Definitely not liking the min lux rating......yikes!

The Japanese lux ratings is always a lot higher than the US lux ratings but I still think there is some sort of a misprint.

Hi

18 is better than 35 lux ( GR-hd1 or JY-HD10U ) and they really didn't look that bad in low light. I've seen some nice shots in the dark with them (35 lux) under street lights that looked real good . I'm crossing my fingers



LHR

While pixel shift does help detail we have to remember that when pixel shift was used with SD cameras, those cameras still started with the native resolution of the format of 720x480. The pixel shift just helped to make the image look more rich and detailed like it was being over sampled. It worked great for this purpose as an enhancer.

With HD however pixel shift is all of a sudden being used as a way to create pixels that are not really there and not just to enhance.

If pixel shift worked the way it is said to work with HD then we could have had SD cameras with 360x240 pixel chips using pixel shift and it would have looked great. I doubt any of us would ever want a SD camera with chips that small.

To me the fact that it records 1920x1080 pixels is almost totally useless since there is no way pixel shift can create that much detail. Not even a highend camera like the HVX200 can resolve enough lines to make a difference between 1280x1080, 1440x1080 or 1920x1080. Heck a lot of people even say the 720p and 1080p mode on the HVX200 looks about the same since both formats come from the same pixel shifted set of chips.

Finally JVC was clearly not thinking of it's pro users who have wanted a secondary backup B-roll camera to go with their HD100/HD200 series of cameras. While 1080i footage could be matched with 720p footage it would have been much better to at least have a true 720p mode on this camera. This now means that users of the 720p format still do not have a good option for a cheap B-roll camera.

While pixel shift does help detail we have to remember that when pixel shift was used with SD cameras, those cameras still started with the native resolution of the format of 720x480.Sorry but that's not entirely true. Most of those camcorders did *not* have native 720x480 chips, and indeed most of them used the Pixel Shift process in one or both axes in order to achieve that resolution.

Out of any number of such instances, perhaps the most famous examples are the Panasonic AG-EZ1, Canon XL1, GL1 and XL1S. All three chips in each of these camcorders used a CCD with only 250,000 pixels, which isn't nearly 720 x 480. They relied heavily on the Pixel Shift process in both horizontal and vertical axes just to get up to Standard Definition (and nobody made a big deal of it back then, either). Hope this helps,

Both the XL1 and the GL1 had a total of 270,000 pixels with an affective pixel count of 250,000 and I did complain at that time but I was only a teenager. The only time a lot of people started complaining about the pixel count is when the XL-H1 came out.

Look at the FX7 and the V1u, to me they both give you much better interlaced images outside than the Canon XH-A1 and its pixel count is much less than the XH-A1.

For all we know, their may in fact be a 720p mode in the JVC HD7 and we probably won’t find out until it’s almost released. JVC said there are extra features that they won’t mention yet. Even Sony didn’t want people to know that the V1u was capable of 24p when the V1e was announced.

I still have my XL1 sitting in my closet getting ready to be sold.

Yes it is true that the Canon SD cameras did use pixel shift to create pixels. These chips however still had a good amount of pixels on them. Something like 540x480 pixels. That is about the same ratio as 1440x1080 such as the chips used in the Canon HDV cameras which also use pixel shift. This 1.333 shift in the horizontal isn't as big of a step as trying to go from 1/2 the horizontal and 1/2 the vertical. The Canon SD cameras didn't have that many pixels to try to fill in and a 1.333 ratio fits the norm of the level that pixel shift helps. I think the BBC did a study that said at best pixel shift gives you 1.4x extra detail but no 2x. Of course this isn't a bad thing at all and I'm sure the JVC camera will look great. The only thing I question on it is how usefull a 1920x1080 recording mode is when there is very little chance that pixel shift will give you that much more detail over 1440x1080.

Hi

18 is better than 35 lux ( GR-hd1 or JY-HD10U ) and they really didn't look that bad in low light. I've seen some nice shots in the dark with them (35 lux) under street lights that looked real good . I'm crossing my fingers



LHR

I think the problem is that not only was gain limited in 720p,, but that people don't retest cameras as they are refined over their manufacture life, and CCD's have had an dramatic boost in Lux performance over that time. But today we are used to lower lux rating than 18 lux for HD.

I would believe it is possible, because of the tiny 1/5 inch CCD's.


