(hope you understand my english)
I have been reading many posts about the FX1 compared to the DVX and XL2 for the last hours, since I heard of it´s arrival (the fx1, that is) only a few weeks ago.
I´m perhaps going to buy a cam in this pricerange within the next few month or so, and have some questions.

I already understand that I would need a new computer in order to edit the hdv footage from the FX1.
Also that in this high-priced DV market the differences in picture isn´t that very obvious,. But some questions still remain:

1. If I would use the FX1 in full auto and record HDV, just filming like a family get together, then watch the recorded material on a SD TV, and compare it with footage shot with DVX and XL2, also in auto (and interlaced), would I say "that camera produces a better picture then the other two because of.....(motion artifacts, mpeg encoding or something else).." or would it be only subjective, where some say one camera looks best and some likes the other better? It seems to be atleast some people that have tried the three of the, even side-by-side. Can they give an answer (the FX1 seems to have poorer low-light capacity, but other then that I mean) to that question?

2. Do the CF25 on the FX1E produce a picture similar to that of 24P on the DVX and XL2? Do the FX1E lose a lot of resolution when shooting CF25?

3.Which one is the easiest, the most alround camera to use? This has to do with the first question....but I mean a good camera should´t have any problem producing good pictures. So which camera is (when shooting DV) the one with least "problems" (eg. poor picture;blurring, motion artifacts etc...) if I would just pick it out of the box, put it in AUTO and then push REC ?

Is it too subjective questions that I want answers to, or..?

Regards Fredrik, Sweden

First, let's be clear on one thing: all three are simply superb tools, all capable of producing outstanding results.

That said, they are optimized for different purposes. Think about a fork, a spoon, and a knife. All are utensils, and there's some overlap between each (you can eat pudding with all three, sure, but for soup the spoon wins handily in any comparison). They're not the same.

I'll be posting some pics and comparisons of the three cameras side-by-side here in the next hour or two. But to directly answer your questions:

1) if you're comparing them on a standard TV, the main differences are going to be that the FX1 is less light-sensitive, and the XL2 and DVX give you the capability to shoot in true progressive scan. As far as final picture quality, assuming there's enough light that all three deliver a good exposure, I don't think anyone's going to say anything about any of the three as standing out from the others. In very dark circumstances, the FX1 and XL2 will exhibit less noise than the DVX.

But if you're comparing them on a high-def TV, there's no contest -- show people the FX1 footage and they'll say "wow".

2) CF25 would be similar to 25P on a PAL DVX or PAL XL2. CF24 doesn't look like 24P. CF30 does give a similar feel to 30P on the DVX or XL2. The FX1E will lose some resolution when shooting CF25, but I don't think anybody's quantified just how much yet.

3) Well, that's a hard question to answer. You can set all the cameras in auto mode, if that's what you want to do. The DVX even has a button on it labeled "auto" which you can press to have it take full control, and I believe the FX1 has a setting for full auto of all functions. I think any of the three would do a superb job for the question you've asked.

Thank you Barry, that was really straight forward answers. Have you posted the comparison between the three yet? If yes, then where?

But there have been some discussion on this site about how poor the CF24 are on the FX1. You seem to know that the CF25 is really good, or? It seems to be, based on the little I have read. But I read an article on an other page about the 24P and the DVX, and the reviewer really loved it. Why haven´t there been much of that in the forums on dvinfo.net (yes, some comments but not really much) about the FX1E if the CF25 gives a as good "24p picture" as the DVX? Are almost all users on this site from the US and doesn¨t really care if it does or not, or?!
Well that was a side-question. I'll be looking forward to see your comparison between the three.

I read something about a bicycle video, here at dvinfo.net, shot with a FX1, and many that had seen it seemed to complain about smear or something (I don't remember exactly), do you know which one I mean? Some complained about one thing, the others on another thing etc...

That was partially the reason why I asked the three questions yesterday. I don't think that people should have anything to complain about when you watch a camera that costs several thousand dollars. Then the camera isn't good. If you know what video I´m talking about, what do you make of the discussion? A too compressed file, something else, or something poor with the camera? I´m asking you since you have tried it. I mean...the impression that gives to me isn't a very good one, if I'm going to buy a camera as expensive as this, then I shouldn´t be able to see apparent "bugs" in the pictures!
Let's put it this way: do the three of them (and in particular the FX1E) undoubtedly produce better pictures then my GL2? In low-light, I know the answer, but when it is not poor lightning?

