Sony announces HDR-CX12 AVCHD Cam
 

Many were waiting for this and it looks like it will soon be here. This will be the memory card only version of the SR11/12, so it looks to have the same great picture quality we get from those cams since the guts are identical minus the HD. It will have the same front mounted dial that controls various manual options and will continue to have features such as zebra stripes, Bionz & Exmor processing and face detection carried over from the SR11/12. Without the HD it will have a smaller form factor. Oh yeah, it still retains the viewfinder but it looks like the LCD drops in size to 2.7" to accomodate the smaller form factor.

MSRP looks like about $900 and it should show up in late July.

Ken, do you know whether it will take SDHC cards or only the Sony Memory Stick? Thanks. :)

John, I'm not 100%, but I'd say it's a safe bet it will be only memory sticks. That's what Sony has always done.

Yes -- there's lots of screaming about this at another site.

Just how much more does Sony charge for 2-hours?

My concern that when traveling world-wide, one won't find Sony sticks. But, there's also the problem of finding SD cards that are fast enough for video.

Z1 owners a trying to find SD cards that record without failure. It's turning into a major task. One assumes Sony cards work.

I wonder of the is an Xpresscard34 reader that accepts the Sony sticks?

By they way, they really aren't sticks anymore -- they look like SD cards.

I don't believe there is the price disaparity that once existed between SD cards and memory sticks. I just ran over the Circuit City website and under "16 gig" there were two listings. One for a Panasonic SDHC card @ $319.99 and a Sony memory stick @ $299.99. I'm sure both can be had cheaper, but the old disparity just isn't there as it was.

I think 8GB Sony was $60 at Walmart. That's an hour. MiniHDV tape was about $15, so we need prices need to drop by 4X. Is that about 18-months far away?

The CX12 seems a great option if you, as I do, believe solid-state is the future. I have an HDD camcorder and I don't see a reason to by another.

The CX12 plus the new Pana should force Canon to get do a better CF.

NO VF, it's the same setup as the CX7, LCD only, and 2.7 at that. BUT I think it's still a pretty decent upgrade from the CX7 to get the new features... were my eyes not aging, the 2.7 would be just fine, but getting old SUX!

Just as an aside, when I tested the CX7 against the SR11, I discovered that the CX LCD underscans (I think that's the right term, or is it overscan...). I framed a couple shots VERY carefully using the LCD borders to set the field of view. To my surprise I found that the CX was recording a wider field than the LCD was showing - and it was nearly identical to the SR11 FOV as shown by the LCD, which was almost what I had set the video frame to.


Tape v. MS

It's not fair to equate tape, which if you're realistic you shouldn't really use more than once so you avoid digital bleedthrough and other problems, with an 8GB MS Duo which I'm guessing can be recorded hundreds if not thousands of times... IIRC they quote a service life in the thousands of record cycles...

GENUINE 8GB Sandisk MS Duos are going for around $60, and I saw MKII Sony MSDuo at Fry's for $70. They are down about 50% from a year ago. 16G are around $200 IIRC, if you hunt, that will drop once Sandisk and others release. 4G are pretty cheap, seen them retail around $35-40 on sale... I think the CX12 is including at least a 4G stick (something I read said Japan gets an 8G?)

I've never had a memory stick fail (we won't talk about the Chinese knockoffs, which are VERY abundant, and are worse than garbage - they DO NOT work in these cameras!!!), but I 've had my share of tape related episodes.

The initial cost seems high for memory (and yes Sony gets a premium for Memory Sticks, I've paid my share), but if you're using it very much and you start to consider cost per use over the life of the memory stick... it doesn't seem unreasonable at all, you might even become inclined to say it's cheap!

Now if you buy the cam for one event and have to kick out $70, sure it doesn't make sense... but I've got a stack of MiniDV tapes (don't we all?)... even at the price I paid for them, there's more than $70 there, and I won't use them again other than as an archive... and many are probably half or less recorded!

Solid state memory recording isn't the future, it's RIGHT NOW, once you take time to consider all the aspects.

I've said it before, these little cameras make it FUN to shoot. If you don't like the footage or whatever, you can stick in on a corner of a massive hard drive, or delete it and reshoot or forget about it - your cost for "stock" to record on is inconsequential.

