RIP SD camcorders. at DVinfo.net

Allan Black · January 12th, 2012, 11:31 PM

Joining motion film cameras there won't be any more SD camcorders.

RIP standard-def camcorders | CES 2012: Digital photo and video - CNET Blogs

Cheers.

Chris Harding · January 13th, 2012, 12:35 AM

Hi Allan

I did note that the new Panny AC-130 and 160's still have a DV mode so I guess they will be the last that are made with that facility. My HMC82's have DV in both 576i and p but I have never used it!!!

Everyone is pretty much used to HD now..soon we will have to start think about 2K or 4K as 1920x1080 will be obselete!!!

Chris

Ed Fiebke · January 13th, 2012, 02:47 AM

Wow. . . It is interesting watching history unfold. . . again. . . . as technology continues to march on. During my 51 years of living I've seen black & white televisions pass on, LP players pass on, 8-track audio cassette players pass on, cassette players fizzling out, video cassette recorders/players fizzling out, ADAT digital recorders pass on (I have one in a closet that I haven't used in YEARS) and now SD cameras. (Oh, and who uses flat-bed moviolas to edit film and audio to film anymore?? Honestly. Is anyone using them anymore??)

In such a short amount of time, so much change has been made in the world of audio and video. I've seen ads for 3D digital cameras available for the general public!! Seen them on sale at Best Buy! How crazy is that?!?!? How cool is that?!?!?

Rest in Peace, SD cameras. . . .
(I'm very happy with my two SD cameras. Will probably keep them as they'll turn into antiques someday.)

Brian Drysdale · January 13th, 2012, 02:54 AM

2k is the theatrical version of 1920x1080, so the later is unlikely to become obsolete for some time unless people start to develop the habit of sitting 3 ft in front of their large screen TVs. In practise, at the average domestic viewing distance of say 8ft to 10ft, the human eye can't really register much difference between 4k and HDTV, There isn't the wow factor (as someone put it) compared to the jump from SD to 1080 HDTV.

4k is much better for theatrical or home cinema where people will sit in front of a large screen that fills a much larger angle of their view. Certainly great for those people that like sitting in the front row at the cinema.

David Heath · January 13th, 2012, 04:07 AM

Just to amplify what Brian says, the confusion arises (frequently) because in the TV world specs tend to be stated in the vertical direction (following on from TV "lines") - hence 720, 1080 - whereas in the film world the referencing is to the horizontal. It's largely because film standards have to cope with differing aspect ratios (whereas TV is always 16:9 in the HD world) so they fix a horizontal number (2048 in the case of 2k) and the vertical dimension becomes whatever is appropriate to the aspect ratio.

In resolution terms, 2k and 1080p are pretty much the same thing. "2k" may sound twice as good as "1080" - in practice the difference is 2048 v 1920, and a widescreen 2k system may have less than 1080 pixels vertically!

As far as 4k goes, then again I agree with Brian. It becomes a law of diminishing returns. By using techniques like long-GOP it's been relatively easy (!?!) to move from SD-HD without massive increases in bandwidth etc - a move to 4k is likely to be more difficult. And for what? We start coming up against the fundamental limitations of the human eye and the amount of detail it can resolve. It was pretty easy to see the difference moving from SD-HD - the difference between 1080/2k and 4k is far more difficult to see.

Don't expect 1080 to become obsolete any time soon!

Bill Elder · January 16th, 2012, 04:05 PM

And with content providers, even YouTube, starting creating content for large screens that number will go up. It's all merging before our eyes.

Brian Drysdale · January 16th, 2012, 04:58 PM

I suspect the usual viewing angle on computer screen is larger than on TV screens, because you tend to sit closer to the screens. Even with a pretty small screen, it can be closer to a cinema experience in this regard. Although I wouldn't use the highly compressed You Tube as a quality bench mark.

Personally, I'd prefer if they had higher quality HD screens with better contrast and colour (which OLED seems to offer) etc before pushing higher resolution.

R Geoff Baker · January 16th, 2012, 05:38 PM

I go to the theatre once a week -- and I have a pretty regular seating position. My local screen measures about 45' wide and so just short of 20 feet tall. There are six rows in front of the screen -- my idea of right in front of the screen -- then there is a wide walkway that allows for viewers to cross the theatre, and then the seats start a new set of rows that rise more steeply than the first six. I like (in fact I leave if I can't get) to sit in the middle of the third row of the steeper grouping.

