HD Cam Wishlist at DVinfo.net

Peter Moore · July 8th, 2003, 08:20 AM

So what do we actually wish for in an HD camera, if the JVC ain't it? I'll give my wishes:

- 3 CCD, 16x9 native. Sorry, but the color beauty and low light performance is simply better with three than one, and always will be

- Ok, so I'm not gonna ask for 1080p, but I definitely want 720/24p in there, regardless of the other formats.

- ALL MANUAL EVERYTHING - including exposure, white balance, etc.

- Under $4000.

Too much to ask? Ask JVC. :)

Glenn Gipson · July 8th, 2003, 09:04 AM

Well I'm sure that Sony and Canon will come through with these things.

Joe Russ · July 8th, 2003, 12:50 PM

i doubt they will make it 24p and all these other things for 4000.....they want money and consumers dont have it (at least in the quantity of the pros).....they will most likely never compromise their profesional products value with equivalent or superior consumer technology....why would anyone pay 60,000 dollars for a camera thats slightly better than a 5,000 dollar consumer version. capitalism is crap if you ask me, but im pretty sure thats how they are operating.

Peter Moore · July 8th, 2003, 12:53 PM

Even if that is what's going on, you would think someone would break ranks and do it anyway. Like Panasonic did with the DVX100.

Rodger Marjama · July 8th, 2003, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Moore : Even if that is what's going on, you would think someone would break ranks and do it anyway. Like Panasonic did with the DVX100.

Panasonic is the "king of sly". The DVX100 was and is meant only to "wet the appetites" of all the would-be pros out there. It is no more then an "open door policy", inviting in "all the masses" to take a taste of "what could be" if they think they have the "right stuff".

Hey, how about all those trite clichés... Still true though!

Someone should take a poll on the current DVX100 owners who are actually using their cameras. Ask them if they can ever see themselves buying an SDX900 if they get a higher budget film opportunity. Those who own and like the DVX100 are or would be drooling over the owning the SDX900 if they had the money to spend on one.

No, I think the DVX100 is Panasonic's way of applying a little teflon grease to the already smoothly spinning wheels in their pro line.

-Rodger

Craig Jones · July 8th, 2003, 01:59 PM

If I could ask for anything, I'd sure ask for 1080i. Why not? I wouldn't insist on 3CCD though. I'd just like the best performance possible whether it's one or a hundred imagers. Give me good light sensitivity, good dynamic range, and good resolution. I don't presume to know how to design it and don't know why so many others do.

I'd like interchangable lenses like the XL1 but smaller than the XL1. Of course I want to house it for underwater use. The XL1 strains the limit size-wise for that application. The current JVC or PD150 is a nice size.

I also don't think 24p is interesting to anyone not printing to film.

Alex Knappenberger · July 8th, 2003, 02:06 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Joe Russ : i doubt they will make it 24p and all these other things for 4000.....they want money and consumers dont have it (at least in the quantity of the pros).....they will most likely never compromise their profesional products value with equivalent or superior consumer technology....why would anyone pay 60,000 dollars for a camera thats slightly better than a 5,000 dollar consumer version. capitalism is crap if you ask me, but im pretty sure thats how they are operating. -->>>

True, but what about Sharp and a few other manufactures? They don't have a professional product line... :D

Glenn Gipson · July 8th, 2003, 03:24 PM

>>i doubt they will make it 24p and all these other things for 4000.....they want money and consumers dont have it (at least in the quantity of the pros).....they will most likely never compromise their profesional products value with equivalent or superior consumer technology....why would anyone pay 60,000 dollars for a camera thats slightly better than a 5,000 dollar consumer version. capitalism is crap if you ask me, but im pretty sure thats how they are operating.<<

Canon already announced that the XL2 is going to have 24p, and unlike Sony and Panasonic, they don't have any higher end cam sales of their own to harm. Sony and Panasonic will have no choice but to keep up. And remember, these are still high compression HD cameras with cheap lenses, so they will be FAR from the likes of a VariCam or F900.

Daymon Hoffman · July 8th, 2003, 05:21 PM

I'd like to see:

-720p60/50 - Yes thats right.. higher frame rates for this fella!

-Actual resolution Stats Vs Real REsolution of its footage. IMO the JVC doesnt really have 1280x720 pixels of resolution.