Dave, according to the Sony site, they do specifically mention a viewfinder. Take a look at the specs...unless it's a misprint, it clearly states it has it, plus it gives its pixel count. One of the pictures however doesn't look like a viewfinder is present. At any rate this is what the Sony site says:

Display:
LCD Screen : 2.7" wide1 touch panel Clear Photo LCD Plus™ display (211k pixels)

Viewfinder : Color Wide 16:9 (123K Pixels)

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/...52921665466947

Pictures elsewhere look just like the CX7 - NO VF - I'm going with the site has some "1st day" errors. I think someone mentioned it had headphone jack too, and while I haven't found any pics of the reverse side of the cam, that's the ONLY place they could be hiding any more I/O. My vote is no mic/phones, but MAYBE they found somewhere to squeeze it in. I can see on my CX7 where the control knob goes... but I'm not seeing anyplace else to add controls or I/O.

I also see that they left the "LANC" spec blank, but they are saying this will work with the SPK-HCD, meaning there's a LANC interface hidden in the A/V port AGAIN.

FWIW, my experience with "Sony US" product knowledge has been less than stellar. Calls to customer support with very specific questions are as likely to get wrong answers as not. Doesn't surprise me that the site has errors one teeny bit, they'll fix them eventually! You'll more likely get better and more accurate info here though <wink>!

Sorry, my goal is to REPLACE tape with SS. When SS reaches tape price, I'll shoot once, label them, and stick them in a tiny box.

After using an HDD camcorders for a year, I'll not sign-up again for non self-archiving media. Sony, IMHO, blue-laser is the smart way to go. Shoot, edit, store.

P2 works for news because stations have one or more INGEST machines that you hand your P2 cards to and let them move the contents to some big disk system somewhere. That's a job I'm not interested in.

In suspect that by the time you convert AVCHD to "something" and make a backup copy to DVD, you could have captured an HDV tape.

Once we get quad core laptops (EDIUS claims QC are needed for smooth playback) and SD cards drop in price -- we can get to the real promise of Solid State recording with non of today's worries.

PS: You may not have had an SD card fail. That's not the issue with the Z7. Many cards that have the right peformance ratings, fail to record without glitches at the rates REQUIRED by the Z7.

PS: No VF.

yep, looks like it has a tiny viewfinder... but no LANC, MIC Input, ILINK or Firewire (not that you need it), and a mini HDMI connector. I think I will stick with my HC7.

NO VF, sometimes specs are misprints... not the first time, won't be the last - look at the pix. Same shell as the CX7 or VERY close to it. No place for a VF.

probably no mic or HPhone, transfer is through USB, and is fast and efficient. Mini HDMI carries over as likely does a LANC interface on the A/V jack. I've built adapters for that... just trying to reverse engineer a couple other aspects of the Sony port system.


Steve -

In time SS storage will no doubt come down to close to tape - it wasn't too long ago that memory was measured in MB, and cost almost as much as todays GB sticks...

As far as archival storage, downloading the files onto a hard disk is quick and painless (have to do that to edit ANYWAY), and while I might hope that what I shoot is so important that it should be saved for posterity, once I do a mixdown, I can burn the source files to DVD's if I really want to keep them around... very cheap storage. For the most part, burning the final mix to DVD is plenty good, and while render time from AVCHD source takes a while, it provides a break or I can work while rendering in the background. If you really need archives, buy a new 160Gb or whatever the best $/Gb drive available at the time is, when it's full, rebox and put in a safe place... you would need to keep some records of what was where, but 160GB is around 40 FULL tapes by my reconning (if you don't transcode). Off the top of my head the math suggests it would be economical.

I think a lot of your problems have to do with not having Mac workflow dialed in. Others seem to have worked it out, and AVCHD has been a lot easier (on a dual core PC and I DON'T transcode) than my first crack at HDV... Don't tar the format with such a broad brush.


AS for Memory card failures... I've had sufficient experience with Chinese knockoff 8GB MSDuos (around 99% of the ones sold on eBay are knockoffs), and show varying degrees of functionality or more accurately LACK thereof.

I can't say for certain, but I'd suspect there's a lot of knockoff memory cards out there, and knockoffs are prone to numerous problems. Either get to know your memory, or know your source. There's a lot of imported crap out there, I've run across it in other memory card formats too, with other "name brand" labels, and it causes various malfunctions and file write/read problems. You can't blame your racecar for stalling out if you put cheap low octane gas in it... and it's too easy to blame the 2K camera for the malfunction of the $40 memory card you stuck in it because it was "such a deal".

Speculation, but based on plenty of practical real world experience with knockoff memory cards... and yes, I blamed the camera at first too, so I'm not pointing fingers, just offering a highly probable explanation.