With Pixel shift

It depends on the quality of processing. The Panasonic GS75 (? or something like that) would have used it extremely for stills, and some comment was made on it's resolution. If done well, the resolution of most details could be processed up a lot more than the BBC study suggests (I imagine that it might have been based on average pixel shifting results on pro cameras, not special processing).

I imagine the single chip (cmos?) pro camera coming to NAB, will be much better, but this camera could indicate some of the things to look forward to. 720p50 progressive at 35mb/s might even be an possibility (no information, but an hope). The question now comes down to what after the HD250 in the three chip range?


There has been comment as to the technology not been upto H264 1080p. I think that their in house designs may not have been completed, but that Ambarella has had solutions for some time. The problems is that companies seem to have snubbed it, because it is not in house or in country. They seem to have tried their own designs, but the performance has not been their (do not know what quality the Panasonic is though).


We wonder why lots of new things don't get to the market, like Foveon X3 for Video cameras. The truth might be that they are not only at an premium, but suffer from the disadvantage that they are not in house, or in country, and not from established supplies to companies. That sort of culture in industry can be really restrictive for an new company to break in. Going to other countries and manufacturers is an potential solution.


Thanks

Wayne.

Japanese information page
http://www.jvc-victor.co.jp/dvmain/gz-hd7/index.html

Flash Video
http://www.jvc-victor.co.jp/everio/gz-hd7sp/
Click either the left graphic or the blue box and wait until the Flash finish loading. Once the guy finish talking, move your mouse around the house.

Please don't come in silver- black only!!!!!!!

I’ve noticed that about a week ago and I think its one of two possibilities. US will get one color while Japan will get the other but it’s most likely that you will be able to choose the color you want since both camcorders have the words Victor on them.
Maybe with this idea, JVC thinks they will get extra sales.


I’ve posted this already but I will post it again:
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20070207/victor.htm
Here is a translated version:
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=ja_en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.watch.impress.co.jp%2Fav%2Fdocs%2F20070207%2Fvictor.htm

Well Canon offers their lower end DSLR's in both silver & black- guess which one is really popular with the pros?

(hint: silver- yuck!!!!)

B&H's new Spring 2007 Catalog details the HD7 at $1699.95 (page 235) and lists it in their "Prosumer" category.

Well Canon offers their lower end DSLR's in both silver & black- guess which one is really popular with the pros?

(hint: silver- yuck!!!!)

Silver would not attract heat as good as black ....hence the reason for silver for thous who work outside or transport cameras from A to B using cars. :)

Hi

I got my BH cad. yesterday and saw it also . Not Long Now !!





LHR

but, unfortunately, it isn't capturing at full HD res (it only saves in full HD res)...

" Each of the three CCDs measures 1/5" with a gross pixel count of only 570K (1016 x 558). "

Where is this coming from?

Everything I've seen from JVC implies this is full native 1920x1080 from sensors to disk.

As a GR-HD1 owner, I have a feeling this cam will disappoint in several areas, noise, color, low light, depth of field. Hope I'm wrong.

I’m sure in 4 years JVC have learned a lot since they made the HD1, so I expect this camcorder to be a whole lot better than the HD1.

"Everything I've seen from JVC implies this is full native 1920x1080 from sensors to disk."

Nothing I have seen even suggests this. It claims recording 1920x1080 but clearly details the sensor to have substantially less resolution than this and use pixel shift to try to have an educated guess to the extra detail.

It claims recording 1920x1080 but clearly details the sensor to have substantially less resolution than this and use pixel shift to try to have an educated guess to the extra detail.

Where, link?

I’m sure in 4 years JVC have learned a lot since they made the HD1, so I expect this camcorder to be a whole lot better than the HD1.

JVC also learned how to lose a market niche they created.

Where, link?

I am pretty sure this had already been referenced in this thread

http://www.jvc.com/press/index.jsp?item=549&pageID=1

Specifically:
"It uses three 1/5-inch 16:9 progressive scan CCDs designed for HD use in a diagonally offset pixel configuration to generate the high resolution image for recording in full HD"

& in detail
__________________________________________

Image size: 1/5” Diagonal
Aspect ratio: 16:9
Pixel size: 3.28 microns x 3.28 microns
Total number of pixels per CCD: 1016 x 558, approximately 570,000 pixels
Number of effective pixels per CCD: 976 x 548, approximately 530,000 pixels

JVC Uses Pixel Shift Technique

The Red and Blue imaging CCDs are shifted a half-pixel both horizontally and vertically relative to the Green imaging CCD. Because the pixel-shift system uses progressive scan CCDs, signals are processed first as 1920 x 1080p progressive signals, then converted to 1920 x 1080i interlace signals for recording.
__________________________________________

No way does 1920x1080 go native into 976x548.
This camera does exactly what the HVX200 does but with smaller sensors. They are essentially native 16:9 STANDARD definition sensors and use pixel offset for interpolation.

