Slashdot Mirror
Sony's HDV 1080i Consumer Camcorder
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."
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
I wonder how much storage space is on it, and how long it will take to transfer onto a PC/Editing system given 1080i's bandwidth requirements?
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!
Actually, given the benefits of progressive scan, I'm surprised there isn't more equipment in 1080p...especially since the quality difference is apparent.
On the other hand...if you think about how much camcorders cost around 20 years ago...adjust for inflation...this really not all that expensive. I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers the separate cameras and recording decks of days long past.
I'd be particularly wary of buying any NTSC/PAL camcorders with the new HD standards that are going to be set in the next few years. I'm hoping that by the time I have kids, there'll be more choices on the market with this kind of recording quality.
// Agent Green (Ian / IU7 / KB1JQO)
// IEEE 802.3: All 10base Are Belong To Us
I have a Sony DV camera and it works fine with iMovie.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
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."
...that HDV's recorded bitrate is still 25Mbit/sec. While you might think that is a lot compared to terrestrial HDTV's 18Mbit stream, in fact, it's very little. In production you generally want to record MORE in acquisition than distribution.
The defacto HD production format, HDCAM, records something like 140-180MBit/sec, the uncompressed signal is something like 996MBit/sec.
The most likely market for this camera will be indie filmmakers, documentaries, and industrial/corporate promotional use. The price makes complete sense--and most of the market buying VX2100's and XL1's will probably look seriously at this.
Most broadcast/network HD will still be HDCAM, DVCPRO HD (off the popular Panasonic Varicam) or 35mm transfer.
Calum
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.
On a serious note. I have been thinking about things like this for a while. It's not exactly a highly original thought, but more and more of high end hardware/software/electronics/mechanics are becoming available to the normal joe. This has been widely known and considered with apache/linux/mysql/php/etc., but it is happening in many realms other than software.
I think that we are stepping into a creative boon as a result of this. When only large profit-intensive, single-minded corporations have access to these types of materials you don't see much creativity in how they are used. However, you stick that power with a vast majority of the public and you are going to have some incredibly original and creative ideas. I am looking forward to the creativity too....Doggy style is so 20th century.
"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.
1080p is there but the bandwidth to broadcast this just isn't there. Some 1080p displays are starting to come out.
You can't really say 1080i = 540p. You are right that 1080i is 2 540 fields interlaced, but those are FIELDS, i.e. offset horizontal lines. Combined they do produce 1080 lines of resolution. Native 540p is basically just NTSC, and 1080i can easily said to be amazingly higher quality than NTSC. Most people can also spot the difference between 720p and 1080i too. I can tell when watching ABC/ESPN 720p football compared to CBS/HDNet 1080i football. I don't have a native 720p display though, to be fair, and 1080i does have more motion artifacts. It's generally agreed that 720p is best for fast-moving sports, and 1080i for slow shots, documentaries, 35mm film transfers, etc.
I don't see that as a problem. 720p is the current top-end for "real" HD. 1080i is not "real" in my eyes because it is interlaced.
It's time we dropped interlacing completely (funnily enough, I was told that was one of the big benefits to digital, that you get 60 discrete full-resolution frames per second, and not 59.94 or 29.97 or some fucked up number). Had I been in charge of the FCC, when CBS threatened to pull their HD over the broadcast flag, I'd have told them, "hahaha, go ahead and pull it, 1080i sucks cock anyway, and so does the broadcast flag".
Plus, devices that are natively 1080i will have to upconvert 720p, which will cause an immediate resolution loss of 1/2 the full 1080i pixel array, since you're converting from 60 full frames per second, to 60 fields per second. And that's not even figuring in the resizing process from 1920x1080 to 1280x720.
I'd rather see 1080i downconverted to 720p, so that the 720p signal will run at native resolution . 720p is the current sweet spot for quality in HDTV, and people completely miss it because "1080 is bigger, durrrrr".
Interlacing should have NEVER BEEN ALLOWED INTO THE DIGITAL STANDARD AT ALL. Legacy interlaced material running at 59.94 fields/sec can be converted to 480p/29.97fps with absolutely NO loss, only problem is you get mice teeth (but they could just bob it in the receiver). For material shot and produced for HD, there should NEVER be any interlacing, EVER. Interlacing was only used as a cheap analog way of compressing the signal at a 1:2 ratio. Now that we have the bandwidth, there is no reason we can't have 60 discrete frames per second.
Oh, and don't even get me started on why we are already locked into MPEG-2 for DTT, despite the availability of better compression methods. Or why companies that broadcast on two separate NTSC licenses (commonly known as 'duopolies') are only being given one 19Mbps ATSC license? Due to this, such companies can NOT offer true HD for both stations. If the analog side of your station broadcasts on two 6MHz channels (discounting translators, etc - just the main transmitter), then you should get two 19Mbps ATSC licenses, point blank.
Digital TV sucks. It will be the end of television, as we know it. Mark my words.
FC Closer
I've shot with the JVC HDV camera, and my impression of it is that the resolution is excellent (as is to be expected), but the real quality differentiator between it and a "real HD" camera is the quality of color and image delivered by the whole system, not just a high resolution imaging chip.
This is not suprising - I have always found the image and color quality of DV cameras to be much lower than even medium-end pro cameras (such as the elderly SVHS Panasonic Supercam). The prosumer cameras do not have $3,000 lenses. They do not have the amazing amount of color DSP going on as the pro cameras.
But at the same time, HDV cameras are better than nothing, and certainly good for "riskier" shots where a $100,000 HDCAM camera being lost would be a problem. You just can't skydive with a full-size camera, for instance...
One other issue is that 25 Mbps is really limiting for MPEG-2 HD (heh, so is 19.4 Mbps, but that is another topic).
If you are into a lot of action with lots of uncorrelated motion vectors, you might be better off with upconverted DV, as 25 Mbps is fine for inraframe coded DV.
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.
Porn is what runs most of the internet.
Unfortunately, porn in high res it not the panacea you imply. Even on DVD I can see waaaaay too much detail. (think: sores, pimples, rashes, bruises, and surgery scars)