XLH2 features you want.

[Yi Fong Yu]

that's no typo. @a small display. 1080p is pretty subjective. but @100", you can definitely begin to examine true details. beyond that, it's pretty moot. whether 250 FEET or 3,000 FEET. yesh i can see more grain on IMAX screen vs. regular cinema, but the future of content delivery will rest heavily on the home front. not many people have space for 250' screens @home. therefore, somn under 100" is still pretty feasible and is a great judge of how content will affect the future of video entertainment. beyond that, it will become less and less as important a event as the here and now. it'll be very much like what theater is now to the common people. therefore, aiming to have such a high bit-rate can seem like the point of dimishing returns.

as for cost lower consumer cam, relating to the point i just made in the above paragraph. it won't matter because when we get 1920x1080p consumer cams for $300 and $10 for 1080p 1 hour tapes, we'd all be old and gray =). i don't think any of us can enjoy the high-quality anymore because our senses will have become too dull. plus, most of the home delivery methods will be displayed on average of 60" hi-def panels on the walls. not 250' screens.

100GB laptop HDs aren't practical yet because of one simple reason: cost. take the MAXIMUM capacity of the latest hard drives and compare the cost:
-120GB ata/ide 5400rpm HD is $2.083/GB.
http://www.computergiants.com/items/...t=114773&aff=2

-500GB sata 7200rpm HD is $0.68664/GB. http://www.pricegrabber.com/p__Hitac...rch=500gb+sata

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Originally Posted by Yi Fong Yu

that's no typo. @a small display. 1080p is pretty subjective. but @100", you can definitely begin to examine true details. beyond that, it's pretty moot. whether 250 FEET or 3,000 FEET. yesh i can see more grain on IMAX screen vs. regular cinema, but the future of content delivery will rest heavily on the home front. not many people have space for 250' screens @home. therefore, somn under 100" is still pretty feasible and is a great judge of how content will affect the future of video entertainment. beyond that, it will become less and less as important a event as the here and now. it'll be very much like what theater is now to the common people. therefore, aiming to have such a high bit-rate can seem like the point of dimishing returns.

I don't understand you.

What are you talking about:
1> Just watching a video
2> Producing a simple (no effects, some titles) video
3> Producing complex (some effects) video
4> Producing moderately complex (Lots of effects, some difficult) video
5> Producing very complex (LOTS of very difficult effects) video

Who is the user you are addressing ?
1>Consumer movie watcher
2>Video Hobbyist
3>Professional Videographer
4>Independent Filmmaker
5>Hollywood Production

Why do I ask ? Well we keep going round and round. I get the feeling we are talking about wildly different things. Different users have different needs.

For the record I am talking about ME. I am a all of those things I mentioned above. I have to edit a wedding with all sraight cuts and some titles one week, next week someone may want post work on a show for SciFi. (Yeah, I wish!)

I think HDV is a great codec for people watching video and hobbyists aiming for simple video production.

That's it. If you are looking at HDV on a 100" projector and you are happy then fine. Why do you even care about a higher quality media format

Until we all consider 1920x1080p to be standard definition and we are talking about some future format as high definition HDV will be more than good enough for home viewers and hobbyists.

You don't need 4:4:4 colorspace or any other whiz-bang features of the HD production world.

as for cost lower consumer cam, relating to the point i just made in the above paragraph. it won't matter because when we get 1920x1080p consumer cams for $300 and $10 for 1080p 1 hour tapes, we'd all be old and gray =). i don't think any of us can enjoy the high-quality anymore because our senses will have become too dull. plus, most of the home delivery methods will be displayed on average of 60" hi-def panels on the walls. not 250' screens.

Well I think I agree with you here. Given the condition that we are talking about people watching TV in their living rooms.

I only started talking about 250' (as in feet) screens because I thought that is what you were talking about. (Hence my typo comment.)

Can we agree that people who produce video often need better picture quality to work with, and that sometimes they need the highest possible quality image ? Sometimes the best possible isn't really good enough.

Also, I want to emphasize that for me I can see artifacts in HD video formats on a 23" screen. I am talking about DVCPRO, H.264 and even uncompressed 4:2:2.

You claim to see no artifacts from HDV and broadcast HD on a 100" screen.

There is something wrong here. True we are not talking about the same codecs, but the codecs I am discussing are generally regarded as having superior quality to either HDV or broadcast HD.

Are you looking for picture problems ? Do you know what they look like ? Do you see them and think they are unimportant ?

What is going on here ?

100GB laptop HDs aren't practical yet because of one simple reason: cost. take the MAXIMUM capacity of the latest hard drives and compare the cost:
-120GB ata/ide 5400rpm HD is $2.083/GB.
http://www.computergiants.com/items/...t=114773&aff=2

-500GB sata 7200rpm HD is $0.68664/GB. http://www.pricegrabber.com/p__Hitac...rch=500gb+sata

Well I agree that price is an issue.

Of course for me its a business, and so I can justify spending more than some others might.

Others have bigger businesses and can afford a dolly to drive around behind the camera with long cable runs so that they can capture uncompressed 4:4:4 HD in the field.

Focus Enhancements sells a firewire hard disk video recorder. Their FS-4 PRO model, equipped with a 40GB hard drive retails for ~$700. (Best price I found was $622.24)

A 40GB laptop hard drive retails for about $75. Clearly the cost of the drive is not too important here. Focus thinks that everything else in the FS-4 PRO is worth ~$550 at retail.

We have to look at who needs or wants this device?

For who is it better than tape ? People who need to edit QUICKLY. News organizations for the most part.

I've already talked about how laptop drives are typically designed to be more robust. That doesn't concern you I think, but it should.

What I haven't mentioned as an issue is power. 3.5" drives need a lot of power. Much more than 2.5" drives of the same capacity. That means bigger, heavier and more expensive batteries. That or a power cable.

Price is not the only issue, it rarely is.

Let me give you another example. The iPod Nano replaced the iPod Mini. The Nano costs the same and has less storage. It is selling in staggering numbers according to Apple. In fact retailers are having a hard time keeping them in stock.

It's not always about price.

[Yi Fong Yu]

at the end of the day all those market segments mention comes home to relax and turn on their 30" display and watches a little sports, drink their fav bev. not everyone wants the highest quality all the time. what i'm trying to convey that in the future, the delivery of the final video content will be more direct than to the cinema. the cinema market will become smaller and smaller.

your workflow is not the modus operandi for everyone else. what applies to you may have little use for other professionals.

[Greg Boston]

This thread is now locked. It's had to have posts removed already. It's definintely off topic and going nowhere fast.

regards,

-gb-