Check this out

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/HDR-UX1-and-HDR-SR1---Sony-Unveils-AVCHD-Camcorders.htm

Cheers

Hans

Yes, I saw that. Too bad there's no more info to be found anywhere. I'm very curious about it.

NYC conference.

Full details prob within 8 or10hrs from Tokyo Sony announcement IMO.

The HDR-SR1 sounds interesting. What are current editing options for footage from these cameras?

Most interesting is that they addressed the short-record-time thing head on. In the DVD version they're using double-layer, which they say lets them get 1 hour of recording time (wonder what the bitrate is at that though? 6 megabits maybe?)

Then they introduced a hard-disk model too. They claim up to 10 hours of recording time on that (30gb hard disk?)

I hope these have better manual control than their Standard Def counterparts.

That, and better low-light than the Sanyo HD1.

EDIT: looks like they brought back the manual focus ring, dedicated mic and headphone jacks :)

Barry - I think 6 mbit is definitely in the ballpark - just running the math:

1.4 GB is single layer, therefore
2.8 GB is a reasonable guess for dual layer
divide 2.8/3.6 converts GB/hr to MB/sec, (that's a handy bit o' math to remember, BTW/FYI)
multiply by 8 to get megabits/sec - 6.3

I've posted some thoughts on the new format over at hdforindies -

http://www.hdforindies.com/2006/07/first-report-on-new-avchd-camcorders.html

Will update as more info emerges.

The biggest issue I see is this - OK folks....how are we going to edit this stuff? Native NLE support is how many months away at best?

As for the hard drive - 30GB sounds about right as well at this data rate....unless they are dropping the data rate even lower (as the statement implies) and it is a smaller drive.

-mike

Count me in as a HDR-SR1 fan. I want decent recording times and no media to exchange.

I didn't think they'd have product so fast. My goodness, well next years going to be a HD explosion for me I guess.

Harrison - what would you want to use it for - home movie stuff? At this point, the format is pretty much uneditable as far as I can tell - perhaps Sony will bundle something with the cameras?

As far as I can tell, you can play discs off the camera connected to TV, or copy to computer and play from there. But editing? Somebody please let me know what's possible, now or in the near future (anything beyond NLE vendors' "expressed interest")?

Not picking on you, just trying to understand the usage case.

-mike

Note: I've had to do some editing here. For legal reasons, please don't post information about how to access "secret folders" on other websites.

Thanks.

For editing, I would certainly expect that the reason Sony Vegas 7 wasn't introduced at NAB, but instead was delayed until later this year, would be to add AVC-HD support... just a guess, but I'd be surprised if I was wrong.

Harrison - what would you want to use it for - home movie stuff? At this point, the format is pretty much uneditable as far as I can tell - perhaps Sony will bundle something with the cameras?

As far as I can tell, you can play discs off the camera connected to TV, or copy to computer and play from there. But editing? Somebody please let me know what's possible, now or in the near future (anything beyond NLE vendors' "expressed interest")?

Not picking on you, just trying to understand the usage case.

-mike

It's cool Mike I know you're a standup guy. I'm only looking at this for consumer "video of the kids" stuff. In fact Sony and Panny will most likely position this as strictly a consumer format. That way they don't step on the toes of their Pro gear.

Long term I'm looking forward to seeing what Panny can do with AVC-Intra but the first products coming will be way beyond my budget.

I think Cineform has suggested they'll move quickly to support new formats like this, and their past track record seems pretty good on that point. Canopus has also been doing a competent job of incorporating multiple formats, but probably not as quickly.

I'm not keen on the idea of trying to edit MPEG4 video given how tough it is to work with MPEG2, but solutions will no doubt be forthcoming. What I'd like to know is when we might see more professional cameras based on this recording format, like the one proposed by Panasonic.

Didn't know the news/model numbers were leaking already, but our NDA doesn't expire until the announcement tomorrow.
Suffice it to say for now, these are *consumer* camcorders. Not professional by *any* stretch of the imagination. Doesn't mean they're not useable, but they are built for, aimed at, and supported for mom/pop shooters.