What this does mean however is the sensetivity shouldn't be much worse than a 1/5" SD camera (other than the 1/5" is across a 16:9 sensor not 4:3).

Does that clear that up for you?

Hi

I don't think it is going to be better than the HD1 or HD10 (footage). I like the 720p . I think it is going to shoot video better than the new sony HDR-UX1/SR1 and compete with the Canon HV-10 in video Qt. With alot better controls than the HD1 or HD10. Let's all face it If the GR/JY-HD's had better controls and worked the way they should ( are the way we think they should ) they would be hard to get ,because everyone would want one.
when the HD1/10 is setup right the footage will blow you away. isn't that right Tom !


LHR

I’m sure in 4 years JVC have learned a lot since they made the HD1, so I expect this camcorder to be a whole lot better than the HD1.

But HD1 is progressive. That is like comparing apples with organs, isn't it? Or am I missing something?

But HD1 is progressive. That is like comparing apples with organs, isn't it? Or am I missing something?
Maybe, but we have had camera shootouts with 720p and 1080i camcorders together.

JVC said there are features in this camcorder that they won’t mention until it’s almost released so you never know, their may actually be 720p modes including 24p.

Hi

True , I read all these post and sometimes I think we try to make it more than what it is . It is Not a Pro Model just a consumer model. I hope it turns out to be the best consumer model money can buy ! we all want it to be, I know JVC does. Just hope they did there home work and read some video forums like DVi and Camcorderinfo. to get some input .

LHR

Hi

True , I read all these post and sometimes I think we try to make it more than what it is . It is Not a Pro Model just a consumer model. I hope it turns out to be the best consumer model money can buy ! we all want it to be, I know JVC does. Just hope they did there home work and read some video forums like DVi and Camcorderinfo. to get some input .
LHR
If Canon can put a 24p mode on the HV20, than I can surely expect JVC to do the same thing on the HD7 that has a whole lot more manual features. Either that or they’ll show us another version with 24p and XLR inputs.
Personally, I could care less about 24p but 720 30p or 60p will be my cup of tea.
I’m leaving out 1080p because JVC said it weren’t going to be used.

Just like everybody else, I’m tired of JVC keeping everything secret.

Does that clear that up for you?

Yes, thank you. I have no more interest in this cam.

when the HD1/10 is setup right the footage will blow you away. isn't that right Tom !

LHR

It used to. Today's cams are better. It's just progress.

But HD1 is progressive. That is like comparing apples with organs, isn't it? Or am I missing something?

LOL. Organs? Was that intentional? He he.

"Pixel size: 3.28 microns x 3.28 microns" this should indeed give very good sensitivity. Something I believe is more important than raw detail from a cam of this category. And from all reports the lens is something special. Yes the chips are on the smaller size at 1/5" but just realize the V1 uses 1/4" and costs 3X as much. The kicker for me is 30Mbps VBR for 5hrs, Wow! That is a big advancement over CBR HDV.
I believe they will introduce a Pro model at a slightly higher price point.

30mb/s is not that big of a deal compared to HDV. The 30mb/s also has to deal with 1.33x more pixels because it is encoding 1920x1080. 25mb/s times 1.333 = 33.33mb/s. Also VBR doesn't instantly equal better quality. It just means it adjusts the bitrate based on how complex the scene is. Given that 1920x1080 should in theory be around 33.333 mb/s, I think the max of 30mb/s is a little low. Remember the average is 26.6mb/s so most of the time that is the bitrate that will get used. This is why the specs say up to 5 hours in the 1920x1080 modes and 5 hours in the CBR mode. Up to 5 hours because the average is the same bitrate as the CBR mode and if you happen to be shooting scenes that are easy to compress then the bitrate will stay around 26.6 mb/s giving you 5 hours of recording time. If the scenes are complex you will not get 5 hours of record time. I personally think 26.6 mb/s average is a little low for 1920x1080 encoding.

