Most likely the strategy or technology changed. It is possible they were off on their calculations, but looking at the Sanyo HD1 (which is crippled I know) 18Mb/s H264 should be enough of an minimum. I guess they found that either a) a better encoder performance was available, b) Storage capacity/options changed, or c) some broadcast/blu-ray/HDDVD workflow consideration to do with interpolatability with the pro h264 broadcast spec.

Tape is a possibility, but hard disk a certain. Something could be happening in the SD card industry. One SD card technology that is supposed to be coming this year is IBM millipede, 150GB claimed on an SD card (bigger in future). If this does eventuate, I suspect, smaller versions might go for economical prices.

I think prosumer 24mb/s cameras from Sony and Panasonic are more likely. I wonder where Pana is going to place their pro intra h264 codec.

http://news.stockselector.com/newsar...ticle=80792517

60 minutes in 4GB is around 9mb/s. That is most likely the base rate. Ambarella can do 60fps h264 in this data rate (or was that lower) though I don't want to watch it.

This is what I was afraid of, you get broadly the same data rate, and time, as existing DVD recorders except in HD. But if there is a dual layer DVD available (I don't know where they are at) you get double, if there is 4.5mb/s 30fps HD then double again (I doubt they will go more layers before blu-ray, though there are many new alternative DVD formats out there). I think I will buy a upto 24mbs version.

Forgot to mention, 2010 Intel plans 32 core processor:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/...ore/index.html

Yet another way that H264 encoding can be assisted. I suspect that 4+ cores will become cheap before then.

An article claims the hard drive model (at least) will have 24mb/s recording (hopefully).

Any idea what frame rates this thing will have?

1/ Could our japanese friends get their hands on one, and give an evaluation of the encoding quality ??
2/ as soon as a camcorder records on disk, one might envision to get a Firewire 800 or USB 2.0 properly tuned to connect directly to the editing PC . ANy mention of such connections anywhere ??

Unlikely, the specs available on the Japanese Sony web give not a maximum of 24mb/ but only 15mb/s (with a new qualification for this level of compression: "XP"); the DVD model has 'only' a HQ+ level at 12mb/s max.

You can use Babelfish or similar to translate this Japanese page: http://www.sony.jp/products/Consumer...-SR1/spec.html

We can presume that the 'XP' mode is not available on the DVD model due to the lack of space even on a double layer DVD: at 15mb/s you would get only 12 minutes on a 8cm DVD-/+R(W), and 21 minutes on a DVD+R DL... that's short! So, 24 mb/ is simply not imaginable on a 8cm DVD camcorder.

The lack of the 24mb/s on the HDD model comes certainly from the first AVCHD specifications: at first only the 8cm DVD and the SD card formats were concerned; 24mb/s, P2 card, HDD, ...etc, came after.

On an another hand, as said by Pierre in one of his previous posts, the available Mpeg-4 AVC chips for the consumer market are only (today) at 15mb/s max.

I spotted a potential problem with that alleged 24mb/s bandwidth posted here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=72226

so once blue ray is cheap then AVC-HD is a dead format too? Why waste all the time? Sony should just work with BlueRay. They already have it in the stores. $20 for a Blue Ray disk. I say stay with HDV until all the Blue Ray is going and edit systems are out. HDV is there now and pretty cheap to get into and really pretty good.

Blu-Ray is one of the driving factors behind AVC-HD. AVC-HD disks will play in blu-ray players. And once the cheap blu-ray recorders are out you'll see newer cameras incorporating mini-blu-ray mini-DVDs.

I am totally in line with this comment. Nothing is really ready to edit and play AVCHD. Seems that Sony is just trying to carve a niche for its HomeTheater BlueRay Players, and that prosumer video ( and specially HDV) suffers from the fallouts of the HD-DVD format war, therefore creating a second front !!

Marketing, marketing

more economic codec, better audio - it's about how good the cameras will be
 

If AVCHD plays in blu-ray players, then it will not be an intermediate format. It has the same compression codec as blu-ray, Quicktime, and it is a broadcast compression standard.

