- introducing 1080/25p
- get rid of MPEG2
- introducing 2/3" CCD
- introducing solid state memory cards

Sony will probably stick with the HDV format (unfortunately)

By introducing HDV Pro on their prosumer camera one might hope. I think it is a sin that Sony hasnt done this already, and with the competition coming up from JVC, Pana and maybe Canon they are going to get stung, and it serves them right.

I like HDV because it fits onto a miniDV tape. Panasonic HVX low-budget (which is most of us) users are going to suffer with over priced P2 cards, not to mention the expensive archiving issues that result from it, and potential big problems by having to transfer via laptop all the time.

I agree about having a bigger chip in an HDV camera, I think 1/3 chips are the weak link in the 1080 HD revolution.

Of course the irony of what you're saying is that Sony doesn't need to "overtake" Panasonic at all; in fact it's the other way around. There's a huge installed base of Sony HDV cameras already, and the HVX is still months away from shipping.

I understand where you're coming from, but I personally doubt that Sony will feel a lot of pressure to compete with the Panasonic for awhile. They already have 4 HDV cameras which appeal to a much broader market segment than either JVC or Panasonic.

Dont understand me wrong I am a big sony fan especially because of the way they built cams and there reputation in this segment. So I can not wait to see the successor of the FX1/Z1 with solid state memory and 2/3' chip (they have to keep up their reputation in "low light"). I can live with HDV as along as they sort out the motion artifacts caused by the MPEG/GOP compression (18:1 !!!).

Boyd, not to yank your chain of course, but are you replying on behalf of Sony, or is this merely your opinion. I am saying this because Sony could be offering a lot more with its cameras, take at look at what JVC is doing with HDV Pro, and the fact that Panasonic is about to offer twice the quality with DVCPRO HD. HDV is a nice little trick, but I don't think it is neccesarily a pro level product. Just because its the only game in town right now, it is not a guarantee it'll stay that way, you know what this business is like.

I don't mean to speak for all, but I think a lot of people here are gazing lovingly at what Panasonic is about to bravely unleash, yes, unleash!

John, although I am a Sony fan I agree totally with you.

John Poore, not to yank your chain, but of course you are replying on behalf of Pany, right! And ‘bravely unleash’ speaks more about a big dog than a camera; interesting thought. Let’s hope, for Panasonic’s sake that, bravado has nothing to do with it but rather their decisions are based on sound business thinking.

I'm not a fan of any equipment manufacturer :-)

John McCully

Sony has no need to worry. Just look at costs. $3,000 for sony HD vs. $10,000 for panny HVX. It doesn't even matter if all these camera blow sony out of the water UNTIL they bring their prices in the same range as the sonys. At that point sony probably still won't lose any sleep/sales because of their market penetration by that point. Sony has no reason to improve their HD cam's for another 5-7 years. They have the high end market, they have the low end market, and for now they have the Mid "prosumer" market as well.

They may lose some of the Mid to these new camera's but not enough to make them want to endanger their high end market with camera's that are to close to the quality of an F-900. So we will see their models only slightly improve over the next 5 years. For an example please look at the history of the vx-2000/pd-150 family.

This is all of coarse just a small part of a company that only sells camcorders to sell tapes. Yup Sony makes it's money selling tapes NOT selling cameras.

Just a side note: I'm the proud owner of an FX-1 and a VX-2000. They were both great purchases. I'm sure I will be purchasing a new camera NOT from sony within the next year or 2, due to the HVX, HD-100 etc.

My 2 c,
Eric James

My only relationship with Sony is that of a customer (and holder of a few shares of their stock). I speak for myself. As great as DVinfo is, I think some people fail to see the bigger world at times. If every aspiring low budget movie maker ran out and bought the Panasonic camera it would be a tiny drop in the bucket when it comes to mass marketed camcorders. It's a niche product - and seems like it will be a great one - but there's a limited audience for a product like that.

