Here is more specs

[Barry Green]

Exactly -- I had to make this point to someone on DVXUser.

Jan cannot confirm or deny anything -- she's under lockdown. If she went around denying our speculations, then we'd quickly be able to paint her into a corner, forcing her to reveal something, and she's too smart for that. So she pretty much lets the speculation run wild, because she cannot confirm or deny anything other than the few things she's been authorized to release, which are: DVCPRO,DVCPRO50,DVCPRO-HD, P2, and "under $10,000".

Apparently more info will be released on April 4th.

[Aaron Koolen]

I just hope they do two versions - under 10K and an ~$5K to really compete price wise with the Xl2 and Sony etc. For me, I can't afford a $9999.99 cam, but $5K maybe.

Aaron

[Michael Pappas]

Radek..Radek..Radek

Did you notice that Jan did not say there will not be a: Electromagnetic Low-Energy Pulse Laser With Sub-Benign Antiparticle Submicroscopic Wave Weapon either. Hhmmmm!

Panasonic, Jan and the DOD are holding out.........

Jan are you holding out on us?????? Step forward with the truth and you might be forgiven. Plead the 5th and well?


Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/ARRFILMS




<<<Radek Wrote:

Notice Jan did not say lenses will be different.

Notice Jan did not say there will not be MPEG2 mode in addition to DVCPRO HD mode.>>>>>>>

[Ivan Hurtado]

Sorry about being rude but what´s the point of keeping a mpeg2 based format and tape having everywhere better codecs (like Pana´s new cam) and average computers wich can handle the data stream?

I´m sorry again but i think HDV is a tactic to protect higher end cameras so consumers and prosumers can jump to the HD world without having the top hell machines. I think the consortium is more like a conspiracy than a reunion to make what masses are asking for. Perfect for an old X-files episode.

I´m glad Pana didn´t participate on it and went their own way. Tells a lot about them and their attitude, or at least tells a lot about their marketing teams...

And about the price, well, this camera can adquire in three different formats, and will improve in estorage time every year. For 6 or 7000 $ without P2 card is a very good invest that will work for at least three years. I must think that DVCPROHD is a much better format than HDV and till the rest of companies learn this and offer a better systems will take a good couple of years. even 10.000 are not so bad...

[Chris Hurd]

<< i think HDV is a tactic to protect higher end cameras so consumers and prosumers can jump to the HD world >>

This is going off topic now, as this is not an HDV format discussion area, but it should be understood that HDV is a response to a market demand for affordable high-definition video. So yes, it is so that consumers and prosumers can jump to the HD world, but that's what they wanted in the first place.

<< I think the consortium is more like a conspiracy than a reunion to make what masses are asking for. >>

Sorry you feel that way, but can you imagine the negative backlash if HDV *wasn't* compatible with Mini-DV cassettes? Now *that* would be a conspiracy!

The end-users ultimately control the market with they spend their money on. If HDV was such a bad idea, then it wouldn't sell. Fortunately, regardless of how you feel about one format or another, there are a variety of format choices available, which means this is a great time to switch up to HD.

[Aaron Koolen]

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd :
Sorry you feel that way, but can you imagine the negative backlash if HDV *wasn't* compatible with Mini-DV cassettes? Now *that* would be a conspiracy!
-->>>

I think the format is irrelevant to the storage medium. If they can stick MPG2 stream on miniDV, why not something that's intraframe compression on the tape? Maybe you'd end up with less time on the tape, but so what? You could still use your deck and have something superior to long GOP crapparooni.

Given the fact that all this secondary stuff had to come about (Cineform etc) to make working with HDV a bit easier, I think the cost in more tapes would have been justified for less headache, better image quality and more responsive editing.

While I would hesitate to call HDV a conspiracy...or would I?...it's definately some form of mass control of the market - probably due to the paranoia in the potential for lost profits if they did something innovative and maybe it didn't quite mean they hit their target revenues.

We are being led, we always will be, it's just how fast we are lead I'm interested in - Panasonic seems to jog - the others, crawl.

Aaron

[Radek Svoboda]

Panasonic and Sony need protect their higher end market. Panasonic is making pro format come down to under 10,000 USD. That tells me they will be introducing new higher quality HD format. They have D5. Maybe they can make camera that will record D5 quality in hard drives.

In SD was DVCPRO and DVCPRO 50. Now in HD will be DVCPRO HD and they will have a competing tormat to Sony HDCAM SR, I bet. Hopefully this NAB. Faster they move to highest end, easier will be for them to improve quality of lower end, without killing high end sales.