This range of bitrates is kind of low as well. 30mb/s and 26.6 mb/s is like encoding a DVD with an average of 4.43mb/s and a max of 5mb/s. There isn't a huge difference there in terms of quality. With a DVD the max is usually much higher to be able to cover the complex GOP.

So I would hardly consider these bitrates better then HDV considering the extra amount of data that needs to be encoded. Yes mpeg-2 is good at encoding redundant information but 1920x1080 still has more blocks of data to check and encode. Clearly JVC must think 1920x1080 offers more detail or else we could have just used 1440x1080. If it offers more detail then it will be harder to encode. If there is very little change in detail between 1920 and 1440 then why encode at 1920?

With the seven hour mode the max is 22mb/s which is lower then HDV's 25mb/s. Even then chances are the max rate will not always get used so the bitrate of 19mb/s is what is going to get used most of the time. Yes 19mb/s is a great bitrate for HD broadcasts at 1920x1080 but I think we are all dreaming to think a consumer camera is going to have an encoder chip that is equal in quality to a $10,000.00 Broadcast encoder. I would think a encoder in a pro camera recording at 25mb/s would be better then one in a consumer camera.

With that said I think this camera will be a great consumer camera but we shouldn't expect miracles from it. It is what it is.

We don't know what it "is" yet. We have to wait and see. VBR is a step in the right direction, being that encoder tech has reached that level and it doesn't have to conform to HDV spec.

Here is a GearLive CES video of the HD7
http://www.gearlive.com/index.php/news/article/094-ces-2007-video-jvc-everio-gz-hd7/

here is a first review/test.

http://www.videoaktiv.de/content/view/890/2/

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.videoaktiv.de%2Fcontent%2Fview%2F890%2F2%2F&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

Image quality section translated:

First of all: The sharpness of the 1440 x 1080-Signales and the sharpness of the 1920 x 1080-Bildes are almost accurately alike. After direct switching we did not see a difference. With the SD-signal the basic sharpness is likewise very high, it is with Schwenks however somewhat more Unschärfen and artifacts to be seen than with with the other modes.

The sharpness and dissolution of detail is with daylight conditions immensely, so long the picture stands. With Schwenks the MPEG-2 codec used by JVCseems to draw moved objects still more softly than with HDV Camcordern. The sharpness automatic controller may be adjusted max times to middle values, otherwise silberfischchenartige artifacts and strongly oversubscribed object edges, which remain invisible in the display, develop but at the television unpleasantly to be noticeable later in the picture. Of artifacts the scenes are not completely free, with daylight show you as a kind easy noise around colorstrong objects, with daylight however hardly impair themselves this the good result.

The tuning of the Weissabgleichesof the NTSC model did not convince yet. With day light the picture appeared somewhat greenish, with interior and weak light disappeared the blue tones in favor of of red. With manual white alignment then the blue came, griesselte however strongly. The weak light impression with 30 lux corresponds approximately to that Sony FX 7 in punkto noise, altogether works weak light scenes however quite softly. Also with interior photographs the camera did not show still long the sharpness achievement of daylight. Evenly this circumstance caused us to place behind the sharpness manually - with that somewhat doubtful result of increasing artifacts.

Also the screen function is not by hundred percent balanced yet. The camera over-radiated bright picture portions. A manual dipping the headlights of mindesterns a stage is recommended.

They did say that it’s an unfinished test unit so the production model should be a lot better. Also, unless they had a TV that is 1920x1080, you aren’t going to notice a difference. Another thing to consider is that they were probably comparing the 1920 resolution to the 1440 that has a constant bit rate of 27MBPS. The 1920 mode has a variable bit rate of 26.6. If they were shooting at something that was stationary with no movement then the bit rate probably goes down to 23.2MBPS and for fast action it goes up to 30MBPS.

As I said before, their will be features that JVC is keeping secret until March so who knows what that will be. The HD7 better prove itself or else JVC may have to give this thing a big price drop and its already 100 dollars less.

Looks like the dreaded JVC "highlight clipping" is present~~
"The camera over-radiated bright picture portions."

I know it's an unfinished test, but burnt out highlights and clipping really are annoying, I don't know why JVC can't get a handle on this. Every JVC I've ever owned always did this as where my Panasonics, Canon's and Sony's controlled this well.

