With all this talk of HDV at the moment with Sony's HDR-FX1 camera etc, I have been left wondering exactly what the point of High def on a consumer level is at the moment.

In fact I have also been wondering what the point is even for corporate video in many cases.

Firstly, the consumer level. You might have friends and family who have a Hi def TV set (though not in the UK where we will be lucky to see HD as standard within the next 20 years), but how are they going to watch it? DVD? VHS?

Why haven't the powers that be given users a final delivery format for their new cameras? Can one buy a high def DVD burner for their PC or Mac?

Secondly, it's MPEG2 compression. How can anyone who wants to do serious video work even consider using MPEG2 at the data rates that HDV uses? IMX Mpeg is a different matter. It can run at 50mb/s and under technical analysis can barely be seperated from Digibeta. But MPEG2 for HDV strikes me as being a bit like giving with one arm and taking with the other.

What's this compression like during fast movement?

Not only that, but MiniDV is a horrible little format to begin with. The tapes are unreliable and susceptable to even the most microscopic piece of dust or condensation.

Then there is the audio spec. Compressed 16-bit audio at 384kb/s MPEG!

If they were going to develop a new format they really should have taken things to the next level. Perhaps they should have worked more on putting the format on a high density disc and working on recording uncompressed (or lossless compression) 24-bit sound. After all, if you are going to have a hi def picture you might as well have ultra high def sound too.

It seems to me that HDV hasn't truly been thought out before it's implication. Trying to keep Mini-DV tape compatibility is always going to result in a halfway measure, probably only to be succeeded yet again a bit further down the line annoying lots of consumers in the process.

I read that “the BBC have announced that by 2010, their entire production will migrate to the high definition format. There is however no mention of the Corporation transmitting HD now or even in 2011 because of the cost implications to license holders.
BSkyB however has already announced their transmission date for HD in 2006. “
(info from “High Definition” magazine, September 2004)

Robin

Exactly. The production houses may well move over as they need to sell their product overseas.

However most people in the UK have only just been pursuaded that widescreen TV is the way to go. It's taking long enough just for them, DVD, and digital television to become standard in homes, let alone asking people to fork out for yet another format of TV and DVD.

The BBC made a critical mistake by not putting HDTV into their original digital spec. If digital boxes were hi def ready from the very beginning then the transition would be eased a hell of a lot.

As it is however HD-DVD is in a format war, and even then nothing is really readily available. Think about it from the consumers point of view. Look at how long it has taken for DVD to take over shops like HMV etc. Even now there are still loads of VHS for sale. In fact, my sister who lives in Osaka in Japan says she was amazed to find that HMV's over there are still 90% VHS!!

Now with High Def on a consumer level imagine all the trouble of getting people to adopt the idea of yet another format, but on top of that having to choose again between different versions of it such as Blu-ray etc. Forgetting writable DVD for the moment, at least when DVD was finally released for consumers to purchase films on there was only one version. You bought a DVD and it worked in all DVD players. There were no awkward decisions to make.

So imagine how long it will take HD-DVD to become the normal format.

I know things have to develop, and I like new technology, but looking at it from a realistic consumer point of view I can't see it becoming anything other than a minority format for quite a few years to come. Especially in the UK.

But back to HDV. If I shoot something on a HDV camera (assuming a decent prosumer one ever comes out) where can I have it distributed? If I make something feature length, what are my archive options? How can I even make a nice high def DVD for myself let alone to give to other people?

Also if the HDV format is set in stone, then that's it. Rubbishy compression all round for years to come, and the only way people are ever going to truly be able to make a decent independent high def digital movie would be for them to shell out for the hire of professional HD equipment.

Further, has there been any exhaustive tests on the format? What's it like over multiple generations of compression? Pretty awful I would imagine. What's it like in shadowed areas (even with the new Sony 3 chip camera)?

So, basically I am all for high def. I would love to shoot footage at extremely high res to close the gap between my capabilities and those of people who shoot on crisp film. However I think the whole High Def revolution is all a bit of a mess as far as the consumer end of things are concerned.

Simon,

I spoke to a JVC rep last week at the Photokina in Cologne. I asked him which way to go if you wanted to invest into new equipment: DV or HDV.

