Thomas brings up a very valid point. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, there is no means to distribute HDV content. It won't encode to a DVD, there are no set-top players to view generated HDV content. Moreover, according to an article in the latest issue of Videography, less than 10 million HDTV displays have been shipped to dealers and that amounts to less than one-tenth of U.S. households. And only about a third of those HDTV displays can actually get an HDTV signal of some sort. So, right now 97 percent of U.S. TV's cannot get HDTV. My apologies to those in PAL land, as this statistic may not be true, however, as far as the USA is concerned, HD is a non-starter so far.

Bill, you're more right than you know, because in PAL land, HDTV isn't even on the map. As far as I can tell, there are no plans in Europe at all to even consider going to HDTV.

Australia seems quite up for it, but right now it looks like the only market who's actually adopting HD in any significant numbers is Japan. American consumers don't seem to care, and European broadcasters aren't even thinking about it.

well,

i think the same,

but if we're right, then...why "even" consider the new Sony HDV ?

...i mean, could we really see any advantage once it has been downsampled to SD (DVD) ?

In fact, there is still an advantage, even downsampled. When compositing, the zoom options are quite incredible. If you zoom into an SD image, image deterioration happens quickly. Zooming into an HD image retains its quality for much longer zooms.

True but how many of us are going to actually try to composite with an HDV camera? And even then why would we want to digitally zoom the image? :(

Well that Sony camera is also capable of shooting SD DV in both 4:3 and anamorphic 16:9, it records in both DV SP and DV LP modes. Of course we'll have to see what that looks like, but with the new native widescreen 1/3" CCD's and 14 bit DSP you might hope for something very nice. Too bad no progressive scan DV though. But anyway, just looking at the native 16:9 hi-res LCD, the calibrated zoom, focus and iris rings, gain switch, volume knob, etc... much nicer manual control than a PD-170... and it's native widescreen! The HDV modes could really just be considered a "bonus" on a very decent DV camera, and at about the same price both the PD-170 and DVX-100a were intro'ed at.

But if you need a reason to shoot HDV, even if you think HDTV isn't picking up a lot of steam yet, would you like to have a market for your work 5 or 10 years from now? Wouldn't it be nice to "future proof" yourself a bit? Or do you think HD will never catch on? I remember plenty of people who felt "the internet" would never catch on 10 or 12 years ago.

Once HDTV does catch on there will be a huge demand for high resolution widescreen footage. You know how people hate letterboxed 16:9 on their 4:3 sets now? Ten years from now how do you think they'll feel about low resolution, pillarboxed 4:3 DV on their new 72" LCD screens ;-)

What I really want is an XL3 with 1920 x 1080, 24/30 p or 60i that records in a RAW digital format like the Viper, direct to a firewire 800 drive...

As my mama said, that and $0.50 ($2.50 at Starbucks) will get me a cup of coffee.

"Future proof?"
I think that's pretty shaky rationale. We all recognize that technology changes on the hour. By the time HDV becomes a household name, that sony...and that canon, will be relics for the dust bin, aka the history shelf.

> Bill, you're more right than you know, because in PAL land,
> HDTV isn't even on the map. As far as I can tell, there are no
> plans in Europe at all to even consider going to HDTV.

I saw a consumer HD broadcast in Spain more than two years ago. Looked awesome. I think it was satellite though, not UHF. Also, there is PALPlus, the enhanced resolution analog standard which I think is being implemented first in Germany but is a Europe-wide standard.

<<You know how people hate letterboxed 16:9 on their 4:3 sets now?>>

It's interesting Boyd, I've used 16:9 letterboxing on almost all my commericial broadcast work for the past couple of years or so. I find people respond just the opposite as do the clients. In fact watching NFL Thursday night launch tonight (go Pats) at least every other, if not more, national ad (shot in lots of different formats) were letterboxed 16:9 and I think they all look more "powerful" for it...4:3 is just so square and vanilla <g>.

