest of the world. DVD took 6 years to get to the point that it has. The fastest take up ever. Yet some people still buy videos.

With an HD-DVD system you are asking more then 90% of the population who have just gotten used to the idea of DVD's to upgrade their ENTIRE home entertainment system! You think that's gonna happen any time soon?

There seems to be the assumption by lots of people here that the general populace buys something like DVD because it is better. In a lot of cases people buy something new because their old equipment just broke so they want to buy something new that will last, or they are forced to because there is nothing else available. Even if an HD-DVD player became available tomorrow, you'd still have to pursuade 90% of the US to upgrade their TV's etc. And then you'd have to work on the rest of the world.

The guy I mentioned earlier probably "still" has SD clients because his clients perhaps actually want to be able to view the final product!

Someone mentioned DVHS. Any figures for the takeup of this technology in homes? How are you going to record FX1 footage to DVHS?

I agree. That's the point. I see the purpose of the edge of camera's like the FX1 and the HD10 as tools to let film makers to make films.

The HUGE benefit that I see is that it's going to allow some film makers to make films to create media that is going to make something that is going to be VERY high demand in the near future.

That is my hope hope.

There is an adage - writers write.

There may be a demand for a while. I don't know.

Things are always proportional. I don't believe that any more people will be successful with HDV in the film world than MiniDV people were in an SD world. The pro's always have better equipment, more experience, and more resources.

It will enable people to have their films shown in film festivals more for sure. But HDV will not give anyone golden Hollywood opportunities? Why? Because a low budget movie will always look like a low budget movie. It's just that in HD it will be in a higher resolution.

That higher resolution brings problems of it's own to the indie filmmaker. The first is that the digital indie filmmaker is not used to having their movie shown on a large screen AND having huge amounts of detail. Details and flaws in the sets, makeup, and other aspects will no longer be coverable by the lack of definition. I know professional TV makeup guys who hate working with HD because it really does put enourmous pressures on them.

So how do film people manage? Well, big Hollywood films employ the best. Those guys don't do TV makeup. But asking a TV makeup artist to work to similar standards doesn't work as well.

The same goes for set design and other aspects.

So I'm afraid I don't think HDV will give anyone any more opprtunities than MiniDV or SD. If in some universe a film producer was looking out for new talent and someone slapped two low budget indies on my desk, one made with MiniDV and the other with HDV, and they were both very well produced and made, what makes you think that the producer would automatically give the deal to the one shot on HDV? The same goes for film festivals. A movie isn't going to win an award because it's shot on an FX1 or Z1.

Any talk of golden money and fame opportunitues because of HDV should never be mentioned again because they ain't going to happen. Even if you did make an absolutely stunning movie with an FX1, you still need to sell it and market it. Hollywood has far more of that ability than any indie (yeah okay, let's leave Miramax and Lucasfilm out of the equation!), so the power will always be with the studios. Plus there will always be better equipment for them available including the possibility of 4k cameras!

Ahh, but with digital cinema it's cheaper to show movies, and the distribution network is therefore made more accessible to smaller companies. Sure. IF you show it at an independent cinema. As it is all the big chains are owned by the studios, and they ain't going to let the small guys take over.

In the future it may be possible to stream HD over the internet, thereby making it possible for guys like us to market ourselves much more easily. Although the fact remains that a big budget SFX extraveganza always looks better in the cinema. There's room at the inn for all. It's just that us indies will always be relegated to the smallest room in the house.

My 2cents....

Here in the northeastern US, VHS rental video will soon be moribund ... Best Buy etc barely sell videotape players anymore, video rental stores hate tangled, un-rewound tapes, yadayada....

So most people are or will soon will be renting DVDs, in 16:9 format.

People find it tedious watching 16:9 letterboxed on a 4:3 TV ... so they decide that the next TV they buy will be widescreen - maybe Enhanced Definition or maybe HD.

Then they want to play their home SD camcorder footage to their friends and family on their new widescreen TV and it looks...kinda cruddy!

So they look for a decent 16:9 camcorder. ...and find an appalling lack of info on how the consumer camcorders actually implement 16:9 (since the web reviewers and the retailers rarely have any accurate info about this).

