Report from NAB

[David Mintzer]

Steve, it was a Cinealta--and I agree with pretty much everything you said. I just saw Russian Ark for the second time---fantastic work of art.

[Ken Tanaka]

Here's a lengthy thread on this fiilm.

[Heath McKnight]

Steve,

You said FCP isn't needed to do dissolves; it sounds like you say FCP is for heavy f/x and stuff. FINALLY! When I bought FCP 1.0 and a G3 PowerMac, I was told FCP was a "joke" system and only good for dissolves. You saying that any NLE can do simple dissolves proves my theory that FCP is a heavy hitter.

BTW, until we get the JVC HD in our hands, why keep debating? It goes back and forth so much, I don't know if it's a revolutionary piece of technology or "just a step in the right direction."

And does one chip mean less quality or not? A buddy of mine, who shoots regularly on the CineAlta and Varicam, said that one chip isn't good for quality.

Heath McKnight
Indie Filmmaker
www.mpsdigital.com

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : <<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : Some of them use HD right now for major shows etc. -->>>

Jeff's talking about the customers who JVC is aiming for.

Shoot HD, edit a simple but great looking HD production that incorporates hi-res stills, xfer to S-VHS, and show on a JVC progressive HD I-DLA projector.

By simple, I mean that HD doesn't require snazzy FX to dazzle the eye. A simple mountain range or sunset shot will speak volumes.

That's why for me FCP isn't necessary. A series of geourges shots with dissolves will be fine. I can do that in ANY NLE. Toss in graphics and music. That's not rocket science in any NLE.

With images that have visual impact -- I wouldn't consider obscuring them by muli-layering them.

I hope HD will kill the MTV style s**t we see folks doing with Avid and FCP. Back to the power of the unadorned image.

Watching jitter-cam on a 6-8 foot screen can make you sick. Watching NYPD tonight I could see how dated it looked when projected large and WIDE.

HD is about a lot more than the technology. -->>>

[Steve Mullen]

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight A buddy of mine, who shoots regularly on the CineAlta and Varicam, said that one chip isn't good for quality.
-->>>

I got to laugh twice at this comment.

1) If I had the money for a CineAlta camcorder I wouldn't waste my time commenting on a $4,000 camcorder.

2) However, if I owned a CineAlta camcorder I would be worried that my $100,000 rig had already become obsolete. As indeed it has!

I proclaim that anyone not shooting 1080x1920, 4:4:4 RGB video at 440megbits-per-second is NOT shooting "true" HD. Feel free to quote me to your friend. :)

He must immediately sell his rig and upgrade to HDCAM SR before his work is rejected as not being of high-quality. Oh, by the way his replacement rig will cost about $200,000. That may include a tiny LCD HD monitor that Sony is pricing at "less than" $10,000. But maybe not.

Your friend thinks 3-chips are necessary, but I think 4:4:4 RGB is necessary to get true HD quality. After all, if the 3-chip image is compressed to ONLY 140Megabits-per-second all the image quality will be ruined.

Now that I think about it, since so many here have claimed MPEG-2 can't be used for HD -- I guess Sony's HDCAM SR can't be HD because it is MPEG-4. That means I must reject HDCAM SR because it "can't be" HD.

Shucks! And Sony had offered me one for review. Oh well! I guess I'll wait for the next generation so it lives up to my demanding standards.

[Heath McKnight]

The CineAlta is the number one selling camera Sony has EVER had, period; there is a 32 week waiting period. They won't be updating the CineAlta until AT LEAST 2005, as a promise to owners of the CineAlta. This stems from a backlash of releasing the CineAlta 6 months after they released the HDW-F700 camera and owners were PISSED. Plus, they're in R&D with Lucas and Panavision on the next generation.

Therefore, the CineAlta is not outdated yet; I never said, for one, mpeg-2 wasn't HD. I'm just not used to acquiring in mpeg-2, only finishing (in DVD).

My friend also uses the AG-DVX100 and hates the quality of the 24p mode, but loves the 30p mode best. So he's using everything from an AG-DVX100 to the CineAlta. He can comment about that just like anyone else can.

This is what he said about the mini-HD from JVC:

"I haven't had the chance to read too much about the new JVC HD one chip. I read a pre-release spec sheet that was interesting, but the actual specs are just barely HD. I mean, take the very bottom of what can technically be considered HD in terms of signal level, bandwidth and all, and that's about what that camera is. Not to mention it's a one chip! Maybe useful if you are doing exlusively HD production and need to put a cheap camera in harms way or mounted on the head of a biker or something. But otherwise I don't see how this camera is doing much for the small guy. Except...one major point...It does force the consumer HD issue. It forces other manufacturers to respond. It forces other manufacturers to realize that HD is becoming more and more wide spread. And they have to meet that demand. For that, JVC gets my very sincere thanks."