Barry - I think 6 mbit is definitely in the ballpark - just running the math:

1.4 GB is single layer, therefore
2.8 GB is a reasonable guess for dual layer
divide 2.8/3.6 converts GB/hr to MB/sec, (that's a handy bit o' math to remember, BTW/FYI)
multiply by 8 to get megabits/sec - 6.3

I've posted some thoughts on the new format over at hdforindies -

http://www.hdforindies.com/2006/07/first-report-on-new-avchd-camcorders.html

Will update as more info emerges.

The biggest issue I see is this - OK folks....how are we going to edit this stuff? Native NLE support is how many months away at best?

As for the hard drive - 30GB sounds about right as well at this data rate....unless they are dropping the data rate even lower (as the statement implies) and it is a smaller drive.

-mike


There is also some discussion on the recent announcement of 1 hour of HD on 4GB, which is about 9Mb/s. But I mention that on the Ambarella site they also talk about HD in 6 mbit/s (I think) so I fear that this is also possible, and undesirable:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=512978&postcount=93

The link to the SR1 hard drive model seems to be missed:
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Sony-Announces-First-Hard-Drive-Recording-High-Def-Camcorder-HDR-SR1.htm

The article does claim upto 24mb/s recording (phew, what a relief).

This thing sure looks a lot like the HC3 camera. If I had to make a guess I would say it is almost the same with only the recording media and format as the main change. The new cameras seems to use a CMOS chip and it makes sense that SONY might use the same chip to try and bring the cost down. Is there really a whole lot that could be done to make a 1/3" CMOS chip look any better than the current cameras? The lens is still small and it is still a CMOS chip and a single chip. Unless this chip has a native 3840x2160 pixel count that can be sampled back down to 1920x1080 for higher detail from a bayer filter I do not see this camera as light years ahead of the HC3.

Perhaps when SONY says 60 minutes on a dual layer disk they mean that is how much time you can get at the lowest setting. Kind of like how some DV cameras would claim to be able to record 120 minutes at LP on a 80 minute tape. Perhaps there are multiple bitrates and 24 is actually the highest but with very short record times.

Can a camera based DVD drive even run at 24 mbits/s?

Avid Liquid can already edit WMV files including H264 in realtime while mixing with other HD and SD formats. I'm not sure how much different AVCHD is to H264 WMV files but it shouldn't be hard for Avid to add support. Of course as of right now Avid has not joined the AVCHD group so who knows.

This thing sure looks a lot like the HC3 camera. If I had to make a guess I would say it is almost the same with only the recording media and format as the main change. The new cameras seems to use a CMOS chip and it makes sense that SONY might use the same chip to try and bring the cost down. Is there really a whole lot that could be done to make a 1/3" CMOS chip look any better than the current cameras? The lens is still

Hopefully it is more like an improved HC1 (but I guess not) with separate independent better iris, gain, shutter controls.

Yes, 1/3rd inch can be improved. Their are various noise reduction, global shutter, fillfactory, and sensor circuit techniques (not to mention Foveon like three colored pixels) as well as micro-lensing techniques. We can guess that Sony is using some of these already to a good extent, but one that it vary important is multi-slope and per pixel dynamic gain, good for extending latitude and for using a faster lens without blowing out. I have seen an article (CC I think) where a Sony boss mentioned something that sounded like these latitude extending features, and some of the Japanese marketing blurb (haven't seen the English doco) seemed to indicate this.

Depending on what Sony is doing, it should be possible to get a number of stops noise sensitivity and latitude.

Well, if these things have true 24p on them, then things could get pretty interesting.

How big are the CMOS sensors and even though officially recording type has been announced will these cameras have the capability of recording 1080i and 720p at a touch of the button? are all the cameras capable of recording in 24p? I don't think they would, I bet you that Sony and Panasonic have a prosumer card up their sleeves. I am looking forward to seeing that, oh BTW AVCHD is GOP based right?