Anyway, thanks for the straight forward answers you gave. I just can't get why people complain about the picture produced by the FX1E, if there isn't much to complain about at all, if you know what I mean.

/Fredrik

Oh and just one more thing Barry!

MOTION

Do the FX1E perform poorer then the other two if I move the camera around?
I read something about that the resolution decreased greatly if you moved it, didn't film "still pictures". I wonder, is that actually a fact that you also have noticed when you tried it??

/Fredrik

You seem to know that the CF25 is really good, or? It seems to be, based on the little I have read.
I just posted about CF30 in another thread. I am 95% certain that it would apply to CF25 as well, but until direct testing is performed I can't be certain. I expect CF25 to deliver the same vertical resolution as a PAL DVX or XL2, when shooting in 25P/thin line detail. CF25 will have about twice the horizontal resolution as either of the other cameras.

As for the side-by-side comparisons of the three cameras, the stuff is posted in this thread:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36570&perpage=15&pagenumber=3
(starting at about halfway down that page)

[/quote]I mean...the impression that gives to me isn't a very good one, if I'm going to buy a camera as expensive as this, then I shouldn´t be able to see apparent "bugs" in the pictures![/quote]
You shouldn't make a $3700 decision based on other people's opinions, you should go test it out yourself. The HD picture on the FX1 is startling, and if you intend to use it for HD display, it's easily the best of the three (meaning, up-rezzed DVX and XL2 footage doesn't match FX1 native footage for clarity and sharpness on an HD monitor). For DVD I'm not convinced that the FX1 is the better camera, but for HD it certainly is (at least as to what's available today).

So you should test it yourself and see what you think. We can argue specs and stats all day long, but what matters is when you use the camera yourself, if you like what you're getting, then that's good enough, right?

But also, keep an eye on the EBU and their forthcoming recommendation for HDTV in Europe. If they endorse 720p, like there seems to be rampant speculation that they will, that could mean trouble for the 1080i FX1E. Of course, if they endorse 1080i instead, then the FX1E will be perfectly poised for European users.

Let's put it this way: do the three of them (and in particular the FX1E) undoubtedly produce better pictures then my GL2? In low-light, I know the answer, but when it is not poor lightning?
Without testing them side-by-side I wouldn't say one way or the other... "better pictures" is an objective measurement. I would tend to think that yes, anyone would think that a DVX or XL2 or FX1 would deliver a sharper, clearer, better picture than a 1/4" camera like the GL2, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so you will have to behold the images for yourself.

Anyway, thanks for the straight forward answers you gave. I just can't get why people complain about the picture produced by the FX1E, if there isn't much to complain about at all, if you know what I mean.
Well, there are all sorts of motives. Some may feel threatened or jealous, and may want to "justify their purchase" by dragging any new camera down (certainly we saw a lot of that when the PD150 was introduced, and then again when the DVX was introduced). Others may have genuine issues as to their standards, but there seem to be many people who just aren't bothered by it -- they see HD on their sets and they're very happy with it. Certainly the FX1 is a much better HD camera than the JVC HD1 by any measurable standard I'd care to measure by, so it's not a bad camera at all, it's a very good camera for HD release. An amazing camera for the price, in fact.

Some people are saying it looks fabulous. Others are saying it's completely overblown hype. I'm not trying to say either. I'm trying to post images, relay facts, and let you the user judge. The only things I really say are that for standard-def DVD release I believe the XL2 and DVX offer significant advantages over the FX1, and for HD release the FX1 is quite substantially superior over the DVX and XL2. Different tools for different purposes, but they're all superb cameras.

MOTION

Do the FX1E perform poorer then the other two if I move the camera around?
I read something about that the resolution decreased greatly if you moved it, didn't film "still pictures". I wonder, is that actually a fact that you also have noticed when you tried it??

Yes, that can be an issue, but how much of an issue it is depends on so many factors that it's hard to quantify whether it'll be a real-life problem or not. I think we're way too early in the product's life cycle to know for sure.