Sony is obviously shooting for a much larger segment of the population with its HDV offerings. For example, the local Mom & Pop camera store down the street from me has been advertising the FX-1 in the local "shopper" newpaper (same publication where you read about the lettuce sale at the super market and your neighbor's lost cat). Do you think the HVX-200 will be pitched in this kind of publication?

While we may have hopes and desires for new cheap 2/3" Sony cameras, I'm not at all sure what their motivation would be to introduce one right now with sales of their existing 4 models so strong. Especially with their recent financial troubles, I hope they only bring things to market that will be profitable.

For me only one thing counts when purchasing a new cam : best value for money. Since the HVX200 (without P2 cards) is only about 50 Euro's more expensive than the Sony Z1 for me the choice is easy. besides interlaced scan I get progressive scan, DVCpro formats, no MPEG2-long GOP compression, and a lot of got ergonomic issues. Moreover if P2 card will become cheaper in the very near future I can easily make the change over. The demand for HD is still very limited in the market anyway. So for the brand is no issue.

Since the HVX200 (without P2 cards) is only about 50 Euro's more expensive than the Sony Z1 for me the choice is easy.

So you'd make your choice of camera on 'equal' cost, ignoring the fact that you'll have to pay about the same amount again to buy enough P2 cards to be useful, and you'll have to buy a laptop with a big external drive and a tape backup system and have someone following you around to keep copying the video from the P2 cards to the laptop and tape drive?

Bizarre.

IMHO Sony have absolutely nothing to worry about from the HVX200: the Z1 is the only affordable semi-pro 1080i to tape camera right now, and the disadvantages of recording to P2 cards are massively underrated by the majority of the camera's fans.

Mark,

Please try to read carefully before you make any comments. Furthermore and I quote "....and the disadvantages of recording to P2 cards are massively underrated by the majority of the camera's fans." does not make any sense at all." Probably you ment "overrated". Although my native language is not English and I make grammar mistakes I am able to make my point.

Hey Hans,
He did mean to say "underrated".

He is saying people don't care enough about the problems of the P2 format.

"overrated" would mean they care to much about the problems of the P2 format.

Rather than attacking him for grammar, you may want to re-read his post. It might help you from making some bad choices when purchasing your next camera.

My 2 c,
Eric James

Mark,

Please try to read carefully before you make any comments. Furthermore and I quote "....and the disadvantages of recording to P2 cards are massively underrated by the majority of the camera's fans." does not make any sense at all." Probably you ment "overrated". Although my native language is not English and I make grammar mistakes I am able to make my point.

Hans

Mark used the correct expression. under-rated is the right word there, not over-rated.
Perhaps a better word to use may have been "under-considered", but his point, and expression of his point, is correct.

My Dutch isn't too great (i'm British) but i would be very reluctant, as a native English speaker, to post on a board and try to tell a native-Dutch speaker that he hasn't used the correct Dutch phrase ! chances are that someone who's been speaking Dutch for 30 years is likely to have a better grasp of it than myself..

IMHO.

Hey guys, for the sake of keeping the thread clean, howzabout letting it sit until Hans can come in and speak for himself, rather than others taking his words to one direction or the other? He's quite capable of communicating on his own. :-)

I said "Moreover if P2 card will become cheaper in the very near future I can easily make the change over. The demand for HD is still very limited in the market anyway" Mark replied "ignoring the fact that you'll have to pay about the same amount again to buy enough P2 cards to be useful" So he did not understand what I wrote. I am not ignoring the high price of the P2 cards at the moment. James I understood what he ment by underrate the disadvantages but I think that people worry to much about the disadvantages of P2 cards besides price.

In my humble opinion, Sony is not going to crush Panasonic with HDV, which is their consumer format. DVCPRO50, HD and P2 are not aimed at consumers, so the cameras are really in two different markets.

Nor will Sony's HDCAM(SR) crush Panasonic, again there are two different markets involved.

The pro camera that Sony will crush Panasonic in the "mid-range" with is the upcoming HD version of their XDCAM (HDXDCAM?). Which I am drooling for more than anything at the moment.

