what you would need is to have your computer on location so you could swap cards every few minutes.
? if you just had firewire external hard drives, you would still be able to transfer the uncompressed video on to them wouldn't you?
then when you get to your main system with a fast raid, you could move the files over.
does this sound like it would work?

Could, it's just one more person to have on hand to transfer files all day... but possible.

My guess is that JVC held the data rate low to make the TS fully compatable with the broadcast ATSC stream (19.6 Mb/s maximum I think).

I used to be a 1080i fan, but I am being converted to 720p. No problem converting frame rates - stills look great - etc. With Fox going 720p, the big 4 networks are now split.

Also - it's tough to evaluate interlaced material on a progressive monitor (motion-wise). Things just don't look the same.

Interesting discussion though!

Cranking up the speed on a DV tape might solve many problems, Tapes are still cheap, but only 30 minute capacity for that totally lightweight-mobile solution. Wireless-G can handle 54MBps (maybe??), which would allow a wireless cam-to-computer link for direct storage and no capture before editing. Could easily be the preferred mode for studio work.. And a portable 1TB disk smaller than a battery pack (or including a battery pack) is just over the next horizon, which would give 30-40 hours of record time and no capture/transfer, while being more mobile than a computer. Sony could go to a 4-6 GOB, and JVC could go to 1080p with capacity to spare. Maybe even have room for a better audio compression mode too.

I think thats gonna be my prediction for next generation HDV. LOL :)

Personally, I hope the HD broadcasting favours 1080i... I don't really care about interlaced video, but I do want the standard for film transfers to be to 1080 @ 24p. I'd be really sad to see the industry favour a 720p format in the long term.

While I bought an FX1, I consider it an intermediate camera until a true 1920x1080 24p camera with minimal or no compression comes out.

-Steve

So, you don't really favor 1080i then...you're in favor of a 1080p standard... Which, hey, if we could have the best of both worlds (progressive scan with the temporal motion characteristics of both 24fps and 60fps plus 1920x1080), who wouldn't be for that? But now you're talking a whole crap load (that's a technical term of course) of information for our computers to choke down

<<<-- Originally posted by Steven White : While I bought an FX1, I consider it an intermediate camera until a true 1920x1080 24p camera with minimal or no compression comes out.>>>

Expect to wait a decade, at least.

<<<-- Originally posted by John Galt: Cranking up the speed on a DV tape might solve many problems, Tapes are still cheap, but only 30 minute capacity for that totally lightweight-mobile solution. -->>>

If you use 80min tapes, you get 40 minits and that seems to be enaough for digibeta and hdcam cameras, so what's the problem?

<<<-- Originally posted by Davi Dortas : <<<-- Originally posted by Steven White : While I bought an FX1, I consider it an intermediate camera until a true 1920x1080 24p camera with minimal or no compression comes out.>>> Expect to wait a decade, at least. -->>>

Or untill March. Sumix with Altasens should be out then. Then all we need is someone like Decklink to manufacture portable hard disks with hd-sdi and that's it...

<<<-- Originally posted by Toke Lahti :
If you use 80min tapes, you get 40 minits and that seems to be enaough for digibeta and hdcam cameras, so what's the problem? -->>>

It works for me. Thats why I think that will be generation HDV2 (along with a direct-capture of some sort).

From a pure technology perspective HDV is pushing the limits of what should work well, but most accounts from people who have actually bought an FX1 are that they're very pleased with the results. This reminds me of the claim that according to our best aerodynamic theories, bees shouldn't be able to fly...but son of a gun if theren't aren't billions of them flying happily around every single day!

There are rumors that Panasonic is planning a prosumer-priced video camera which records full DVCProHD quality, and if they can deliver on that this will surely be the camera of choice for people who aren't happy with HDV. But with HDV already fairly well established and Panasonic apparently planning to use expensive solid-state recording, this poses no threat to HDV as the "poor man's HD" for at least the next few years. So we could have a split develop where low-priced videographers use HDV and premium videographers use DVCProHD, but the latter will definitely need to charge more.

>>But now you're talking a whole crap load (that's a technical term of course) of information for our computers to choke down<<

I'm not talking about today's computers. I'm talking about tomorrows computers... and I fully expect my FX1 to last me at least 5 years.

What we're talking about is storage and bandwidth limitations - which are still growing quite happily. The fact of the matter is that I process most of the footage coming out of my camera as if it was 1440x1080p uncompressed video, using DV proxies for a lot of the interrum work, as I don't have enough cash to upgrade my editing and FX system.

It's slow - it's painful - but it's possible. In time it will all get easier.

For that matter - I don't so much care about 1080 @ 60p standard. I'm perfectly happy letting the data rate per frame drop to 540 @ 60p for the higher temporal resolution.

-Steve

as someone stated in an earlier post...this ain't making it any easy to choose. One thing I am for the fx1 is the native is 16:9

<<<-- Originally posted by Steven White : >>For that matter - I don't so much care about 1080 @ 60p standard. I'm perfectly happy letting the data rate per frame drop to 540 @ 60p for the higher temporal resolution.
-Steve -->>>

I almost agree with you... I just don't think we need to drop down to 540, when there's already a standard for 720 @ 60p. I'll go for that standard, once a camera actually does it...

1920x540 = 1037k
1280x720 = 922k

So @ 60 fps, a 1080i signal still has more information per frame - it just ends up in the horizontal dimension. I'd be pretty sad if the industry adopts the 1280x720 standard. And just think, for 30p material the 1920x1080 standard offers more than twice the resolution.

Fortunately, I think the introduction of 1440x1080i camcorders like the FX1 will make a push towards higher resolution displays.

-Steve