Basically the issue with motion comes down to the way MPEG-2 compression works. MPEG-2 (as used in 1080i HDV) groups frames together into groups of 15. It only compresses one frame completely and discretely; the other 14 frames are generated by recording the changes from the prior frame. And there's a limited amount of "bits" for the camera to use to compress this information. So if you're shooting a still scene, MPEG-2 compression works fantastically: the first frame gets compressed, and then very little changes from frame to frame, so it doesn't have to do much work between frames, each frame gets compressed very efficiently, and there are plenty of bits left over to encode any small changes that do occur.

However, in the case of a moving shot, it's a whole different story. If you're panning the camera rapidly, it's possible that *every pixel* could change between frames. There'd be no compression efficiency between frames; the camera would quickly run out of its allocated bits and thus it wouldn't be able to resolve all the fine detail in a scene. So what happens is pictures look softer-detail and more "out of focus" the faster the camera is moving. (but, on the other side, if the camera's moving quickly you can't really see detail anyway, so is it a problem?)

Where it can be a little annoying is because the camera uses such *long* groups of frames (15 frames at a time), you can get a weird "autofocus" type of effect. Let's say you're moving the camera rapidly, and then you suddenly stop. During the rapid motion the camera's compressing very low detail, so the picture is blurrier than normal. But when you stop, all of a sudden the pixels quit changing, and the camera can more effectively compress. But, if you stop in the middle of a group of pictures, the camera may have already used up much of its available bandwidth, so it can only make small improvements on each frame until it reaches the end of the group. That means that you'll stop on a blurry frame, and that frame will "come into focus" until it hits the next I-frame (the beginning of the next group) at which point it will "snap" into sharp focus. This "coming into focus" effect can take as long as half a second. It can be noticeable. And it's not autofocus that's doing it (although it looks like it might be), it's compression that's doing it.

But how often will this be a problem? Maybe never, maybe frequently -- we'll have to hear from more users over the course of time before we know. Sure you could stage a scene with the specific intention of "breaking" the codec, but how valuable of a real-world test is that? You could also make 24P strobe wildly and disturbingly, but we've learned over the years how to move the camera so the effect is hidden; I expect that HDV shooters will develop techniques that minimize this "coming into focus" effect as well.

In short, I don't really see it as a problem yet, it may be a relative non-issue. We need more user reports to determine if it's anything to even bother worrying about.

Wisely spoken. People indeed tend to get very emotional/irrational whenever a new camera or format arives. Makes it only more complicated to see the facts.


<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Green : Where it can be a little annoying is because the camera uses such *long* groups of frames (15 frames at a time), you can get a weird "autofocus" type of effect. -->>>

Just a note, I believe the FX1E which Fredrik was referring to, has a slightly smaller GOP of 12 instead of 15 with the FX1 (US). This could also be a favour of the FX1E/Z1 over the FX1 (besides CF25).

Steven

<<<-- Originally posted by Steven Fokkinga :

Just a note, I believe the FX1E which Fredrik was referring to, has a slightly smaller GOP of 12 instead of 15 with the FX1 (US). This could also be a favour of the FX1E/Z1 over the FX1 (besides CF25).

Steven -->>>

Where did you spot the 12 GOP for FX1e vs 15 GOP for FX1 info? Not that I doubt that it's possible....

I'd like to say that my experience of converting FX1e material to DVD has been a bit more fruitful in the quality of results, than those reported by Barry Green. Whether it's because I'm going to PAL rather than NTSC. I don't know.... That said, there was some of the 'motion lag' effect on very low-light material - which seems more consistent with the longer GOP of 15 than 12. This aberation is at it's worst when viewed on any of my PC monitors, but far less pronounced when viewed on HDTV via consumer DVD player.

Frederick.... It seems to be that many prospective HDV camera purchasers - yourself included, are hoping (fruitlessly in my opinion) for a definitive response regarding the hardware purchase they should make. Such decisions should always be your own. I will say however, that I don't regret my decision to go the HDV route with the HD10u and now the vastly superior FX1e.....

Thank you all three

I´m a little bit ill now so I don´t have the strength to thank you in full. I thought of quoting you Barry and you Steve on some of your comments, just to say that you answerd exacly what I wanted to know.
I know Steve; I should make up my own mind, about the cameras, but better to ask. That way I get to know if there is any half-serious problem/advantage with any of the three, that there would be a chance I would miss oterwise.
Unfortunately, there is no dealer for as expensive cameras as this in the region of Sweden where I'm living, so there is no way for me to try them; I ordered my GL2 based on comments read here and elsewhere...