I've watched movies in a lot of theatres, and the one I'm describing is pretty typical of any modern multiplex that offers full size screens -- my Cineplex has a dozen screens or so, a couple of them IMAX, most of them now 4K digital.

But to my point -- at my preferred seating point, I'm about 45' back from a screen that is roughly the same width. If the theatre were full, about 120 people would be sitting closer than me, about 150 behind. I'm not quite mid-point, I favour a closer seat than that, but neither am I anywhere close to front row.

THX recommends something very similar -- if George had his way, he'd be sitting two rows behind me, which coincidently would have him exactly mid way up the screen in height too -- and if translated to home viewing means that you sit 9' away from a 120" screen.

I mention this because some here would describe this sort of viewing angle as extreme, or front row, but I suggest it really isn't -- and if resolution supported it, you'd quickly adjust your expectations. I also note though that there are cultural differences in expectations too -- my sports viewing comparing say a typical baseball game -- close up of the pitcher, chest to top of head, reverse to extreme close up of the batter, just the glint in his eye, to that of a soccer game -- wide shot of half the field, cut to wide shot of a quarter of the field ...

All in fun!

Cheers,
GB

Brian Drysdale · January 17th, 2012, 03:07 AM

In the cinema I usually sit in the centre, about 1 to 1.3 screen widths back depending on theatre, although most people tend to sit further back. In the domestic environment the nearest I get to that is the computer screen, which also gets used for writing and reading.

4k starts really having advantages when you move closer than theatre reference viewing distance used for setting the 2k standard.. I like the 70mm prints from 35mm anamorphic films, which this could possibly be analogous to. Although, the case is weaker in a typical domestic arrangement, which is more rear stalls than front stalls.

January 12th, 2012, 11:31 PM	#1
Allan Black Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Sydney. Posts: 2,919	RIP SD camcorders. Joining motion film cameras there won't be any more SD camcorders. RIP standard-def camcorders \| CES 2012: Digital photo and video - CNET Blogs Cheers. __________________ Drink more tap water. On admission at Sydney hospitals more than 5% of day patients are de-hydrated.

January 13th, 2012, 12:35 AM	#2
Chris Harding Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 8,441	Re: RIP SD camcorders. Hi Allan I did note that the new Panny AC-130 and 160's still have a DV mode so I guess they will be the last that are made with that facility. My HMC82's have DV in both 576i and p but I have never used it!!! Everyone is pretty much used to HD now..soon we will have to start think about 2K or 4K as 1920x1080 will be obselete!!! Chris

January 13th, 2012, 02:47 AM	#3
Ed Fiebke Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: New Lebanon, New York Posts: 240	Re: RIP SD camcorders. Wow. . . It is interesting watching history unfold. . . again. . . . as technology continues to march on. During my 51 years of living I've seen black & white televisions pass on, LP players pass on, 8-track audio cassette players pass on, cassette players fizzling out, video cassette recorders/players fizzling out, ADAT digital recorders pass on (I have one in a closet that I haven't used in YEARS) and now SD cameras. (Oh, and who uses flat-bed moviolas to edit film and audio to film anymore?? Honestly. Is anyone using them anymore??) In such a short amount of time, so much change has been made in the world of audio and video. I've seen ads for 3D digital cameras available for the general public!! Seen them on sale at Best Buy! How crazy is that?!?!? How cool is that?!?!? Rest in Peace, SD cameras. . . . (I'm very happy with my two SD cameras. Will probably keep them as they'll turn into antiques someday.) __________________ iMac Pro (3.2 GHz 8-Core Intel Xeon W ): OS X 10.15.6; 64 GBs RAM; Radeon Pro Vega 64X 16 GB graphics; 2 TB internal SSD; 3 external SSDs; MOTU 828ES

January 13th, 2012, 02:54 AM	#4
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,152	Re: RIP SD camcorders. 2k is the theatrical version of 1920x1080, so the later is unlikely to become obsolete for some time unless people start to develop the habit of sitting 3 ft in front of their large screen TVs. In practise, at the average domestic viewing distance of say 8ft to 10ft, the human eye can't really register much difference between 4k and HDTV, There isn't the wow factor (as someone put it) compared to the jump from SD to 1080 HDTV. 4k is much better for theatrical or home cinema where people will sit in front of a large screen that fills a much larger angle of their view. Certainly great for those people that like sitting in the front row at the cinema.

