Sony HDV Handycam DSR 0000

[Tommy Haupfear]

A few more pics of the Sony HDV.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-...15/ceb6_01.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-...15/ceb6_02.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-...15/ceb6_03.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-...15/ceb6_04.jpg

[Daymon Hoffman]

nice pics. thanks. Well i must say i've not always been a fan of Sony's appearance (shallow bastard arent i! lol). But this cam doesnt look to shabby at all :)

[Ignacio Rodriguez]

> I actually think an AVI based format would have been
> better then MPEG2. I mean lets look at the positives.
> Every editor out there is compatible with AVI. The
> bitrate's that we could be using would be "high" for
> any MPEG4 varients so the lack of quality that MPEG2
> is brigning would actually be dismissed because they'd
> be high bitrates for MPEG4 there for giving us more
> data to play with and greater quality (which is what i want).

I can see where you are going Daymon, but AVI is not a codec and neither is (necessarily) MPEG4. MPEG4, which is actually a QuickTime-based media architecture, supports many codecs and some codecs also support a broad range of bit rates. There is actually at least one high bit rate HD aquisition system out there, I think Sony has something to do with it. The cool thing about ISO is that when it makes something part of the MPEG standards, you don't get jealous companies implementing their own propietary codecs. This is what has actually allowed the awesome development and masification of 'MP3' audio, MPEG1 and MPEG2 video and other great stuff like the internet itself. So using a nice and open ISO-blessed codec is the way to go, whether it's higher bitrate MPEG2 or MPEG4 or WM9 (Microsoft has submitted WM9 as the video codec for a next generation DVD-like standard and is surpisingly interested in opening up the codec's source code and all that).

Also, using a codec that can live inside a media file on your Mac or PC, you will be able to edit it un any application that supports your operating systems media architectures, i.e: Windows Media, QuickTime, etc.

Just like today you can work with AVI or QuickTime files that contain DV-encoded content, you should be able to work in your favorite NLE with MPEG4 files that contain WM9 video or whatever the camera spits out. As long as it's a standard, industry-endorsed codec everything will work, because everybody will want to support it, every operating system, media architecure, NLE, etc.

[Barry Green]

<<<-- Originally posted by Johann Adler : 1440x1080i is not a specific HD format. So technically, if Sony does not have a 1280x720p mode and it uses the 1440x1080i format exlusively, then it is not a true HDV camcorder according to specs.
-->>>

Not true. The only 1080 format specified in the HDV standard is 1440 x 1080. HDV has no provision for 1920 x 1080.

Also, Sony's HDCAM records 1440 x 1080. The camera images at 1920 x 1080, but the HDCAM format records 1440 x 1080.

Both formats will be up-rezzed to 1920 x 1080 when displayed on an HDTV set.

<<---
One concern about the resolution loss is that it is not a natively 16:9 resolution. This is a big deal, because it indicates that the CCD will be 4:3 and the video will be anamorphically squeezed to widescreen. This is similar to what High Resolution CCDs like the PDX-10 and Optura Xi/300 do now with DV's 720x480 format (a 4/3 resolution with non-square pixels).
--->>
That's what the current JVC HD1 and HD10 do. They have 4:3 CCD's (which they use to take 1280 x 1024 still photos), and they sample a 16:9-shaped patch off of them to get their 1280 x 720 video. Sony may implement 16:9-shaped CCD's or do it the subsampling way. Time will tell.

<<---The previous JVC 1280x720p is best for high motion filming (sports), but the increased resolution of 1440x1080i is significant enough to warrant its use for most cases.
--->>
I don't think that's quite the best use of the cam. The interlaced 1080i, running at either 60 or 50 fields per second, would be much more suited for high-motion video. The faster sampling rate will better capture motion. In fact, the ideal mode for sports may be the 1280 x 720 x 60p format.

[Johann Adler]

Originally posted by Barry Green :
"Not true. The only 1080 format specified in the HDV standard is 1440 x 1080. HDV has no provision for 1920 x 1080."

You are right, I meant to say that the camcorder would not be an HDTV standard.

"Also, Sony's HDCAM records 1440 x 1080. The camera images at 1920 x 1080, but the HDCAM format records 1440 x 1080."

I linked to an article that also says that in the previous post. This is shocking, because HDCAM should conform to HDTV specs, but does not. Well, I guess Sony can do whatever it wants, because they call it HDCAM, not HDTV...sigh

"That's what the current JVC HD1 and HD10 do. They have 4:3 CCD's (which they use to take 1280 x 1024 still photos), and they sample a 16:9-shaped patch off of them to get their 1280 x 720 video. Sony may implement 16:9-shaped CCD's or do it the subsampling way. Time will tell."

That is simply inefficient considering that we all want to move on to HDTV. HDTV is 16:9. Of course, if they are thinking people want to be able to flip a switch and shoot dv, like the JVC HD1/HD10, then backward compatability can be achieved with 4:3 more easily than 16:9 (a 16:9 native chip shooting quality 4:3 would have to be larger, I believe).

