UK HD10 in 2005 at DVinfo.net

Thom Seaman · March 24th, 2004, 07:53 AM

Hi all,

Fellow Brits may be interested to learn that according to a report in the May 2004 issue of Computer Video magazine, covering the recent Video Forum show in London, a 720/25p PAL version of the HD10 is scheduled to be released in the UK next year.

The magazine is online at:

www.computervideo.net

..although the site hasn't yet been updated with the May 2004 issue.

I know many people will probably view the camera as yesterday's news by then (or even by now!), but personally I think such a model may do very well *if* priced reasonably!

Peace,
Thom

Ken Hodson · March 24th, 2004, 03:12 PM

That would be nice. 1/6th more room for data. Full manual controls by then I assume (hope). This little 1chipper may continue to make waves for a while yet.
Ken

Freya Paget · March 28th, 2004, 12:12 PM

So will this be a hi definition camcorder or just another progressive thing? I'm not really looking forward to a PD10!

The thing I can't quite understand about the PD1 is, if output is only at standard resolution, then why can't we just edit in DV?

The DV mode of the PD1 doesn't even allow you to record in 16:9 anamorphic!!!!!!

If the resolution is only going to be as good as dv, then why not just make the thing downsample from it's maximum 16:9 resolution to dv. A progressive dv mode would be nice too!

The whole Mpeg2 thing is a nightmare at the best of times, if you aren't even getting hi-definition out of it, then it is a complete joke and a waste of time!

People are only prepared to deal with it because they get hi-definition in exchange, it's seen as something worth fighting for! ;)

I can't see anyone buying a PD10 unless they are just really confused consumers, which are the only people buying the PD1.

Really, you would be much better off with a 3 chip camera and will probably save a lot of money to boot!

love

Freya

Ken Hodson · March 28th, 2004, 09:31 PM

"The thing I can't quite understand about the PD1 is, if output is only at standard resolution, then why can't we just edit in DV?"

Because it's not recorded in DV.

"The DV mode of the PD1 doesn't even allow you to record in 16:9 anamorphic!!!!!!"

Who buys a HDV cam to record in DV. Have you noticed, there aren't many DV cams that let you capture 16:9, so I don't know why it's a fault of this cam.

"If the resolution is only going to be as good as dv, then why not just make the thing downsample from it's maximum 16:9 resolution to dv. A progressive dv mode would be nice too!"

It will have resolution higher than DV. What post are you responding to? And again who cares if it has a progressive mode in DV. Who is using DV on this cam?

"The whole Mpeg2 thing is a nightmare at the best of times, if you aren't even getting hi-definition out of it, then it is a complete joke and a waste of time!"

And why is that? Because you need a much faster PC than what you used to edit your low end DV stuff? Because you don't like change? Or that every advanced cam from here on in won't be using DV25 and that makes you mad?

"Really, you would be much better off with a 3 chip camera and will probably save a lot of money to boot!"

Well thats your opinion. The cost of the HD10 now, is in line with the top 3chiper from the DV era. So I don't know how you will save money. I am sorry if my post seem blunt but you seem very negative towards this format without knowing much about it.

David Newman · March 28th, 2004, 10:11 PM

All arguments aside, and the fact I do think the PD1 is a odd design choice (720p25 should and could have been a mode for that camera), there is an advantage to 19Mb MPEG2 over 25Mb DV encoding. Technically, if you ignore all other camera characteristics, the M2T 720x576p25 will be higher quality than the DV equivalent. There are enough bits that MPEG's compression through motion image redundancy allows the stream to define greater detail without the ringing often present in DV encoding. Basically as 19.2Mb/s is enough data for high definition, it does an excellent job for standard def. Would this be enough to compete against a 3CCD progressive scan 16:9 DV camera? Probably not, but they are hard to find at a competitive price.

Wayne Morellini · March 29th, 2004, 05:31 AM

The camera Freya is complaining about is the PD1, which has no high definition mode, but is like a cut down version of the HD1 to insult Europeans (and Brits and Australians, who have had many channels of HD broadcast for a while). I think Freya is worried that it might be a minor upgrade of the PD1, as the HD10 is compared to the HD1. I think not as we are talking about 720p which is a high def mode.

I think the Mpeg2 progresive SD mode is also around half the bandwidth of HD.