Of course as I've said many times, it does make me wonder why you bothered with the SR11. If you weren't even considering this type of cam, why did you pick it up at Costco? This is what drives retailers to charge restocking fees.

I think you're right Dave. They did the same thing on one of their brand new 'all in one' computer systems that I've been considering for a general purpose home computer. The opening page shows a T9300, 2.4gig processor, but when you go in to the specs, you see it actually has a T8300, 2.3gig processor. Not a big difference in processors, but it does make you wonder if anyone actually proofs anything on their site.

We had the same issue with Canon several months ago in their camcorder advertising. You'd certainly think these guys would be more careful than they are.

I was ONLY looking at the Canon until you gave it such negative "review!" After your glowing Sony "review" I figured HDD might be worth it if the Sony was SO much better. (And, we are 18-months away from SD prices falling to the right price point.)

And, at that point, I had no idea Sony decided not to allow the option to turn-on the VF at the same time the LCD was on. In the past Sony has allowed this option. Which means when using menus, both Canon and Sony can't use a VF. Which makes them both equally bad menu-wise in bright light.

So far I've found:

1) The Sony, like most all recent camcorders, can be trusted to shoot in AUTO *most* but not *all* of the time. IF one cares about maximum quality, one will have to manually over-ride it's computer even in good light.

2) As one shoots in more difficult situations, I have no reason to expect the Sony won't require even more manual correction. I expect the same to be true of the Canon -- and any camcorder.

3) Thus, the question becomes HOW EZ IS IT TO MAKE MANUAL CORRECTIONS? And, does the camcorder allow one to make all the necessary corrections ONE wants to make.

The Sony does use the exposure system as I described earlier. On bright shots the shutter goes to 1/250th which makes fast moving objects strobe. IF one cares about this, one has NO shutter control on the Sony -- you do on comparable cameras.

4) The real key to using the Sony with it's touchscreen multi-level menu system is to understand which are the BEST menus to use to make corrections. Given the combination of assignable Control Dial and touchscreen -- there are both efficient and inefficient WAYS to use the Sony.

5) Once this is well understood, given the quality possible from the EXMOR chip, the SR series MAY be able to deliver the quality of the camcorder we wish someone would make at the $2000 price-point. In other words, a camera that can be used for more than shooting "kids."

6) However, once one thinks of HOW to make a $1,000 camcorder perform like a $2,000 camcorder -- what YOU claim is Sony's better image quality may not be enough. For many, the fact that the Sony doesn't shoot 24p will rule it out. Period. End of story. They may be willing to accept, for example, less low-light performance and chose the Canon.

Or, they may say I'll wait a couple of months for the Pana that offers a ring-based control system. (In fact, even if one doesn't care about 24p, some might prefer to wait for the Pana just to avoid the touchscreen (Sony) and to get a VF (Canon).

Bottom-line -- the bottom-line has not been reached. FOR ME -- the issue is very simple. Which is WORKS better in real shooting situations: the Sony with a touchscreen control system or the Canon with a joystick but no VF. (I'm not willing to give-up manual control because so far I know even the Sony can't give its best quality in AUTO.)

Which camera "works" better can only be judged by using the camera for many weeks, which is why Costco gives one 3 months to try a camcorder. (And, why I don't buy from BB.)

PS: If Pana's pro division releases a re-calibrated version of the new consumer camcorder -- it will likely fall into the $2,000 price range and be a very good option.

You're making a huge set of assumptions. I have video from a decade ago that I haven't edited -- some from the 80's that are are now on miniDV. So no -- one doesn't aways HAVE TO EDIT what one has shot. I keep an HDV/DV VTR for this. Keeping original media is the simplest way -- tuck it in a box. No need to BUY anything. No need to DO anything.

All Mac software transcodes -- there is no "dialing-in" in to do.

Pinnacle claims native editing requires a 2.66GHz Quad-core computer. Which itself is a bit of a lie, because Canopus notes that to simply play AVCHD at 1920x1080 at perfect 30fps requires a 2.66GHz Quad-core computer.

Moreover, Canopus outright states native AVCHD editing is "not possible today." That's because they, Apple, and I, define "editing" as a realtime, multi-stream procedure equal to what we can do with MPEG-2. So, I'm not, as you say, "taring the format with such a broad brush." I'm simply REPORTING what the folks who make the software state.

