Any word on what Canon will bring to the table? Will they follow in JVC and Sony's footsteps and go HDV or will they be brave enough to get with the true HD ranks of Pany?

Personally, I'd love to see Canon come out swingin' with true hd. They have the best true hd lenses, obviously, so they should be able to offer the best glass to go with their creation... and at a lower price since it's their lens.

I'd love to see them come out with a combination of all three cameras (JVC, Sony, Panisonic)...

JVC's:
-Interchangeable professional lenses
-24p @ 720
-All the professional functions
-Shoulder mountable

Pany's:
-True HD acquisition
-Memory Card Technology
-DV tape recording deck

Sony's:
-1080 Resolution (but I'd like to see progressive)
-down conversion to a lesser format (that's if they come out with HDV)

I'd like to see true hd, shooting to memory cards (at least a 15GB card at cost of a tape), with the capability of shooting directly to an off the shelf generic hard drive in real time. I'd like to see them go with at least a 1/2" lens, if not the alll mighty 2/3" at a prosumer price. (Keep dreamin' right)

If they have to come out with another HDV camera, I'd like to see one better then the current GOP technology. I don't like the idea of one frame deciding what the next 14 look like.

Come on Canon... bring it!!!

Define "true" HD please.


p.s.
Canon will win this race...i'm sure of it.

>>Define "true" HD please.

IMO, true HD means:

a) 4:2:2 color space (or better :).
b) I frame codec (no GOP compression).
c) Enough bandwidth to handle panning across a complex image
without a loss of resolution and/or macroblocks.

DVCPro 100 would be one format that comes close. Varicam HDSDI
output to a D5 deck is there. Sony 950 HDSDI 4:4:4 duel link output to
Sony SR deck is more than there. Viper is there.

Wow. So I guess your 'true HD" can't exist as a broadcast signal can it? How disappointing that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray won't be true HD. And how odd that HDCAM isn't true HD. Darn that 3:1:1.

By the same logic, all those 4:1:1 and 4:2:0 DV cams aren't true SD either eh? Rats.

I'm surprised you didn't put
d) Must have a 1.0 pixel aspect ratio.

"and as long as I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony." - Susie Derkins

-Steve

Check out my first post. If it is even invented, THAT would be True HD: 1080p60!

P.S have you guys even thought of mini-BD-RAM?

<<'true HD" can't exist as a broadcast signal can it? >>

I would call it faux HD, yes. Kinda like gold plated watch. Looks okay
until you examine it close . . . like on the big screen?

<<How disappointing that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray won't be true HD.
And how odd that HDCAM isn't true HD. Darn that 3:1:1>>

Oddly enough, yes, you are right, but the images will look much
better than the current broadcast standard of which you speak as both of
those formats will be an MPEG4 variant.

That said, many pros complain that HDCAM in the production vernacular 'sucks'
(although I don't really agree but I think you should know that
Sony is working miracles under the hood. They are the codec masters).
However, if everyone thought as you do, then Sony wouldn't
be marketing solutions that top HDCAM's specs (much less HDV).

I also thought that the broadcast HD Olympic images
STUNK ON ICE to put it bluntly.
As long as the action was frozen, the image was
nice and clear, but as soon as motion was introduced there were hideous
macroblocks all over the place. I never thought I would say it,
but YES, give me an old broadcast analog NTSC COMPOSITE signal
compared to some things I've witness since the "digital revolution."

Now, when a more modern codec like H.264 takes over, 19 mbps will look
pretty darn good given good acquisition formats and post production care.


<<By the same logic, all those 4:1:1 and 4:2:0 DV cams
aren't true SD either eh? Rats.>>

DV barely hangs at 25mbps imo. It is definitely soft on the big screen, even when
well shot and looking great on TV.
Do you claim by quadrupling the pixel count and constricting the bandwidth to
19 mbps and using ol' MPEG2 is a recipe for great images? Not on the big
screen imo.

<<I'm surprised you didn't put d) Must have a 1.0 pixel aspect ratio.>>

No, if it did then there wouldn't be clean circles :)

>>Define "true" HD please.

IMO, true HD means:

a) 4:2:2 color space (or better :).
b) I frame codec (no GOP compression).
c) Enough bandwidth to handle panning across a complex image
without a loss of resolution and/or macroblocks.

