Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sony's HDV 1080i Consumer Camcorder

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the i'm-filming-my-sci-fi-opera-next-week dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Sony has just announced a high-definition video camcorder that records in 1080i. A site was just created with a lot of information about the camcorder. The camcorder uses the HDV spec which records to standard MiniDV tapes. It includes 3 CCDs and along with the announcement it appears Apple and Adobe are now supporting the HDV standard. The camcorder carries a steep price at $3,700 though. See the original press release as well, though it doesn't contain much information."

11 of 223 comments (clear)

  1. Actually, not THAT expensive by gevmage · · Score: 5, Informative

    It will be competing in the super-high-end consumer market through the professional market. It's similar to the Canon XL1 series, which go for similar prices, with similar characteristics (high end digital video, everything manual, etc.).

    --
    Craig Steffen
    http://www.craigsteffen.net
    1. Re:Actually, not THAT expensive by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "It's similar to the Canon XL1"

      Uh, aside from the minor fact that the XL1 records 720x480 SDTV resolution while the Sony records 1920x1080 HDTV resolution!

    2. Re:Actually, not THAT expensive by nattt · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, the Sony records at 960x1080 - and then stretches the image back out to 16x9 aspect ratio for viewing.

      --
      -- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
    3. Re:Actually, not THAT expensive by mm0mm · · Score: 4, Informative
      Sony's Press release says:
      The HDR-FX1 Handycam® camcorder records and plays back high definition video with 1080 interlaced lines of resolution - the highest resolution (1440 pixels x 1080 lines) of any consumer camcorder available.
      So the maximum resolution you can get with this camera is 1440 x 1080, which still doubles the lines of current DV resolution in both x/y axes, and quadruples the number of pixels.

      Squeezed 16:9 is not that unusual, considering the price of the camera. If you want native 16:9 resolution, you might want to get this one instead of the new camera.

  2. JVC did it first... by JawzX · · Score: 4, Informative

    I beleive the JVC GR-HD1US has been avialble for more than a year now, and at a slightly lower price than the Sony. Sony seems to have been spending a lot of (well considered) money on the PlayStation 2&3 platform and ignoring the "consumer electronics" feild for a while now. They just aren't up to snuff compared to Panasonic, JVC, Zenith and the other giants.

    --
    A Call For A New Slashdot Moderation Level!
    1. Re:JVC did it first... by otis+wildflower · · Score: 5, Informative
      I beleive the JVC GR-HD1US has been avialble for more than a year now, and at a slightly lower price than the Sony. Sony seems to have been spending a lot of (well considered) money on the PlayStation 2&3 platform and ignoring the "consumer electronics" feild for a while now. They just aren't up to snuff compared to Panasonic, JVC, Zenith and the other giants.

      The JVC:

      doesn't support 1080i (argue as you may the merits of 720p vs 1080i, the generally accepted wisdom is that progressive is better for shooting sports events and interlaced higher res is better for drama)

      doesn't support OS X

      doesn't have a Zeiss lens

      has only 1 CCD

      has a 4x3 CCD, not 16x9

      The JVC doesn't compare. And this from someone who actively avoids Sony stuff unless it's the best in class (as the 200 DVD changer was in its time).

  3. Re:beware: sony is too proprietary by saider · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have a Sony DV camera and it works fine with iMovie.

    --


    Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
  4. Re:beware: sony is too proprietary by dthree · · Score: 5, Informative

    RTFA:
    "The HDV spec was agreed upon as a standard by Sony, JVC, Canon, and Sharp for new high-definition consumer camcorders last year. Along with the announcement of the new Sony HDV camcorder comes support from major video editing software companies including Apple and Adobe"

    Go on the DV boards like 2-pop or creative cow and find me all the people who are unable to use sony's "not recognized and not standard" DV VTR's and cameras. They ARE standard and any editor that can capture DV can get video from them just as easily as from a JVC, Panasonic or Canon. No drivers necessary.

    --
    "I forgot my mantra."
  5. Apple has been supporting HD for a while now by Randy+Rathbun · · Score: 4, Informative

    Final Cut Pro HD has been out for what, five months now? And even before that some form of HD has been supported in Final Cut Pro. I am not familiar with the earlier versions of it, but some of the FCP books I have all discuss editing it.

    It is cool to see a 1080i camera out there though. Give it a few weeks and there will be a consumer affordable model.

    For now I will stick with my Canon Optura Xi.

  6. Re:Not full resolution 1080i? by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Informative

    "1080 is supposed to be the vertical resolution, with horizontal at 1920. This is less than half the horizontal resolution."

    Most likely they offset one CCD by half a pixel, which is a common technique in video cameras to improve resolution with small CCDs. That way they can get a good approximation to the full 1920x1080 luminance signal by mixing the signals from the three CCDs... the chroma signal is probably only being recorded at half resolution anyway, so it's less important.

  7. Re:Interesting by TheSync · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here is the real reason for the 1080i/720p split:

    Sony HDCAM: 1080i
    Panasonic D5: 720p

    Half of broadcasters went one way, half went the other. Keep in mind the existing business relationships at networks and stations.

    But 1080i really does seem to provide a higher-resolution experience (when watched on a real 1080 monitor...) HDNET went 1080i, and most PBS content is 1080i. But I will admit it is really a religious issue.

    I've never heard about the duopoly issue with DTV channel assignments. It is my impression that every analog broadcast channel is entitled to a DTV channel as well during the transition. Do you have a reference on this?

    I can assure you that MPEG-2 is the ONLY codec that is broadcast-ready. Certainly when ATSC specs were defined, they weren't even thoughts.

    I've seen the best H.264 and Windows Media live encoders on the planet, and they can barely get the same quality at the same bitrate as the best mid-level MPEG-2 live encoders.

    Keep in mind that MPEG-2 encoders have had years to get better. People keep coming up with ways to cut bits, you now have live 2-pass encoders, pre-filtering, etc. MPEG-2 live encoding quality has improved 100% in the last five years in terms of equivalent bitrate quality.

    I expect 2-3 years before the live H.264/WMT encoders can catch up with live MPEG-2 encoders.