I bet it will have that crappy "Cinema Mode" (i.e. CineFrame). Which is pretty sad, because the technology is right there. CMOS sensors can do progressive scanning right? 720/24p is a part of the AVCHD codec parameters. So why would it not have 24p capability? I'll tell you why. Sony has never offered 24p as an option for any of there consumer or prosumer lines and I don't think they will start now.

Don't bet on Panasonic making a comparable product with 24p either. It will completely destroy any market for the DVX100 and it will cut into the profits of it's reigning golden boy the HVX200.

Your best hope would be that Canon uses there AVCHD license and makes a 24p prosumer camera. It would definitely fill a gap in there line. Or maybe JVC will purchase the license and do something, I doubt it though.

Just because consumers want something doesn't mean the companies will listen, unless of course it benefits them.

It's to bad, because it would make things interesting. Also it would give aspiring young filmmakers something they could use well within a respectable budget.

Barry - I think 6 mbit is definitely in the ballpark - just running the math:

The biggest issue I see is this - OK folks....how are we going to edit this stuff? Native NLE support is how many months away at best?

-mike

Adobe as well as other NLE software companies have already signed on to the AVCHD camp, so native editing support should be available by the time the cameras are shipping.

I found some interesting info on the new UX1/SR1 specs page on Sony Japan's website.

UX1: http://www.sony.jp/products/Consumer/handycam/PRODUCTS/HDR-UX1/feature01.html

SR1: http://www.sony.jp/products/Consumer/handycam/PRODUCTS/HDR-SR1/feature01.html

The 2 cameras are nearly identical except for the storage medium. Both appear to have the same sensor/lens combo as the HC3, in addition to a DD5.1 built-in mic (or DD2.0 when using the stereo mic input) and 3.5" LCD. Both have a manual control ring at the front of the lens, which can be toggled between control of focus, exposure, or AE/white balance shift (zoom was not mentioned). Both have USB2 but no Firewire. Both support only 1080/60i in AVCHD mode. There is no mention of Cineframe or any other progressive recording mode. Both also have an SD mode, recording 480/60i MPEG-2 at 9/6/3mpbs.

The UX1 (DVD version) records AVCHD at a max rate of 12mbps (HQ+) mode, storing 27mins on a dual layer DVD-R or 15mins per side on a single layer DVD-R/RW. The lower rate modes are 9mbps (HQ, 35/20mins), 7mbps (SP, 45/25mins), and 5mbps (LP, 60/32mins). The recorded discs can be played in a PC, Playstation 3, or other AVCHD-supporting player, but not standard DVD players.

The SR1 (hard disk version) records AVCHD at a max rate of 15mbps (XP, 4:00hrs), and also records 9mbps (HQ, 7:00hrs), 7mbps (SP, 8:30hrs), and 5mbps (LP, 11hrs).

I guess anyone who was expecting 24mbps or 1080/24p will be a little disappointed now. In theory, given an ideal encoder, 12mbps H.264 would probably look as good as HDV's 25mbps MPEG-2. But given the realtime requirement and size/power limitations of these consumer camcorders, I don't think it will beat HDV.

Jason thanks for the info, this is a very predictable move for Sony, ofcoarse there would only be one recording type, which is 1080i60 but when a prosumer camera using the AVCHD comes out, then more features will be available like 1080p24 or 720p24, there would be no way a camera for consumers and costing US$1500 will have most of the features discussed.

Jason Livingston,

That’s very confusing when Sony promised up to 24MBPS. Either these articles need to be corrected by Sony or this only means that one more AVCHD camcorder is on its way that will have a compression of 24MBPS.

Jason thanks for the info, this is a very predictable move for Sony, ofcoarse there would only be one recording type, which is 1080i60 but when a prosumer camera using the AVCHD comes out, then more features will be available like 1080p24 or 720p24, there would be no way a camera for consumers and costing US$1500 will have most of the features discussed.

How hard would it be to implement other frame rates and resolutions? I'm guessing not that hard at all. Nor do I think it would be expensive. The fact that Sony wont do it is lame marketing BS.

How hard would it be to implement other frame rates and resolutions? I'm guessing not that hard at all. Nor do I think it would be expensive. The fact that Sony wont do it is lame marketing BS.