If you really really want to debate your ideas of what's happening with the Z7, there is a forum you can do that on. I only REPORTED what was said there. But, here's a hint -- it has to do with BURST data rate not SUSTAINED data rate. Only the latter is rated. The Z1 requires knowledge of the former. Other cameras do not.

The Sony's picture can be made to look exceptionally good with very little manual intervention. Most cams have a tendency to overexpose and simply reducing exposure in some situations is the best way to maximize quality. However with the Canon I found no way (aside from "Cinema" whose overall picture I did not like) to adequately control exposure. The dynamic range of the chips/processing is simply not as good as the Sony. The strobing effect (in any cam) is usually not visible with high shutter speeds unless you have rapid motion. However, ironically, it's that same rapid motion that causes undesirable effects when shooting in 24p or 30p...at least IMO. In that case there's no way to get rid of it.

However I do agree that if someone needs 24p/30p, their only choice is the Canon. If not there are very viable, and IMO, better options.

Steve, which Pana might this be? Are there rumors of such a cam?

Dave, it's not a rumor, but it has 1/6" CMOS chips so I'm not expecting the greatest picture quality.

Ken, thanks for the info. A little OT for this particular thread (but maybe not since it's comparative information), I Googled around and had no trouble finding it. On the sensor issue, it appears that with this new cam, Pana has switched to CMOS, so even though the sensors are the same size as in the SD9, the jury might still be out on whether the low light performance is the same as the SD9. In general, CMOS sensors seem better in this regard. There also appear to other changes to the image processing and lens that may improve other aspects of image quality. For someone who does a lot of outdoor shooting and would prefer the combination of light weight, a VF, and no HDD (not to mention the generally good Pana manual controls), the SD100 might be worth waiting to see. Depending on how the image quality turns out, this could the middle ground camera some of us would like to see.

Clearly, the AVCHD camera market is beginning to change really quickly.

I have the same hopes for the new Pana.

But, I keep asking, how can three 1/2 MP CMOS chips that are only 1/6-inch be expected to up go up against a 1/3-inch, 3MP, EXMOR CMOS? Frankly, the chips would be fine for an SD camcorder. (Remember, 447K was a popular pixel count for DV.)

I suspect Pana's strategy is to build HD camcorders from SD components thus creating very low R&D costs, part costs -- and thus generate very high margins. Then assume there are enough buyers who like Pana and/or who don't read reviews.

Makes me think of GE toasters and GM cars. Focus on PROFIT at all costs. Which really has worked for Pana. They are a very profitable company while JVC and Sony have really struggled to get profits out of their sales. (I'm not knocking this -- profit is necessary.)

Interestingly in Japan Panasonic is considered an "appliance" company just like GE was. JVC gets respect for their R&D while Sony for its R&D + marketing. Sony has always been seen like Apple is here.

Hopefully, it will motivate Canon to add a VF to the HF series by CES.

Has any camcorder beyond a $500 Panasonic SD camcorder ever used 1/6-inch? Even the HD7 uses 1/5-inch chips.

The 3-chip HD cameras (Panasonic and others) are actually full HD resolution. These cameras use pixel shifting, which is an interpolation method similar in results to the bayer pattern interpolation used in single-chip sensors. In pixel shifting, the green sensor is ofset by 1/2 of a pixel in both the X and Y dimensionsl, and an interpolation is applied. In a single-chip sensor, 1/4 of the pixels are red, 1/4 are blue, and the remaining 1/2 are green. The pixels are arranged in a grid pattern and interpolation is applied.

In both cases you get a "full" HD image, but the interpolation, and associated anti-aliasing filtering is the reason why the spatial resolution of both types of sensor is less than what you would think from the raw pixel count. This is one reason why, for examples, most consumer HD cameras only have somewhere in the range of 600 (plus or minus) lines per picture height of resolution when there are 1080 raw vertical pixels.

Even most pro and prosumer 3-chip cameras use pixel shifting these days, it's not actually a way of building an HD camera from SD components. Here is a good paper describing pixel shifting and how it results in similar spatial resolution to a bayer-interpolated single chip sensor (thanks to Chris Hurd for the link):

ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/Panasoni...200.CCD-WP.pdf

Not going to get in a flame war about this, but what you say is not true. In fact, it is totally false.

1) There is no definition of "HD" that allows the term be used with anything less than 1MP (1280x720) per chip in a three chip system. So, no, the Panasonic cameras do not "actually [have] full HD resolution [chips]."