He said: "If you want to make money within the next three or four years then go for DV, not HDV". I found that quite interesting. However, this may be true only for Europe and other parts of the world where HD TVs are almost unknown at the moment.

Having said that, they showed a HDV demo reel downconverted and burned to DVD on a HD monitor. It looked just great to the unaided eye. However, there was very little movement in the scenes and practically no pans or tilts.

I think at least over here in Europe most people will be quite happy with (SD) DV equipment for some time to come.

I never understood the whole Hi Definition label either. How can it be considered higher definition than native DV? Mpeg is a lossy format, isn't it? But it's "WIDESCREEN!" Big deal.

Until I can afford $3,000 for a TV, I'll stick with regular video.

DV is a compressed format and lossy as well. HDV has indeed a much higher resolution than DV but because it uses (almost) the same low bit rate as DV, it has to be compressed much more than DV. That's why they use MPEG2.

I agree that MPEG2 is not the best choice qualitywise, but I guess the engineers had some good reasons for MPEG2. Anyway, I will stick with SD for another couple of years too.

Simon,

I have a HiDef TV. I bought it just over 2 yrs. ago. All my local TV stations broadcast in digital. They broadcast using an MPEG2 type of compression and data rates around 19.2mbs. The TV is able to display the current video format and data rate if the station chooses to include it.

As for the HDV camera, there is no consumer distribution format currently available. However, my tv includes a 1394 firewire port which will recognize an mpeg2 stream and will output an mgeg2 stream. So, I could presumably buy the new Sony cam and play my 'home videos' by hooking directly to the tv via firewire. The camera could then double as a hi-def vcr for recording off the air broadcasts.

If you do get the chance to visit the U.S., please go to an electonics store chain and see HDTV. It's nothing short of breathtaking IMHO compared to NTSC.

regards,

=gb=

Rainer- Wouldn't definition be initially defined by the image chips of the camera? I mean, a SD camera with three 2/3" or even 1/2" chips, would have a better image than a 1/3" chip HD cam, right?

My only experience with HD tv is at Best Buy (where I seem to spend way to much time just standing around gawking), and I'm of mixed feelings about the whole thing. On the one hand, static images look fantastic, but I can see definite problems with fast movement. One of the sample pieces of footage is an underwater shot of brightly colored fish. Every time they change directions the whole image shimmers with horrible compression artifacts. It looks frankly terrible. Why they would choose that particular footage as an example is beyond me. No question though, the overall effect blows NTSC away. While I'm having doubts about how well it would blow up for a theatrical release, there's no question the gap is getting narrower.

Keith,

it's not just a question of chip size but (if we talk about resolution) the number of pixels you have on the chip. A 1/3" chip of a HDV cam has more active pixels than a 2/3" chip of a Digibeta cam and therefore the image can hold more details.

Of course, the number of pixels doesn't tell you anything about overal image quality, it's only an indication of the image resolution and the level of detail. A larger chip with a lower number of pixels is usually more light sensitive and a larger chip size (no matter how many pixels it has) gives a more shallow depth of field.

Hope that helps.

Some good stuff coming through here.

I would love to see a side by side direct screen grab of something like, say the Sony PDW-510P or 530P equipped with a broadcast lens next to the same shot taken on one of the new consumer HD cameras. I wonder if the superior optics of the pro Sony cameras would even out the playing field.

But despite the problems of the picture of HDV, there is then the sound. DV has uncompressed sound. If HDV tries to compress a high def picture into the same space taken up by a standard DV picture, then surely they could have used uncompressed audio for HDV too?

Over multiple generations by the time special effects might be done, or colour grading and correction, as well as titles, I think the MPEG2 compression of HDV will look very bad. The sound might be even worse.

HD might look better than NTSC, but NTSC looks awful compared to analogue PAL broadcasts in the UK. I'm in Canada now, and see HDTV in the big box stores, and find the picture quite nice on stills, or slow test footage, but, for instance, on the olympics it was dreadful with ghastly motion artifacting. What's the point of having a higher resolution, if the overall quality is lower. I think they're even looking at MPEG4 based solutions for HDTV in europe to get better quality out of it, than outdated MPEG2.