Meanwhile, 2005 sees lots of buzz about the FX1, JVC GR-HD1s on EBay for under $1000, and (finally!) the release of cheap standalone media players capable of HD-WM9 (or similar) as well as the normal DVDs that people already have ....

User-friendly HDV editing capability is still largely missing in action, but with the free Cineform plugin coming to Premiere Pro, and so on, soon that gap is closing too.

Folks, I'd suggest that all the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle are RAPIDLY moving into place for a major surge in consumer interest in getting high quality home and event footage onto widescreen TVs. And HDV and WM9HD on red-lazer discs provides a viable route to achieve that.

"People find it tedious watching 16:9 letterboxed on a 4:3 TV ... so they decide that the next TV they buy will be widescreen "

Assumptions again. Film companies these days seem to be releasing more and more dual versions of their films on DVD. Bourne Supremacy was one where you could buy a 4:3 version and a 16:9 version seperately.

The consumer may well get a new TV that is widescreen. But I can tell you right now that the vast majority will not buy a new TV for the sake of it! DVD has taken over 6 years to get where it is now, and that's just ONE piece of equipment. With HD you are talking about upgrading everything from the TV, to the Sat/cable box, to the DVD player/recorder.

For sure HD will become the standard at some point. That is inevitable. But people here seem to think that its going to be tomorrow just as soon as the general public hear about HD. Most of the general public could care less, and many, stupid as it seems probably couldn't tell the difference between HD and SD. Especially on a smaller screen in many living rooms. I know many people with a 16:9 TV here in the UK as such TV's are quite popular. Even with our digital 16:9 TV broadcasts, I've seen quite a few people who haven't even set up their DVD players and digi boxes for a 16:9 TV. So they happily sit there watching a 4:3 broadcast or DVD stretched across their screen!

Even if everyone has HD, you still then have to wait for the film companies to transfer all their film releases to HDDVD etc, and then you have to buy them all over again (and we end up going through the damn Star Wars and Indiana Jones debacle again!) And these problems are just in the US. What about many other countries who don't even have HD broadcasting yet?

"So they look for a decent 16:9 camcorder"

So things will take even longer! Everyone will have had to have upgraded their TV's before they realise they need a new camcorder! The popularity of HDDVD film releases will be the thing that propels HD takeup. If everyone replaces their VCR's with recordable DVD the HD takeup will be even slower. Why? Try pursuading a member of the general populace that they need 2 DVD players!

". ...and find an appalling lack of info on how the consumer camcorders actually implement 16:9 (since the web "

No member of the public outside enthusiasts like us will even think to look for such information anyway, or even care less. All the public want's is a camera that does what it's supposed to do with the minimum of fuss. If consumers cared so much for technical details you would be seeing far more takeup of genuine HDTV's. As it is you see people buying HD ready TV's that can't display the full resolution.

"of cheap standalone media players capable of HD-WM9 (or similar) as well as the normal DVDs that people already "

Look, this is just plain stupid. When HDDVD is finally released, now you are suggesting that people should buy a new TV, a new cable box, a new camcorder, a new DVD player to play HDDVD's, a new DVD recorder when one becomes available, and also now you think people are going to be sold on having to buy something called a media box! It won't work! Not outside the enthusiast market at any rate. But even as technical toy fan even I don't want all that damn equipment cluttering up my room! Where in the hell am I supposed to put all that stuff?!

People here need to grow a reality cell. New technology never succeeds purely because it's better than the old. You only have to look at all the different Sony formats there have been in the past.

" RAPIDLY moving into place for a major surge in consumer"

No they are not. 10 years minimum. And even then SD DVD will still be the prevalent playing medium. How is it rapidly moving into place? What are your reasons for thinking the takeup will be high thereby making a surge in tgetting fully HD entertainment systems in peoples homes? What is your reason for thinking the general public will want to buy all this new equipment? And what are your reasons for saying it will be rapid?