5 or 10 years from now I hope I am not that bad that I need to still use and depend on a camera that is that old. If you are trying to buy this camera so maybe it can be used 5 or 10 years from now the rest of us will have much better newer cameras that are new(5 to 10 years from now) so you will end up buying a new camera anyways. Heck 5 to 10 years from now dv tapes may be as hard to find as beta tapes today then your camera would really be useless. I think the only real market for this camera is film makers. The problem however is that the camera is interlaced and 30 frames per second. Yes they will have higher resolution but once the footage is deinterlaced you only end up with a blown up 540 lines of resolution instead of 1080. You could take a progressive 480 image and get the same result by blowing it up. Then there is the fact that you have 30 frames instead of 24 so your footage will be interpolated even more. About the only thing you gain from using HDV are more horizontal pixels. Even that is rumored to be smaller than we think. Instead of going for the full 1920 x 1080 SONY is rumored to only use an anamorphic1440 x 1080 or even smaller yet. If SONY would have given us 1080 P at 24 fps then it might be worth it for some film makers.

Actually I think there might be a somewhat market for weddings for HDV. Clients might think it is really neato to have their wedding in HD to play on that new TV they got talked into buying at Best Buy. The problem is you would either have to tell them to,

1. Buy a JVC HDV VCR for a couple of thousand.

2. Buy one of those DVHS recorders to play only their wedding video on.

3. Use the DVD only in their computer and it will only work if their monitors are set up to at least 1920 x 1080.

4. Scale down their wedding to standard video(What the hell did you just use HDV for then?)

5. You could always charge your clients an extra $2000,00 for your services and supply one of the above players.

> If you are trying to buy this camera so maybe it can be used
> 5 or 10 years from now the rest of us will have much better
> newer cameras that are new

Of course today's equipment will be most likely be obsolete in 10 years, probably less. The point is that the footage you make today with HDV will retain it's value for a longer time because it won't suffer as much upon upscaling, "future-proofing", as Steve Mullen and Boyd would put it.

> but once the footage is deinterlaced you only end up with a
> blown up 540 lines of resolution instead of 1080. You could
> take a progressive 480 image and get the same result by
> blowing it up.

Deinterlacing does discard some information, but it's not that bad, not half. I think it's around 25% and with a simple deinterlacer at that. There is adaptive software like the DVFilm products that can do much better, as well as expensive real-time hardware that can do a good job too.

Aside from vertical resolution, which is higher than SD even if you deinterlace it, you have to also take into account that horizontal resolution --though not full 1920-- is also higher than SD. No matter how you look at it HDV is higher resolution than any form of SD DV.

It remains to be seen is whether Sony's 25Mbps MPEG-2 does the job so a significant amount of visual information is retained. It will also be interesting to see how well Sony has dealt with vertical smear, a problem present in many of Sony's prosumer cameras lately.

Judging from the specs and from comments seeping from Amsterdam, the FX1 even in SD mode is quite a contender to the XL2 and DVX100. If the compression does the job right, it should be even better in HDV mode.

Thanks Ignacio, you're right.... I wasn't suggesting buying the camera now so you could still use it 10 years later.

Jim: you don't have to sell me on letterboxed video, but I know a lot of people who hate it. Look at the networks. TCM is the only cable channel I get that is serious about always using the original aspect ratios when showing movies. AMC, TBS, TNT, SPIKE, A&E and just about everyone else use 4:3 pan and scan. Ugh. The other network that is pretty good about this for movies is Sci-Fi.

TCM has a very nice short feature on the importance of using the original aspect ratio. They have comments from a number of directors and lots of clips illustrating how much you miss with pan and scan. And my favorite example is a picture of DaVinci's "last supper" painting which they then show cropped to 4:3 and ask "do you want to see all 12 disciples, or only 6?"

Yes, I am seeing more letterboxed TV shows, but I think they wimp out more often than not and use 14:9 as a compromise to reduce the size of the black bars.

<<Yes, I am seeing more letterboxed TV shows, but I think they wimp out more often than not and use 14:9 as a compromise to reduce the size of the black bars.>>

It's funny Boyd, I've been noting that phenomenon on commercials in letterbox. The 14:9 bars don't make any sense from an aspect ratio standpoint, but it's noticeable how different the heights are from one letterboxed spot to the next.