1. 24p is NOT considered at any stretch, a consumer standard. These are CONSUMER camcorders. They are distributed by Sony Electronics, not Sony Broadcast/Professional.

2. Implementing multiple clocks is very costly. Just ask any camera manufacturer, or manufacturer of any timed device. 48Hz, 50Hz, 60Hz clocks all come at a price. The point of these cams is to be high quality but inexpensive.

3. Why any other resolutions? Sony, like most of the broadcast world, knows it's a 1080 world on the broadcast and display-purchase side from a consumer standpoint. This is part of why many of their cams offer HDMI out as well, making it easier for consumers to connect the cams directly to their 1080-ready displays.

But the most important thing to remember that seems to be getting lost in the discussion of the AVC-HD camcorders, is these are designed EXCLUSIVELY and only for the consumer channel.
It's not usable for broadcast at all, IMHO.
AC3 in-camera? C'mon...you guys know better than to believe these are for broadcast. They're mom n' pop cams.
Disc or Disk-based, 4 Megapixel stills, single CMOS imager, great price point...great for consumers.
No one had kittens like this over the HC3, why are you having kittens over AVC-HD?

Okay I get all that. I thought you could get a progressive image off of CMOS chips. However, If AVCHD is "EXCLUSIVELY" a consumer format and 24p is not (yet) considered a consumer option. Why waste time implementing 720/24p into the specs of AVCHD? The cheapy Samsung HD has 720/30p. I understand these cameras are not meant for broadcast, but for amateurs and enthusiasts, 24p would be a good selling point. When I was 14 years old I bugged my parents ad nauseum to get a Canon 8mm camcorder that cost $1k at the time. Granted I had to pay for half (okay maybe like a 1/3rd), but still they could see my enthusiasm for filmaking and relented.My parents nor I would have been ablre to purchase something in the price range of the DVX. My point here is that for upcoming filmmakers a camera with 24p in the price range of $1500-2000 would be a godsend. Not to mention a great B camera to compliment other 24p cameras.

As I stated in a previous post, I think it just reeks of marketing BS. I don't think there is a major cost prohibitive factor at work here.

How hard would it be to implement other frame rates and resolutions? I'm guessing not that hard at all. Nor do I think it would be expensive. The fact that Sony wont do it is lame marketing BS.

From a quality issue 1280 pixels does not divide into 1920 pixels. But 1920 divides (using binning) into 3840 pixels, as does 1280 pixels. So, the sensor needs to be at least around 8mp on a bayer sensor, to get exact pixels. There is some penalty in sensor pad area fill factor, effecting noise floor and latitude. To get 720p from a 1080p chip requires some form of interpolation/sharpening normally.

I found some interesting info on the new UX1/SR1 specs page on Sony Japan's website.

UX1: http://www.sony.jp/products/Consumer/handycam/PRODUCTS/HDR-UX1/feature01.html

SR1: http://www.sony.jp/products/Consumer/handycam/PRODUCTS/HDR-SR1/feature01.html


Jason, thanks for this, it has been strange people haven't been quoting all the details. I imagine camcorderinfo will have to take the 24mb/s claim off their site. This is what I suspected, that they might stratify the market, and why I was surprised at the large gap of 1 hour per dual layer disk for one camera, and 24Mb/s rating for the other.

Douglas, whatever they have told you, or have shown you, is probably only the short term information/outlook (for the next 4-6 months) meant to keep people limitedly informed and not interfere with sales of the new cameras, and I suspect that 24mb/s, 24p, and Tru1080 will be reserved for prosumer models, late this year or into next (hopefully not NAB). The question is, will we ever see the HVX AVC Intra, or will that be reserved for true pro models (hopefully not).

Will 15mb/s AVC compete with 25mb/s HDV? There are advancements over HDV's mpeg2, if they choose to properly support them, but even then I don't know. For instance, 15mb/s is still 15mb/s VS 25MB/s HDV, how will scene changes (low light noise and motion) suck this up and be rendered. These changes are the extremes that tax low bit rate codecs the most, can h264 make up the difference. I think if h264 implemented fully and well, it might win in scenes with little scene change, and not in scenes with massive scene changes (like low light and movement) in this camera. So, still consumer, now if it can only render pictures like the birthday scene picture on it's web pages.