DVCPro 100 would be one format that comes close. Varicam HDSDI
output to a D5 deck is there. Sony 950 HDSDI 4:4:4 duel link output to
Sony SR deck is more than there. Viper is there.

HD means high definiton, or resolution. SD means standard definition, or resolution, nothing more. HD starts at 1280x720, progressive, ends at 1920x1080, progressive. Color space, compression, etc. don't come to the definition.

a)

Panasonic Varicam records 960x720 progressive pixels, compressed about 7:1, 4:2:2 color space.

Sony HDCAM F900 records 1440x1080 progressive pixels, compressed about 4.5:1, 3:1:1 color space. It naturally records more color info than Varicam. It is used for major motion picture productions. Varicam not.

b)

Sony's best HD camera, F950 uses GOP, no I-frame only compression. Actually all Sony cameras released lately use GOP. F950 was used on Episode 3.

c)

Actually loss of resolution may be beneficial because stimulates loss of resolution of eye as it pans.

The no GOP is myth, the 4:2:2 is myth, the problem of loss of resolution on panning is myth.

Radek

I didn't mean to make this a "define true hd" discussion. I simply wanted to pull ideas from others about what you think Canon will bring to the table, and what you would like them to offer. Also to ask for your oppinions on the HDV format in general.

When I said "true HD" I was refering to Panisonic's P2 format of keeping it with DVC Pro HD... with the only compromise being a 1/3" lens.

Honestly I don't care if Canon comes out with something like Sony's F900 HD format or Panisonic's Varicam format. I just don't like the idea of "HDV". Panisonic is the only one who is trying to stay away from that all together.

Personally I think HDV will be here and gone before you can blink an eye. Why shoot to HDV when you can shoot DVC Pro HD (Varicam quality), at prosumer cost. If Panisonic were to come out with a new version of the P2 camera to include affordable 15G (at least) cards, and the option to record straight to a mountable (off the shelf) hard drive in real time... HDV will be history.

Just a thought...

Please respond to those ideas... not what "true HD" is.

Regards,
Dan

Just curious but what good would a 15 GB card be, raw DV from an SD camera comes out to about 13 GB for every 60 mintues, from what I have gatharded using HDV it takes up about 9 times more space, so to get 60 minutes it's about 117 GB (please correct me if I am wrong). Hence part of the reason Lace offers 1.2 TB harddrives. So would memory even be worth it at this point?

Alex B.

I was told at an Adobe convention in Orlando from a Lacie rep that the rule of thumb is: 1GB of HD video uses up about 1GB of space. So in essence... if you were to have a 15 gig card, you could shoot about 15 min. of HD quality video.

Obviously we would like to see two times that, but just wait. In a year or two, an 8GB card will look like a 215mb stick of memory. Gigs are just flying off the shelf these days. I predict VERY soon you will see an affordable 15GB card or more.

By the way... you know that Panasonic has opened up the P2 memory card technology to any company who wants to design a cheaper card. So, look for companies like Kingston, Creative Labs, Lacie or whoever to be coming out with a cheaper card.

As far as Canon is concerned... If they don't address these issues when they unvail their newest creation, Panasonic will continue to make better versions of the P2 and take the prosumer market by storm.

Personally I think HDV will be here and gone before you can blink an eye. Why shoot to HDV when you can shoot DVC Pro HD (Varicam quality), at prosumer cost. If Panisonic were to come out with a new version of the P2 camera to include affordable 15G (at least) cards, and the option to record straight to a mountable (off the shelf) hard drive in real time... HDV will be history.

There are a couple of reasons that HDV will be here for a while (and most have probably already been discussed before):

1. Its an official format agreed to by several large companies, especially Sony which has invested heavily into the format and has seen success with it.

2. Its cheap. By the end of the year it should be pretty easy to pick up an HDV camcorder for about 1500 bucks (the HC1 or competing cams that haven't been anounced yet). And it shoots on $5 tapes.