Instead of p2 cards, you write to small affordable "Blu-ray" type dvds. The reasons they stompify p2 based solutions are the following:

1. Capacity (currently 23gigs). There is enough storage space on the DVD for at least a 30 min worth of HD, at a very good compression ratio, equivilant to or better than DVCPROHD. (check out their current XDCAM IMX offerings).

2. They are cheap enough to archive your footage to (about $30/unit). Not too many people are going to have a tape shelf full of P2 cards, but a shelf full of dvd's? No problem.

3. The DVD's are re-writable, and so are re-useable like tape.

4. No digitizing required. Pop in the DVD and copy direct to your computer, just like like p2. Current XDCAM cameras have firewire, as well as an optional ethernet card for footage transfer.

5. No dropouts. Just like p2.

6. No mechanical tape transport issues, clogged heads, worn pinch rollers etc. Just lasers. (And really, how cool is that? My camera has lasers!)

So it looks like these upcoming HD XDCAMs will have all the benefits of tape, like re-usability, and relatively low cost per storage unit, as well as all the benefits of p2 cards, WITHOUT ANY OF THE DOWNSIDES OF EITHER TAPE OR P2.

A nice little trick that, in my opinion will, as mentioned above, stompify p2 and bring us all into a shiny, happy HD future.

Mark replied "ignoring the fact that you'll have to pay about the same amount again to buy enough P2 cards to be useful" So he did not understand what I wrote.

No, I did understand what you wrote. You said "moreover if P2 card will become cheaper in the very near future I can easily make the change over."

Why do you think that P2 cards are going to drop massively in price in the very near future? I doubt that anyone who'd consider buying a camera as cheap as the Z1 will be able to afford enough P2 cards for a day of HD shooting without having to offload footage to a laptop in the lifetime of the two cameras... and anyone who can afford the cards can probably afford to rent a real HD camera instead.

A nice little trick that, in my opinion will, as mentioned above, stompify p2 and bring us all into a shiny, happy HD future.

Agreed: I suspect that DVD recording will be the post-tape future.

DVD recording still uses mechanical moving parts which can brake down or is this already solved?

True, there are some moving parts. However Sony's current XDCAM cameras have a seven year "power train" warranty. Covering all the moving parts on the camera, so they must think it's pretty stable at least.

Recordable DVD just makes sense to me.

Recordable discs isn't that stable. I know a lot whom are having problems with CDs now. But it might be an intermediate format that you can have until you moved the data to more stable formats.

BD is a VERY stable recording format, buffered and error checked.

Well, I can imagine that it's stable in the short run but I highly doubt that it will be stable in the long run. CD-Rs that are a couple of years old can't be read anymore. What shipping CDs and DVDs have is a protective layer above the data which writable CD/DVDs don't have. Otherwise they couldn't write to it. I hope to be proven wrong but my experience tells me that the new formats aren't any exceptions.

Well, I can imagine that it's stable in the short run but I highly doubt that it will be stable in the long run. CD-Rs that are a couple of years old can't be read anymore. What shipping CDs and DVDs have is a protective layer above the data which writable CD/DVDs don't have. Otherwise they couldn't write to it. I hope to be proven wrong but my experience tells me that the new formats aren't any exceptions.

Huh?
I don't know what the oceansides of Malmo might be doing to your CD's, but we're regularly using disks that are 10 years old. Duplicated, not replicated disks. BD has been in use for nearly 2 years, and thus far, no problems. It's a high end, professional format, and while there is no empirical evidence that BD will last longer than two years because it's only been around for two years, there is also zero evidence that they'll only last a few years.
I'd urge you to learn what BD is, prior to suggesting that it will only last two years.
I'm well aware, as most people here are, of the differences between replicated and duplicated disks. Maybe there is some chemical in the air in Southern Sweden that affects disks, but I've yet to see a CD or DVD burned on our systems last only two years. Maybe it's the media you're buying? The half-life of any quality brand of CDR media is 70 years. No one has had one that long, but they have been doing accelerated aging tests on CDs for many years now.
Check out: T. Aol and K. Namba: "Recording Materials and Characteristics of the Recordable Compact Disc," IEEE Tokyo Section, Donshi Tokyo No. 31 (1992).

