http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/digital-cameras/sanyo-portugal-shows-us-vpchd1-141758.php
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sanyo.pt%2Fdefault.php%3Fprod_cod%3DVPC_HD1EX%26familia_cod%3DIMDIG%26c at_cod%3DCV%2520%253Chttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.sanyo.pt%2Fdefault.php%3Fprod_cod%3DVPC_HD1EX%26amp%3Bfamilia_ cod%3DIMDIG%26amp%3Bcat_cod%25

yep these are definitely the cameres that are going to take over completely. Eventually, these things will be able to record images that will almost look identical to film, and won't require any product to record on (no tapes or discs)

In five years, these cameras will be available everywhere in consumer models, and also professional, with ones that generate a film like image.

I'd say 5 years is pushing it. I mean, DV took a while to develop, and HD is still in it's infancy. Plus, the whole idea that we can develop something that can have better quality than film is practically impossible with current technology, and certainly impossible at a price point under a few hundred million dollars. Film, being an optical medium, will require something completely new and different than a CCD, CMOS, or any other device of the type that relies on pixels to outdo it.

Good idea, and yes, it will come eventually, but not yet.

Also - as far as the flash camera is concerned, the resolution isn't the only thing to be thinking about. These cameras can easily upscale resolution, have ultra-small CCDs (no low-light shooting, practically infinite depth of field) and terrible lenses, not to mention MPEG-4 Compression, which is far from ideal. Having it shoot in a high-def compatible format is only good if the imagery warrants it.

When I saw the picture it reminded me immediately of the Fisher FVDC. Some of the flash cameras are just now getting the point of somewhat useable resolution and frame rate. D'zign makes one with a 2GB hard drive that has 640x480 at 30 fps, fixed focus, no optical zoom. Mustek has been turning out flash cams. Optics on flash cams don't have much flexibily, though a 35mm adapter might make some worth while.

panasonic has at least one solid state mpeg2 video camera that has a 3-ccd pickup... it does not need tape to record high bitrate video that is fully dvd-compatible.

what you will soon be seeing is mass-produced silicon that encodes the video stream in codec formats like h.264 and windows media, either of which is far more efficient than mpeg2, hdv, or the dv codec... those developments will tilt this entire equation in directions that people have not yet anticipated.

Something needs to be done to lower the processing requirements of H.264 before anything will actually work with it. I mean, on my relatively tricked out G4, it barely even plays. Apparently it needs a G5 to even work decently. I certainly wouldn't try it on one of these little flash cams with a 200 MHz (or lower) processor unless something big happens.

Sorry, being the devil's advocate here. I mean, I'd like to see this as much as you would, but it's just not here yet. The only decent Flash setup I can see at the moment is P2.

what you will soon be seeing is mass-produced silicon that encodes the video stream in codec formats like h.264 and windows media, either of which is far more efficient than mpeg2, hdv, or the dv codec.

desktop computers do not come with the dedicated encoding/decoding hardware to handle video codecs.

exactly as i predicted, just two days ago... look at the miniscule power useage:

http://www.ambarella.com/news/press_releases/pr_12052005.htm

Good find Dan.

There was another chip announced a few months ago for portable devices, so the capability is here, with ATI cards announcing support for decoding in future.

Computers can have the decoding capability but often it is not available to be used. The Sound and graphic controllers on some motherboards, and some graphic cards have much greater power than the processors, but it is locked up, with some software groups attempting to release it for general use. But seriously, is something that "might" happen before you can buy cheap dedicated hardware to do it.

Now the issue is that this is great for consumer images, but for "job" quality, not really (but for things like helmet cam, what else is there). Low data rate is low data rate. Normally despite where ever you are using mpeg, mpeg2, even mpeg4, wavelet, the higher the quality you want the closer the compression ratios are compared to each other codec. At 200:1, DV might look half as good as mpeg2, which might look (these are not actual figures, but for illustrative purposes) half as good as mpeg4, which might look worse than a good wavelet codec. But for optimised lossless versions, it is usually around upto 2:1-3:1 average, with some recent announcements talking about upto 5:1 (though doubt has been expressed over this sort of figure for an average ratio). So I would guess that any of these codecs might have to be run at 5:1 to 20:1 to get a smooth (motion being a major problem) high quality image for work purposes. At 5:1 the DV codec is scraping it, pro cameras are closer to 3:1 (lossless might be close to 1:1 on the standard pro codec, but not certain). With native 264 native editing probably is going to be a real pain without an intermediate codec.

So check their compression ratio first if you expect any of these to replace your normal Mini-DV, HDV.