Sony introduces 1/2" HD XDCAM for $20K

[Simon Wyndham]

Just found it out. The XDCAM cameras only have one laser pickup device, and so manage a maximum transfer speed of 72Mbps so they can transfer DV25 footage at just over 2x speed. An XDCAM deck however has two laser pickups, and can manage 144Mbps enabling just over 5x speed transfer. But the recent firmware update increased the data transfer in the cameras to around 80Mbps, or around 3x realtime speed for file transfer.

[Mike Marriage]

I believe P2 can achieve around 640Kb/s, however most HDD systems can't, so you'll only achieve around 1-2x realtime for DVCPROHD @100Mbit/s. There is room for expansion there though as HDD get faster and it also means Pany can use higher rate codecs - maybe the next Varicam will have a 200 or 300Mbit/s data rate recording to P2..?

Even if P2 is faster, you have to factor in the time lost in archiving EVERYTHING. That will be a pain in the arse at the moment.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

Hmm. P2 isn't quite as quick as I thought. ........... Are you sure those figures aren't for 50MB/s??

Positive, though I emphasise they are approximate figures. What I obviously don't know is what was the limiting factor - the laptop itself or the P2 card. Mikes last post seems to make clear it's the laptop, and I've no reason to disagree.

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

No, the official specs are 5x for DVCAM and 2.5x for IMX50. Although I have yet to actually time them. I may try it tomorrow if I have time as I have been wondering.?

Is your later post based on your own practical tests, or quoted figures, Simon?

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Bill Pryor

What I'm going to be wondering now is, how would this 1/2" chip camera shooting XDCAM HD compare to my DSR500 shooting DVCAM. Does the higher resolution format make up for the smaller chip size?

Once you've seen your own HD footage played on a good HDTV, you'll understand all the comments about how SD is a doomed format. There may be a few situations where a bigger-ship SD camera running in widescreen mode could still be useful, so I wouldn't necessarily recommend ditching your DSR500, but chances are you wouldn't use it much once you have an HD camera.

Note that the luma resolution of SD video is barely 1/3 megapixel, while 1080i/p HD is over 2 megapixels. This is such a large jump in image quality it's a wonder more people aren't tripping over themselves to get into HD, but of course it makes sense to invest wisely in new equipment.

[Simon Wyndham]

Once you've seen your own HD footage played on a good HDTV, you'll understand all the comments about how SD is a doomed format.

Only to a degree. As well as this PAL widescreen SD is actually a fair bit bigger in size than NTSC SD widescreen. THis is one reason I sometimes think that I don't have the same amazement level at HD that many people in NTSC countries do. Dunno if the other guys from the UK here feel the same way?

There is more horizontal info in 720P, but the more important figure is the vertical one. If you look at an NTSC SD widescreen picture and put it inside a PAL SD widescreen picture there is a similar proportional difference between them as there is between PAL SD widescreen and 720P.

Its all technics again though. The reality is that the actual quality of the colour your camera produces is more important than any resolution. I've just been setting up my camera today. Most often (well all the time actually) I shoot a very wide dynamic range setting for adjustment in post afterwards. However I have a job coming up where the client wants the video to have a 'look', but they aren't paying a heck of a lot comparitively. So there's no time for post grading. So I've been getting the black ped set up for nice rich blacks, and boosting the colour saturation somewhat along with a few other things.

All very nice on the waveform, so I took the camera out for a bit of 'real world' testing. Very rich picture (although the cut down dynamic range due to the blacker blacks is annoying compared to what I'm used to) and I doubt I would gain anything much at all from HD.

My main interest in XDCAM HD isn't so much the HD factor, but the variable framerate one and very long exposure times.

while 1080i/p HD is over 2 megapixels

Only on the very high end cameras. Certainly not on the HDV cameras. Although I think you'd be very hard pressed to tell the difference without taking the time to capture and zoom up the picture in Photoshop.

[Ash Greyson]

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

Once you've seen your own HD footage played on a good HDTV, you'll understand all the comments about how SD is a doomed format.

Errr... again... once a Porche is the same price as a Ford Festiva then and only then is the Festiva in trouble. Things ARE slowly headed in that direction but the reports of SD's death have been greatly exaggerated. =o)



ash =o)

[Greg Boston]

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

Only to a degree. As well as this PAL widescreen SD is actually a fair bit bigger in size than NTSC SD widescreen. THis is one reason I sometimes think that I don't have the same amazement level at HD that many people in NTSC countries do. Dunno if the other guys from the UK here feel the same way?

Simon,

Your sentiments mirror those of a fellow I spoke with from Germany at NAB last year. He said HD is a 'tougher sell' to the Europeans because PAL to HD isn't the quantum leap that NTSC to HD is.

But yeah, over here in the states it is like night and day.