"I don't think that's quite the best use of the cam. The interlaced 1080i, running at either 60 or 50 fields per second, would be much more suited for high-motion video. The faster sampling rate will better capture motion. In fact, the ideal mode for sports may be the 1280 x 720 x 60p format."

Well, I think you have used the JVC more than me (which is none). However, on theoretical terms, progressive is higher in resolution in motion than interlaced. If there is a 25% reduction in 1080i resolution in motion and interlaced averaging of lines reduces resolution by 25%, then 1080i in motion is 604.5 pixels -> less than 720p (in vertical resolution). Obviously, in strict vertical resolution terms 720p is better than 1080i in motion. Also, smoothness differences between 30p and 30i/60i (however you state it) is negligable, correct? (or am I missing something). Without a doubt 60p is ideal for motion.

And if you don't believe me, maybe ESPN holds more clout. They are swithing to 720p for all HDTV broadcasts. I will try to bring up that article I read from their head honcho in video.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tvlistings/espnhd/espnHDStory?id=1614556

That's not the same article I wanted, but it explains it a little.

Furthermore, NBC is going for 1080i, because of their sitcoms, news, etc. They also state why on their web page.

Edit: Just to clarify. I think you are misunderstanding 50/60 fields/second. That is really 25/30 interlaced frames/sec. That is similar to 25/30 progressive frames/sec. If I am wrong, please inform me.

[Frederic Lumiere]

Barry,

I found your post very informative and insightful.

Thank you!

[Daymon Hoffman]

<<<-- Originally posted by Ignacio Rodriguez :
I can see where you are going Daymon, but AVI is not a codec and neither is (necessarily) MPEG4. MPEG4, which is actually a QuickTime-based media architecture, supports many codecs and some codecs also support a broad range of bit rates.... etc etc -->>>

All this i realise. My point was exactly this. Put it in a none-broken, popular container and use the newer codecs (And standardise them) so we can have higher bitrates to saturate the stream and not choke it. AND so we can edit the stuff (properly) in the first place!

[Chris Gordon]

The 720P that ESPN will broadcast and the 720P that the JVC cameras record in are two different animals.

ESPN will broadcast in 720 60P (60 non-interlaced frames per second)

The JVC camera records in 720 30P (30 non-interlaced frames per second)

60P has TWICE the frame rate information as 30P.

The difference is staggering. 60P offers beautiful, fluid like motion. Perfect for capturing the fast screen action of a sporting event.

30P is more film like where the motion is blurred and jumpy. Fast action looks horrible on 30P.

-Chris Gordon
Promo Producer
KABC-TV

[Kevin Lawson]

Barry Green wrote:

<That's what the current JVC HD1 and HD10 do. They have 4:3 CCD's (which they use to take 1280 x 1024 still photos), and they sample a 16:9-shaped patch off of them to get their 1280 x 720 video.>

Hate to burst your very informative bubble Barry, but 1280x1024 is a 5:4 format. So if they use a 1280x1024 panel in the JVC, then they chop pixels to get they're 4:3 video for SD DV. 1280x960 would be a 4:3 format.

[Michael Struthers]

1440x1080 50/60i or 1280x720 25/50/30/60p
4:2:0 sampling / MPEG-2
(Bit rate after compression: 19/25 Mbps)
Audio 48kHz (384 kbps after compression)

Prototype Camcorder:
Has multi-mode down-conversion:
(i.e. record at HD, replay SD - i or p)
Depending on format chosen, available as different outputs from camera (inc. iLink).
1080i
3 x HD CCD (1/3")
16:9 LCD & Viewfinder
SD/HD switchable: 4:3 SD/'Precision'* 16:9 SD & HD/ 'Best quality 16:9 SD'
* i.e. All 576 scan lines, full resolution
---------

60p! I'll believe it when I see it, but thats NFL quality video....

[Ignacio Rodriguez]

Are you sure 4:2.0 sampling for interlaced? It's a strange choice, makes a lot of sense for progessive, but is not all that good for interlaced I think. I also find it amazing that 60p be supported. That would be truly awesome!

What is 'inc.' when you are referring to the output?

All 576 scan lines, full resolution, that would be for the PAL version, right? Or is it a single camera for the whole world? (that would be great, switchable PAL/NTSC, wow!)

[Aldo Erdic]

"inc." is short for including.........but I'm wondering, Michael, what's the source for those specs? It sounds too good to be true.

[Daymon Hoffman]

<<<-- Originally posted by Aldo Erdic : ".....It sounds too good to be true. -->>>

You know what they say... if it sounds to good to be true.. it usually is. Though i wont mind being supprised believe you me. :)

[Betsy Moore]

I'm not an expert on this but I remember reading that 1080-60i takes up more information per hour than 1080-24p. Since it's not that bit intensive relatively speaking, is there any reason to hope some cam manufacturer will go ahead and put a 1080p option on a prosumer camera?

[Peter Jefferson]

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-12/74415/ceb6_04.jpg


is that a flip out LCD panel?? Or a mic mixer panel?? curious..

looks nice and the potential is exciting..

Cant wait to see the footage!