-Higher-ish bitrate so quality is kept to the max :D

-No less then say 12x Zoom (pref 18+ lol so if its fixed lens thats ok if its passes in this regard) (yeah sport/action orientated usage for moi)

-fully manual controls... THAT WORK

-Native 16:9 LCD High Rez Display As possible on cam.

- =<6000AUD :D lol (tho if it was all these things i'd probably pay 8k for it, but as if it'll happen )...

-includes kitchen sink

-and a lovely lady to operate it (j/k.. stereo type joke ladies go easy) :D

Peter Moore · July 8th, 2003, 05:37 PM

See I could live without 60p because I suspect that sort of thing would legitimately add huge cost to the camera. Think about it - you need double the internal bandwidth to process that (leaving aside the tape), and a very sensitive (e.g. large) CCD to capture good images at 1/60th of a second.

1080/60i, however, is a different story and should not be a problem. AND, 1080/60i can pretty easily be turned into 1080/24p just like the DVX100 transforms 480/60i into 480/24p.

Heath McKnight · July 8th, 2003, 06:44 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Rodger Marjama :

Someone should take a poll on the current DVX100 owners who are actually using their cameras. Ask them if they can ever see themselves buying an SDX900 if they get a higher budget film opportunity. Those who own and like the DVX100 are or would be drooling over the owning the SDX900 if they had the money to spend on one. -Rodger -->>>

I won't shoot a half-million dollar film with my HD10, only the CineAlta. Then again, people do movies in the millions on specially outfitted XL-1s....

My HD10 is to make better $500 movies.

heath

Daymon Hoffman · July 8th, 2003, 07:33 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Peter Moore : See I could live without 60p because I suspect that sort of thing would legitimately add huge cost to the camera. Think about it - you need double the internal bandwidth to process that (leaving aside the tape), and a very sensitive (e.g. large) CCD to capture good images at 1/60th of a second.

1080/60i, however, is a different story and should not be a problem. AND, 1080/60i can pretty easily be turned into 1080/24p just like the DVX100 transforms 480/60i into 480/24p. -->>>

Well i dont see how it could really add huge cost. No differne tto one day us thinking HD will add huge cost.. untill JVC shut every one up :D hehe. Think about it. :P

1080i60/50 is very similar bandwidth to 720p60/50 so technically it'd be easier to do native 720 then 1080 as its a lower frame size and their for less cost as a "higher end" CCD(s) is not needed. Work it out and you'll see what teh bandwidth is. But its 50fps i want and its teh standard for 720p - thats just for my wants and desires :)

Joseph George · July 8th, 2003, 09:53 PM

My HD Camera wish list:

720/24p, one 2/3" CCD with full effective 1280x720 pixel count

F1.0, 28-280 mm lens (35 mm photography equivalent)

excellent MPEG2 processors

diversity microphone receiver built-in

built-in shotgun microphone

3D lens attechment that would work in interlaced mode

excellent optical image stabilization

manual everything with a lot of knobs and switches, not just screen menus

Audio levels with auto-manual-limiter switches

audio level meters

zebra paterns for adjustable 3 levels

large LCD with 1280x720 pixels, viewable in sunlight

Wireless synch to a second and 3rd camera

Blu-ray HD DVD based with 37 Mbps transfer rate

48 and 96 fps speeds, with some picture quality degradation

Price $10K

Less expensive version with less features and smaller CCD for $5K

More expensive version with 3 CCDs and interchangable lenses. Price $20K

Same but 1080p -- $40K

Peter Moore · July 8th, 2003, 10:16 PM

"1080i60/50 is very similar bandwidth to 720p60/50 so technically it'd be easier to do native 720 then 1080 as its a lower frame size"

Yeah you're right, I miscalculated. But still, in that case 720/60p or 1080/60i is going to be double the bandwidth (and required CCD sensitivity) of what the JVC can do. So I think that that could shoot up the cost. If I had to live with 30/24p to keep the camera under $4k, I wouldn't complain. :)

Daymon Hoffman · July 8th, 2003, 11:03 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Peter Moore : "1080i60/50 is very similar bandwidth to 720p60/50 so technically it'd be easier to do native 720 then 1080 as its a lower frame size"

Yeah you're right, I miscalculated. But still, in that case 720/60p or 1080/60i is going to be double the bandwidth (and required CCD sensitivity) of what the JVC can do. So I think that that could shoot up the cost. If I had to live with 30/24p to keep the camera under $4k, I wouldn't complain. :) -->>>

yeah tho i think in reality its not that much more cost. But of course us consumers have no choice. They put a price on "cool" things simply becuase they can. So we have to wear it unless we buy "old" technology thats cheap as chips. ehhe.