They would have been much better improving the 1.33 MPixel chip in the GR-DV3000 (5 lux), adding a 16:9 mode 25fps buffered progressive frame mode SD.

Now what I would like to know is does the PD1 only save an 720*576 image to tape, or does it really save those funky almost hi-definition images to tape, or at least send them out the component outputs or firewire? If we can get access to them then we can record them to a hard disk recorder. Otherwise why buy it? The 1.33 Mpixel GR-DV3000 allready did most of that 3 years ago at 5 lux.

Freya Paget · March 29th, 2004, 11:25 AM

"The DV mode of the PD1 doesn't even allow you to record in 16:9 anamorphic!!!!!!"

Who buys a HDV cam to record in DV. Have you noticed, there aren't many DV cams that let you capture 16:9, so I don't know why it's a fault of this cam.


The fault is that this camera is limited to working only at DV resolution. If you are stuck with working in dv resolution then you might as well work in dv really. Theres no reason that 16:9 and even progressive video couldn't be implemented in dv and you could downsample from the full resolution to dv, you could avoid all the Mpeg2 editing problems and have a higher bitrate and still have the same facilities.

A lot of cameras let you capture 16:9, the advantage of this cam is that it does so from a higher resolution source, unfortunately it is about the only advantage of the camera other a normal 1ccd dv camera, and it has the disadvantage of needing Mpeg2 editing setup to make use of it.

It will have resolution higher than DV. What post are you responding to? And again who cares if it has a progressive mode in DV. Who is using DV on this cam?

I'm not sure there are many people using the cam at all! I'm responding to the original post in this thread in which it is suggested there will be a european version of the HD10. I am concerned that it will be a PD10 like the European HD1 is a PD1, i.e. a standard definition camera that you have to edit in Mpeg 2.

"The whole Mpeg2 thing is a nightmare at the best of times, if you aren't even getting hi-definition out of it, then it is a complete joke and a waste of time!"

And why is that? Because you need a much faster PC than what you used to edit your low end DV stuff? Because you don't like change? Or that every advanced cam from here on in won't be using DV25 and that makes you mad?


I guess what annoys me is that it is so crippled that it can hardly be described as an advnced cam

Why is that? I guess it's the fact that frame accurate editing is very difficult in mpeg2. It's the fact that you have to spend 100's of pounds of extra money on extra software, and yes because you need faster hardware to handle all the Mpeg2 encoding and decoding for virtually no advantage.


"Really, you would be much better off with a 3 chip camera and will probably save a lot of money to boot!"

Well thats your opinion. The cost of the HD10 now, is in line with the top 3chiper from the DV era. So I don't know how you will save money. I am sorry if my post seem blunt but you seem very negative towards this format without knowing much about it.


I'm sure a lot of people in Europe share my feeling unless they are unaware that this camera only works in SD and has to be edited in Mpeg2 to make use of it's advanced features.

?????? I'm not really against the format at all, in fact I think it's quite exciting! I have nothing against the HD10 you mention either, it seems great and would much rather have that here, 30p and all than the pd1.

There are 3ccd dv cameras that are much cheaper than the PD1. Panasonic make one that is about 1/3 of the price.

I'm not really sure why you think I don't know anything about the format tho??? Did I say something that was especially ignorant in that respect?

love

Freya

Freya Paget · March 29th, 2004, 03:53 PM

Just to continue my rant further, lets compare the PD1 to another camera, the canon dv 700i.

Plus points for the PD1, true full SD resolution 16:9 (downsampled too!)

Plus points for the canon mv700i. Full manual control of settings, nice canon lens (well I happen to love canon lenses), better lowlight performance, and editable in a normal dv setup.

The cameras are preety similar in most other ways, I suppose in time it might be useful to have a PD1 as an edit cam, assuming it can import footage from high definition cameras?

Now yes, true 16:9 is a big plus but then, so is full manual control of the camera and that nice canon lens and you have to ask yourself, is it worth all the hassle of a new editing setup just to get a 16:9 mode at full resolution?

Maybe the PD1 does come out marginally on top, I'm not honestly sure, but the crazy thing is, that I'm comparing a camera that costs about £400 with one that costs £2500!