Barry after having seen your comparison, I don´t know why I should ever get the FX1. Both the DVX and the XL2 look superior to me. I personally liked the picture of the XL2 best, if it wouldn´t have been for the tendency to show to much green, but that can be fixed when editing. Do the DVX show more noise then the XL2 in the tunnelpicture, because you overexposed the XL2, or why? Do the DVX in general show more noise?

Some final questions:

1. Is there any chance the Z1U will be more light-sensitive then the FX1E when it arrives?
2. If the EBU decides to go for 720P.....couldn´t I shoot HDV CF25, then resize it and output it 24P in Vegas, and then do allright anyway? Assuming that the CF25 of the FX1E/Z1U resembles the 24p of other cameras (as you probably alreday understand, I don't know enough on this subject...)?
3. So basically I don't have any use of the higher resolution of the FX1E if I want to show it to others? Let me try to explain what I mean, but first I should say that I am an amateur and don't know much at all about finalizing projects on dvd:s; When I burn my final project to DVD....is there not enough room for HDV material, or do you burn it in SD resolution, cause normal tv:s can't show it otherwise? (ehh..)(e.g can I save it on dvd at 1440 X 1080 or only at 720 X 576?). What I want to ask is, do I have to wait for an other medium (like HD-DVD) to arrive, before I can use the higher resolution of the FX1E, and show it to others?? In that case....why buy a FX1E now?! A side question: what happens if I would (hypothetically) play a HD-DVD (or DVD with HDV material, depending on the answer to the question about resolution above) with HDV material and show it on a SD TV? Would it show it "shrinked" or not at all, or simply not with the clarity that you would get on a HDTV?
I ask that question since Barry said that there "is no advantage to use the FX1E:s higher resolution if I'm going to finalize it on DVD" (not his/your exact words, but as I understood it). I belive him/you, after having seen the comparison, it's not that, I just don't understand why(since I know almost nothing about DVDs except that they have 4,7 GB of space...)it is like that? Is it because the SD-tv can't show it and/or because DVD:s don't have enough space for HDV material? Would I have an advantage in resolution if I shoot it HDV, burnes it to DVD, and then showed it on a HDTV, or is it not enough room on a normal DVD for HDV material? I get confused here with 25mbps, 4,7GB, resolution etc...

Since you all have been so kind to help me all though I´m not "in the game" I dare to ask the questions above; there seems to be no better place to learn new things about cameras then here, and I really appreciate the time you take to answer me, believe me.

/Fredrik

<<<-- Originally posted by Fredrik Forsell :

Some final questions:

1. Is there any chance the Z1U will be more light-sensitive then the FX1E when it arrives?
2. If the EBU decides to go for 720P.....couldn´t I shoot HDV CF25, then resize it and output it 24P in Vegas, and then do allright anyway? Assuming that the CF25 of the FX1E/Z1U resembles the 24p of other cameras (as you probably alreday understand, I don't know enough on this subject...)?
3. So basically I don't have any use of the higher resolution of the FX1E if I want to show it to others? Let me try to explain what I mean, but first I should say that I am an amateur and don't know much at all about finalizing projects on dvd:s; When I burn my final project to DVD....is there not enough room for HDV material, or do you burn it in SD resolution, cause normal tv:s can't show it otherwise? (ehh..)(e.g can I save it on dvd at 1440 X 1080 or only at 720 X 576?). What I want to ask is, do I have to wait for an other medium (like HD-DVD) to arrive, before I can use the higher resolution of the FX1E, and show it to others?? In that case....why buy a FX1E now?! A side question: what happens if I would (hypothetically) play a HD-DVD (or DVD with HDV material, depending on the answer to the question about resolution above) with HDV material and show it on a SD TV? Would it show it "shrinked" or not at all, or simply not with the clarity that you would get on a HDTV?
I ask that question since Barry said that there "is no advantage to use the FX1E:s higher resolution if I'm going to finalize it on DVD" (not his/your exact words, but as I understood it). I belive him/you, after having seen the comparison, it's not that, I just don't understand why(since I know almost nothing about DVDs except that they have 4,7 GB of space...)it is like that? Is it because the SD-tv can't show it and/or because DVD:s don't have enough space for HDV material? Would I have an advantage in resolution if I shoot it HDV, burnes it to DVD, and then showed it on a HDTV, or is it not enough room on a normal DVD for HDV material? I get confused here with 25mbps, 4,7GB, resolution etc...