January 13th, 2012, 04:07 AM	#5
David Heath Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 2,699	Re: RIP SD camcorders. Just to amplify what Brian says, the confusion arises (frequently) because in the TV world specs tend to be stated in the vertical direction (following on from TV "lines") - hence 720, 1080 - whereas in the film world the referencing is to the horizontal. It's largely because film standards have to cope with differing aspect ratios (whereas TV is always 16:9 in the HD world) so they fix a horizontal number (2048 in the case of 2k) and the vertical dimension becomes whatever is appropriate to the aspect ratio. In resolution terms, 2k and 1080p are pretty much the same thing. "2k" may sound twice as good as "1080" - in practice the difference is 2048 v 1920, and a widescreen 2k system may have less than 1080 pixels vertically! As far as 4k goes, then again I agree with Brian. It becomes a law of diminishing returns. By using techniques like long-GOP it's been relatively easy (!?!) to move from SD-HD without massive increases in bandwidth etc - a move to 4k is likely to be more difficult. And for what? We start coming up against the fundamental limitations of the human eye and the amount of detail it can resolve. It was pretty easy to see the difference moving from SD-HD - the difference between 1080/2k and 4k is far more difficult to see. Don't expect 1080 to become obsolete any time soon!

January 16th, 2012, 04:05 PM	#6
Bill Elder New Boot Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Macon, Georgia USA Posts: 13	Re: RIP SD camcorders. And with content providers, even YouTube, starting creating content for large screens that number will go up. It's all merging before our eyes. __________________ Bill Elder billeldervoiceovers.com

January 16th, 2012, 04:58 PM	#7
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,152	Re: RIP SD camcorders. I suspect the usual viewing angle on computer screen is larger than on TV screens, because you tend to sit closer to the screens. Even with a pretty small screen, it can be closer to a cinema experience in this regard. Although I wouldn't use the highly compressed You Tube as a quality bench mark. Personally, I'd prefer if they had higher quality HD screens with better contrast and colour (which OLED seems to offer) etc before pushing higher resolution.

January 16th, 2012, 05:38 PM	#8
R Geoff Baker Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Ottawa, ON Posts: 471	Re: RIP SD camcorders. I go to the theatre once a week -- and I have a pretty regular seating position. My local screen measures about 45' wide and so just short of 20 feet tall. There are six rows in front of the screen -- my idea of right in front of the screen -- then there is a wide walkway that allows for viewers to cross the theatre, and then the seats start a new set of rows that rise more steeply than the first six. I like (in fact I leave if I can't get) to sit in the middle of the third row of the steeper grouping. I've watched movies in a lot of theatres, and the one I'm describing is pretty typical of any modern multiplex that offers full size screens -- my Cineplex has a dozen screens or so, a couple of them IMAX, most of them now 4K digital. But to my point -- at my preferred seating point, I'm about 45' back from a screen that is roughly the same width. If the theatre were full, about 120 people would be sitting closer than me, about 150 behind. I'm not quite mid-point, I favour a closer seat than that, but neither am I anywhere close to front row. THX recommends something very similar -- if George had his way, he'd be sitting two rows behind me, which coincidently would have him exactly mid way up the screen in height too -- and if translated to home viewing means that you sit 9' away from a 120" screen. I mention this because some here would describe this sort of viewing angle as extreme, or front row, but I suggest it really isn't -- and if resolution supported it, you'd quickly adjust your expectations. I also note though that there are cultural differences in expectations too -- my sports viewing comparing say a typical baseball game -- close up of the pitcher, chest to top of head, reverse to extreme close up of the batter, just the glint in his eye, to that of a soccer game -- wide shot of half the field, cut to wide shot of a quarter of the field ... All in fun! Cheers, GB

January 17th, 2012, 03:07 AM	#9
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,152	Re: RIP SD camcorders. In the cinema I usually sit in the centre, about 1 to 1.3 screen widths back depending on theatre, although most people tend to sit further back. In the domestic environment the nearest I get to that is the computer screen, which also gets used for writing and reading. 4k starts really having advantages when you move closer than theatre reference viewing distance used for setting the 2k standard.. I like the 70mm prints from 35mm anamorphic films, which this could possibly be analogous to. Although, the case is weaker in a typical domestic arrangement, which is more rear stalls than front stalls.