It gets worse when you look at more expensive cams. The canon MVX3i features a downsampled 16:9 mode too, but this records to nice easy to edit dv. The camera costs about £900. You can get a 3 chip panasonic gS-70 for £700, which is about a third the cost of the PD1!

I don't know if the PD1 suffers from the edge enhancement problem, like it's american sibling, but if it doesn't, I sincerely hope that this is why JVC have crippled this camera, in order that people will buy the more expensive model coming. Lets really hope that does have a hi-def mode!

love

Freya

Wayne Morellini · March 29th, 2004, 04:31 PM

You will notice that professional SD shoulder cams ussually don't have mega pixel CCD's and beat the PD1 in picture quality. The megapixel chips aren't needed with three chips, and actually can hinder the light gathering power.

I'm not sure, but I think that the PD1 is a software limited HD-10 allready. But still you are going to beat it with a 460kpixel SD 3 chip camera (just buy an anamorphic adapter. Now that Sharp is bringing out cheap competition and many other more prosumer cameras, we might not have to worry about it. (By the way if you go to a professional dealer you will find the NTSC version on sale, but it's not worth it, see what comes at NAB in April).

Thom Seaman · March 30th, 2004, 08:23 AM

Well to quote specifically from the article:

"Also drawing the crowds was the JVC JY-HD10 MiniDV camcorder - the 60Hz High Definition version (720/30p) of the GR-PD1 camcorder. The 50Hz model (720/25p) aimed at the PAL market is not being released until next year."

This does seem to be an unambiguous indication that a genuine European hi-def camera is on the way.

Thom

Wayne Morellini · March 31st, 2004, 06:03 AM

Yes, this is the camera I referenced before, we have it here, it is basiclly the US version of the camera, though I am uncertain, I thnk it has only ntsc outputs. In the PAL markets you want 25fps, so that video can be output from camera to both HD and PAL TV easily, without conversion of fps (which I have been told is jerky by someone who owns one, but somebody else may know better).

March 24th, 2004, 07:53 AM	#1
Thom Seaman New Boot Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: London, UK Posts: 21	UK HD10 in 2005 Hi all, Fellow Brits may be interested to learn that according to a report in the May 2004 issue of Computer Video magazine, covering the recent Video Forum show in London, a 720/25p PAL version of the HD10 is scheduled to be released in the UK next year. The magazine is online at: www.computervideo.net ..although the site hasn't yet been updated with the May 2004 issue. I know many people will probably view the camera as yesterday's news by then (or even by now!), but personally I think such a model may do very well if priced reasonably! Peace, Thom

March 24th, 2004, 03:12 PM	#2
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	That would be nice. 1/6th more room for data. Full manual controls by then I assume (hope). This little 1chipper may continue to make waves for a while yet. Ken __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

March 28th, 2004, 12:12 PM	#3
Freya Paget Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: U.K. Posts: 32	PD10???? So will this be a hi definition camcorder or just another progressive thing? I'm not really looking forward to a PD10! The thing I can't quite understand about the PD1 is, if output is only at standard resolution, then why can't we just edit in DV? The DV mode of the PD1 doesn't even allow you to record in 16:9 anamorphic!!!!!! If the resolution is only going to be as good as dv, then why not just make the thing downsample from it's maximum 16:9 resolution to dv. A progressive dv mode would be nice too! The whole Mpeg2 thing is a nightmare at the best of times, if you aren't even getting hi-definition out of it, then it is a complete joke and a waste of time! People are only prepared to deal with it because they get hi-definition in exchange, it's seen as something worth fighting for! ;) I can't see anyone buying a PD10 unless they are just really confused consumers, which are the only people buying the PD1. Really, you would be much better off with a 3 chip camera and will probably save a lot of money to boot! love Freya