Simon -

I disagree. All that MiniDV did was make digital editing of standard definition video, a technology that had been available to masses for more than 30 year, more available. I owned a black & white video camera a beta max in 1980. I couldn't really edit with it, but I was able to create a couple of 'movies'.

But there WAS a HUGE breakthrough at that point in time - unfortunately it came to us in the form of pornography. The technology of the day allowed for the cheap creation and distribution of that material to the masses. Without pornography, we would not have see the profliferation of the VCR. You might not beleive that, but I firmly believe that it is true.

We are standing at the same technology cusp today - except the demand is going to be for something different. (there may be a demand for HD porn - but I'm not going to discuss that here)

I FIRMLY believe that in less that 24 months there is going to be EXPLOSIVE GROWTH in the delivery of HDTV sets - and INCREDIBLE DEMAND for HD CONTENT. That demand will include conversions of 35mm film - but will also include NEW CONTENT!

The masses will be STARVING FOR IT. That is where I see incredible opportunity. HDV could allow a small entreprenuer to start a 'micro-studio' that could produce content to compete with the big boys. Why? Because the barrier to entry has been lowered dramatically. The lumbering giants HATE this idea. They want to control content and they are starting to see that they might lose that control.

There may be a huge paradigm shift in the way content is delivered. The possibilities of 100% digitally produced & delivered content are endless!

We live in a very exciting age!

While, I don't know that the growth of the next 24 months will be explosive, I certainly can tell that it's not going to take 10 plus years...at least not in America. People keep citing the acceptance and proliferation of older technologies...but they fail to realize that the world is changing constantly. For instance, 10 years ago, there was no such thing as the internet (at least not as it currently exists--those of us "early pioneers/adopters" never dreamed of what it is today), satellite TV was for the extremely rich, and editing video on a pc was laughable. It's not just that DVD's have been accepted in 6 years...everything has changed. And here in the states, there is barely a thought given to Standard Definition in our programming. Let me explain that...

1. It is quite nearly impossible to watch any TV and not see at least 1 ad for HD programming...if not several an hour.

2. There is never an ad for a sale on SD TV's...every commercial you see for TV's--HD (or at least ED--what a crappy idea...).

3. In the actual programming, all your favorite characters watch an HDTV--exuding coolness for all to see.

and

4. Outside of Japan, America is quickly becoming the most gadgety, tech-savy group in the world. I don't know of one male between the ages of 20 and 50 that either doesn't have, or doesn't want an HDTV (albeit most of them fall into the wanting category).

Sure, the entire populace over 60 probably wouldn't know the difference between 320x240 web video and a 4K film scan... (okay, that was a gross exaggeration, I apologize if it offends) but for the most part, we've got an entire media industry (TV, News, Advertisers) telling us constantly that we need HD if we truly care about our families, our social standing, our status as a human being (isn't it amazing what commercials actually imply?).

So my thoughts are...

No, the majority of people do not have HDTV...but

Yes, the majority of people are being told by the people they listen to the most (TV/CELEBRITIES/CORPORATIONS) that they not only want it, but that they need it.

We have made a fundamental shift in the past 100 years--away from a logic base, print based public discourse, to an emotional based, visual based discourse and culture...and the more that affects us, the quicker we will latch on to what they tell us...HD.

Now, my statements are filled with exaggerations and representations of opinions as fact...but so were Simon's and others who think that HD will never catch on...

People buy things if they think it's convenient, not because they are told to.

Japan has had HDTV since the 80's, and yet the takeup there is still very slow indeed. My sister lives there and she doesn't know what HD is until I told her!

I'm sorry, but none of you guys are looking at history to see the real time it took for new technology to become mainstream, and that includes VHS.

Simon,

First of all, you don't understand capitalism (or the current state of most of the world) if you think people buy things for convenience only...people are sheep and they buy what they are told they need to buy--ask anyone in advertising, hollywood, mainstream media, etc... And actually, what you said is correct to a degree, but only if it's explained. You said, "People buy things if they think it's convenient," (boldening mine). The reason people think anything is convenient--is because they're told that this new technology is convenient or better or will somehow transform their lives--that's the whole point of advertising in the television age...an emotion-based, visual-based age.