Graeme

Wouldn't Hd mpeg downrezzed to SD look awesome once you got the right technique? Any artifacts would dissappear no? And could you not up the color rez also?

No. You can't ditch the MPEG artefacts nor can you change the colour resolution either. Well, you can save it to a better colour resolution format, but it won't make any difference whatsoever since what has been captured is what has been captured by the camera and that's that.

MPEG is a fantastic format for DVD especially with two pass, or in the case of the really pro systems I believe, triple pass encoding. Plus of course on manufactured DVDs somebody is employed to go through the film manually to help decide on particular bit-rates for particular parts of the film.

So the problem with a camera using straight MPEG2 is that of course because it is real time it cannot do multiple passes. Instead the bitrate is set.

With normal DV there is lossy compression for sure. But it doesn't have to compress anywhere near as much as HDV has to do to fit a high def picture onto a standard DV tape.

God only knows what kind of horrible artefacts HDV produces if you shot against a graduated plain blue sky for example.

My nightmare scenario is when manufacturers start making mostly HDV cameras and there are no other new SD Mini-DV cameras being made for the professional market and we are forced to use this horrible new format.

About 2 weeks ago, Sony, (if I remember correctly), announced that they had developed a system that will remove the artifacts and the "traveling" in HD. By traveling, I mean circular objects appear jagged when in motion, such as tires on a vehicle.

I don't remember just when they will release it, but, I seem to recall late next year.

First products will be flat screens.

Next time I will save and post the article.

There are ways to reduce the effect by for example splitting the
channels and working on the seperately. However, it will never
be as good as when you had it uncompressed (ofcourse).

Graeme, I have ordered a FX1 and in preperation have treated myself to a new Toshiba 26", 16x9 HD set ( about the lowest cost I could find that was 16x9 in Ottawa). I have also changed my Digital cable box to the HD box. This is all in the last two weeks and have the following observations. The PBS Detroit channel is probably the ONLY true HD channel with good picture and 5.1 sound that broadcasts all the time. Most of the other channels are still 4x3 and are likely not from original HD material ( the picture difference is VERY obvious) The multiple conversions between analogue and digital from original, cable transmission,and TV line doubling/expansion to 16x9 for 4x3 picture, create the potential for an awful picture. In fact I can confirm that my JVC I'art 24" on straight cable ( no box) on the same channel is considerably better than the component input to the Toshiba from the Digital box zoomed to fill 16x9 screen!!!!! That said, the picture from PBS is startling with great 5.1 sound, several programs on the other channels in prime time are clearly true HD. I think that there is a lot of digital artifacts due to interaction between the program source and the TV's enhancement circuitry, sort of double re-encoding!! that creates a lot of problems on poor source material. A bit like doing two encode decode cycles and then applying digital zoom!!! Certainly on this small Toshiba I have better performance from the Y/C input than the component for some sources!!! I have a DVI to HDMI cable coming today so will see if this makes a difference. I am sure things will be a lot better when the transmission is digital all the way to the display with no re-encoding involved. Most of what is seen in the big box stores I am sure is standard definition, seen on all the TVs in the store. The HD sets process the video ( line double progressive, zoom to 16x9 ) and performance is really poor or show DVD's which of course are not HD and suffer the same processing!!! The only demos worth watching in Ottawa are PBS or the Rogers demo channel.

Ron Evans

Simon,

A lot of people are finding success with HDV, as they did with mini-dv. No one ever suggested that HDV or DV was pro HD and SD, if that's what you're saying.

Heath McKnight

Interesing thread, one that I would believe was posted more from and understanding perspective than a condescending perspective.

The questions seems rhetorical but why even consider HD or Film for that matter? No one has a film projector at home to view the content natively right or the 4:4:4 colorspace that film is capable of? True HD monitors and projectors aren't able to resolve the full resolution of true HD, why bother? Mainly because the target audience will always have a viable method to view the recorded material whether it be film, HD or HDV. It can always be produced and marketing 'down'.

As for HD now with HDV you have a few less expensive options for presentation to friends, family and business partners.