This is all too similar to my perspective as a musician and producer. A long time ago I lost the ability to just listen to music the way I did as a kid. Today I hear it as a writer, producer, engineer and listen for those things separate from the whole. Same thing with films and TV. Good and bad I suppose.

14:9 is a compromise that apparently has been widely adoped in the UK, seeing as it's halfway between 4:3 (which is 12:9) and 16:9.

Interestingly, 14:9 is a lot closer to the "golden ratio", the architectural and mathematical ratio that people associate with beauty. The golden ratio is 1.61something, and 14:9 is 1.56:1...

ah you know of the Golden Rectangle. It was one of the most interesting things I studied in art school.

I've noticed the commericials also. Was thinking to myself, they want to be able to re-use them in a few years when 16x9 is the majority of household tv sets.

I can tell you that here in Dallas, all four major networks ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX are running their prime time programming in HD. They don't all look exactly the same though. My preference leans toward CBS. Their prime time shows look absolutely stunning. I am able to pick all of them OTA using amplified rabbit ears.

I like the earlier comment by Boyd about the internet. It hasn't exactly been a linear ramp up. More like an explosion that started in the late 90's. I think it will be the same with HD. It will all seem to happen overnight, and then we will wonder how we ever did without it. This same type of adoptive timeline has happened with different technologies many times over in the last 25 yrs. or so.

regards,

-gb-

<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Green : 14:9 is a compromise that apparently has been widely adoped in the UK, seeing as it's halfway between 4:3 (which is 12:9) and 16:9.

Interestingly, 14:9 is a lot closer to the "golden ratio", the architectural and mathematical ratio that people associate with beauty. The golden ratio is 1.61something, and 14:9 is 1.56:1... -->>>

Even more interesting is the 16x9 aspect ratio (1.78:1) was a compromise between two widescreen, non-anamorphic standards: the European (1.66:1) and the US (1.85:1) "widescreen flat" standards. 1.78:1 was chosen for HDTV because a US flat flm could be shown in HD only with a small letterbox showing and a European flat film could be shown with only a small amount of overscan. Widescreen flat is different than anamorphic (2.35:1) in that the widescreen image is hard-matted in the camera or print for the correct aspect ratio, rather than using the entire film frame through aspherical lenses.

Many directors expose the entire 35mm frame, with a safe area visible in the viewfinder for 1:85. This allows easier transfer to television and permits the widescreen image to be obtained by matting at the final print stage. In the HD Cinema world this is the common practice. George Lucas frames and mattes his CineAlta cameras in the Star Wars films for his preferred 2.35:1 aspect ratio rather than use anamorphic lenses. Shooting a matted, flat image removes a lot of the complexity in the post production and visual effects stages.

Curiously, 1.85 films are generally just transferred to HD or VDV at picture height (no letterboxing) losing about 2% of the image on each side .

I guess I'm not convinced that HDTV is gonna make it. While many people live in major urban areas, many also live in rural areas. It's hard enough to get a good signal in urban areas, special attention to antennas is necessary. For those of us in rural areas, there's no way, no how.

Nevertheless, the significant leap will be for progressive scan HD DVD set top players. This will push the market for HDTV sets. Looking around the internet, there are absolutely NO, repeat NO set top boxes out that will play HD or WMP. I was at NAB and M$ was pushing WMP-HD real hard....and yet, no one is making a WMP-HD set top box??? What's up with that? I guess one maker V-Inc., is supposed to have a WMP-HD player on the drawing board. Likewise, the number of DivX players are also very rare. If I had to guess, I'd say M$ wants a rediculous amount of money to license their WMP codec. If that's the case, they'll shoot HD (and themselves) in the foot. Didn't they learn ANYTHING from Steve Jobs?

Also, HD content is so data intensive, full length movies in HD will have to be on two sided blu-ray discs, or have the hell compressed out of it.

The bottom line to all this, and strictly IMHO, the data rate needed for full rez HD is just way to high. Too high for broadcast bandwidth, to hi for burning to conventional disk.

Perhaps if/when the economy turns around in this country, people will be willing to fork over their $$$$ for a new $4000 TV set. Now, AFAIK, there's NOTHING on TV,HD or otherwise, worth that kind of investment.