I'm hoping for the best!

There's definitely a point to a hard-drive based HD camera.

The advent of desktop editing and its adoption by consumers, prosumers and lower end videographers all taking their footage online for editing- a hard-drive based camcorder solves the "capturing" step which is tedious and time consuming. So a h/d based HD cam should do well as it fills a growing need.

I agree with the dissatisfaction of codecs that need further processing to be used in NLE's- as with the case of the Everio series (Sony's too) that sorta kills the "plus" of having footage that's already digital as it needs to be transcribed into an editable format for editing. HDV has been specified as a "tape" format which took awhile to get broad-spec compliance in popular NLE's- too bad they couldn't use a HDV variant codec easily converted for NLE's. Transport streams and intermediate codecs require time for conversion which negates the whole "ready to edit" concept these new HD h/d cams seem to offer. Many of these cams come with software designed for drop to DVD type footage which isn't NLE friendly (especially for Mac users.)

JVC is definitely a pioneering company which was the first to offer an HD cam, a hard-drive cam and now HD spec h/d cam.....so pioneering products are a JVC strong suit as they seem to be the first to offer products unique in nature to the marketplace. Canon, Panasonic and Sony always end up trumping JVC in these categories later on- but to JVC's credit- they "initialize" the market segment with product first- so we should applaud their efforts!

I too am disappointed with some of the latest details coming to light - but will reserve judgment until a review is released on a finalized product. Manufacturers seem to think we want hard-drive based camcorders that produce footage "ready" for DVD's- when we want footage ready for NLE's! At the very least offer codec options- hopefully future h/d cams will offer this.

My biggest gripe is using a codec that's supported for NLE use for true drop and drag use......so we'll have to wait and see what comes in the next year or two. I'm sure Canon will come up with a quality solution in the future- but JVC is offering something 'now'- so I'm interested in the JVC offering as it's the only choice with some compelling features available soon!

Please keep the posts coming as further information is learned- it benefits everyone here.

They did say that it’s an unfinished test unit so the production model should be a lot better. Also, unless they had a TV that is 1920x1080, you aren’t going to notice a difference. Another thing to consider is that they were probably comparing the 1920 resolution to the 1440 that has a constant bit rate of 27MBPS. The 1920 mode has a variable bit rate of 26.6. If they were shooting at something that was stationary with no movement then the bit rate probably goes down to 23.2MBPS and for fast action it goes up to 30MBPS.

As I said before, their will be features that JVC is keeping secret until March so who knows what that will be. The HD7 better prove itself or else JVC may have to give this thing a big price drop and its already 100 dollars less.

Like 1/2inch chips (even 1/3rd inch), preferably cmos with range extension to get rid of clipping problems, does this have multi-channel sound? H264 at 24mb/s as well, Ambarella, has had an chip for ages, that Japanese manufactures saw, but did not use. Even using mpeg4/DivX/VC1, would be alright, JVC has had experience in Mpeg 4 cameras before (remember that 8 MP camera some years ago). An progressive mode, read true 720p at top data rate, would also be good.

I did not mind the 30mb/s data rate so much, an bottom variable rate of 18mb/s would also be good. Because it is disk based and variable, it lets you play around with GOP length an lot and use better data recovery/protection, and could be equivalent to an much faster tape based data rate (please don't tell me that they are using an identical format to tape :( ).

But this is just an cheap Everio, as per usual (notice that SD Everios suddenly got better models when the market started moving towards HD). It is what it is. There is supposed to be an professional low end camera coming at NAB, that is where we should look for professional camera.

Wayne, do you have any info at all on what this low end pro cam is- manufacturer etc??

As I have said in various places, an JVC pro distributor told me to expect an pro camera to be shown at NAB, single chip I think from memory. So, we don't need top get to excited, like this is the only thing they plan to give us (like the HD1/10. But when an company/distributor representative tells me something, it doesn't mean that it will not turn out different. Many times it does, like the JVC/SAMSUNG etc release dates, only Sanyo seems to be consistent, I can nearly tell you the release dates of the next 4 models (6 months apart).

Why doesn't the camcorder have its own forum?

Also any sample clips anywhere on the web to download yet?

Thanks.

The imagers are so low in resolution! And pixel shifting can only do so much. There is no substitue for real high resolution chips. Ironically this very low res camera will be the first and ONLY consumer camcorder to shoot in 1920x1080 (others do 1440x1080), what a waste!