Second of all, history is not going to be what sets the pace for the switch to HD. Will it be instant? Obviously not. Will it take 10-15 years from now? Absolutely not. The only history you can look at to show you any kind of estimate, is the last 10 years... The world has changed how quickly it assimilates new technology (thanks due largely in part to who is telling them what to buy and why they're being told to). The only technology left from over 10 years ago in the entertainment biz is basically CD's (talking consumer level here...) Satellite TV is as big as cable, satellite radio is catching on like wild fire, the internet EXISTS, people are already weening themselves off of CD's in favor of downloading (both legally and illegally) music and video content. On Demand Television is already being developed as an alternative to the current broadcast model. Acquisition models have changed and/or been completely invented due to the DV format. 5 year olds have computers today as powerful as Nasa's 20 years ago...and can do more with them.

I have looked at history...and since the invention of the telegraph, each new phase of technology takes less and less time to be assimilated...that's simply the world we live in today.

Kevin, I understand what you are saying (and I took marketing at college). But there are limits. Although the prices are coming down, people can still see past the marketing hype once they go to a shop and find out all the pieces of equipment that they need to replace in order to be fully HD. Once the customer gets to the checkout and has to hand over the money, that's where the illusion will collapse. Plus because DVD is relatively new in consumers minds, they will ask why they need to replace it when they have only just got it. People can be told that Armani suits are some of the best. But it makes no difference if they can only afford to shop at GAP!

Japan is a good example of a technologically mad country that has had access to HD since the late 80's, that still hasn't become mainstream. As I pointed out in a much earlier thread, when I asked my sister to get me some DVD's once, she was amazed to find that many shops were still mainly VHS!

History is a good indicator of how consumers choose what to buy. What advantage does HD give on a 14 inch TV in the kitchen for example? The advantage of HD depends much on screen size and viewing distance.

Then we come to other countries. The US as I have pointed out many a time, is NOT the world. Now I know you US people may like to think that it is, but it isn't. And just because HD may or may not take off in the US, it doesn't make a monkeys bit of difference to the rest of us. Why?

Bandwidth. While cable is available in many places, there are still many without cable access. There are also many who don't want to pay for satellite subscription, but even with satellite, there is still bandwidth availability problems.

So far as terrestrial transmission goes, there is only enough transmission bandwidth available for one station at the moment. Currently that is being taken up by a test transmission system that the different TV companies can use to test HD out.

But until ALL analogue transmissions are turned off across the whole of Europe, there will be no terrestrial HDTV here simply because it's a physical and scientific impossibility. So first we have to convert everyone to SD digital, which I suppose in Europe isn't too bad because we have had 16:9 digital transmissions for a while and the resolution is higher than NTSC. But only after that can the real push for HDTV be made.

But bandwidth is not the only thing stopping HDTV in Europe. Copyright is causing major headaches because of the number of countries that border each other. This is something else that is holding things up.

You need to look at this from a world perspective, not from a US one.

i think Kevin and Simon are both right, folks buy stuff for all sorts of reasons...

but a good rule of thumb is folks who buy stuff they don't need or can't afford are sheep

folks who buy stuff they need buy for conveniece wether it be price, location or what not

most folks do a little of both, they buy a sheepishly huge suv and shop for the best price on gas augh...

<<<-- Originally posted by Simon Wyndham : You need to look at this from a world perspective, not from a US one. -->>>

Actually, when it comes to what my business is doing and who I'm marketing to...no, I don't I need to be concerned with the status of things in the US. And while I'm certain that other parts of the world will be behind in this conversion process, as America leads the way, they'll follow shortly. Maybe the UK is 15 years off from HD assimilation. The US is hardly that far off.

Ok so I buy the new Sony Z1. I upgrade my FCE to the just out today FCE-HD. I burn on my Superdrive. So it will still be SD I'm watching on the DVD right? But your saying it should look better than SD? Now is what you burned HD or is it you just don't have a HD DVD player to watch it!!

So really if you want to see the full HD you would have to run direct into the HDTV set?

