How many HD100's in circulation?
 

Does anyone know how many hd100's jvc has moved worldwide. Is the camera and the 720p format approaching the point of mass adoption?

I want to know so I can submit a report to a corporation seeking to purchase a large supply of eng camera's. Statistics may give me leverage in building a case for the hd100. Please only accurate, verifiable stats please.

Also does anyone know what the primary attitudes are of broadcasters towards HDV? Do they look at HDV and 720p for that matter as a credible delivery format?

I have heard mumblings of 720p being called a medium quality format that will be obsolete within 18 months, and hdv as stricly a entry level consumer format frowned upon by professionals.

I'm not knocking the 720P format, I use it, and have had no trouble with it on the corporate level. Broadcast is an entirely different ball of wax however.

I'm simply seeking information on how widespread and accepted the formats are becoming.

ask yourself if a company asked you to advise them on a camera that they could see a capital return on in say 6 - 12 months which camera would you recommend. Remember this will be used primarily as a news gathering unit, and will be used as a live studio camera for shooting a morning breakfast show, and a afternoon women's fashion and lifestyle program. \

24 p is unimporant as nothing will ever be transferred to film.

Albert,

I can't verify immediately, but I was of the impression that CNN acquired a large number of these cameras for their news operation soon after it was released. Somewhere just north of 100 units. The HD100 was in fact shown at NAB last year in an ENG configuration tethered to a live truck. I saw that for myself. I don't know if CNN would reveal their camera info to you but that might be a start for recommending the HD100 to a client.

regards,

-gb-

BS, its just damaging mis-information about the 720P vs 1080i debate. I guess you are not aware that ABC, ESPN and FOX broadcast 720P. Did you watch the Superbowl???? That was 720P.

http://abc.go.com/site/hdtvfaq.html

http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-6310141-1.html#a3

http://www.avsforum.com/hdtvfaq/HDTV-FAQ.htm

Tim's answer can be augmented by ESPEN and the Europeans who believe the future is "progressive" which means 720p now and 1080p later.

The issue may not be 720 or "p" but the 30fps frame rate. I find the Motion Filter at 30fps to be very good looking, but it's not 720p60 or1080i60. Now given the subjects that will be shot, the MF should be fine. But, you can occasionally see temporal artifacts which might may some unhappy.

There is no way 720p will be obsolete in short order. Way, way to many 720p native displays have been sold for that to happen quickly. 720p native is still, by far, the most common resolution for LCDs being sold today (some 1920x1080 LCDs are out there, but not very many). ABC and Fox broadcast 720p and I know of no plans in the works for there to be a change there.

Thanks for the feedback. Very Useful. My primary concern is how do I justify 720p? However, other broadcasters having adopted 720-p does help build a strong arguement for the format.

Thanks again, keep it coming.

A

Hmmm.. I think a lot depends on which bit of Europe you're in! Certainly 'progressive' is indeed regarded (rightly, IMO) as a 'good thing', and the end game is seen as 1080p/50. The debate here and now is whether to go 720p/50 or 1080i/25 in the meantime. One thing that's been overlooked here is 1080p/25 - and my understanding is that in the UK at least this is currently the preferred format for high end work, drama etc. It's true progressive, has full 1080 resolution, and many productions actually prefer the temporal look of the 25fps.

When it's transmitted, that happens as 'segmented field' - in other words, exactly the same way as films as currently transmitted in 625 PAL. The most likely scenario for the UK in the next couple of years is that most transmission will be 1080i/25, and though whilst news, sport etc will also be produced like this, drama etc will be produced 1080p/25.

We'll see - commercial broadcasts start soon, and shops are currently full of HD demos (from hard drives) and attracting a lot of attention. Nearly all flat screens sold now are true 'HDready', with HDMI input.

Getting back to topic, I think the debate is really more between 1/3" cameras and 2/3" rather than 720v1080, and whilst it's pretty obvious which cameras give the best results, there are obviously economic reasons why 1/3" cameras may be the only option for cost reasons. In that case, quality may be limited by the camera front end rather than the system, and the difference may boil down more to whether the 30p 'look' of the HD100 is considered suitable for the live studio use you mention, or whether 720p/60 or 1080i/30 is considered more 'right'.

Leaving technicalities aside, the HD100 is the only 1/3" HD camera that feels right to me in hand held use, the only one that feels like a 2/3" shoulder mount, especially with the larger batteries. It also still balances well with a Firestore attached. From a cost point of view, it's worth bearing in mind that the supplied lenses still have quite a tight angle of view when wide, and you may need to think about budgeting for quite a lot of the wide angle zooms.

For a camera used both for ENG and studio a lot must be said for the HD-SDI connectivity of the Canon. I believe the same remarks apply there regarding lenses.

Very interesting information. However, given that sports seems to be the driver of HD -- I can't imagine sports being shot with a temporal rate of only 25fps. Fox once tried 480p30 to save money -- it is legal DTV -- but it failed at sports.

Also, there really isn't 1080/25p as it is 1080/50PsF.

The reality is most, if not all, MPEG-2 chips will accept anything and send it to a display at 50Hz or 60Hz. Likely, also at 72Hz and 100Hz. So, I'm not sure the governments really need to rule-out 50i. For example, unlike the USA with 12 ATSC formats, allow only 720/50p and 1080/50i. And, put a 5-year limit on 1080/50i.

No indeed. I did say "The most likely scenario for the UK in the next couple of years is that most transmission will be 1080i/25, and though whilst news, sport etc will also be produced like this........" and I wonder if we're confusing nomenclature? According to the EBU 1080i/25 is the correct way to describe a 25Hz frame rate/50Hz field rate signal, they define the second number as always representing frame rate, never field.
For transmission, yes. And from a receivers point of view 1080i/25 and 1080psf/25 (as the EBU wish us to describe them) are identical. I tried to talk about 1080p/25 *production* only.

It's a year old now, but the EBU says a lot about this in this link - http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/...editorial.html . Since that debate first came about, there seems to be a general reevaluation of some assumptions, most notably average screen sizes in European homes. It appears that research that suggested 720p/50 as 'good enough' for the majority of homes may now be outdated - 42" is almost the norm on sale here (with commercial transmission not yet started!) and most stores have at least one 50" or even larger.

In my previous post I talked about 30fps and the look as suitable for live cameras and ENG inserts. Whilst that is true for the inserts, I believe the camera does give 60fps as a live output, so for studio use there shouldn't be a problem.