/Fredrik -->>>

From what I've seen and read, the Z1U specs indicate that it's lux rating will be as per the FX1.

On your other queries front......
Generally it's easier and produces superior results to go from a higher standard of image to a lower one. That's why it seems interesting that Barry is not seeing any inherent quality advantage going from HDV 1080 to DVD. My own results going from native m2t to DVD have been more than successful on the quality front, so I'm intrigued by why Barry hasn't been able to achieve superior DVD conversion.
As far as the EBU's decision goes, it would mean any material you shot with the FX1e would be downsampled for broadcast. The station itself would be the most likely contender for doing that at broadcast time..... Every FTA HD broadcaster here in Australia downconverts or upconverts material to either 1440x1080 50i or 1280x720 25p (even 720x576 50p or 'enhanced definition').
As for any 24p conversion prior to broadcast....why? Another conversion step would be necessary to broadcast at 1280x720 25p which is the PAL standard.

On your HD -> DVD queries front:
HD can be written to DVD for archiving purposes as native m2t. This cannot be played back on any consumer level player (as yet). You'd be very lucky to fit a single m2t of 40mins length onto a 4.7Gig single layer DVD (4.3Gig is the actual write capacity), so dual layer comes in pretty handy for longer projects that you don't want to chop up.

Any HD material down-converted to DVD level (720x576 PAL in this case) and written to DVD Video format will play as per any DVD disc. If the conversion has been done correctly it should look much the same in image quality to a 'Hollywood' style commercial disc on whatever monitor/TV it's played back on.

If you write HDV material as HD level MPEG2 to a DVD Video format disc, you won't be able to view it at all on currently available equipment. The Blue-ray and HD-DVD format players may be able to, but until they're available to test what does actually play in them, they're an unknown quantity.....

So, technically Barry is correct in concluding that there's no real advantage to going the HDV route if DVD is going to be your preferred method of distribution. But then there's no real disadvantage either; and the fact is that HD isn't going to go away, and WS HDTVs are being purchased in ever greater numbers. As I said before, some people aren't comfortable with taking a plunge into the unknown. If you aren't ready just yet - don't.

Barry after having seen your comparison, I don´t know why I should ever get the FX1
You would get the FX1 if you needed to show high-def material. The comparison I showed was of the cameras after being put on DVD. But if you want to make high-def content, the FX1 is much, much higher res than the other cameras. You just would need a way to distribute that content to your intended audience.

Do the DVX show more noise then the XL2 in the tunnelpicture, because you overexposed the XL2, or why? Do the DVX in general show more noise?
Yes the DVX seems to show a lot more noise as compared to the XL2 and FX1. In general it's not so noticeable until you stack it up against the others; then the difference really becomes noticeable.

1. Is there any chance the Z1U will be more light-sensitive then the FX1E when it arrives?
More light-sensitive? No. But it will have a hyper-gain mode that would digitally brighten up the picture more, but that's a digital effect, not an increase in true sensitivity.

2. If the EBU decides to go for 720P.....couldn´t I shoot HDV CF25, then resize it and output it 24P in Vegas, and then do allright anyway?
Well, yes, you probably could shoot CF25 and then have it up-rezzed/down-rezzed to 720p. But I happen to believe that we'll shortly see the introduction of a competing 720p camera which should be much more suitable to the purpose.

3. So basically I don't have any use of the higher resolution of the FX1E if I want to show it to others?
That is correct. There is currently no way to distribute HD content to end consumers (unless they also happen to own an HDV camera!) Or, the other way is to burn a Windows Media 10 file and have them play it on their computer... but there currently is no installed base of high-def DVD players, and in Europe there are practically no HDTV's either.

(e.g can I save it on dvd at 1440 X 1080 or only at 720 X 576?)
DVD's are a standard-def medium, so DVD content is 720x576. There are proposals for new High-def DVD media, like HD-DVD and blu-ray, but those are not actual products yet and it will be years before they're widely adopted by consumers.

What I want to ask is, do I have to wait for an other medium (like HD-DVD) to arrive, before I can use the higher resolution of the FX1E, and show it to others??
Basically, yes. Unless you're lucky enough to get your project broadcast over the airwaves.
In that case....why buy a FX1E now?!
A good question. The best answer I can think of is, if you were producing a show that you expected to have a long "shelf life", and you wanted to shoot HD so that you could make an HD version of it some years in the future when HD distribution is more of a reality.