I'm sure I would've thought the Wright Bros. were crazy, too...hehehehe.

Bill,

I understand a lot of what you say. I used to live in a pretty rural area and could only get a 4 party phone line. By the time I moved out, I had a private line. The sparcely populated areas will always be out of the loop. It still hard to get a cell phone signal in most of Nebraska.

I remember people saying that 'we can never go faster than 1200 baud' on standard phone lines. Yet, here I sit typing this message on a 1.5mbs standard copper wire phone line.

Your mention of $4000 tv sets was a bit off. I bought my 65" WS built in HD tuner rear projection 2 years ago (9-11-02) at 10% discount of $3450. Prices have come down since then. The plasma screens are the high dollar sets. Note, when I bought that set, you couldn't find anything like that at Wal-Mart. Go into Wal-Mart today, and you'll find a plethora of smaller 16x9 HD sets. When technology gets into Wal-Mart, that's a good sign that it is hitting the mainstream.

Bill, I think your statement about HD-DVD's driving the HD set market could be very much on the mark. I truly hadn't thought of that angle.

My point in this long post is that we always seem to find a way around the technical hurdles. And as always, the early adopters will pay the price. Just like the XL-2 selling at full retail.

HDTV IS HERE in most of the major metro areas and will continue to spread. It's not a matter of if, but how soon.

That said, I'm NOT so sure that HDV will make it. Unless it has room for technological improvements in the spec (ie newer codecs).

Just my observations.

respectfully,

-gb-

Just a word of clarification...
I don't think HD or HDV format is to be ignored. Clearly, this is the wave of the future, the path to much higher rez and picture quality. However, IMHO, I just think it's way too early to jump off the DV boat. A lot of development, both in technology and distribution capability has to happen before HDV format is a viable alternative. For the time being, DV is the only workable solution.

One thing to think about is that many "professionals" put down and still put down DV as a professional format. Just like DV has allowed event, corporate, and educational professionals to offer higher quality at non-Beta SP prices, I think that HDV will do the same. Since there is no good way to deliver the HDV content and consumers don't have HD DVDs in their living rooms, I'm not sure that I would invest in it right now. It is definitely worth looking at. I've seen some really nice footage from the JVC camera.

<<<<2 - This does however lead me to a second point. I have always thought that if MiniDV is a digital tape, then it doesn't necessarily have to store info encoded in DV, why not be able to back up you hard drive on it (good idea hey? - 15GB per tape - each tape £2.00!)>>>>

for the mac my friend, there is a way...

check out dvbackup....

www.macupdate.com

Brian G.

I really think alot of this DV vs. HDV comparison is apples vs. oranges. They are in fact two different formats. What I would really like to see is how the Sony FX1 compares to the Xl-2 and DVX-100A in SD. Or, how the FX1 HDV image looks downconverted. Does the Zeiss glass required by the higher resolution put the Canon and Lecia lenses to shame?

If Canon would adapt some of their high quality glass to the XL mount, this would probably be a moot point. But if the FX1 performs as well or better than the XL and DVX in SD, you're really just getting HDV as a bonus.

hmmmm..

yes, they are different formats, but, in the end, what is it we, as videographers, want? I want the nicest images(re: highest resolution, color balance, etc.) I can get, regardless of the format. I think the customer expects this. I don't much care how I get to that product, DV, MPEG, or whatever. Provided the customer can use the format he's getting, on the hardware he's got. Also, you may be asking the wrong question. perhaps it should be, If the Xl2 performs as well as the FX1 in SD, why not provide better glass?
Well, obviously, because the DV format won't support the image quality.

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that this XL2 may be a dead horse without entering the starting gate. This Fx1 is looking too good to ignore.