What I am talking is the first generation of a disc i e I do my recording on a BD today and what are the chances that disc will be readable in 10 or 20 years time? Scientists today agree that a lot of all of the digital information we are retrieving will be lost in the future. A normal CD is 1/5 (or was it 1/3) actual data and the rest is errorcodes to handle the loss of data. A scratch across a CD will be fine but along the tracks will destroy a great length of it. Our national archive lab constantly re-copies data just to maintain it intact. Analog media is of course a lot better.

I totally agree that high quality media and high quality devices are a lot better at preserving data than the average consumer product. But I also believe that there will be many more buying consumer editions of discs that the high quality ones. And depending on where you are you might not be able to get that high quality media when you need it.

We get a lot of salt from the sea but this is just about anywhere else. Yes, you should have good archiving environment with right temperature but not everyone has that. And let's say that you accidentally forget that BD in a car for some days/nights. I can almost bet that you lost some of that data if not all.

I have (had... thrown them out) a lot of CDRs that aren't readable anymore and they are a myriads of brands like Maxell, BASF, Fuji et c. And lot's of friends experienced it to.

I am only laying out my experiences with CDRs which of course reflects my opinion of BD/similar disc media. Since BD has a thinner laser it would probably be even more sensitive to damages but probably also depends more on errorcorrection.

/Fredrik.

Personally, at the weekend I was recovering some old emails from no-name CD-Rs I burnt in 1994, 1995 and 1996... no problem reading any of them.

Certainly I doubt that they're any less robust than tapes or P2 cards over long timescales. Heck, they'll probably be obsolete before they're unreadable in most cases.

As a happy Sony FX1 owner I don't see the HVX200 being a competing product for general-purpose videography. Since the P2 memory is hopelessly expensive and will likely continue to be so for several years, the only realistic way to record more than a few minutes of HD video on the HVX200 will be to Firestore-like hard drives. And even then you're looking at a cost of roughly $20 per minute (!) of HD recording, compared to a few dollars per hour to record HDV. So with the HVX200 you have to make arrangements to copy your original data somewhere else to free up your expensive recording media, which requires both time and money. For some purposes this won't be a significant problem, but for others it will be a major deterrent. The HVX200 will not be a suitable choice for many videographers.

Then there's the question of what to do with your P2 footage once you've captured and edited it. The most promising distribution option for HD video starting next year will be blue-laser DVDs using either MPEG2 or MPEG4 compression. Depending on how this is implemented, the highest quality option on these discs could be MPEG2 at a bit rate of around 25-30 Mbps...wait a minute, that's basically HDV! Of course it's possible that the HVX200 will yield noticeably better results when transcoded to HDV than HDV source material itself, but the difference is likely to be mitigated somewhat by this conversion.

The obvious way for Sony to give the HVX200 a run for its money would be to release an HDV camera with a 1/2" or 2/3" sensor. Once they do that, spending $10K+ for an HVX200 setup (including memory) may seem like a poor choice for people used to working with big-chip cameras. The thing to understand here is that Sony's HDV solution works surprisingly well, and yields video which looks great to most viewers. For some people the HVX200 may be a better choice, but it's not going to have much impact on the spread of the HDV format.

Fredrik,
I've got to just say, you really need to go do some more research. You are writing off of misinformation from articles you've read I take it. Sure crappy CD-R's don't last very long, Sure if you leave the discs in the sun (just as with ANY media format) they will be ruined......

I just disagree with some of the things your saying. Here's an example of what I mean:

"Scientists today agree that a lot of all of the digital information we are retrieving will be lost in the future."

Yes they agree that in the "future" it will be lost. Now for some reason you seem to want to think future is within 2 years? Why is that? IS that what 'they' agreed upon?

"Since BD has a thinner laser it would probably be even more sensitive to damages but probably also depends more on errorcorrection."

