I'm not aware of any AVCHD-branded camcorder that has the ability to record SD... anyone?

Right as usual, Chris. You gave a very specific answer to my general question.
The point I wanted to make was that the industry has shifted away from even offering SD recording with HD camcorders, regardless of acquisition media.

All the Sony AVCHD record SD with max at 9Mbps.

Ron Evans

See I wasn't even aware of that. It annoys me a bit that Canon and Panasonic don't bother to include SD recording capability in their AVCHD product line. As Dwain suggests, it seems as if they're not perceiving a need for it.

Ag-hmc 150
 

I know it's only a preliminary brochure but why would they even add this statement in there? "Using low-cost, readily available SD/SDHC memory cards as its media, the AG-HMC150 captures HD recordings that approach broadcast quality."

http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp...odel=AG-HMC150

They could have left the part about the near broadcast quality off. Just my opinion.
I'm looking forward to checking this camera out.

The funny thing is there is no standard for "Broadcast Quality".


Bob Diaz

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...o.x=15&Go.y=14

B&H has it for $3,495.00. Good price. They probably said near broadcast quality in order to position it below the 170. I'm somewhat interested in this camera, but like a lot of people I'm worried about the workflow. For Avid I would have to convert to DVCPro HD and I'm not sure how much time that would take.

If Pana says it is not broadcast quality, I guess they know what they say. (even if we dont like them saying it).

"approach"

The word that caused ripples throughout the video professional forum threads...

Seriously, I'm with the above poster who attributes this label as simple product line positioning. What would happen to HPX/HVX sales if Panasonic were to come out shouting, "No more bothersome overpriced P2 cards, our new AVCHD model is just as good and cheaper too!!"

Anyone know what the chip resolution on this cam is? 1920x1080? Or is there some pixel-shifting mumbo jumbo going on?

So I guess what it boils down to is "wait and see?" Just like with the Scarlett.

I don't wanna start a fight here, but pixel shifted or not didn't the HXV200 produce a darn nice image when compared to other cameras in it's class? Sometimes I think we get too caught up in technical specs and forget to just look at the end result of all the hocus pocus that happens in camera. Panasonic tends to put out cameras in this range that produce very nice images, why should we think that trend will change any time soon?

Pixel Shift isn't mumbo-jumbo. With only a couple of very rare exceptions, it's used in nearly *every* three-chip camera system ever made, and with good reason too. Pixel Shift is very real, and it's a very good thing to have. To deny that is to remain woefully ignorant about how these cameras work.

Pixel counting aside, these Panasonic CCDs produce a beautiful Cine-like gamma, nicer than anything at the price point. The EX1/3 may be sharper but sharpness has its downsides too. I'm willing to take my lumps editing and be one of the early adopters at this price point! The editing will work out eventually, although transcoding would overshadow all that time saved not digitizing. Maybe faster Mac Pros will be around soon, or can they edit native already?

I admit it. I am "woefully ignorant" about this kind of technology. And maybe I myself am confused between "pixel shifting" and "pixel interpolation."

But, in nearly every discussion I've followed on pixel shift and similar technologies -- including on this board, and including some very knowledgeable people -- there seems to be little or no consensus as to WHAT pixel shifting is, let alone whether or not it's a good thing to have.

Here's an example:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...ight=Adam+Wilt

and another:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...ift#post897608

If Adam Wilt and Steve Mullen can't agree on how many pixels a camera like the Z7 actually has, clearly this technology is NOT well understood. Couple that with some aggressive marketing from some manufacturers that poo-poos the whole concept, and you can see why the whole thing has a kind of "magic black box/Voodoo" feel to it. Which is why I used the term "mumbo jumbo." I may have used a poor choice of words. Sorry if I offended.

I am certainly willing to be enlightened. It seems intuitively obvious to me that a chip with a pixel resolution that matches the resolution of the image you are trying to create should have an easier time of it than one that has to jump through some electronic hoops and interpolation to do so. It seems that if you want a 1920x1080 image, having a 1920x1080 chip will make your life much easier than having a 960x540 chip. Is that not true?

Why is pixel shifting desirable?