A couple of points here. First, about not using a camera for 10 years. I bought a BVW300 Betacam SP camcorder at the end of 1988 and used it until the end of 2000. The only reason I retired it for the DSR500 is that the mechanical components were getting so old that it was ready for way too much in maintenance costs, and I could see that Betacam's days were numbered.
The DSR500 we bought at that time is close to 4 years old, and I'd guess we'll still be using it for another 3 years or more. I think it's ridiculous to change your video format as quickly as people do computer upgrades, and most people who have to make a living in the business couldn't survive for long if they had to upgrade every two or three years. Eventually, of course, DVCAM will start looking substandard, and at that time I'll be ready to move to whatever the new established format may be. However, I'll never be the first to jump into a new one. I've been around too long to have not learned from past history. Type B 1" was the newest, coolest thing out at one time, but guess what--the world went with the inferior type C, and type B died almost overnight, along with the production house that went with B. Then there was another group that bought into JVC's MII format--the Betacam killer--and they died along with the format almost overnight. I think it's prudent to join a movement only after it's been established. I first saw the DSR500 in early 1999 but didn't buy until late 2000. In fact, the one we got was the /L1 model, already an upgrade. So it was really second generation. By that time I knew the camera was reliable and that the format was acceptable in the industry.

When I got into DVCAM, at first I thought HD would be upon us by now, but it's not. I considered DV an interim format, meaning I'd be happy if it lasted about 5 years. Now I consider it its own established format and hope that it'll keep me going until the whole HD thing shakes out. I'm pretty sure I won't get a good 11 or 12 years out of it as I did with Betacam. Those days are gone. But 7 or 8 years seem very reasonable, especially since the cost of the camera was about half that of the old BVW300.

DV/DVCAM/DVCPRO have pretty much successfully replaced Betacam SP in my part of the world. The higher end houses that went to a better format rather than making a lateral move in order to ease into digital, went mostly with Digibeta. They are now still shooting Digibeta but also shooting HD, some with the Sony version and some with the Varicam. Those of us on a lower level are mostly doing DVCAM with 2/3" chip cameras. I really don't hear much about the DV50 formats around here, though they are cheaper and almost as good as Digibeta. With HD prices going down, I'd bet that Digibeta and DV50 will die a reasonably slow death in the next few years.

However, that doesn't mean people shooting those formats are in any danger at this time. It's going to take awhile, and the way many of us have to look at things is to ask this question: If I upgrade to a more expensive format, can I charge my clients more or can I get more business? Or, in a couple of years or so, the question will be: If I DON'T upgrade soon, will I lose business?

Secondly, I would argue with the comment about DV not capable of utilizing the better sharpness of good lenses. There is a serious difference in image quality with a camera like the DSR500 with a $15,000 lens and the same camera with a $3000 lens. And with the XL1, people who have used the better quality manual lenses report sharper pictures. It's too bad Canon sells the cheaper lenses for that camera, but I'm sure their marketing gurus tell them they have to stay within certain price points. Also, since they're the only 1/3" chip camera with interchangeable lenses, it's not really a big market for higher quality lenses, I guess.

I don't know if HDV is going to be a short term, interim format designed by the manufacturers to bolster their profit margins until they can come up with the Next Big New Thing to Take Our Money or if it will turn out to be the low-end HD for people who can't afford to play with the big kid toys. If I had a big project coming up that required a new camera purchase of the 1/3" chip type by the end of the year, I would not go with the new Sony HDV camera because it's too new. I'd go with an SD camera, probably either the XL2 or the DVX100a. But if the project started about the middle of next year after the second generation of the Sony is out (ie., the pro version allegedly scheduled for release in the first quarter of 2005), then I might seriously consider that...IF...they also had a reasonable priced tape deck available, and IF Avid supports the format without a hugh price upgrade.

However, even then, I'd have to ask, what do I get by shooting this new format? Is the quality going to be significantly better than shooting the same thing with a decent quality SD camera? Is the camera itself worth a damn or would I be paying for the new format and an inferior camera? Would I be better off with a bigger chip SD camera?

<<<-- Originally posted by Bill Ravens : hmmmm..

yes, they are different formats, but, in the end, what is it we, as videographers, want? I want the nicest images(re: highest resolution, color balance, etc.) I can get, regardless of the format. I think the customer expects this. I don't much care how I get to that product, DV, MPEG, or whatever. Provided the customer can use the format he's getting, on the hardware he's got. Also, you may be asking the wrong question. perhaps it should be, If the Xl2 performs as well as the FX1 in SD, why not provide better glass?
Well, obviously, because the DV format won't support the image quality.