2) A typical single chip Bayer camera with 3MP photosites has 1M R, 1M B, and 1M G. The Sony EXMOR, however, has about 1M R, 1M B, and 3M G. From these samples, YUV signals are computed: a transformation from RGB to YUV. There is no pixel shifting to increase luma information because, in the case of the Sony, the chip already has more than 1920x1080 luma (G) information. In the case of the Canon, the chip already has the minimum 1MP of RGB.

3) Starting with 520K R, 520K B, 520K G -- the Pana system is completely different. The number of RGB samples are only 1/4 of the 1920x1080 (2M) green (luma) samples. The luma RGB samples are slightly more than SD resolution.

The myth is that through "pixel shifting" these 520K G become equal to the Sony's 3M G samples or the Canon's 1M G. And, that the 520K R and B become equal to 1M R and 1M G.

You can't seriously believe this is possible! To believe this is to believe in magic. Using the words "pixel shifting" and "interpolation" doesn't explain HOW this is could happen. It's merely invoking technical words from marketing materials.

What actually happens with the Pana is the RGB-based LUMA information is increased by about 115% on each axis. (NOT 150%) Then, this information is spread over 1920x1080 pixels. Folks with a HVX200 already know the camera records soft 1280x1080. Now, do you really believe the same system will record 1920x1080 of REAL information?

4) Also, a myth is that this is HOW pixel shifting is used by professional cameras. Pixel shift in pro SD cameras is used to slightly (15%) increase H. rez. from CCDs that ALREADY have full SD resolution. Pixel-shifting is a way of "over-sampling" without actually using more pixels. It was NOT used to try to obtain SD resolution from "under-sampling" non-SD CCDs.

PS: Note the Pana paper has as a premise that small hi-rez CCDs can't be built that are sensitive. That was a nice argument years ago, but it doesn't apply today. Sony and Canon employ 1/3- or 1/2-inch CMOS chips that VERY easily provide 2MP to 5MP on a chip. And, EXMOR solves the sensitivity issue. The reference to the Panasonic paper has no validity on this thread.

I have to agree with Steve on this one. I saw the direct evidence of the hit you take on picture quality with the reduction of chip size in the TG1. Here's a cam that has the same Exmor & Bionz processing as its bigger brothers, the SR11/12. The TG1 couldn't hold a candle to either one in any kind of light. When it came to low light..well, let's just say it wasn't too pretty. To add to this, the Panny uses low rez, pixel shift technology, which I've yet to see produce results similar to what a genuine "HD pixel count" sensor would.

Hopefully Panny has come up with a way around this, but I doubt it. But at least they were smart and added the VF and more manual controls. But as I've said before, all the manual controls in the world won't help if the camera's guts aren't capable of matching the best of the breed.

Ken and really I do agree on this. Unless a $1,000 camcorder is able to record video good enough to pass as that from a more expensive camcorder -- one will never be able to feel one can do paying jobs with it.

IMHO, Sony's SR clearly has quality as high as the V1. There really is no longer the need for three chips in the lower price category. I'd love a 1/2-inch 6MP CMOS single chip camera!

EXMOR not only provides a Bayer filter with enough samples to support Full HD recording, screen grabs on another site show how much lower video noise is at low light levels.

Sony shares EXMOR only with Nikon and it may be one of those FUNDAMENTAL technologies that will give it a very long-term lead. Of course, Canon is also a world leader in DSLRs so you can bet they aren't going to give Sony and Nikon their market without a fight. CES should be interesting.

Ken, Sony may be running close-out sales on the FX as they switch to the newer Intel in July. I'm still considering one given that it is IMPOSSIBLE to play a BD on a Mac!

Steve, do you mean the "FZ" notebooks? They just released the new lines of both notebooks and desktops. Not a ton of change, depending on the lines you're looking at. However there are some nice price cuts in some models.

I've decided on an 'all in one' Sony for the 'general purpose' computer, since both my wife and I fell in love with the simple (yes, Mac-Like) design. The Vaio laptop I bought for my son, with the T8300 processor, seems to play AVCHD as well as anything I've tried. Most of the times it will play it full-screen with few, if any dropped frames. But then at times you'll play the same clip and it will drop some frames.

I think the bottom line is, as you suggested correctly in another post, unless you've got a quad core, you won't get consistent playback of 1920X1080...forget about editing. But the T8300 is 'good enough' for my purposes. Remember I don't plan on doing much editing with AVCHD, so this isn't a deal break. At some point in the future, once the hardware and software catches up (Canopus, are you listening?), then I'll get the more souped up computer for that purpose. But the all in one Sony will serve as a general purpose, family computer. For that it's really ideal.