March 28th, 2004, 09:31 PM	#4
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	"The thing I can't quite understand about the PD1 is, if output is only at standard resolution, then why can't we just edit in DV?" Because it's not recorded in DV. "The DV mode of the PD1 doesn't even allow you to record in 16:9 anamorphic!!!!!!" Who buys a HDV cam to record in DV. Have you noticed, there aren't many DV cams that let you capture 16:9, so I don't know why it's a fault of this cam. "If the resolution is only going to be as good as dv, then why not just make the thing downsample from it's maximum 16:9 resolution to dv. A progressive dv mode would be nice too!" It will have resolution higher than DV. What post are you responding to? And again who cares if it has a progressive mode in DV. Who is using DV on this cam? "The whole Mpeg2 thing is a nightmare at the best of times, if you aren't even getting hi-definition out of it, then it is a complete joke and a waste of time!" And why is that? Because you need a much faster PC than what you used to edit your low end DV stuff? Because you don't like change? Or that every advanced cam from here on in won't be using DV25 and that makes you mad? "Really, you would be much better off with a 3 chip camera and will probably save a lot of money to boot!" Well thats your opinion. The cost of the HD10 now, is in line with the top 3chiper from the DV era. So I don't know how you will save money. I am sorry if my post seem blunt but you seem very negative towards this format without knowing much about it. __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

March 28th, 2004, 10:11 PM	#5
David Newman CTO, CineForm Inc. Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Cardiff-by-the-Sea, California Posts: 8,095	All arguments aside, and the fact I do think the PD1 is a odd design choice (720p25 should and could have been a mode for that camera), there is an advantage to 19Mb MPEG2 over 25Mb DV encoding. Technically, if you ignore all other camera characteristics, the M2T 720x576p25 will be higher quality than the DV equivalent. There are enough bits that MPEG's compression through motion image redundancy allows the stream to define greater detail without the ringing often present in DV encoding. Basically as 19.2Mb/s is enough data for high definition, it does an excellent job for standard def. Would this be enough to compete against a 3CCD progressive scan 16:9 DV camera? Probably not, but they are hard to find at a competitive price. __________________ David Newman -- web: www.gopro.com blog: cineform.blogspot.com -- twitter: twitter.com/David_Newman

March 29th, 2004, 05:31 AM	#6
Wayne Morellini Inner Circle Join Date: May 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 2,762	The camera Freya is complaining about is the PD1, which has no high definition mode, but is like a cut down version of the HD1 to insult Europeans (and Brits and Australians, who have had many channels of HD broadcast for a while). I think Freya is worried that it might be a minor upgrade of the PD1, as the HD10 is compared to the HD1. I think not as we are talking about 720p which is a high def mode. I think the Mpeg2 progresive SD mode is also around half the bandwidth of HD. They would have been much better improving the 1.33 MPixel chip in the GR-DV3000 (5 lux), adding a 16:9 mode 25fps buffered progressive frame mode SD. Now what I would like to know is does the PD1 only save an 720*576 image to tape, or does it really save those funky almost hi-definition images to tape, or at least send them out the component outputs or firewire? If we can get access to them then we can record them to a hard disk recorder. Otherwise why buy it? The 1.33 Mpixel GR-DV3000 allready did most of that 3 years ago at 5 lux.

March 29th, 2004, 11:25 AM	#7
Freya Paget Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: U.K. Posts: 32	<i>"The DV mode of the PD1 doesn't even allow you to record in 16:9 anamorphic!!!!!!" Who buys a HDV cam to record in DV. Have you noticed, there aren't many DV cams that let you capture 16:9, so I don't know why it's a fault of this cam. </i> The fault is that this camera is limited to working only at DV resolution. If you are stuck with working in dv resolution then you might as well work in dv really. Theres no reason that 16:9 and even progressive video couldn't be implemented in dv and you could downsample from the full resolution to dv, you could avoid all the Mpeg2 editing problems and have a higher bitrate and still have the same facilities. A lot of cameras let you capture 16:9, the advantage of this cam is that it does so from a higher resolution source, unfortunately it is about the only advantage of the camera other a normal 1ccd dv camera, and it has the disadvantage of needing Mpeg2 editing setup to make use of it. <i>It will have resolution higher than DV. What post are you responding to? And again who cares if it has a progressive mode in DV. Who is using DV on this cam?</i> I'm not sure there are many people using the cam at all! I'm responding to the original post in this thread in which it is suggested there will be a european version of the HD10. I am concerned that it will be a PD10 like the European HD1 is a PD1, i.e. a standard definition camera that you have to edit in Mpeg 2. <i>"The whole Mpeg2 thing is a nightmare at the best of times, if you aren't even getting hi-definition out of it, then it is a complete joke and a waste of time!" And why is that? Because you need a much faster PC than what you used to edit your low end DV stuff? Because you don't like change? Or that every advanced cam from here on in won't be using DV25 and that makes you mad? </i> I guess what annoys me is that it is so crippled that it can hardly be described as an advnced cam Why is that? I guess it's the fact that frame accurate editing is very difficult in mpeg2. It's the fact that you have to spend 100's of pounds of extra money on extra software, and yes because you need faster hardware to handle all the Mpeg2 encoding and decoding for virtually no advantage. <i> "Really, you would be much better off with a 3 chip camera and will probably save a lot of money to boot!" Well thats your opinion. The cost of the HD10 now, is in line with the top 3chiper from the DV era. So I don't know how you will save money. I am sorry if my post seem blunt but you seem very negative towards this format without knowing much about it. </i> I'm sure a lot of people in Europe share my feeling unless they are unaware that this camera only works in SD and has to be edited in Mpeg2 to make use of it's advanced features. ?????? I'm not really against the format at all, in fact I think it's quite exciting! I have nothing against the HD10 you mention either, it seems great and would much rather have that here, 30p and all than the pd1. There are 3ccd dv cameras that are much cheaper than the PD1. Panasonic make one that is about 1/3 of the price. I'm not really sure why you think I don't know anything about the format tho??? Did I say something that was especially ignorant in that respect? love Freya