A side question: what happens if I would (hypothetically) play a HD-DVD (or DVD with HDV material, depending on the answer to the question about resolution above) with HDV material and show it on a SD TV?
Presumably the HD-DVD player would down-rez the signal automatically to output a PAL-compatible signal. It should show full-screen, but obviously it wouldn't be able to show the full detail of the HD version. You'd need an HDTV to see the full resolution of the HD material.

Would I have an advantage in resolution if I shoot it HDV, burnes it to DVD, and then showed it on a HDTV, or is it not enough room on a normal DVD for HDV material?
It's not a question of space. It's a question of media. DVD's are a standard-def video format. They're not just storage space, they're actual video data, and they're standard-def. So when you put together a DVD, you master the DVD using MPEG-2 720x576 at about 8 megabit data rate. It makes a standard-def video file. If you try to put HDV material on a DVD, you'll have to downconvert it and make a standard-def down-rez (which is what my other big test report was all about). And when you do that, you won't have any sharpness advantage over a comparable standard-def camera, at least according to the results I've gotten so far.

The only way you're going to be able to distribute HD material and be able to see the full quality of the HD resolution is to either a) broadcast it over HD television airwaves, or b) distribute it on HDV tape and hope the recipient has an HDV deck, or c) wait however many years it takes for HD-DVD or blu-ray to become a widely accepted standard that many people buy. And it will likely be many years before that happens. DVD players took six years to become present in 50% of the homes in America, and that's the fastest that any consumer electronics technology has been adopted. Even if HD-DVD's were to be adopted at that same speed, it'll be 2010 before half the people have them.

<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Green : That is correct. There is currently no way to distribute HD content to end consumers (unless they also happen to own an HDV camera!) Or, the other way is to burn a Windows Media 10 file and have them play it on their computer... but there currently is no installed base of high-def DVD players, and in Europe there are practically no HDTV's either.-->>>

I noticed in one of the trade magazines this past month (sorry I can't remember which one) where they talked about a program (though with some HTML knowledge you could do it your self) that made WMV HD movies with menus and whatnot that were all HTML based that would play through a home theater computer. Now I know outside of the techno geek world I live in very few people have these so far, but it is a viable option for distribution. Plus, HD material can be (in the case of the FX1 I'd probably deinterlace and down rez to 720p) distributed on the web for those of us filmmakers who want to get some of our stuff out there...I'm pretty sure Atom Films and a few others have high def sections...though they're the "premium accounts"...

Just a few thoughts--again, not your biggest distribution, but viable.

Also, as you mentioned Barry--if you're wanting something for DVD only, but you're hooked on HDV (or similar formats as they are announced, etc), you're better off waiting for something in 720p probably--as I think a lot of the FX1's issues with down rezzing (aside from it's sensitivity) would be solved by an actual progressive scan camera.

Then again, you can always stay SD and convert when a cheap HD format is more proven and has better distribution...

I must say though, that I think HD is poised to make a breakthrough (at least in the US). I've read more than one report that HD displays were the hot "big ticket" item this Christmas and that some manufacturers were going to be scrambling to keep up with demand...I guess we'll know a few weeks how well those reports panned out. Again, HD displays are only getting cheaper and it's only a matter of time--and I think it's only really a short time (relatively speaking) until a much, much higher percentage of HD options are available.

> HD displays were the hot "big ticket" item this Christmas

Very true. And within a year we will have several models of standalone DVD player that as well as playing SD DVDs will also play HD WM9 files from DVD-ROM, outputting via component to your HDTV.

A couple of such players are already available in Asia and a several HD10u owners are successfully using imported machines here in the US already (there are several threads on this in the 'JVC' and 'HDV editing' fora). I know I'll be getting one by the end of 2005.

And even with regard to HDVD and/or Blueray, I doubt that their market penetration will take long once they are affordable, since these players will also play SD DVD. Comparison with VHS tape vs DVD isn't really relevant ... since that was an either/or rather than both/and situation. A better comparison (from a marketing rather than technical perspective) might be the rapid implementation of mp3 playback capability among new-model audio CD players, once the public demand was there.