This is just completely wrong, and shows you do not have an understanding of the technology. BD has a higher wavelength UV laser. This has NOTHING to do with it's ability to withstand damages to the disk. In Fact BD has a thicker protection layer above the data so it will actually be much tougher than CD's or DVD's.

What I'm trying to say is.... If you do not take care of any media in any format it will be gone in 2-5 years. If you take care of CD's, DVD's, and BD's they will last 70 - 100 years OR MORE.

My 2 c,
Eric James

According to Sony's site, the "Professional Disc" media has an estimated shelf life of 50 years. Even if you take this as manufacturer's specs and 1/2 it, even 25 years is a pretty good shelf life. (I mean, 25 years ago 3/4" tape ruled).

And since it's just data recorded not a signal per se, it seems to me it would be incredibly easy to back up to the next big media format, rather than to dub it (from someone who had to supervise dubbing a library of 100,000 BetaSp tapes).

Also, living in the tropics as I do, you can actually watch the mold growing on your tapes. Not to mention that damn "dew" sensor going off on the camera constantly. I can't wait to get rid of tape, and for me the "Pro-disc" format is the only one that seems to replace tape fully.

Ok, one other cool thing about "Pro Disc", There's a 500MB sector on the disc reserved just for data. You can write, word and excel files, Avid or FCP project files, After Effects projects, whatever. Being able to archive or send all your media, project files, graphics, and audio all on the same disc would be really useful.

You can check out the brochure here:

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/docs/brochures/v2223.pdf

Also, living in the tropics as I do, you can actually watch the mold growing on your tapes. Not to mention that damn "dew" sensor going off on the camera constantly. I can't wait to get rid of tape, and for me the "Pro-disc" format is the only one that seems to replace tape fully.

It's for this reason alone, some of the Combat Camera Groups in the marines are using XDCAM. Heck, if those guys can manage PD 170's, Z1's, and XDCAMs, that says a lot for the toughness of the cams, and in the case of the XDCAM, says a lot for the BD format.

Well, looks like they've already announced for IBC:

Link Here: http://hugecgi.com/cgi-bin/ibc_dailynews1.cgi?db_id=22621&issue=2

From the article:

Not shipping till next year :(

"From pricing, quality and feature set perspectives we are positioning XDCAM HD between HDCAM and HDV,"

18, 25(HDV), 35 Mbps Mpeg2 encoding formats: (giving 2hours, 90 min, 60 min recording time per disc)

records DV also

4 channel uncompressed audio

Camera has 1/2" CCDs

No price info yet :(

The Marines using XDCAMS and Z1's as 'combat cams'. Now that does say a lot, Sony cameras are tough! I know the BBC and some agencies at one stage in Iraq were handing out PD 150's to local civillians to take pictures of assorted scenes that no one wanted to cover because they were to dangerous.


I am excited by the sound of XDCAM HD. It is a good idea, anyone know how much the cams will cost, as much as the current XD's? And will they use 4:2:2 colour?

Actually, Hans got the title of the thread the wrong way around.

His premise was that Panasonic has already produced a camera that has features that have already shaded Sony's HD/HDV products is flawed.

That such a premise is based on a misconception is hard to deny.

As things' stand at this point in time:

a) Sony has already had it's products in the marketplace, building up an enviable user base, that JVC was unable to achieve with it's initial HDV offering - despite a 12 month head start.

b) Full software support for Sony and JVC HDV camcorders, that has had enough lead time to be reaching maturity and stability, with cost effective and manageable workflows and hardware solutions.

Panasonic's HVX200 is in actual fact going to face an up-hill battle to compete with Sony's already established position with affordable HD. I'm sure Panasonic isn't truly thinking of the HVX200 as a competitor to Sony's HDV camcorders. I'll be surprised if they aren't hoping for a less 'democratic' sector of the market place to see their offering as 'superior'. Broadcasters for instance...