Downconvert to DVD - The increased resolution will always present more detail when downconverted than DV would converted to DVD.
WMVHD baby! - You can convert HDV to WMVHD and store up to 2 hours on DVD! You could present the WMVHD contents via laptop or PC to a multimedia projector or connect it directly to a HDTV set.
D-VHS - With players costing as little as $300, you could edit and store your results on D-VHS with the same codec as it was created in with little hit on quality. A D-VHS player can be brought to the presentation or if a friend or family member has one they could use it to view footage from the JVCs.


The future option of course (specifically for the JVCs) is to be able to present the HD material on an HD optical format like the upcoming Blu-Ray or HD-DVD formats. I'm sure the Sony FX1 would be able to be recorded to these formats as well, we're just not sure at this point. Regardless of which one dominates, since MPEG2 is a standard on both, I'm sure we'll have no problems with footage from HDV cameras.

Not only that but I would consider the format ahead of the curve especially from a consumer standpoint now. Everytime I show off any footage from my HD1 people stare in awe at the wonder image quality. I take my HD1 to the local Best Buys and Circuit City's (electronic retailers) here in the states to just awe people about every other month. :-) HD from a consumer camcorder...doesn't get any better than this.

As far as MPEG2, I guess if you don't have any experience with it you really don't know. Although the codec is antiquated, it's still very effective for delivery gorgeous video. MPEG2 HD done right is a spectacle to behold. I've been in the HD viewing side of things now for over 4 years. I've yet to see any HD program that wasn't simply breathtaking, especially programs shot in HD video like the ones on Discovery HD etc.

MPEG2 shouldn't even be considered a downfall in my opinion. Hell even on DVD, MPEG2 is wonderful as you mentioned. Ask the typical consumer and you'll see why DVD has taken off like no other media in the history of home cinema.

My HD1 produces excellent images with no hint of MPEG2 artifacts. Any problem related to the camera is with the other hardware like the lens (chromatic aberration), lack of manual controls, the CCD color process (which produces the chroma noise), etc.

The tapes are unreliable and susceptable to even the most microscopic piece of dust or condensation.

I've used DV for over 6 years and I've never had any problems with the hundreds of tapes I own! I've gone snorkeling with them, to the beach, on amusement park rides, skiing. I use them in the snow, rain, fog, water and I've not had one single tape glitch (knock on wood).

Rubbishy compression all round for years to come...

I'm not sure what you're watching but until you get all the details together and learn about the video and audio aspects of MPEG2, then you won't understand. Granted there are more effcient codecs out, MPEG2 is in it's prime now and people have learned to tweak it to get the best results from it. The mastering process has gone full circle and the results today show in comparison to MPEG2 footage from just 2 years ago.

God only knows what kind of horrible artefacts HDV produces if you shot against a graduated plain blue sky for example.

I've seen none in my footage, I'd be more than happy to share some of those with you for your discerning pleasure.

Troy

Hi Troy.

It would be fantastic if you could post up some direct screen grabs at full resolution in a variety of situations for us to see. For example some high motion grabs, some panoramas with smooth graduated colours etc.

With regard to DVD, it is true that the MPEG compression looks good (though not as good on a large projector I might add). DVD's do look pretty bad if you look at them closely. However with commercial DVDs somebody is there to manually examine bit rates.

My problem with HDV is that it is doing one pass compression to fit a high def picture into the same area normally occupied by an SD picture.

Further, what about chroma keying? DV is bad, but what's MPEG 2 like?

I also think that having MPEG 2 really does limit development. There needs to be a bridge between HDV Mpeg 2 and high end high def used on HDcams etc. Perhaps the new IMX Sony camera will solve this, albeit in an expensive way for every day people.

Could you also post some still grabs of HDV when it has been processed and recompressed with titles and something like the Magic Bullet process with before and after effects so we can see what the differences are. It would also be cool if you could post some SD shots of the same shots as HDV for direct comparison.

The indie movie Recon 2020 which use my Film Effects, was shot mostly on DV apart from a section in HDV on the JVC. Bad news is, that even when mastered to DigiBeta, the HDV stuff looked a lot worse than the DV stuff, but that's because the JVC camera is a one chipper, and has poor manual controls and is over-sharp. With the new Sony, I think we'd all hope that the HDV would look better than the DV at DV rez. I'm hoping to get into our local Sony dealer asap to see it when it's available here, and also to have full HD monitoring gear in the edit suite so that I can really see what it's like and what it's capable of.