-gb-

[Bill Pryor]

I remember the first time I saw live European TV, back in the late '80s, and it was like the difference between NTSC and HD today. Life would have been a lot simpler for us to convert to PAL. But that wouldn't have sold as many $4,000 TV sets.

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Ash Greyson

once a Porche is the same price as a Ford Festiva then and only then is the Festiva in trouble. Things ARE slowly headed in that direction but the reports of SD's death have been greatly exaggerated.

With the introduction of the Sanyo HD video camera for $799, it's only a matter of time now before clients start giving us puzzled looks if we tell them we're not shooting in HD. When I show people footage from a $3000 Sony FX1 on my HDTV they all comment on how good it looks, and things can only get better as more low-cost HD cameras come to market. But the big problem for SD video, at least in the U.S., is that there's no good way to display 4x3 SD on a widescreen HDTV -- and that's what most of our current video cameras are designed to record. It doesn't make much sense to keep shooting in SD when you get so many more options for shooting in HD for basically the same price, but we may be another year or two away from having that become critical.

[Bill Pryor]

SD doesn't have to be 4:3. Most professional cameras have been available with 16:9 chips for over 5 years now, and on a lower level the XL2 is 16:9, and so are all the new HDV cameras that also shoot SD in 16:9.

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Bill Pryor

SD doesn't have to be 4:3. Most professional cameras have been available with 16:9 chips for over 5 years now, and on a lower level the XL2 is 16:9, and so are all the new HDV cameras that also shoot SD in 16:9.

All true, but much of the SD video currently being recorded is still 4x3. Those with true 16x9 SD cameras may be able to get by a little longer before they have to upgrade to HD gear.

[Simon Wyndham]

Look at how long people took to take up DVD before VHS became pretty much extinct (and its still clutching on by its last fingers now). The price of a tiny Sanyo camera is not an indication of how quickly people will want HD. The only indication of whether it is worth buying an HD camera is whether your clients are asking for it or not. Not whether they weant 'ahhh' when you showed them FX1 footage.

[Bill Pryor]

You can also shoot 16:9 SD with any good professional camera, have an HD master made and they won't know the difference. But eventially, everything will be one of the HD formats; it's inevitable.

[Gary McClurg]

I'm line producing a feature...

Our executive producer has a big post house in the Universal Tower... when interviewing a dp on Friday he said that the studio has invested close to $26 mil in HD equipment...

So its coming...

We're shooting with the Sony 900...

[Simon Wyndham]

Yes, it is coming. It has been coming ever since the mid-80's. The 70's even. I just wish people would stop making these sorts of statements. Everyone is aware that cameras need upgrading occasionally. But for some reason with high def everyone seems to be thinking in terms of upgrading or getting left in the dust. The "its coming" statements I keep hearing make HD sound like the boogey man that will creep up behind you when you are not aware.

High def is no boogey man however. And nor is SD suddenly going to drop off the edge of the planet. There will be so many different flavours of video out there that it will be a case of choosing the right camera for the right job. Thats always been the case. Cameras like the DSR570, 500, Digibeta etc have all been around for a long time. Yet SP is still king in the US. With the resources at its disposal the US could have upgrade like Europe to digital widescreen broadcasts years ago. But it didn't. The US doesn't have a publically funded main TV station that can push such developments forward like the BBC. The broadcasters were content with what they had. It would cost money for them upgrade and they were reluctant.

Now with the analogue switch off in the US imminant people are STILL going on about HD as if it is THE format which will dominate. Look at the actual figures. Look at the number of TV stations in the US and tell me what percentage of them will be broadcasting in high def, and which percentage will retain their SD infrastructure but merely broadcast digitally?

Eventually HD may take over. But not for a while. Sony are still selling SD XDCAM units, and they are still releasing new SD models. The future is digital, not HD. Digital encompasses a whole range of resolutions.

In fact the whole issue is such a nonsense it isn't even worth talking about. When it happens it happens. This isn't an overnight thing. Your client base will start off occasionally asking for HD. Then as you get more work in HD you think,
"Hmm, I'm getting a lot of requests for HD now. If I get more requests I might be able to buy a new camera instead of renting one out which more more cost efficient for my current situation."

What won't happen, as seems to be the impression many people seem to want to give is this,
"Oh hell, overnight all my clients have suddenly asked me for HD and I haven't got a HDcamera, and now they've all gone to the guy down the street with his HDV cam!"

Here's a simple question which will sort out the reality of the HD situation. Imagine if the internet didn't exist, and the only impression you had of the video industry was through the work your clients asked for. and through some trade mags.

How would you be looking at HD then? People like Gary might be using F900's, but for most other people HD would just be something you read about in the magazines and not a part of the reality of your current client base. Unfortunately what we read on the internet makes the world small. We get to know about all developments very quickly thus getting the impression that the world is moving too fast to keep up with. It isn't. The real world is the one outside your front door.