<snip>
As I stated in a previous post, I think it just reeks of marketing BS. I don't think there is a major cost prohibitive factor at work here.

Well Tony, while I'm sure Sony isn't going to give you 24P in an affordable package, don't lose hope yet. I remember an interview from some time ago (probably early/mid 2005) on camcorderinfo with one of the Panasonic honchos and he specifically mentioned that they were looking to bring 24P to the consumer market. I wouldn't be surprised if Panasonic specifically insisted on integrating 24P into the AVCHD standard for that very purpose.

So just hold on a while longer, and maybe you'll get that affordable 24P cam yet.

And remember, if you're REALLY serious about that 24P look on a tiny budget, you can always go PAL. A PAL HC1 either deinterlaced or shot in CF25 mode and slowed to 24fps is a pretty nice budget tool...

www.philipwilliams.com

It's very tempting to believe that the HC3 will be pulled in favor of this. It looks like the HC3 body with a few HC1 options put back in. However, consumers want to shoot and watch HD material on their HDTV's and don't want to bother with editing. This makes for happy customers and protects Sony's entrance fee into the pro market.

I'm sure that Sony would rather sell an A1U in favor of a pro whom rather have and HC3 for the image only, placed into harms way, or as small form factor. They can get another $1000 that way. Those of us whom already have an HC3 or HC1 in our arsenal may be lucky if this turns out to be the case.

Of course, I could be blowing smoke, but it makes sense from a bottom-line point.

Tony, it's not marketing BS it's the fact that extra features cost money for R&D and Patent licensing and the fact that if these cameras did have 24p and other features how many CONSUMERS will appreciate and take advantage of this, to them it would seem too juddery and stick with 60Hz.
There are people like us, and then there are consumers. Guess who outnumbers who.

Didn't know the news/model numbers were leaking already, but our NDA doesn't expire until the announcement tomorrow.
Suffice it to say for now, these are *consumer* camcorders. Not professional by *any* stretch of the imagination. Doesn't mean they're not useable, but they are built for, aimed at, and supported for mom/pop shooters.


Dont you think that this will be the case for quite some time? Everyone has this dream/fantasy/nightmare of killing film but the ONLY way you will ever get CLOSE is uncompressed. Just as the photo market is quickly going RAW and less compressed, I see the professional and even pro-sumer market moving this way as storage solutions become cheaper and mroe reliable. Compression will be king for delivery but not for acquisition. I mean, think about audio, it is being delivered compressed over the air or SUPER compressed over the internet/mp3 but nobody is even TALKING about acquiring anything that way. Most people have moved to ProTools HD 24bit, etc.



ash =o)

Well, if these things have true 24p on them, then things could get pretty interesting.


It would not make sense at all to pay the 24P licensing fee for such a camera. AFAIK, the license is per camera made...



ash =o)

Okay I get all that. I thought you could get a progressive image off of CMOS chips. However, If AVCHD is "EXCLUSIVELY" a consumer format and 24p is not (yet) considered a consumer option. Why waste time implementing 720/24p into the specs of AVCHD?

As I stated in a previous post, I think it just reeks of marketing BS. I don't think there is a major cost prohibitive factor at work here.

1. 24p will likely never be considered a consumer format framerate. Heck, professionals have difficulty shooting it, *scores* of tests show that most people hate high action ie; sports captured with it, so what on earth makes you think that consumers could cope with it?

2. The 24p license ain't cheap, and every penny in cost equates to at least 30 times that in end retail price.

3. You *can* get a progressive image from CMOS chips, I didn't suggest you can't. What I suggested is (and know very well from a variety of external sources) is that Sony considers AVC-HD as a consumer format. I'm quite well aware of what Sony was doing with this format several months ago, and just as well aware of what's coming.