Steve, I'll be the first to admit here that I'm not an expert on the subject, and I'm often wrong on things, so I will pose a few more questions/comments (I think one of the nice things about this particular forum is that we can have a technical discussion without a flame war):

1. The Pana paper surely has been infused with some marketing hype in it, and it states a 1.5x increase in luminance resolution. This is almost surely an over-estimate. The 15% number, however, is likely an under-estimate. Based on simple calculations from the geometry, I would actually expect something more like 1.414x (square root of 2), which would still be quite a bit more than 15%. Is there a definitive paper somewhere that mathematically justifies the 15% number? If the 15% number comes primarily from competitors or other biased detractors, then it probably has as much marketing hype in it as Panasonic's 1.5x number, and the reality is likely to be somewhere in between (perhaps the 1.414x dictated by the geometry).

2. Even if the actual number is 1.414x, it would be true that there would still be less sensor resolution than a Bayer sensor with 3MP raw pixel count. However, the end results are what really matters, and they seem to show that the system provides enough sensor resolution to closely match most single-chip systems with 3MP raw pixels in overall resolution (at least for consumer level cameras). The final spatial resolution of the entire system is determined by more than just the sensor pixel density -- AAF, lens MTF and distortion, and analog processing prior to the ADC all contribute to the end result. The reviews I've seen where resolution was measured from a test chart show that the Canon single chip cameras do in fact beat out the Panasonic 3-chip cameras, but only by about 5-10% in spatial resolution. Yes, this is a measurable difference and might even be detectable to the eye under ideal circumstances, but it is small enough that other camera and PQ characteristics probably matter more. To paraphrase what someone here said earlier, if the controls aren't there to achieve what you want to achieve artistically, then 5 or 10% more lines of resolution aren't going to save you.

Remember when Pana would state the resolution of the CCDs used in the HVX200. I have a math model that converts Pixel Count to TVL. It covers a dozen camcorders from SD to CineAlta. Once the measures of rez. were made I ran it backwards and got 960x540. At that point, Pana finally gave us the number. The model uses 115%. And, works for all pixel shift camcorders.

But here's an important point. I do not use STATIC REZ measures. My model assumes the camera is under a slight amount of movement. So, I use numbers like those Adam Wilt gets. He and I both agree static tests over-estimate rez. Video almost always involves motion.

By doing this discounts the potential contribution of pixel-shift. So my 115% is a parameter based upon "real world" conditions. If you see the world the way Adam and I do -- then this is fair. It rewards cameras that use more pixels.

One could also conclude that it's unfair. For example, the vast majority of rez. measures are static. Who are Adam and Steve to decide to test cameras another way?!? However, I do read that now that folks can SEE the difference between 1080 from the EX1 and the HVX200 1080 -- that folks are really SEEING how much more detail the EX1 captures. My feeling is the HVX200 is far better at obtaining a DVCPROHD 720p video.

If one uses static tests, the number is much close to your estimate. Which is why the Pana can measure much closer to the Bayer camcorder numbers.

Except the SR is not a typical Bayer camera. The ratio of green to red and blue pixels is 6:1:1 in the Sony. In the Bayer pattern, it’s 2:1:1. The 3X greater green information obviously increases luma resolution. A 3-chip FullHD camera would have 2MP of RGB.

The SR has 3,810,000 pixels. Divide by 8. That's 476,250 Red and 476,250 Blue. And, 2,857,500 Green. I'm not sure how HOW that gets to YUV, but 3MP of G has to provide a whole lot more luma than 1/2MP of G.

And, that was my real-point. Is it reasonable to think that ANY process can fill 1920x1080 recording with REAL luma detail from three 1/2MP chips?

PS: It is a perfectly reasonable business model to save tons of money by not doing R&D to create exotic tek if your market doesn't care about NEW tek. News is driven far more by workflow than CCD specs. And, the BBC and other such networks have specs that demand 2/3-inch chips, but say nothing about pixel count. In fact, some feel lower pixel counts look more like film. And, both markets don't like long GOP MPEG-2. DVCPRO HD and AVC-Intra are perfect for both.

The danger is that with the number of review sites and the web, customers may look past your marketing claims and compare based on how well camera test. (This is what happened with the JVC HD7.) So far, Panasonic hasn't tested well -- which is why my hopes are tempered.