To imply that Panasonic; with an unreleased and unproven product, is already ahead of where Sony currently is, will hopefully be rewarded by Panasonic for sheer faith. Perhaps Hans is pitching for a complimentary HVX200 as reward for showing such a profound level of brand committment.

There's a couple photos of the HD XDCAM shown here:
http://homepage.mac.com/mikedcurtis/PhotoAlbum44.html

It looks like a much bigger unit than the FX1/Z1.

The Panasonic HVX with all its P2 issues has one big plus and that is DVPro HD in a small and relatively cheap camera,
DVPro HD has been a common broadcast standard in program making for a while now. It's accepted by all major broadcasters, hd or sd. HDV on the other hand..

The HD XDcam is shoulder cam and has bigger CCD's, so another leage than the HVX200. Don't compare apples with ..........

Don't compare apples with ..........

.....lemons?

.....lemons?

I believe the 'correct' answer is "PC" :-)

The Panasonic HVX with all its P2 issues has one big plus and that is DVPro HD in a small and relatively cheap camera,
DVPro HD has been a common broadcast standard in program making for a while now. It's accepted by all major broadcasters, hd or sd. HDV on the other hand..

What P2 issues? If you're a filmmaker, all you need is the $6000 HVX200 and a 4GB P2 card (probably around $750 right now). That's $6750-$7000 total. You don't need a laptop. At all. You use a cheap, off-the-shelf USB2 external drive, plug it in to the HVX, and dump the footage directly from the P2 card into the drive. No laptop required. Since you're only recording 4GB at a time, it'll take less than 4 minutes to do the dump to hard disk via USB2. Less than 4 minutes.

So, let's see... with the HVX you (as an independent filmmaker) can record in 1080/24p in DVCProHD on a 4GB P2 card and dump to cheap USB2 hard disks, with no need to digitize footage, and no dropouts, ready to edit as soon as the USB2 drive is plugged into the desktop. All for less than $7000.

With the Z1 (or HD100) you capture in 1080/60i HDV, or 720/24p ProHD to $5 MiniDV tapes (with the potential for bad dropouts), and then you have to spend the hours digitizing the footage onto internal or external hard disks. The footage will be less quality because it's HDV, as opposed to full-blown DVCProHD, and lower resolution, because neither the Z1 or HD100 can do 1080/24p.

The choice (for a filmmaker on a budget) is, to me, obvious.

"But I shoot long events/weddings/concerts and I can't take time to dump to disk while shooting".

You don't have to. Get a Firestore, and record to your heart's content.

"But the HD100 has a direct-to-disk solution so I don't have to digitize footage"

If you're willing to spend the money on a direct-to-disk device for the JVC, you can also spend it for the HVX. Apples to apples.

"But how will you deliver HVX footage to your clients?"

Same way you'll deliver HDV footage to your clients: Downconvert to SD, Broadcast in HD, or wait until Blu-Ray / HD-DVD drives take off.

"But the HD100 has interchangeable lenses!"

How many people will actually change the lens on the HD100? You can get the 13x HD lens for another $6000, or other 1/2" lenses for even more money. I think most will keep the stock lens, so the interchangeability issue is moot.

"But the Z1 can be converted to 24p with software"

Yep. And you'll lose a LOT of resolution in the process.

"But independent filmmaking is a niche segment, and the HDV cameras appeal to a much broader segment of the market"

Sure. Is that why the DVX has sold so poorly?


All this is, of course, based on the info Panasonic has released about the camera, and not on actual footage or usage. But if I were planning on making indie films, I certainly wouldn't get a camera now if I could wait for the HVX.

Back on topic: For Sony to overtake the HVX, it would have to release an XDCAM HD camera that costs LESS than $10,000. I don't think they're going to do that anytime soon.

This has been debated a lot, but a 4GB card is just not going to cut it. When I am shooting, I do about an hour a day, maybe up to 2 hours. So I'll be needing a bit more than 4GB's, plus then some safety, not to mention the time to download it all and the money to afford to store that 1 - 2 hours of DVPROHD on daily basis. Also at least with tape you don't have potential transfer issues to other devices, once on tape it's locked and safe, in my pocket.