Again, what I think is, we should all wait to test the camera, then comment. Otherwise, we're wasting bandwidth... :-) Of course, Steve has had his hands on it...And until an update on FCP comes out to edit mpeg-2, I'm holding off on buying. But, like what we've all said, it's going in the right direction! DV is going to die and HD will strive on. Just like Steve's website says, from Hi-8 to HD in a decade (or so). DV killed Hi-8 (BetaSP holds on!!!!) and HD will kill DV.

Heath McKnight
Filmmaker
www.mpsdigital.com


<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : <<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight A buddy of mine, who shoots regularly on the CineAlta and Varicam, said that one chip isn't good for quality.
-->>>

I got to laugh twice at this comment.

1) If I had the money for a CineAlta camcorder I wouldn't waste my time commenting on a $4,000 camcorder.

2) However, if I owned a CineAlta camcorder I would be worried that my $100,000 rig had already become obsolete. As indeed it has!

I proclaim that anyone not shooting 1080x1920, 4:4:4 RGB video at 440megbits-per-second is NOT shooting "true" HD. Feel free to quote me to your friend. :)

He must immediately sell his rig and upgrade to HDCAM SR before his work is rejected as not being of high-quality. Oh, by the way his replacement rig will cost about $200,000. That may include a tiny LCD HD monitor that Sony is pricing at "less than" $10,000. But maybe not.

Your friend thinks 3-chips are necessary, but I think 4:4:4 RGB is necessary to get true HD quality. After all, if the 3-chip image is compressed to ONLY 140Megabits-per-second all the image quality will be ruined.

Now that I think about it, since so many here have claimed MPEG-2 can't be used for HD -- I guess Sony's HDCAM SR can't be HD because it is MPEG-4. That means I must reject HDCAM SR because it "can't be" HD.

Shucks! And Sony had offered me one for review. Oh well! I guess I'll wait for the next generation so it lives up to my demanding standards. -->>>

[Robert Knecht Schmidt]

"The CineAlta is the number one selling camera Sony has EVER had, period"

They've sold more CineAltas than VX1000s? They've sold more CineAltas than Mavicas?

[Chris Hurd]

He's referring to the demand.

It's kind of similar to the Canon EOS-10D. Everyone wants one but nobody can get one. It's a matter of allocation. There are more customers for the Cine Alta than there are actual units; hence a 32-week waiting period. He's not referring to the volume, which is actually very low.

[Heath McKnight]

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : He's referring to the demand.

It's kind of similar to the Canon EOS-10D. Everyone wants one but nobody can get one. It's a matter of allocation. There are more customers for the Cine Alta than there are actual units; hence a 32-week waiting period. He's not referring to the volume, which is actually very low. -->>>

Exactly, sorry for not being clearer. CineAltas are not production-line built.

heath

[Steve Mullen]

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : <<<-- Exactly, sorry for not being clearer. -->>>

And it case it wasn't clear the IRONY FLAG was on in my post. I'd certainly review the Sony HDCAM SR. :)

However, in fact, folks making films with CineAlta do not think it is good enough. That's why Sony has a new line Alta CineAlta -- HDCAM SR products. And they are indeed MPEG-4 at 440Mbps. HDCAM at 140Mbps is way too compressed for them.

[Steve Bell]

Sony sold 350 CineAlta camcorders in 2-1/2 years. Still digital cameras are made in typical production runs of 50,000 a month or so per model.

Comment on statement "DV killed Hi-8 (BetaSP holds on!!!!) and HD will kill DV":

The major technology changes were from silent film to talkies, from B/W TV to color TV. The switch to HDTV is just as significant --a lot more than a substep from Hi8 to DV, which can be called evolutionary. Compared to that the step to HD is revolutionary and 720p is only a tip of the icebarg, the lowest end of what is coming.

Still. would I buy the JVC camcorder? No! Would I invest in SD technology duting a period of major technology change? No! I'll wait for Sony and their upcoming blu-ray HD DVD camcorder, or one from Hitachi or another company that will not have 35 Lux rating, and will have a decent picture. 35 Lux in the year 2003? When did JVC start designing this thing? Must not have been in this milleium. Maybe 2000 BC?

[Heath McKnight]

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : <<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : <<<-- Exactly, sorry for not being clearer. -->>>

And it case it wasn't clear the IRONY FLAG was on in my post. I'd certainly review the Sony HDCAM SR. :)

However, in fact, folks making films with CineAlta do not think it is good enough. That's why Sony has a new line Alta CineAlta -- HDCAM SR products. And they are indeed MPEG-4 at 440Mbps. HDCAM at 140Mbps is way too compressed for them. -->>>

I noticed something, irony perhaps, sarcasm, definately. :-)

Visit my website: www.mpsdigital.com

[Glenn Gipson]

Ken Freed wrote: “It is still a work in progress”

Well, if this is true, why does JVC resist making this camera 25p or 24p capable in its HD mode? The reason why I ask this is because JVC could have a market with DV-Theatrical-Hopefuls (aka, those DV moviemakers whom want to retain the POSSIBILITY of a 35mm blowup, even if they don’t get it, which is just about every serious DV moviemaker out there.) Other then offering a better theatrical print, I really don't see the purpose for this camera in North America. Most working class Americans can't afford an HDTV set, and even if they went further into debt to get one, I doubt that they would be happy about spending over $2000 for a home video camera for it. But, I do applaud JVC for advancing digital video, which this camera does do, in a way.