Graeme

Ron, I was in Bleeker, watching what looked like HD olympics, and some Rogers stuff, ER perhaps. My other experience with HD broadcasts was Discovery Channel in Boston, USA. Most looked great until the picture moved. Then it was rapidly down hill, showing the same kind of artifacting you get on low bitrate MPEG2.

Yes, it's a crying shame that a picture that starts out digital, can get converted back and forth between analogue and digital, even over cable to your house. I detest both the picture quality and programme quality of TV these days, no matter if it's UK or Canada, and am just buying what I want to watch on DVD. Since the UK went digital, the picture quality dropped through the floor. I had some 90's TV taped off air BBC2 on miniDV, and showed it to a Canadian friend, and they were floored by how good analogue broadcast TV in the UK used to look.

Dynamix says they'll have pro FX1 before too long, and will have an open day to show it off. I guess we'll see it then. I'm getting an HDLink for the edit suite, along with a Black Magic decklink, so I'll be able to view full quality 1080 HD, and really see what it looks like. I hope it looks better than DVCPro HD, which to me, is way too artifacty.

Graeme

Graeme, I have ordered my FX1 from Bleekers. Having had my Toshiba now for 3 weeks to the day I have found that the Y/C input gives the most pleasing picture because there is only one stage of 16x9 conversion and up conversion. This is true for DVD's especially, component out from my DVD players causes some video delay and artifacts. The one example of HD in Bleekers that was truly stunning was playback from a D-VHS deck of a commercial DVHS tape. Smooth motion, no artifacts that I could see in the short time I was looking at the video. This was in the West End location on a projection system filling a wall!! I am more and more convinced that the majority of HD programs are up rez versions and when played back on a HD TV potentially cause problems with the TV sets processing. A true 720P or 1080i program results in no processing and thus conflicts and consequent artifacts. Not sure if this is th case but there sure is a BIG difference in plrogram sources.
I think this represents a huge opportunity for true HD programming. In this regard the JVC and Sony FX1 will I am sure produce better results than the multi processed HD content currently available.

Must keep my eye open for the Dynamix day.

Ron Evans

<<<-- Originally posted by Simon Wyndham : So imagine how long it will take HD-DVD to become the normal format.-->>>

I'm actually hoping blu ray becomes the next standard. It probably will, since Sony owns PS, Columbia, TriStar, and MGM. By the time HD DVD is ready for distribution, Sony will probably have already filled enough homes with blu ray games and movies to monopolize the media format market. Now, how about if the FX1 pro recorded to blu ray? That would be something!

In the latest Film and Video magazine, they do a great article on HDV and the only complaint was D-VHS tapes are a little flimsy (the tape itself, not the case it's in).

heath

Charlie, from what I can gather the Sony XDCAM recording system is based on Bluray.

So yep, if they can not only record to Bluray it would be great, but that bitrate will have to go up too.

How are people making sure they are getting accurate focus with these cameras?

Thanks for setting things back in the realm of the educated Troy.

People, HDV has been out for a while now. Try reading and searching/researching about HDV befor you half guess the reality of the technology. HDV is not a new format that just came out with the announcement of the Sony cam. The questions and debates many are proposing have long ago been discussed. I wellcome everyone to check out the JVC HDV forum and start reading. There is a bounty of information there with links to many clips and stills. As well as every technical aspect of HDV dicussed to the fullest.
Many of you may be new to HDV, but you must remmember many of use have been here since the beginning, and do not appreciate know-it-all's dropping in telling us what is good or bad about HDV when it is obvious they know nothing.
Questions are much more appreciated.

Ken, it's not a case of knowing nothing. Even Adam Wilt has pointed out in an article that HDV is not very good for adding titles to or other processes without an intermediate format. From the looks of it another $499 has to be spent on a system that takes the HD stream and stores it at a much higher bitrate to help alleviate these problems. So the way I am dubious over MPEG2 for HDV is not without foundation at all.