All this is, of course, based on the info Panasonic has released about the camera, and not on actual footage or usage.

That's really the key, isn't it? Nobody has one of these cameras - nobody has even seen a real one, have they? I understand that everyone is really excited by the prospects, but the fact is that nobody really knows exactly what the issues are going to be. The proof will be in the pudding and once there's a real shipping product we'll see what it's like to work with the cards, hard drives, etc.

Until then, as I pointed out at the beginning of this thread and Steve echoed more recently, Sony doesn't have to "overtake" anybody. They have a whole collection of very successful shipping products.

Jaime: the HVX200 will not be practical for long-form event work any time soon. By my calculations I'd need at least four 80GB Firestore drives (per camera) to record a single typical wedding in HD, at a current proposed cost of almost $2000 per drive. This means the storage alone for a single event is going to cost more than the camera itself, which is obviously a problem. Plus then as soon as you finish a shoot you have to make a point of off-loading your master data to some other storage solution so you can free up your expensive on-camera memory for the next shoot, meaning you'd better have the permanent storage ready to go and the time available to do those transfers.

To back up four 80GB Firestores you'd need a 320GB hard drive, which currently sell for $132 and up on Pricewatch. But since hard drives are notoriously unreliable you'd better make two copies if you want to ensure the integrity of your source video, so now we're up to $264 per event just to store the data. Shoot 30 wedddings per year and your permanent storage costs are again more than the price of the camera, so in the first year alone you'd be spending at least $20,000 to do one-camera weddings with the HVX200. Compare that to under $3000 for a Sony FX1 and roughly $50 per wedding for HDV tapes, and it's easy to see that HDV is going to be the preferred solution for this particular task.

Plus the best way to deliver HD video in the future is going to be on blue-laser DVDs using MPEG2 compression at bit rates of around 25-30 Mbps -- which is basically HDV. So after spending $20K to shoot weddings on an HVX200 you'll be delivering final output similar to that from HDV cameras, although the footage will hopefully be a little better due to the higher bandwidth of the source. But so far it's all most of us can do to convince event customers to pay a little extra for HDV quality, let alone paying significantly more for something else.

I like the HVX200 from a technical perspective, but not from a practical one. Maybe in another five years...

You use a cheap, off-the-shelf USB2 external drive, plug it in to the HVX, and dump the footage directly from the P2 card into the drive.

LOL. You'll trust your master copy of your footage to... 'a cheap, off-the-shelf USB2 external drive'? Not even making a tape backup?

Have fun when that drive fails and you lose hours of footage. At least with tape you'll potentially still be able to recover 99% of the footage even if the tape snaps.

Jaime: the HVX200 will not be practical for long-form event work any time soon. By my calculations I'd need at least four 80GB Firestore drives (per camera) to record a single typical wedding in HD, at a current proposed cost of almost $2000 per drive. This means the storage alone for a single event is going to cost more than the camera itself, which is obviously a problem. Plus then as soon as you finish a shoot you have to make a point of off-loading your master data to some other storage solution so you can free up your expensive on-camera memory for the next shoot, meaning you'd better have the permanent storage ready to go and the time available to do those transfers.

To back up four 80GB Firestores you'd need a 320GB hard drive, which currently sell for $132 and up on Pricewatch. But since hard drives are notoriously unreliable you'd better make two copies if you want to ensure the integrity of your source video, so now we're up to $264 per event just to store the data. Shoot 30 wedddings per year and your permanent storage costs are again more than the price of the camera, so in the first year alone you'd be spending at least $20,000 to do one-camera weddings with the HVX200. Compare that to under $3000 for a Sony FX1 and roughly $50 per wedding for HDV tapes, and it's easy to see that HDV is going to be the preferred solution for this particular task.