4. You're welcome to suppose it's marketing BS, but having been around this industry for as long as I suppose you've been alive....it's not anything of the kind.

IF ANYTHING sony might release a camera through the broadcast division very similar to what they have done with the HC1 to the A1 and the FX1 to the Z1, and probably include the 24p framerate. This is the camera to look out for, prosumer or pro or what ever you want to call it, this would be the hero cam for AVCHD. Panny will probably do the same.

1. 24p will likely never be considered a consumer format framerate. Heck, professionals have difficulty shooting it, *scores* of tests show that most people hate high action ie; sports captured with it, so what on earth makes you think that consumers could cope with it?

Okay, thats a valid opinion, but it's just that...an opinion.

2. The 24p license ain't cheap, and every penny in cost equates to at least 30 times that in end retail price.

Maybe, but what exactly does it cost? Nobody seems to want to mention that. I'm not looking for exact figures, but what kind of ballpark are we talking about here?

3. You *can* get a progressive image from CMOS chips, I didn't suggest you can't. What I suggested is (and know very well from a variety of external sources) is that Sony considers AVC-HD as a consumer format. I'm quite well aware of what Sony was doing with this format several months ago, and just as well aware of what's coming.

I get that Sony only considers this a consumer format, but that still doesn't tell me why they have 720/24p listed in the specs for AVCHD as an option. Maybe another company will do something along those lines and that's what I was originally implying.

4. You're welcome to suppose it's marketing BS, but having been around this industry for as long as I suppose you've been alive....it's not anything of the kind.

A little testy Douglas? I follow the technology, I don't obsess on the details as much. I'm a filmmaker it's my passion, and while I do like the advancement of technology I don't obsess over every detail.

Tony, you just proved DSE's point... you say you are a passionate filmmaker but cameras like these are not aimed at filmmakers... they are CONSUMER cameras and it is a CONSUMER format. As for the 24P license? Last I checked the cheapest cams with true 24P retailed for over $3000.

As a filmmaker and a professional there are many features that you need that the consumer MASSES do not, you will always pay a premium for those features because the competition is less and the market smaller...



ash =o)

I guess my point was that 720/24p is in the specs for the format. If AVCHD is only aimed at a consumer market (as DSE claims). What's the point of making it a part of the official specs if no company plans on using that resolution and frame rate. I don't know much in this given field, but I can read and I do know that 720/24p is a part of the format. I get that Sony isn't inclined towards those ends, but claiming a strictly consumer base for AVCHD seems a little premature when the format specs dictate that it is geared for prosumer needs as well.

My only argument was that AVCHD is not going to strictly be a consumer format. That was my only point.

...A little testy Douglas? I follow the technology, I don't obsess on the details as much. I'm a filmmaker it's my passion, and while I do like the advancement of technology I don't obsess over every detail.

I don't think Douglas was being testy, he's more likely being factual.

You cannot say "filmaker" and "don't obsess over every detail" in the same sentence. It's not natural. Even your arguement here is testomony to obsessing over details.

What I don't get is that you are willing to become a member of an elite club, but don't want to pay the entrance fee.

Time after time I read posts about folks whom want and think that 24p on ANY camera will make them a filmaker. They get the cheapest cam they can afford, and then nickle and dime themselves to eternity trying to make it work. When after adding up the receipts and sweat equity in the end, they should have just paid the extra for the real deal to begin with.

I would tend to think that "passionate" film makers know this and go the extra mile, obsessing over the details to get the right tools for the job. I'm sorry but your point is not valid.

People seemed obsessed with acquiring at higher resolutions and not lower compression. For any decent posting, less compression is better, much better. The only I see this highly compressed format even leaking into the pro world will be via a camera that WILL shoot less compression that has the AVCHD compression as an option in emergency or remote field situations, say an HVX-200a that will allow the option to P2 cards as an alternative to DVCproHD.



ash =o)

Let's not forget that there will also be AVC Intra, maybe it isn't lower compression but at least it's friendlier, i.e. intra-frame instead of GOP based.