CHeers

PS. i want high fps tho... i can have lotsa fun with such things! :D

July 8th, 2003, 08:20 AM	#1
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	HD Cam Wishlist So what do we actually wish for in an HD camera, if the JVC ain't it? I'll give my wishes: - 3 CCD, 16x9 native. Sorry, but the color beauty and low light performance is simply better with three than one, and always will be - Ok, so I'm not gonna ask for 1080p, but I definitely want 720/24p in there, regardless of the other formats. - ALL MANUAL EVERYTHING - including exposure, white balance, etc. - Under $4000. Too much to ask? Ask JVC. :)

July 8th, 2003, 05:21 PM	#9
Daymon Hoffman Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 267	I'd like to see: -720p60/50 - Yes thats right.. higher frame rates for this fella! -Actual resolution Stats Vs Real REsolution of its footage. IMO the JVC doesnt really have 1280x720 pixels of resolution. -Higher-ish bitrate so quality is kept to the max :D -No less then say 12x Zoom (pref 18+ lol so if its fixed lens thats ok if its passes in this regard) (yeah sport/action orientated usage for moi) -fully manual controls... THAT WORK -Native 16:9 LCD High Rez Display As possible on cam. - =<6000AUD :D lol (tho if it was all these things i'd probably pay 8k for it, but as if it'll happen )... -includes kitchen sink -and a lovely lady to operate it (j/k.. stereo type joke ladies go easy) :D __________________ Welcome... to the real world!

July 8th, 2003, 06:44 PM	#11
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	<<<-- Originally posted by Rodger Marjama : Someone should take a poll on the current DVX100 owners who are actually using their cameras. Ask them if they can ever see themselves buying an SDX900 if they get a higher budget film opportunity. Those who own and like the DVX100 are or would be drooling over the owning the SDX900 if they had the money to spend on one. -Rodger -->>> I won't shoot a half-million dollar film with my HD10, only the CineAlta. Then again, people do movies in the millions on specially outfitted XL-1s.... My HD10 is to make better $500 movies. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

July 8th, 2003, 07:33 PM	#12
Daymon Hoffman Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 267	<<<-- Originally posted by Peter Moore : See I could live without 60p because I suspect that sort of thing would legitimately add huge cost to the camera. Think about it - you need double the internal bandwidth to process that (leaving aside the tape), and a very sensitive (e.g. large) CCD to capture good images at 1/60th of a second. 1080/60i, however, is a different story and should not be a problem. AND, 1080/60i can pretty easily be turned into 1080/24p just like the DVX100 transforms 480/60i into 480/24p. -->>> Well i dont see how it could really add huge cost. No differne tto one day us thinking HD will add huge cost.. untill JVC shut every one up :D hehe. Think about it. :P 1080i60/50 is very similar bandwidth to 720p60/50 so technically it'd be easier to do native 720 then 1080 as its a lower frame size and their for less cost as a "higher end" CCD(s) is not needed. Work it out and you'll see what teh bandwidth is. But its 50fps i want and its teh standard for 720p - thats just for my wants and desires :) __________________ Welcome... to the real world!

July 8th, 2003, 11:03 PM	#15
Daymon Hoffman Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 267	<<<-- Originally posted by Peter Moore : "1080i60/50 is very similar bandwidth to 720p60/50 so technically it'd be easier to do native 720 then 1080 as its a lower frame size" Yeah you're right, I miscalculated. But still, in that case 720/60p or 1080/60i is going to be double the bandwidth (and required CCD sensitivity) of what the JVC can do. So I think that that could shoot up the cost. If I had to live with 30/24p to keep the camera under $4k, I wouldn't complain. :) -->>> yeah tho i think in reality its not that much more cost. But of course us consumers have no choice. They put a price on "cool" things simply becuase they can. So we have to wear it unless we buy "old" technology thats cheap as chips. ehhe. CHeers PS. i want high fps tho... i can have lotsa fun with such things! :D __________________ Welcome... to the real world!

July 8th, 2003, 09:04 AM	#2
Glenn Gipson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Plainfield, New Jersey Posts: 927	Well I'm sure that Sony and Canon will come through with these things.