It just depends on the data rate. If you want better color space, there will be avc-intra, which is avchd at more mbps.

I do not think hdv is that good. Audio is poor, as it is highly compressed.
Also: why use an outdated compression format (mpeg2), if you can have better image quality at a lower data rate with better audio.

Hdv cameras are not that mature a technology. They have poor autofocus (hc-1, hc-3, a1u) poor low-light (a1u), are much too big (fx-1).

It all depends on how good those new avchd camcorders are. Will we get enough manual control, acceptable low-light performance and an autofocus, that doesn't hunt like a neandertaler.

Quicktime is a wrapper, not a codec. anything can be contained in a QT wrapper, including OGG, mp3, and at least a hundred other non-broadcast standards. BD has 3 codecs; AVC, MP2, VC1.

No, this isn't so. Intra is "Intra-frame" (intra-"contained within" vs inter-frame"("inter-"not contained within") which has nothing to do with colorspace, it's that each frame is essentially an I-frame. Color sampling remains the same.

4:1 is "highly compressed? I'll wager 100.00 I can put up a PCM file that has both the original, uncompressed audio, and an HDV file converted to PCM, and that you can't tell the difference.
Why use MP2? Because it's a LONG running standard, because there is a lot of support already existent for it, and because it's the same color sampling scheme as the largest delivery format in the world. One of the most overall common standard inside broadcast houses around the world with BetaSX, IMX.

This statement so absurd, I'm not even going to dignify it with a response. You apparently have never had the opportunity to work with the cameras. Additionally, who uses autofocus for anything but a spot requirement? (and in responding to that particular aspect, I'm not in the least agreeing the cameras hunt. Just last night I operated one of several HDV cams for Heroes of Speed. High speed action, lots of color, exceptionally fast motion; no hunting.

It all "depends" is speculation, and speculation on a yet unannounced camera, speculative potential format, and unknown is just plain silly. I guess the national economy depends on a lot of things too, but I don't suppose you'd care to speculate on how many potatoes it takes to fill a truck in July vs January, thus affecting the cost of transportation, thus impacting the US economy? A lot of potential is dependent on a lot of "maybes" and speculating on "maybe" when there is a "here and now" is absurd.
Low light has zero to do with the compression. It has everything to do with how many pixels are being crammed into small real estate. All the low cost HD cams suffer from some kind of lowlight issue or another.
Autofocus has nothing to do with the compression, it's an algorithm.
Manual control? All of the professional grade HDV camcorders have great manual control excepting one.
NONE of your comments are related to HDV, but rather features of any camcorder at any price.

HDV isn't the best of the game, but it isn't remotely what you state either. Buck for buck, it's the best there is right now. AVCHD at current, is a consumer format.
I'm usually not this acerbic, but your commentary based on opinion rather than real world fact and experience is beyond the pale.

Long Time No See, DSE.
It was just about time someone with undisputed authoritative experience fixed all those digressions. And though somewhat "irritated" ( rather than acerbic) these re-assesments were badly needed.

Thank you, DSE.

Although AVC Intra is indeed a GOP-less format, there is speculation that Fidelity Range Extensions will be implemented for increased color-sample accuracy (10-bit encoding) and higher-resolution color information (YUV 4:2:2 and possibly 4:4:4). As far as I know, AVC-HD is restricted to 8-bit encoding and 4:2:0 sampling. So, while it's true that "intra" refers to the data reduction technique, Panasonic's AVC Intra format may also entail a greater color space.

This is *potentially* correct. But then it's not AVC HD, it's simply AVC that departs from AVC HD at that point. It's entirely likely that a separate forum should be developed for AVC Intra, because for whatever reason, it appears a few professionals and most of the rest of the community are combining/confusing the two formats. AVC HD and AVC Intra have less than more in common, and I'd hate to see some poor guy reading about AVC Intra and then buying an AVC HD camcorder thinking he's getting anything broadcast-worthy.