I don't want to hurl insults - that's not my purpose. The differnce between the opinions of folks like Simon, who "took marketing in college" and say, Steve Jobs - who DIDN'T take "marketing in college" is a bit of vision of that which cannot be seen. I am NOT by any means making any claim to be a visionary.

At the same time, I think that HDV, and this breakthrough in technology IS going to make a difference -- and while my examples might seem extreme -- , are they really? I remember paying $1000.00 for a reference grade DVD player in 1995 and my biggest problem was finding content. I had to buy everything mail order. In less than 4 years DVD was MORE than mainstream, and I think I helped add to it. I used to buy and give the players and DVD's as gifts to friends and family.

I have 3 brothers and 2 sisters - and 4 of them have HDTV's today. Only 2 receive content that is in HD format - and I'm the only one in the bunch of 6 that has a 4:3 aspect ratio TV! (I have a Sony RPTV that does a 16:9 anamorphic squeeze for HD)

They are SCREAMING for it - I'm screaming for it - the WORD is. I find myself watching stuff on network TV that I would NEVER consider watching only because it's being broadcast in HDTV - out of my 225 channels of cable, (I get every pay station) I only get 8 in HD. Can you see the problem here?

My brother easily has the means to buy one of those $12,000 plasma displays - in fact we were looking at one at Sony's display in NYC recently - and his arguement to me meant perfect sense - "what's the point?" So - I can hang it on my wall? So what? If I could hang it on my wall and get those pretty pictures I see at the SONY store, I'd buy it in a heart beat. This is from a guy who had an iPod on the day they came out - and now he has 4 of them and they are the central component to his entire music system (car, home, kids, etc)

The problem with HDTV is a simple chicken/egg one. Which one we have today doesn't matter - we need the other one. SOMEBODY has to make it. MILLIONS of people are going to be demanding it in a couple of years. HDV will allow tiny, independent producers who never though that they could create content to create it. I want to be one of those people.

I didn't take marketing in college, I have to admit, I don't have a degree and couldn't sit still long enough to get one. My hat's off to all that did.

I was able to create a software company that made a little bit of money during the 1990's and the turn of the century. Software development is dead in the US - that's been handed over to the cheap labor in India by the huge US corporations. HDTV is alive, well and ready to start kicking - and I wanna be there when it starts to kick.

I have no idea what I'm doing here ranting about it here. I'll see you on the other side guys. As I heard another visionary say, -- Lead, follow, or get out of the way!

We are living in some VERY exciting times! I hope to run into some of you on the way.

Mr Dylan -

No, it will STILL be SD video if you burn it onto DVD. No matter what you do. It might look a little bit nicer, I'm not sure, I have no experience. BUT, if you want to spring another $300 for a JVC 300000U D-VHS player and record in 1080i, then you will have 1080i content that will amaze and delight your friends and family for the moment.

It would be as amazing as if you made your own DVD in 1998! (Which would have been IMPOSSIBLE unless you spent $500,000+ for the first copy)

Bill, how would you connect to the DVHS recorder? All that I've heard suggests that the FX1 and Z1 are not compatible with DVHS.

You can't connect them directly. Interestly enought, my only experience doing this was JUST today. You can pull video from the FX1 using the CINEFORM tool for Sony VEGAS, and it will record right back out to the D-VHS deck.

I just did it, not an hour ago. I also did it, sort of, about a month ago, with the previous version, but that version didn't capture to well from the FX1.

Interesting that you should mention that, as that's what I was expermenting with just now.

I have never tried to connect the two directly. I understand the FX1 uses a PES and the JVC a MTS (slightly differnt transport streams, the Sony being one layer above the JVC in the hierarchy of transport streams)

BTW: I notice that the JVC software does not recognize the Sony camera out of the box, but with a little tinkering DOES recognize the PES stream for some reason. Too bad the software is so bad. I found it unusable as compared to Premiere, Vegas, FCP.

Bill I was thinking about the marketing thing too. I'm not so much thinking about watching things at my house but selling to other people who have HDTV. Want your wedding in HD or some other event? How can they see it? I was told yesterday that in about 6 months HD players will start hitting the market.