July 8th, 2003, 12:50 PM	#3
Joe Russ Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 99	i doubt they will make it 24p and all these other things for 4000.....they want money and consumers dont have it (at least in the quantity of the pros).....they will most likely never compromise their profesional products value with equivalent or superior consumer technology....why would anyone pay 60,000 dollars for a camera thats slightly better than a 5,000 dollar consumer version. capitalism is crap if you ask me, but im pretty sure thats how they are operating.

July 8th, 2003, 12:53 PM	#4
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	Even if that is what's going on, you would think someone would break ranks and do it anyway. Like Panasonic did with the DVX100.

July 8th, 2003, 01:59 PM	#6
Craig Jones Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 105	If I could ask for anything, I'd sure ask for 1080i. Why not? I wouldn't insist on 3CCD though. I'd just like the best performance possible whether it's one or a hundred imagers. Give me good light sensitivity, good dynamic range, and good resolution. I don't presume to know how to design it and don't know why so many others do. I'd like interchangable lenses like the XL1 but smaller than the XL1. Of course I want to house it for underwater use. The XL1 strains the limit size-wise for that application. The current JVC or PD150 is a nice size. I also don't think 24p is interesting to anyone not printing to film.

July 8th, 2003, 02:06 PM	#7
Alex Knappenberger High School Student Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Canton, Ohio, USA Posts: 609	<<<-- Originally posted by Joe Russ : i doubt they will make it 24p and all these other things for 4000.....they want money and consumers dont have it (at least in the quantity of the pros).....they will most likely never compromise their profesional products value with equivalent or superior consumer technology....why would anyone pay 60,000 dollars for a camera thats slightly better than a 5,000 dollar consumer version. capitalism is crap if you ask me, but im pretty sure thats how they are operating. -->>> True, but what about Sharp and a few other manufactures? They don't have a professional product line... :D

July 8th, 2003, 03:24 PM	#8
Glenn Gipson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Plainfield, New Jersey Posts: 927	>>i doubt they will make it 24p and all these other things for 4000.....they want money and consumers dont have it (at least in the quantity of the pros).....they will most likely never compromise their profesional products value with equivalent or superior consumer technology....why would anyone pay 60,000 dollars for a camera thats slightly better than a 5,000 dollar consumer version. capitalism is crap if you ask me, but im pretty sure thats how they are operating.<< Canon already announced that the XL2 is going to have 24p, and unlike Sony and Panasonic, they don't have any higher end cam sales of their own to harm. Sony and Panasonic will have no choice but to keep up. And remember, these are still high compression HD cameras with cheap lenses, so they will be FAR from the likes of a VariCam or F900.

July 8th, 2003, 05:37 PM	#10
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	See I could live without 60p because I suspect that sort of thing would legitimately add huge cost to the camera. Think about it - you need double the internal bandwidth to process that (leaving aside the tape), and a very sensitive (e.g. large) CCD to capture good images at 1/60th of a second. 1080/60i, however, is a different story and should not be a problem. AND, 1080/60i can pretty easily be turned into 1080/24p just like the DVX100 transforms 480/60i into 480/24p.

July 8th, 2003, 09:53 PM	#13
Joseph George Permanently Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 265	My HD Camera wish list: 720/24p, one 2/3" CCD with full effective 1280x720 pixel count F1.0, 28-280 mm lens (35 mm photography equivalent) excellent MPEG2 processors diversity microphone receiver built-in built-in shotgun microphone 3D lens attechment that would work in interlaced mode excellent optical image stabilization manual everything with a lot of knobs and switches, not just screen menus Audio levels with auto-manual-limiter switches audio level meters zebra paterns for adjustable 3 levels large LCD with 1280x720 pixels, viewable in sunlight Wireless synch to a second and 3rd camera Blu-ray HD DVD based with 37 Mbps transfer rate 48 and 96 fps speeds, with some picture quality degradation Price $10K Less expensive version with less features and smaller CCD for $5K More expensive version with 3 CCDs and interchangable lenses. Price $20K Same but 1080p -- $40K

July 8th, 2003, 10:16 PM	#14
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	"1080i60/50 is very similar bandwidth to 720p60/50 so technically it'd be easier to do native 720 then 1080 as its a lower frame size" Yeah you're right, I miscalculated. But still, in that case 720/60p or 1080/60i is going to be double the bandwidth (and required CCD sensitivity) of what the JVC can do. So I think that that could shoot up the cost. If I had to live with 30/24p to keep the camera under $4k, I wouldn't complain. :)