Plus the best way to deliver HD video in the future is going to be on blue-laser DVDs using MPEG2 compression at bit rates of around 25-30 Mbps -- which is basically HDV. So after spending $20K to shoot weddings on an HVX200 you'll be delivering final output similar to that from HDV cameras, although the footage will hopefully be a little better due to the higher bandwidth of the source. But so far it's all most of us can do to convince event customers to pay a little extra for HDV quality, let alone paying significantly more for something else.

I like the HVX200 from a technical perspective, but not from a practical one. Maybe in another five years...

very good post IMHO.
I think that people can get too obsessed/wrapped-up in pursuing the ultimate specification equipment but without considering too carefully the practical consequences of that. In this case, storage and distribution - points which i think you made very well above.

Hi-Def in it's various flavors is all about two or 3 things really: Compression, Storage, Distribution.

Hi-Def in it's various flavors is all about two or 3 things really: Compression, Storage, Distribution.

And Broadcast. Why does broadcast always seem to be left out of the equation? Is it because everyone knows that the best quality HD that's going to be broadcast for at least 10 years is approx. 19Mbit, with MPEG2 compression for the majority of material?

And so you get a camera that can record 50/100Mbit 1080i/p... What you gonna watch it on? Isn't likely to be your consumer model WS HDTV - unless you degrade the quality, as has already been mentioned.

Do P2 cards have a battery backup? Wouldn't that be a problem? Lithium only lasts 7-10 years.

P2 cards are flash memory, aren't they? So they shouldn't need a battery.

Overtake? I don't think there's a need to just yet. Probably not even the first year of HVX200's debut. Real "low budget" independant filmmakers, well most won't even appear on the big screen or even be transferred to film. Why? Costs, and realistically knowing your target audience will be on DVD or other format. At least for now, until there is a cheaper alternative for us on a lower budget. I know I won't. I would rather pay for great actors, who can help make my picture more effective. For equipment to produce a more professional look, and special effects. Not to mention, production for distributing my work and marketing, lawyers, etc. So when it comes down to it, the camera is only a small part of what makes up a good picture.

I think most people will stick with their DVX/FX1/Z1/GL2/XL2 or whatever camera has been out and proven in the field to work. The reason? At least for the next year or so, as I have read about everywhere, most people don't have hdtv, DVD players don't play HD, and when it does become available, I'm going to have to sell my DVD production equipment and fork out tons of $$$(since it is new and going to be expensive) for new equipment? No, think this is unfeasable for us "low budget filmmakers".

For myself on a budget, I looked at the XL2, the DVX, the Z1. And for me, I chose the FX1(second hand). Why? Because the image was good enough, better than my GL2. The price was cheap enough, that I could buy a pro tripod and head, pro mike, fig rig for portability, beachtek for audio, a high end laptop for editing, etc in the field. All of which I can use in the future. Or, I could have bought 2 cameras(wish I could have) for the productions. All for the price of just one of those other cameras. To me, that's a smart budget. If I had more $$$, sure I would LOVE to buy another camera. But most of us don't. And that's why Sony is in a good place right now. Now I have plenty for the truck rentals, to pay the crew, and most of all the cast. I don't have to wait until I have more $$ to begin shooting. I think the majority are like me. We'll work with what we can afford, and when the 2nd generation cameras come out, then we might upgrade. So, regardless of whether the panasonic, jvc, or xlh hd1, is a better camera. The price is what's going to keep most of us on a budget away from them for a little while. After all, this whole business comes down to $$$ making, right?

And Sony, whether you love,like,or hate them. Provided us with a good choice to upgrade our SD cameras with(for those of us who wanted to).

This isn't meant as a "bashing" post, or an "I love Sony" post. I would love to have 1 or 2 of those "sexy" cameras. It's just the hard reality for most of us. We want the most out of our budget, and the Sony helps us achieve that at this price range. Sure you can rent the other cameras. But I can't afford the rates for a 30 day shoot or more. And as I hear a lot on here, if you want it to "look like film, shoot it on film". I and everyone I know who has worked with these cams are happy and like the end product. Looks amazing on my 48" HDTV, even if it is sd dvd.

Flame me if you must, lol!

Sean