Making the leap to HD is going to cost more and making sure what will work with other stuff is the other problem. Will the Z1 work with the new players, etc etc?

I'm kind of thinking to go with the XL2 which is going to work on the HD sets and the non HD TV's. (16:9) Then give the market a chance to work out all the little details.

If I went with HD right now I have to get a new computer,,my iMac isn't going to handle it!!

If you're thinking of selling wedding video's then by all means, an XL2 is the way to go. That's not the direction that I'm thinking. I'm looking at a different picture.

I want to be a film maker. I see HDV as a once in a life time potential 'hole' in the industry that will close pretty fast. Remember - from 1970 to 1999 everything the major TV producers created (with few exceptions) was made on SD Video and now that are really HATING the idea of HDTV. That's why the standard has been pushed out and changed.

Remember - it was supposed to be 2005 ALL broadcasted MUST be broadcasting in HDTV? Not it's 2007 that MOST brodcasters SHOULD be broadcasting in 'Enhanced Definition TV' - WHY? All those reruns of 'Judge Judy' are worthless on the the day the new standard takes effect! The ENTIRE library - the WHOLE FU&#ing ABC library becomes WORTHLESS on that day - the LOVE BOAT - 6 million dollar man - the Brady Bunch, ad naseum - get it? Right up to Jerry Springer!!! Now do you see why they are quaking in their boots?

Right now the broadcasters are in charge of the FCC - but there is another side to that force - the producers of the 'flip side' of the technology.

If you want to make wedding videos, stick with SD for now. It will be VERY hard to sell HDTV wedding video, and if you do, I'd only keep an FX1 (or and HD10) as a backup camera.

Good luck to you. (Theoretically you could include an SD and HD Version with a player in a package if you wanted - please reasearch another thread I wrote last year on this subject - I'll look it up for you if you want)

BTW - I still love some of those tunes you wrote in the late 60's!

Not sure I'm following you here.

There is no date, no mandate, no directive or any other government or FCC decree that the US convert to HDTV - ever.

The government has decided that it wants the broadcasters to switch to digital broadcasting rather than analog broadcasting, ostensibly because digital broadcasting takes up a smaller spectrum of the airwaves, so they could auction off that broader spectrum of airwaves.

Accordingly they developed the ATSC standards, 18 formats of digital broadcasting. Six are HDTV, but the rest are SDTV and EDTV. Networks and smaller broadcast stations can choose to broadcast any of those formats (including just standard-def video) and be in COMPLETE COMPLIANCE. They don't ever have to change over to HDTV if they don't want to, or can't afford to.

With that said, why would the library become worthless? It'll be just as valuable as ever. The Beatles recordings didn't become worthless simply because radio switched to stereo, nor did they become worthless when radio stations went to FM, nor did they become worthless when the world moved to CD. They just copied the content to the new format. And that's what they'll do again with the film and video library.

There is no longer a government mandate that broadcasters change to broadcasting HDTV. That changed in 2000. Prior to 2000 there WAS a mandate. The FCC changed the rules, then the industry (bought and paid for by US taxpayers - but corrupted by the corporations that actually control them) changed them back.

The new television standard for the United States was to be HDTV on or before January 1, 2007 for any network broadcasting nationally, and all local affiliates by 2010. The 'adoption' rule was supposed to take place this year. It was change to 'Enhanced Definition TV' a few years ago.

I'm not kidding. It's read. The point was that all of the bandwidth used by SD broadcasters could no longer be used and would be replaced by HDTV broadcasts. Do you not remember the talk from the mid 1990's.

Your tax dollars hard at work.

I'll find the link for the actual LAW - (yes it was a LAW - written by congress in the 1980's - read LAW - not suggestion or rule - but LAW)

Barry, as always the voice of reason.

Bill, I cannot find ANYWHERE that says anything about the FCC or anyone else trying to force HDTV upon people by a certain time. There is only mention of conversion to digital transmission. That is not the same as HDTV. As Barry mentioned DTV encompasses many formats.

And yes, I was looking at FCC etc mandates from BEFORE 2000 when you say they changed things.