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that this XL2 may be a dead horse without entering the starting gate. This Fx1 is looking too good to ignore. -->>>

I agree. I have zero clients clamoring for HD. That is not to say that a few wouldn't be impressed by anything with the words "high definition" in them. They simlpy want the best image quality at their respective price point. For those on the high end of the scale, I can and will continue to rent high end equipment. But for the rest, I want to ensure my investment results in the most bang for the buck. Even if I never output HDV with the FX1 and it ends up producing prettier pictures than the XL-2 or DVX, I will be very happy, not to mention $1300 ahead.

Dead horse, indeed.

I'm pretty deeply invested in Canon still image photography and equipment. I'd LOVE to see a Canon HDV cam that uses Canon L-glass, 35mm lenses. Does a lens get any better than this? I assume these lenses will cover any CCD block size up to 35mm. I guess there's an issue of magnification that would have to be dealt with. That could reduce the efficiency of these lenses, by putting a reducer element between the lens and CCD block.

> I'd LOVE to see a Canon HDV cam that uses Canon L-glass,
> 35mm lenses. Does a lens get any better than this? I assume
> these lenses will cover any CCD block size up to 35mm.

Many of us have dreamt with such a cam. Being things as they are, there actually are HD video cameras that use 35mm lenses. They are very very expensive, and I guess there is a reason for this. Sure, part of the reason is market segmentation, why sell us a really good camera expensive to make when they can sell us a not so good one and we will buy it anyway? Leave the large format sensors to the guys who really have the bucks. I am sure there is some of that. But also, big sensors and big glass really are expensive themselves. The most expensive parts of a camera, I think.

no, I'm suggesting that we use these lenses on small CCD blocks, 1/3 inch or whatever. The problem then becomes one of magnification factors to use the 35mm lenses. And the optical adapters or image plane spacing needed to get the magnification factor back close to 1:1.

<<<-- Originally posted by Bill Ravens : no, I'm suggesting that we use these lenses on small CCD blocks, 1/3 inch or whatever. The problem then becomes one of magnification factors to use the 35mm lenses. And the optical adapters or image plane spacing needed to get the magnification factor back close to 1:1. -->>>

That's certainly a big issue. You can already use 35mm still glass on the XL2 with the EF adapter, but your image magnifies 7.2 times. The focal length remains the same, but you'd have to get 7.2 times farther away from your subject to cover the same field of view, which is useless unless you're shooting wildlife.

The only practical way to use 35mm glass on such tiny CCDs right now is the Mini35 adapter which costs around $8000. Of course if Canon could come up with a converter of their own that resolves the magnification issue, simpler and therefore less expensive than the Mini35, that'd be great, but I'm not counting on such a miracle to happen.

> Of course if Canon could come up with a converter of their
> own that resolves the magnification issue, simpler and
> therefore less expensive than the Mini35, that'd be great,
> but I'm not counting on such a miracle to happen.

Or, they could include a simple lens and ground grass right in front of the CCD, so you just plug your EOS photo lens straight into the camara.

The problem is, if they did that, nobody would buy those expensive pro video lenses any more. And since that is the market where Canon makes most of it's money... well, I wouldn't count on that miracle happening either.

Still, this would be a great way for Canon to regain it's leadership in the DV world. If such a wonder could also do HDV encoding, well that could be a Sony FX1 killer, something Canon really needs right now.

Yeah it seems that most people, despite all the "missing" bits from the FX-1 are more interested in that than the Xl2...It's hard to say, as I don't have much faith in Canon's desire to be any sort of leader in the DV world, but I'd almost expect their next cam to come out a LOT sooner than the normal few years between releases. They can't be that stuid can they?....That or do drop out of this market altogether - and sell their designes/patents etc to Panasonic... Wow, wouldn't that stir things up a bit - Canons cool design and Panasonics vision all wrapped together.

Aaron

> Canons cool design and Panasonics vision

Not to mention Pana's DVCPRO50, DVCPROHD and solid state media...

Now you're just being a tease! :)

Aaron