Steve, this may explain why my SR11 looks sharper than my FX1 at times. I was trying to identify with some shots the other day and could not decide whether it was the lower noise in the SR11, the colour depth or whatever but the SR11 picture really pops out on my Panasonic plasma when the FX1 is just a really nice picture. Can't really describe the effect but it could just be a little more resolution, shot was in 1920x1080? IF only the SR series had a few more manual controls, especially shockless exposure change etc.

Ron Evans

Regarding tape vs tapeless costs, for the latter one should include the time and materials necessary to make at least two archive copies of your source footage. For an hour (8GB) of AVCHD that's going to be ~$2.50 for two dual-layer DVDs or ~$3 for corresponding hard drive space, plus the value of the time required to make the backups. That's not a cost advantage compared to recording HDV on $3-5 miniDV tapes with no archive time required.

Regarding editing, AVCHD is inherently difficult to work on directly and hence best converted to an I-frame intermediate. Current reports suggest this takes longer than capturing HDV to such an intermediate in real time, so no advantage there.

In the price range of good AVCHD cameras I'd suggest considering the Canon HV30 or Sony HC9 as more practical alternatives.

Steve, I think you are right that testing of camcorders should be based around motion, since recording motion is the main reason for using a video camera. Actually, since video scenes also often have a lot of static content, both types of measurements are probably relevant.

One problem I have is that 95% of my background is in photography, so I tend to think static - that will probably need to change for video.

I'm sure most reviewers use static measurements because they are so much easier to make.

One compensating thing about motion is that our eyes/minds perceive (or perhaps process) less resolution in moving objects. This is why interlaced video worked so well for 3/4 of a century - it was a good technical compromise that saved bandwidth by leveraging the fact that humans perceive more resolution in static objects than in moving ones, and interlaced video provides just that.

In a way, the pixel shift idea may be similar - possibly providing a bigger resolution boost for static objects than for moving ones, and allowing lower cost sensors to be used. Clearly, it won't be as good as having three 1080x1920 sensors.

An interesting observation is that it appears that raw pixel density may not be the limiting factor in overall resolution in most consumer cams, which leads to the question of how much pixel density is enough given the other limitations in the system. For sake of argument, say that pixel shifting increases static resolution by 30%. That should be more than enough to generate 600 lines per picture height of (static) resolution starting from a 540 pixel high sensor. That is about what the Pana SD9 measures out to. The interesting thing is that the camcorders with higher resolution 3MP Bayer sensors (like the HF100) only test out to slightly more than that - around 650 or so.

This seems to indicate that the higher pixel density has increased the overall system MTF only slightly. Other factors must become dominant at that point.

This would also explain why cameras that output 1920x1080 video don't show an appreciable increase in measured horizontal static resolution than cameras which output 1440x1080.

Like you, I have guarded hopes for the new Panas. For me, the SD9 image was not terrible from a resolution/detail point of view. My main gripe was too aggressive EE. The CMOS sensors may provide better low light performance, and hopefully they've reduced the amount of EE they apply in the processing, which seemed more than most other cameras. What would be nice about the new cameras is the higher level of creative control.

There are other advantages for the consumer with AVCHD HDD cams. Not possible to record over something important, instant playback with clip selection and very long record times. All things not possible with the average tape based cam. Easy in camera editing and playlist etc again not possible with a tape unit. No problems with head clogging or frame drops............ Backup is not as onerous as you say either. With the Sony units the Sony Browser software copies to the PC, analyzes video and records in a format that allows recall by folder or date and time. Again not possible with tape. Software remembers what has been backups and only backs up new stuff too. This is also possible with Sony's stand alone disc recorder too. As to costs I just bought two 750G drives for $130 each. That works out at about $1.38 to backup an hour of AVCHD, $2.76 if I keep a copy on two drives still less than tape!! I have just started to burn Bluray. Got an LG burner for $268 and discs from Tapesonline are $12.50 but will store about 3 hours of AVCHD close to tape costs.
As to editing. I use Edius and now with my quad core I can upload to PC and convert to Canopus HQ intermediate codec an hour of AVCHD for a combined time of about 1 hour and 15 mins.
I know how you feel about tape as I still use my FX1 etc but I am really beginning to like my SR11 no that editing is easier with HQ. You do need a quad core though!!!!!!

Ron Evans

I felt the same way about the V1. Very NICE, but at times it looked too soft. I too could explain it. I felt that interpolation sometimes seemed to not work. Maybe if there isn't a certain amount of detail -- one can't interpolate more detail.