[Jeff Donald]

Glenn, as you pointed out the average American will not spend $2,000 for an HDTV set. The average American is not this cameras market. It is aimed at the early adopters of new technology, and people with much larger discretionary incomes than the average American. Broadcaster might even prove very interested in a low cost entry to HD. Hence, this cameras appearance at the National Association of Broadcasters show. While it would seem that the addition of 24p would be a logical extension, I can think of several factors that make it unlikely at this time.

The 24p look might not be a welcome look for many in it's intended market. The cost and time delay to develop new algorithms would delay the camera's introduction too much. I think the independent film maker market is smaller than many here are willing to accept. The success of this camera is not dependant on their adopting it. But I doubt JVC is ignoring the comments they are receiving on the camera. Thoughtful, constructive criticism of actual users will prove important for JVC as they develop new HD cameras, for new markets (read independent film makers).

[Heath McKnight]

I still want to know if going 24P with MAYBE some theatrical hopefulness, is the right thing. Let's say I shoot on 24P (which a lot of my friends say isn't as good as 30P as far as image goes, which I can't say one way or another, since I've only seen two 24P films, ATTACK OF THE CLONES on film and HITTERS on a 10k lux HD projector) but never go to film; would I have better going 30P HD and used something like Magic Bullet or CineLook or something for the film edge?

heath
www.mpsdigital.com


<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : Glenn, as you pointed out the average American will not spend $2,000 for an HDTV set. The average American is not this cameras market. It is aimed at the early adopters of new technology, and people with much larger discretionary incomes than the average American. Broadcaster might even prove very interested in a low cost entry to HD. Hence, this cameras appearance at the National Association of Broadcasters show. While it would seem that the addition of 24p would be a logical extension, I can think of several factors that make it unlikely at this time.

The 24p look might not be a welcome look for many in it's intended market. The cost and time delay to develop new algorithms would delay the camera's introduction too much. I think the independent film maker market is smaller than many here are willing to accept. The success of this camera is not dependant on their adopting it. But I doubt JVC is ignoring the comments they are receiving on the camera. Thoughtful, constructive criticism of actual users will prove important for JVC as they develop new HD cameras, for new markets (read independent film makers). -->>>

[Steve Mullen]

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : Glenn, as you pointed out the average American will not spend $2,000 for an HDTV set. The average American is not this cameras market. It is aimed at the early adopters of new technology, and people with much larger discretionary incomes than the average American. -->>>

Once again I think Jeff is 100% correct on the market for the HD10.

But, I'll add that that notion that $2000 for an HDTV is too much for a "working man" is nonsense. Big screen TVs have been, and are, the biggest selling TVs -- outside of tiny TVs for the kitchen or bedroom. A bigscreen is something the whole family can enjoy. And who do you think are buying $40,000 SUVs and pick-up trucks. (And, this may be their second or third car/truck.)

There is only 6% unemployment (as low as it can go without causing "wage inflation"), real wages are going up -- and inflation is very low. Plus, who doesn't get Zero interest offers every month.

The premium for HD-ready 16:9 over 4:3 is about $500. Any salesperson who can't make the case for spending $500 is a bad one. After all, DVDs are where the action is, and the majority of DVDs are widescreen.

Likewise, the common perception that there is no HD to watch doesn't match reality either. Of course any single individual may live in an apt or condo or a small town in the desert.

But the vast majority of "working familys" live in houses in the suburbs around large cities. They can and do get DBS and cable. They can put an antenna on the roof. If they can do any of these things there are one, or more, HD signals available.

There has been a marked change since the Superbowl was in HD. And ESPN, CBS, and HDnet are pushing HD sports. Cablevision is now pushing HD for ther sports broadcasts. Sports is the driver for HD.

Once someone buys an HDTV -- they are primed for the question: "Do you want all the videos you shoot of your family to obsolete in a few short years?" Who's going to answer -- "I don't care if my video of my new baby can't be watched when she's ten."

Plus, the Soccer mom or dad will get big points for shooting games in HD and playing it on their wide-screen. So the camcorder too beomes a whole family purchase.

I could sell a ton of these at a Best Buy located in any major city just by going around and carefully shooting Little League and other kids games, plus a few cute kids -- and letting the tape play on a nice HDTV on the floor.

What's amazing is the camcorder's quality won't matter as we all know the vast majority of TV owners have no sense of quality! They buy based on other factors. If the salesperson tells them how good it is, and it's BIG, they'll love it. (Afterall look at the $6,000 plasmas being sold and 90% have a terrible image.)