March 29th, 2004, 03:53 PM	#8
Freya Paget Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: U.K. Posts: 32	Just to continue my rant further, lets compare the PD1 to another camera, the canon dv 700i. Plus points for the PD1, true full SD resolution 16:9 (downsampled too!) Plus points for the canon mv700i. Full manual control of settings, nice canon lens (well I happen to love canon lenses), better lowlight performance, and editable in a normal dv setup. The cameras are preety similar in most other ways, I suppose in time it might be useful to have a PD1 as an edit cam, assuming it can import footage from high definition cameras? Now yes, true 16:9 is a big plus but then, so is full manual control of the camera and that nice canon lens and you have to ask yourself, is it worth all the hassle of a new editing setup just to get a 16:9 mode at full resolution? Maybe the PD1 does come out marginally on top, I'm not honestly sure, but the crazy thing is, that I'm comparing a camera that costs about £400 with one that costs £2500! It gets worse when you look at more expensive cams. The canon MVX3i features a downsampled 16:9 mode too, but this records to nice easy to edit dv. The camera costs about £900. You can get a 3 chip panasonic gS-70 for £700, which is about a third the cost of the PD1! I don't know if the PD1 suffers from the edge enhancement problem, like it's american sibling, but if it doesn't, I sincerely hope that this is why JVC have crippled this camera, in order that people will buy the more expensive model coming. Lets really hope that does have a hi-def mode! love Freya

March 29th, 2004, 04:31 PM	#9
Wayne Morellini Inner Circle Join Date: May 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 2,762	You will notice that professional SD shoulder cams ussually don't have mega pixel CCD's and beat the PD1 in picture quality. The megapixel chips aren't needed with three chips, and actually can hinder the light gathering power. I'm not sure, but I think that the PD1 is a software limited HD-10 allready. But still you are going to beat it with a 460kpixel SD 3 chip camera (just buy an anamorphic adapter. Now that Sharp is bringing out cheap competition and many other more prosumer cameras, we might not have to worry about it. (By the way if you go to a professional dealer you will find the NTSC version on sale, but it's not worth it, see what comes at NAB in April).

March 30th, 2004, 08:23 AM	#10
Thom Seaman New Boot Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: London, UK Posts: 21	Well to quote specifically from the article: "Also drawing the crowds was the JVC JY-HD10 MiniDV camcorder - the 60Hz High Definition version (720/30p) of the GR-PD1 camcorder. The 50Hz model (720/25p) aimed at the PAL market is not being released until next year." This does seem to be an unambiguous indication that a genuine European hi-def camera is on the way. Thom

March 31st, 2004, 06:03 AM	#11
Wayne Morellini Inner Circle Join Date: May 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 2,762	Yes, this is the camera I referenced before, we have it here, it is basiclly the US version of the camera, though I am uncertain, I thnk it has only ntsc outputs. In the PAL markets you want 25fps, so that video can be output from camera to both HD and PAL TV easily, without conversion of fps (which I have been told is jerky by someone who owns one, but somebody else may know better).