I believe that using MPEG 2 onto standard DV tapes to store a High Def picture is like putting an old 1.1 litre Fiat engine into a Ferrari Enzo. The limiations of MPEG 2 have been known for a long time. Surely they could have made the new cameras record to a much higher bitrate at least but have a reduced recording time on normal DV cassettes, but then have more recording time on specialised HDV tapes. That's not ideal, but a better solution in terms of quality down the editing line than is offered at the moment.

To make matters worse the audio is compressed. DV was just about saved by it's audio even if it was 16-bit. But having MPEG audio as the source is not very good at all no matter how you look at it. 384kbs might well be a target for final encoding and compression to Dolby Digital. But for the master source it's just not good enough.

Simon,

I just have one question for you, and please answer this:

Have you used either the JVC HD10 or HD1, or the new Sony FX1? I can tell you that, aside from the lack of manual audio controls, the audio sounds great on the HD10.

Please don't pass judgment on a camera if you haven't used it. If you have, then please tell us your experiences with it.

heath

Well said, Heath, and thank you.

I am reminded of all the nay-sayers from 1995 who were adamant that the DV format couldn't possibly be useful in any way as a business or entertainment tool for serious video production... and yet, it is. Thousands of times over.

This is simply a matter of history repeating itself. Someone takes a look at the specs and the numbers and emphatically proclaims that the HDV format is horrible, even though they've never touched an HDV camera (they don't have to, I guess).

I've got some news. The HDV format is what it is and it's not changing. There are a number of manufacturers who have worked together developed it, and I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that their engineers know what they're doing. HDV is about to become the next revolutionary phase for affordable video production -- HDV is now what DV was in 1995: an entirely new format which clearly bears some very promising potential. And just like we had during the previous DV revolution, there's always someone who'll say "it's not good enough." Maybe it's not good enough for the tastes of that particular person, but clearly it's good enough for the vast majority of the market. And that fact makes this a moot issue for our purposes here.

The HDV format is not going to change. It's a published specification. You either investigate it through hands-on touch-and-try self-research and embrace it, or you choose some other higher-end HD format such as HDCAM or DVCPro HD. To disregard HDV based solely on its numbers is not a very intelligent assumption to make.

I don think anyone is claiming it cant do a job. I say again... i'm not saying (and i dont think any one else thats noted there concern for lack of quality) that it cant be some good or do some good. But at the end of the day a 128kbit MP3 file has flaws... and my HANDS ON experience tells me a 384kbit one thats been run thru a few re-encodes does to.

Something tells me its just going ot be a manufacturer driven product. they creat it regardless of its quality and just force it onto the majority of none learnered consumers that dont know any different - then a "standard" is born. bleh.

I'm excited about (as i always have been) about HDV. Or maybe i shoudl say i'm excited that its HD and disapointed that its turned into HDV becuase at least it gives me a chance to get something of greater quality. I dont want ot hear crap about "if you're not a pro you have no right to quality equipment/needs". Thats just rubbish.

I'm a prosumer and i expect quality soi expect to provide it or possess it if i do something. I do NOT feel it is a must for me to spend millions to simply have some quality and useability. i work in manufacturing... for our customers we must have greater designs and create much greater quality for much cheaper and much faster then the day before. So why cant they? So Enough of "its cool/desirable lets up the price"!

/end rant :P

Good points Daymon, but HDV isn't being "forced" onto the majority. In the long run, the buyer decides what he or she wants to buy. HDV is one of a number of choices offered. It's not being "foisted" upon the market because the market can simply choose not to buy it. If HDV doesn't look good to you (I've seen it and it looks great to me) then you could choose to rent HDCAM or DVCPro HD for your production, or shoot very good quality 16:9 SD (and there are several great options for this).

hi Chris,

But you see it is being forced. There is NO other optoin to buy HD. I want HD... i'm not going to spend amillion dollars to do so (why should i?). So i have no choice but to buy HDV. Does this explain my angle a bit clearer? (i'm rushed.. should be in bed! hehe)

Is there a higher quality camera (on the horizon even) that will shoot HD but in less lossy (lol) format? nope = no choice :(

Kinda like check mate. We dontbuy.. we dont get anything. We buy and at least get something.. but its not what we really want. Enter "ARGH GGRRR" feelings. hehe

I think the problem is that all the current HD options are really quite heavily compressed. There is currently no "perfect" option, even on the horizon, short of the highly expensive HDCAM SR option from Sony. DVCProHD from the Varicam is very compressed. It's compressed more so than DV even! I don't think that normal HDCAM is much better, and both are very expensive. However both of these pro formats come with superb cameras, and you can put great pictures with them.