The camcorder doesn't have it's own forum as it's not out yet. Clips are also not available as no one has any production units to test.

As mentioned numerous times by many people, the pixel count of the JVC HD7 is similar to the Panasonic HVX200 and in fact, the JVC HD7 has a pixel count that is a bit higher. To prove that the HD7 can have a more detailed picture quality than both the Canon HV20 and the Sony HC7, I am linking everybody to this article written by one of the most elite posters of DVinfo, Barry Green. http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/xha1/. It compares the Canon XH-A1 to the HVX200. The HVX200 is still a very strong force considering that its pixel count for each CCD is 960x540 compared to 1440X1080 of the XH-A1. You could say that it’s not a fare comparison arguing that DVCPRO-HD is a better codec but since the XH-A1 is a much newer camcorder, it sort of evens it out.

Besides, Even Sony’s V1u has arguably more detailed images than the XH-A1 when viewing interlaced images in situations where there is a lot of light. The point I’m trying to make is that theirs more to it than just pixel count to make a good image.

Comparing the Panasonic SD1 to the Sony SR1 is a much better example and even though the bit rate of the SD1 is less than the SR1, the SD1 still produces a much better image.

Another thing to consider is that JVC is the original creator of HDV so they do know a lot about making a good codec, and since JVC is the best at utilizing 24p and 30p out of all the other HDV camcorders, it will look wonderful if they include it in this camcorder.

As for the review on that German site, I wouldn’t think nothing much of it. JVC is keeping certain features secret so the test unit that they gave out is far from being a complete version.

Anyone have any updates?

Anyone have any updates?
Just a newer Press Release.
http://www.jvc.com/press/index.jsp?item=569&pageID=1

This camcorder certainly looks interesting.

I'm curious about the SHARE STATION CU-VD40 and it's ability to:

"archive these HD video clip programs and files to both DVD-R and DVD-RW 12cm discs, recording approximately 40 minutes in full HD on an 8.5GB dual-layer DVD-R disc".

Does this mean that said DVD-R discs will only work with the CU-VD40, or will they play back HD quality on an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player? I would assume that they will not work in a standard DVD player (non-HD) though the press release also says further down that:

"The HD Everio SHARE STATION also allows easy playback of HD archived files in analog component or down-converted SD video".

I'm intrigued, but a little confused!

Anybody know the estimated shelf life of a DVD-R disc. I would imagine that archiving is a critical issue if people are going to go "tapeless". I still get a kick out of watch 8mm and super 8mm family footage my father shot almost 40 years ago, and would hope my children would have the same pleasure... I suppose by then we'll be able to carry 10 TB in a pen drive.

Anybody know the estimated shelf life of a DVD-R disc. I would imagine that archiving is a critical issue if people are going to go "tapeless". I still get a kick out of watch 8mm and super 8mm family footage my father shot almost 40 years ago, and would hope my children would have the same pleasure... I suppose by then we'll be able to carry 10 TB in a pen drive.No one really knows. Some Media is targeted at 10 years shell, some, claim to last 80 to 100 years. We'll know then I guess. Of course by the problem will NOT be the media but the players. Try to find a floppy reader today! In 10 years DVD-Rs will be so archaic that I doubt anything will play them.. or do you really think unless you have an old VCR in your garage by then, you are going to be to play your old VHS tapes? The good thing with digital media/ computers is that you can copy the data at anytime to whatever new support is available, so, the contents of your DVD-Rs in a few years will be in newer RAM chips (I don't believe in disks in out future) way before they become unreadable. And, its not in 40 years that you will be carrying 10TB in a pen drive. That will happen in less than 10, IMO. Remember Bluray/HD-DVD can hold 30GB to 50GB, but, in the labs, disks that hold 1000 times that much are ready for production if it weren't for the politics of things, which ultimately controls pricing and availability to the end user :)

The new HD/Blue DVD players are backwards compatible with DVDR's, are they not? So that is what we will be using in 10 years time. I hope the trend continues after that.

The new HD/Blue DVD players are backwards compatible with DVDR's, are they not? So that is what we will be using in 10 years time. I hope the trend continues after that.HD/Blue DVD will not last over 2 or 3 years. The time for "supports" of any kind is over. Its all memory cads, RAM, disk storage and Internet Streaming.