I guess my point was that 720/24p is in the specs for the format. If AVCHD is only aimed at a consumer market (as DSE claims). What's the point of making it a part of the official specs if no company plans on using that resolution and frame rate. I don't know much in this given field, but I can read and I do know that 720/24p is a part of the format. I get that Sony isn't inclined towards those ends, but claiming a strictly consumer base for AVCHD seems a little premature when the format specs dictate that it is geared for prosumer needs as well.

My only argument was that AVCHD is not going to strictly be a consumer format. That was my only point.

At the Apple/Sony XDCAM HD seminar in Dallas, a question was asked about the forthcoming AVCHD and the Sony rep said pointblank, "AVCHD is a consumer format." Those were the first words out of his mouth when the phrase AVCHD was mentioned. So that's not just DSE's claim, it's Sony's official stance also. Mike Curtis of HD for Indies was also present and can verify what I just said. Come to think of it, he might have been the one that posed the question.

-gb-

I don't think Douglas was being testy, he's more likely being factual.

You cannot say "filmaker" and "don't obsess over every detail" in the same sentence. It's not natural. Even your arguement here is testomony to obsessing over details.

I don't obsess over the technology. Making films on the other hand... and even then only up to a point.

'sigh' ...again my point was that I don't think AVCHD is set up as strictly a consumer format. It doesn't matter if Sony is treating it as such.

What I don't get is that you are willing to become a member of an elite club, but don't want to pay the entrance fee.

First of all, I own both a DVX and an XL2, so that isn't even remotely what I was talking about, but yeah, I don't think you should have to pay some high price to be in some "elite" club. There are plenty of young filmakers out there with little money that would probably appreciate a 24p camera in a lower price bracket. I hated the look of video when I first started making films, but it's all that was available at the time.The technology is here, it can be done. It just isn't being done and I merely made some observations as to why.

The idea of a camera like the DVX is to democratize filmmaking and level the playing field. I just wish these companies would take it a step further.

Granted, 24p does not make you a good filmmaker, but it does make your works look more like film, thus making people a little more accepting of said films, thus giving your film a chance of wider audience. And don't even give me that cr@p about it's only the story that counts when I see filmmakers (good and bad ones) everyday stressing how professional their films look.

Why even put quasi frame modes (i.e. CineFrame, Pro-Cinema, Frame Mode, etc...) in cameras like the HC1, HC3, GS400/500, etc... if consumers don't want a filmic look? The idea that consumers and enthusiasts don't want this sort of thing is ridiculous when there are a number of cameras in the sub $2K category that attempt to mimic the look of film. I'll bet you money that at least one of these Sony cameras have some version of Cineframe mode. Why not not just go a little further and actually give the consumer/enthusiast 24p? Gee, could it be that some people might not buy the over $3k cameras any longer? Let's not forget Panasonic helped develop the AVCHD codec. Maybe Sony is trying to save the almighty dollar by using the same CMOS chip in every camera they make? The idea that consumers don't want 24p rings a little false to me. Do you think they aren't putting these faux film modes in these cameras just because the designers haven't got anything better to do.

Elitism and snobbery bore me to tears. Thinking that it's perfectly acceptable for 24p cameras to be only available to those who can afford thousands of dollars is offensive to me.

Tony I'm not sure that you appreciate just how far these companies have already taken the democratization of filmmaking... just a few short years ago, a camcorder like the DVX for under $4,000 or an HD camera under $10,000 was just a pipe dream. Frankly, speaking in relative terms, I'm amazed at just how *inexpensive* this gear is these days. While you choose to be offended about those prices, as for myself I'm grateful that we can have so much for so little. If these manufacturers could sell these things for $100, don't you think they would? And yet I'll bet there will still be some people complaining about the pricing even then.

The bang-for-buck return on the current $4,000 to $10,000 camera range is nothing short of revolutionary, and certainly does not shut out anyone who has the passion, drive and ambition to actualize their dreams.

Chris,

I'm not offended at the prices per se. Granted I think the prices are moving a little slow for my tastes. I was merely offended at the idea that it should be an "elite" club. That you can only achieve by having money. Hey, I just remember what it was like being a 14 year old kid trying to make films and absolutely hating the look of video. I am grateful, but I'm also a working man that can afford these cameras. Some people can't.