3. Its simple. Yup, for the average Joe Schmoe consumer the idea of P2 cards, slots and file offloading is a bit daunting. Maybe Pana can make a smaller HD cam with a 60 gig drive (ala the new JVC hard disk cams) that records 1280x720 that could be competitive pricewise. But even that would suck for a vacation or extended outing. Sorry, but right now the Panasonic route is pretty much for professionals and advanced hobbyists only, and we are not the majority of the camcorder market. Mr. Schmoe will pack his HDV camcorder and a couple cheap tapes for that disneyland vacation.

I'm sure there's more, but I think you see my point. I think DVCProHD is better than HDV too, but that has nothing to do with HDV's commercial viability and its lifespan in the consumer (and even professional) marketplace.

Philip Williams
www.philipwilliams.com

<<<Sony's best HD camera, F950 uses GOP, no I-frame only compression. Actually all Sony cameras released lately use GOP. F950 was used on Episode 3.>>>

I heard that E3 was shot using 950's HDSDI out to a SR deck which via
duel link records 4:4:4 and *not to the camera's internal (HDCAM) recorder*.

I am also unaware of HDCAM utilizing a GOP compression codec, so can
you post a URL for that information please?

HD means:

a) 4:2:2 color space (or better :).
b) I frame codec (no GOP compression).
c) Enough bandwidth to handle panning across a complex image
without a loss of resolution and/or macroblocks.

So there we have it...

Sony's F750, F900 & F950 CineAlta cameras = fake HD
George Lucas, you idiot!

lol

(lord have mercy on some people)

- Shannon W. Rawls

Phillip,
Good point. Never looked at it from a consumer stand point. Your probably right... that market would be fine with HDV for a little while. However, I predict HD to come down into the consumer's price range in the next few years. If Panasonic can make one right now for less then $10,000 (including two very expensive cards), then others will follow. Why would manufacturers stick with HDV for the consumer market when HD is coming down so low?

I don't know... maybe your right... maybe HD won't go under $4000. It'll come pretty damn close though. Pany's P2 camera's base price is around $6k not including the cards, isn't it? Something like that. If that's the case... when Pany comes out with it's next version which tops that one... the older ones will come down in price. I'm not saying this will happen this year or maybe not even next... but within two to three years I could see it.

So if you were to be in the market for a new consumer camera... why invest in a three year format. If you have to have a 3 chip camera RIGHT NOW... go get a cheapy to get you by until then.

If the consumer market won't go over $2000... you are right, HDV seems the best answer. If they are willing to pay around $3000-$4000, they may be able to afford HD in a few years. If they are willing to pay $3000-$4000 on a HD tv... why won't they pay $3000-$4000 for their camera?

...
If the consumer market won't go over $2000... you are right, HDV seems the best answer. If they are willing to pay around $3000-$4000, they may be able to afford HD in a few years. If they are willing to pay $3000-$4000 on a HD tv... why won't they pay $3000-$4000 for their camera?

For the most part they are not willing to spend 3-4K on an HDTV. That's been the big barrier to HD, the excessive cost of the TVs. Fortunately you can go to Best Buy or Wal-Mart now and find 30" HDTVs in the $500-600 range. But even at those prices people aren't in a hurry to upgrade. Now I don't know about your financial situation, but not only will the average consumer not pay over $2000 for a camcorder, they typically won't pay half that.

Seriously, go visit your local Best Buy, Wal-Mart or Target. Look at their camcorders. Look at the average price. This is what average consumers, the bulk of the camcorder market, is purchasing. You'll be lucky to find an Optura 60.

As for HDV being a 3 year format and getting a cheap 3CCD camera for now and so on and so forth, again I think you've confused Prosumers (us super geek video hoby types) with Joe Schmoe consumers. Dude, Sony is STILL selling Digital8 camcorders. Also, you seem to classify HDV and HD as seperate entities. Although I believe there have been some holy wars fought over that debate, I must say that HDV is HD. Its highly compressed and can have issues when used under certain circumstances, but its got the pixels and lines to qualify as HD. Hey, you want bad HD? Did you see some of the 04 Olympics on the HDTVs at the stores? Looked great when nothing was moving, then as soon as an athlete would run and do something the whole picture turned into macro-blocks. Terrible. And HD.

Philip Williams
www.philipwilliams.com

[QUOTE=Shannon Rawls]So there we have it...

Sony's F750, F900 & F950 CineAlta cameras = fake HD
George Lucas, you idiot!