So far a lot of us have seen HDV only on the little JVC camera, the HD1 or HD10, and that's no way to judge a tape format! Remember when DV came out?? We thought that DV stood for "Dreadful Video", but then, as better cameras came out, and firewire editing solutions matured, it's now the affordable format of choice, and we know, that as a tape format, it's superior to BetaSP!

HDV has a long way to go. As MPEG2 encoders improve, the picture from future cameras will also improve - that's an open-ended technology. The 50i on the FX-1 will allow a better picture as less frames are recorded per second, and that will also help. Better cameras from JVC and Sony are also on their way out. It's an exciting time, and yes, I know that a lot of people, including myself, were dissapointed with the intitial offerings, but then again, I didn't buy a first gen DV camera either....

Personally, I'd love to see an H.264 (MPEG4) based camera that records direct to P2 type memory, and a nice XDCAM based HD mastering solution, but that's just me living in cloud cuckoo land.

Graeme

Daymon, that's how I feel. It's been established to me that the picture compression is on par with DV, which isn't perfect, but for low budget programme and filmmaking it's okay.

But now I am a bit annoyed at the 960 lines upconversion of the FX1. What we need is a full HD spec camera with square pixels. 16:9 pixels are good for shooting anamorphic on a 4:3 format. But I thought the point of HD was to have full 16:9 resolution?

Some company like Panasonic is sure to come up with something soon making the interpolation of the Sony look like the frame mode of the Canon cameras when the DVX came along.

The 960 pixels is a non-issue:

1) it uses pixel shift to validly create the 1440 resolution needed by the HDV format. Remember the HDCAm used by Lucas for SW II, was 1440 horiz rez.

2) Practically no HD monitoring gear shows full 1920 horizontal rez anyway. Practically nobody at home can see that rez.

Graeme

Surely pixel shift is the same method Canon used for frame mode, except in the case of the FX 1 used horizontally?

Even still, although the resolutions are impressive (though not deinterlaced!) I think waiting for the second gen might be better. I don't think that HDV is fully there for filmmakers yet.

I'm being told constantly that I shouldn't judge on figures and specifications. But by the same token a lot of people are jumping on the HDV bandwagon as if there are no problems at all and that it is a total saviour that will render everything else totally obsolete really quickly.

I don't like hype. There's always a catch. And while I am told I should see the picture for myself, I would also like to see it side by side next to an ENG SD camera with broadcast optics.

The way I see it, if the FX1 really does have such a superior picture all in all, then why haven't Sony reduced the price of their XDCAMs, and even the DSR-570 down to $2000? Those cameras do not come with lenses, so this isn't about how much the lenses cost. If those cameras produce a less good picture than the FX1 then there is no reason why the camera bodies shouldn't cost less than the FX1.

That's why I think there's a catch. After all, what kind of organisation is going to consider an XDCAM or a DSR570 when they can get a better picture from something costing less than a quarter of the price? Sony might as well take those cameras off the market right now if that is the case.

Do you see why i am slightly sceptical of the overall real world quality?

Pixel shift technology belongs to Panasonic, not Canon. Panasonic has been using pixel shift for about a decade before Canon started using it.

<< what kind of organisation is going to consider an XDCAM or a DSR570 when they can get a better picture from something costing less than a quarter of the price? >>

The difference in image quality is going to be so subtle that most people won't be able to spot it. The vast number of other practical advantages in professional cameras recording in XDCAM (or DVCPro 50 or whatever) far, far outweigh any subtle improvement that HDV may have.

There's so much more to the equation than pixels.

Chris, you have hit the nail on the head there. And this your comments on the broadcast cameras are exactly what I have been trying to say to some HDV supporters who have been telling me that the FX1 produces a much better picture than the XDCAM. thank you. Someone finally understands!