Obviously there is a market for sub $2k cameras to have a filmic look.

I think what Peter meant when he said that filmmaking is an elite club, has more to do with the fact that many try but few succeed. Elite not meaning snobbery but instead being successful in the face of a variety of seemingly insurmountable odds, as opposed to those who try at it and fail for any number of reasons spanning a wide range of circumstances.

Nobody needs a camera or a lot of money to be a filmmaker... all anybody needs in order to become a filmmaker is a business card, a telephone and people skills.

Nobody needs a camera or a lot of money to be a filmmaker... all anybody needs in order to become a filmmaker is a business card, a telephone and people skills.

True...but it doesn't hurt either. I personally needed a Canon 8mm camcorder, my friends, and the woods behind my house. :)

and the Sony rep said pointblank, "AVCHD is a consumer format."

The thing is, it's not up to Sony to decide that. It's up to the MARKET to decide.

What did they say about S-VHS? "It's a consumer format." Consumers never adopted it, but a whole lot of pros shot a lot of footage on AG-456's.

What did they say about DV? "It's a consumer format." Didn't stop a whole lot of pros from adopting the VX1000, and then cameras like the DV500, DVX, and anything related to DVCAM (which is, let's not forget, fundamentally identical to the "consumer format" but for tape speed).

What did they say about HDV? "It's a consumer format." Didn't stop the Z1 and HD100 and XLH1 from being introduced and adopted by some who find that "consumer format" enough for them.

So -- again, I must pose the question, for those who insist that this is targeted and sentenced to be "consumer only": if HDV is "good enough" for pros, why on earth wouldn't you rather have AVC-HD?

Let's go through it again:
HDV = 1440x1080, AVC-HD = 1920x1080
HDV = 4:2:0, AVC-HD = 4:2:0
HDV = long-GOP, AVC-HD = long-GOP
HDV = compressed MPEG-1 Layer 2 audio, AVC-HD = uncompressed 7.1 channels of 48khz 16-bit audio
HDV = compressed MPEG-1 Layer 2 audio, AVC-HD = 5.1 channels of Dolby Digital AC-3 audio
HDV = no support for 24p, AVC-HD has support for all the same resolutions and formats as HDV, plus 24p in both 720 and 1080

HDV = 19 or 25 megabits of MPEG-2. AVC-HD = 18 (and perhaps 24?) megabits of H.264, which is 2.25 to 2.5 times more efficient than MPEG-2 at equivalent bitrate (so, spoken in terms of MPEG-2, that would be like having somewhere between 40 and 60 megabits of MPEG-2).

HDV = tape-based, AVC-HD = tapeless (to hard disk, SD card, or mini-DVD)
HDV = largely incompatible between manufacturers, AVC-HD should be 100% cross-compatible among all manufacturers.

The way I read that chart, in the 9 categories, AVC-HD is the clear winner in 7, and they tie in 2.

There's a world of difference between saying that AVC-HD is a "CONSUMER FORMAT" and saying that the existing Sony products are "consumer products." Yes the ones Sony announced are aimed squarely at consumers and only consumers. But the AVC-HD format appears (on paper) to be better in almost every conceivable way than HDV, and the only ways that it's not better, it's at least a match. Not inferior at all. So if HDV is "good enough" for some pros, why wouldn't AVC-HD be better?

Stick a great camera head in front of AVC-HD, and that same great camera head in front of HDV, and you should get better results from the AVC-HD format. Just like you could stick a $299 Sharp Viewcam on the front of a DV deck, or a Sony DSR450 or SDX900 recording to DV. DV may be a "consumer format" but an SDX900 recording DV is by no means a "consumer camera", and the format certainly holds up plenty well.

I don't doubt that these little AVC-HD cameras won't hold up as compared to an FX1. But an AVC-HD FX2 would be substantially better than an HDV FX1, of that I have no doubt.

It just remains to be seen if the manufacturers will build a product that takes advantage of the format's potential.