This is simply incorrect Shannon. As I stated above, E3 was shot on
a 950 that features duel link HD-SDI output.
950 output(s) can be UNCOMPRESSED 10bit w/ 4:4:4 color sampling.
The internal HDCAM recorder was NOT used.
Lucas is a genius and his decision was to record TRUE HD.
If he decided to use HDV he would be an idiot.

I also stick to my statement that HDCAM is not a GOP codec. Radek
has provided NO PROOF and will not be able to IMO. I could be wrong,
and if I am, it should be easy to slap me down. I am wrong all the time
and am happy to learn the truth if I am incorrect about HDCAM using GOP.

I will also say that many HDV camcorder *owners* are out there claiming
and promoting to clients that HDV is real HD. It is not and only someone
who has no expience would say that.

Other statements in this thread such as,
"a loss of resolution while panning is good" is a absurd. If I want to lose
resolution I'll blur the image in post. Pixel count is deceptive. If an image
is made up of huge macroblocks who cares what the pixel count is?
Try counting the macroblocks and that is the pixel count.

Sorry for being harsh, but I am trying to "keep it real."

Jacques, you are correct. I think shannon was joking. Sarcasm isn't as easy to pick up on the web...

The 950 does spit dual link HDSDI out so there was one channel of 4:2:2 and one channel of 0:2:2 (note these are not the exact numbers 4 is actually somewhere near the equivalent of 19 but for all intents and purposes 4:4:4 is just simpler to remember.) You will never see anything recorded from the 950's in camera VTR because um, well, because there is none.

Also can someone please point out a link to an F750? I was under the impresssion that SONY's F designated 24p playback and record and as far as I know the 900 and the 950 are the only HDCAM's capable of that. The 750 is a 59.94/60i alternate frame rate and I thought that was all...

and what is GOP?

And anyone with actual experience, or that knows, when recording from a 900 the image is in fact 1080x1920, then is "compressed" to 1440x1080 to fit on tape, does the 950 use this same compression? When we tested the 950 out the SW-1 deck used standard load tapes (40/52 min) but just recorded twice as fast (20/26) so I'm thinking that maybe the compression is still there on the 950 just not in the color portions. Can anyone provide insight?

950 uses separate deck. Records 1920x1080, MPEG4. Yes, it has GOP (group of pictures). There is no new Sony format that would use not MPEG2/4/GOP, for couple years now.

900 can output 4:2:2 1920x1080 over HDSDI, on tape records 1440x1080 3:1:1, same on Episode 2.

750, European version has 25p mode.

Radek

Page 9 of this document details the HDCAM-SR compression scheme:

http://www.panavision.co.nz/main/kbase/downloads/sonysrw5000.pdf

"Yet another industry first from Sony is an integrated video encoding/decoding chipset that conforms to the MPEG-4 SP (Studio Profile: ISO/IEC 14496-2:2001-1)... It is free from GOP (Group Of Pictures) structures, and is scalable in its pixel count (SDTV, HDTV, Film-resolution data), bit depth (10- or 12-bit), and color resolution (component or RGB). In order to achieve maximum compression efficiency, the HDCAM-SR format resorts to intra-frame compression for progressive images. Intra-field compression is used for interlaced images."

So yes to MPEG-4 - no to GOP for HDCAM-SR.

Hope that clears it up.

-Steve

Ah HA! I am NOT wrong. Go to that PFD and read page 9. It says
under the "Creating Virtually Lossless Images" paragraph that:
It (Sony's HDCAM SR MPEG4 SP studio profile codec) is FREE from GOP structures . . ."

I am right after all! (well, maybe 'vanilla' HDCAM does use GOP?)

But, this raises another question, why didn't 'they' use MPEG4 for HDV
instead of MPEG2? I have seen wonderful HD images on a plasma
screen at only 8mbps. MPEG2 is well over 10 years old and MPEG4 is
something like 4 years old?

I've heard rumors that MPEG4 as an acquisition format is in the works
and due to appear sometime in the near future on inexpensive cameras.

I am sure HD will look great using mpeg4 @ 100mbps. Maybe worth waiting
for.

under the "Creating Virtually Lossless Images" paragraph that:
It (Sony's HDCAM SR MPEG4 SP studio profile codec) is FREE from GOP structures . . ."

