Mr. Shannon Rawls,

You were right on, with your Canon HDV prediction. Can you conjure up in your crystal ball, when and what will be Sony's response to the XL1 and HVX200?

Thanks.

Shannon: don't forget that the Canon can also output true uncompressed HD via HD-SDI, which you could then capture in a variety of formats on a computer-based recording and editing setup. If the HVX200 is desirable because it can record a 1280x1080 data stream at 100 Mbps, how much sweeter would it be to record 1920x1080 10-bit Prospect HD or Avid DNxHD at up to 220 Mbps, and then start editing the moment you finish recording? And get a decent interchangeable zoom lens to boot, plus the ability to record to inexpensive miniDV tapes in a pinch which are available at almost any corner store? This could be a very interesting showdown for indendent film-makers...

As opposed to fake uncompressed HD over HD SDI?
(sorry, couldn't resist) ;-)

No, as opposed to the "real HD" which all the HDV naysayers said the HVX200 would offer, except it's not even full raster and is compressed about 15:1 compared to the HD outputs on the Canon camera. I find it interesting that people are raving about the possibility of recording DVCProHD on memory cards costing $200 per minute of storage, but aren't equally excited about the prospect of getting "REAL real HD" from a $9,000 camera. Maybe because Canon doesn't know how to generate that sort of buzz, or doesn't care to do so?

:-)

You'll get no argument from me. I just keep chuckling at all these folks throwing around the term "true" or "real" HD when we never heard this kind of silliness back when everyone was taking potshots at DV. They had other things to say, but I can't recall the "true/real" comments at the time.
FWIW, it's ALL HD, excepting the JVC HD10 and HD1, and the only reason those aren't, is because they don't/didn't meet the ITU 709 spec. The ATSC spec doesn't have a single word in it about compression, lack thereof, full or sub raster, or other aspects that folks keep tossing about.

Yeah, ya got me there. I just figured it'd be fitting now to point out that if 100 Mbps is good, 1.5 Gbps must be better. ;-)

Yes but for many filmmakers/video producers that 1.5Gbps is irrelevant as they have no way of capturing/recording it.

For the same reason, not that many people on these boards are excited about, say, the Panavision genesis or the Arri D20 (though I expect some are) - that level of kit is out of their reach.

Dylan,

It is not too hard to capture the uncompressed 4:2:2 HD-SDI output, certainly you can do it for less than the cost of the camera, so many are considering this workflow for the best quality images.