The HD Formats now are:

Lowest quality:
HDV, DVHS, Blu-Ray, HD DVD

Medium quality:
HDCAM, Varicam

High quality:
HDCAM SR, Thomson Viper, D5

Top quality:
Arri, Dalsa

Actually the lowest quality is superb in historical perspective. It is of same or higher bit rate and resolution as HDTV boadcast. You can call broadcast quality.

In SD past, before digital, lowest quality was VHS, which was not broadcast quality. 2/3" U-Matic, was pro format, was medium quality then and was not broadcast quality either. U Matic SP was broadcast quality.

Broadcast quality was never affordable before arrival of digital. At that time term broadcast quality lost original meaning.

[Frank Vrionis]

I’m still just wondering how hard it must be for a multinational company to make a cheap camera when we have small groups of people (as low as one) who can make their own HD cameras with interchangeable lenses and direct to hard disk recording [???????????]

[Jan Crittenden Livingston]

<<<-- Originally posted by Frank Vrionis : I’m still just wondering how hard it must be for a multinational company to make a cheap camera when we have small groups of people (as low as one) who can make their own HD cameras with interchangeable lenses and direct to hard disk recording [???????????] -->>>

Well it is very hard to make an inexpensive camera that will be in the right price point, with reliability enough so that any one can pick it up and use it, have it work with a multitude of accessories and NLEs and make it a standards based product. Pretty difficult indeed.

Jan

[Radek Svoboda]

It's more than technology. Sony protect also rental houses sales, including Panavision, where they sold many HDCAMS. The rental houses must recoup profits before less expensive products of same quality are introduced. You must keep the customer happy. Panasonic has similar situation.

[Chris Hurd]

Sorry but that's incorrect. Rental houses actually recover their equipment costs very quickly. The primary consideration is, as Jan points out, the development of technology.

[Jan Crittenden Livingston]

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : Sorry but that's incorrect. Rental houses actually recover their equipment costs very quickly. The primary consideration is, as Jan points out, the development of technology. -->>>

As usual, Chris is right on the money. Rental houses don't buy cameras/vcrs, or whatever, if they cannot recoup their expenditure quickly.

Best,

Jan

[Obin Olson]

Jan it's not that hard - I am doing it. I have one guy working for me....things change, with all the FPGA and highspeed CPU power that is on the market stuff can be done.

I will have a 4:4:4 1080p 24fps 12bit system soon sitting on my desk soon, ready for a camera body design to go around the system. It will spit out many many formats of your choice from full 4:4:4 HD to compressed SD.

and BTW I am not alone in the effort.

Don't let me forget to say that it is YOUR company(and the other big 3 ) that have driven me to this project. It's NOT a matter of desire but a matter of NEED. We NEED good tools as artists. A good paint brush does NOT cost $100,000 and in this day of computer power a camera that has MANY less options then even the cheapest single ccd dv camera but is un-compressed need not cost $100,000 or even $20,000 IMOH

[Chris Hurd]

<< We NEED good tools as artists. >>

But we already have them. Since the digital video revolution began in 1995, we have been living elbow-deep in an embarrassment of riches, making it easier and more affordable than ever to create high-quality content.

[Michael Pappas]

Obin, all can say is I am glad you and the others are doing this. Your pioneering new technology concepts and work flows. Re-thinking the process.

I can't wait to see the Panasonic, but I also have seen the small samples that have come from your camera on big screen test as well on HD systems. Those were only low mbs clips. Nothing compared to the originals. But they were excellent quality even at low mbs. The Panasonic, though it will be a major, double major advancement in video acquisition technology sold from Pansonic. It will however not be able to compete with your system and others alike on a just a pure quality of Digital video imagery.

Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/ARRFILMS


<<<-- Originally posted by Obin Olson : Jan it's not that hard - I am doing it. I have one guy working for me....things change, with all the FPGA and highspeed CPU power that is on the market stuff can be done.

I will have a 4:4:4 1080p 24fps 12bit system soon sitting on my desk soon, ready for a camera body design to go around the system. It will spit out many many formats of your choice from full 4:4:4 HD to compressed SD.

and BTW I am not alone in the effort.

Don't let me forget to say that it is YOUR company(and the other big 3 ) that have driven me to this project. It's NOT a matter of desire but a matter of NEED. We NEED good tools as artists. A good paint brush does NOT cost $100,000 and in this day of computer power a camera that has MANY less options then even the cheapest single ccd dv camera but is un-compressed need not cost $100,000 or even $20,000 IMOH -->>>