I already said that "no to GOP". No GOP. HDCAM SR DOES NOT USE GOP!

(Everyone got that?)

why didn't 'they' use MPEG4 for HDV instead of MPEG2?

Implementing MPEG-4 on a chip is more demanding than implementing MPEG-2. It requires significantly more computation, and as a result, will also require significantly more power (from a chip made with the same size transistors). Clearly, MPEG-2 is one of those engineering compromises.

I am sure HD will look great using mpeg4 @ 100mbps. Maybe worth waiting for.

Considering it hasn't been announced, I wouldn't get my hopes up. It seems far more likely that they'll develop an "HD-DVD" or "Blu-Ray" camcorder, which records MPEG-4 variants to disk at low bit-rates. (like less than 10 Mbps), to occupy the same part of the market as DVD camcorders currently hold.

Personally, I'm hoping the holographic versatile disks (HVDs) really take off. If they can truly read/write at the 1 Gbps number I've seen thrown around, and if they can hold TB.... we may have 440/880 Mbps 4:4:4 future in a reasonably short time.

-Steve

Getting back to the original topic... Canon will most likely follow JVC's path, it's natural to assume an XL3 with interchangeable lens, and a good quality one for starters. Still, we'll yearn for larger CCDs with higher quality glass. However, Canon may surprise us. They will wait, watch, and see. Then produce something that the competition couldn't quite fulfill. I am hopeful.

Yes it will be interesting. Cause JVC have what used to be their defining sales pitch (Interchangeable lenses) and of course it's HDV blah blah.


Aaron

A couple of interesting things to note.
About two years ago Canon made an announcement that
they were building a new plant in which they would start to
manufacture their own CMOS chips. It is possible that
some very cool things could come from there, but a great
CMOS chip alone is not enough for this old road dog to
get excite or very hopeful about.

I (and others) are and have become a bit disappointed with
Canon, because they are invariably 'followers' and (so far)
never leaders.

They do like to sit back, take their time and deliver products,
which are good, but are certainly not in the 'break through'
category. Canon doesn't like to make waves, and because
they have a profitable line of "pro HD" lens, no one I
know expects them to deliver a camcorder with HD-SDI out.

Without that, another 'plain yogurt' HDV camcorder won't
blow my dress up ;)

Unfortunately, Canon has been putting all its CMOS chip-making energy towards dSLRs. It's been amazingly successful, too. The chip in the Digital Rebel XT is not only huge (APS-C sized, nearly six times the surface area of a 2/3'' chip and 19 times the surface area of a 1/3'' chip), but it has amazingly clean images at up to 800ISO even at 8megapixels. It's cheap, too! I bought my Rebel XT (which I LOVE) for under $800, lens included. That must mean that these chips cost well under $500 to manufacture, probably much, much less which is really impressive. Sure, they use bayer interpolation, but at 8mp, who cares? The dynamic range is also excellent in RAW mode, although still less than good film (the overall image, IMO, is usually better.) Canon has a very expensive dSLR that shoots 8fps (the Rebel shoots at 3fps or so) but they need to bring that up to 60 if the want to put it in a video camera. Sure, I'd be happy being limited to 24fps, but I don't think they could sell a prosumer camera that shoots that slow.

Sony and Altisens seem to be making good video CMOS sensors. Altisens has a $700 2/3'' 1920X1080 CMOS that JVC is using three of in its 2/3'' HDV camera, which looks amazing in all ways (except for HDV). Sony has announced a 1/3'' (single sensor) CMOS camera that will sell for about the price of the FX1, I think, and they have another 1/3'' single CMOS camera out for 2 grand now that does HDV.

Talking with Bill Kennedy of Panasonic, I got the impression that smaller chips are the future. He basically said as much. Too bad. However, he said the future AFTER that would be single sensors, which might or might not be larger. Here's to hoping for a 2/3'' HD camera for under $10,000. In 10 years, I think this would be very possible, and it would definitely beat out 16mm film. To me, that's very exciting...except that I can't wait that long.

For all the work of Sony, Canon et al. ... I think Kodaks announcement to lay off more than ten thousand more workers is an important announcement.