Yes -- the SR comes very close to wonderful. Did low light tests dimming lights and it just got darker. No real increase in noise as the picture went fully dark. I've never seen this before!

I think Ron Evans is on the right track re archiving tapeless video. Blu Ray disks, even at the current high price, is cost effective for AVCHD archiving, and pretty much bulletproof as storage medium. When BDs get down to $1.00 and under, it will really be a no-brainer.
Those of us shooting Sony EX1 are facing the same archiving issues- except that the data rate is 16 Gig /hour.
As far as the time involved in batch capturing/ converting to DI for edit/ archiving: I think of those activities as something that happens while I am at the movies, eating, sleeping, etc. That's not to say that I don't get a little nostalgic about tape. There is something real comfortable about just popping the cassette out and sticking it on the shelf.

Agreed that Ron makes some good points, and I hadn't thought about using Blu-ray for archiving footage. But there's still something to be said for being able to come home from a long shoot and put your master footage on a shelf with no archiving required, and the full benefit of tapeless recording will come when that's an affordable option. This should happen soon enough but we're not quite there yet, plus we need more AVCHD came with professional features.

I do like the idea of long record times with AVCHD and will consider that as a useful feature for a backup shot camera.

Remember when I posted that in an economy that wants low prices, it was necessary to keep costs very low so as to generate a profit. Sony has returned to profits, but still not enough, as this report on Sony makes clear.

Sony wants to lift return on equity (ROE) to 10 percent from an average of about 6 percent over the last three years, and reach the 5 percent operating profit margin that eluded it in a previous plan, coming in at 4.2 percent in the year ended in March.

“We believe a 5 percent operating margin represents a baseline to continue to lead and innovate,” said Mr. Stringer, the first non-Japanese top executive at Sony. “This is what’s considered to be the minimum, acceptable level going forward.”

Sony’s current return on equity is low compared with global rivals like the Samsung Electronics Company of South Korea, which boasts 14 percent, and Philips Electronics , which registers 23 percent, according to Reuters data.

The story goes on to say if Sony can't increase profits it could be a take-over candidate -- just like JVC was.

Retail price for a 16GB Sony Memory Stick Pro Duo looks to be around $200 now. I just picked one up from Amazon this week for $150. So these Circuit City prices may be pre-some kind of price drop.

I've downloaded the User's Guide and HandyCam Guide for the CX12 and there's no mention of a viewfinder. I've also held one for a few minutes to check the stability in my hand (as opposed to anyone else's...). I'm sure there's no viewfinder. The buttons and mode dial that used to be on the body on the right (tape, DVD, or HDD enclosure) had to move to where the viewfinder used to be on the other Sony models.

Due to producing HD footage off an HC7, I've switched away from DVD media totally. They have a finite shelf life unless you buy the best. I have two DVDs I burned about 7-8 years ago that were unrecoverable. The original media for those was 1994s video tape, and I gave the camcorder away years ago as well. The total of my DVDs took up a lot of space for one full copy of what I would keep, much less two copies. I eventually pulled everything back off the DVDs and converted it all to MPEG-2 files.

Since all of it is digital and since my playback device for HD is a PS3 feeding into a Sony Bravia TV, I ended up buying cheap 500 GB external hard drives. Those now hold my complete music, picture, and video collection and numerous family scanned documents. The key to me is the format of the data, not the media. The drives are so cheap I bought two - one for home use, and one kept at the office as a backup. As technology changes, I'll just recopy all the files to later media as that becomes appropriate, always staying at a low cost overall. I don't have to keep the original recording device, all the video fits in a device the size of a book, and I can create a complete new backup copy to a new device with one Windows command. It takes a while because I'm over 350 GB now, but it's easy.

Anyway, this approach works for me because I can play the files back directly from the media via the PS3 and I'm not trying to do fancy DVD authoring with menus, etc. I can navigate well-named folders easily so I don't miss the menus. That won't be everyone's cup of tea. But I'm not sure I think archiving the original media is going to be particularly useful in the future if you've gone all digital.

...And of course, it can all be played back through Windows Media Player on PCs that have the horsepower, which is any PC you could buy today. So the TV is the standard playback device, but the whole collection is portable in one housing and you can take it over to a friend's house or whatever. There are some usability advantages here that I didn't anticipate when I tried this - I just needed something that would play the video back to the TV, and the PS3 looked right. I imagine it would play back fine from an XBox 360 as well.