Well Tony, while I'm sure Sony isn't going to give you 24P in an affordable package, don't lose hope yet. I remember an interview from some time ago (probably early/mid 2005) on camcorderinfo with one of the Panasonic honchos and he specifically mentioned that they were looking to bring 24P to the consumer market. I wouldn't be surprised if Panasonic specifically insisted on integrating 24P into the AVCHD standard for that very purpose.

So just hold on a while longer, and maybe you'll get that affordable 24P cam yet.

And remember, if you're REALLY serious about that 24P look on a tiny budget, you can always go PAL. A PAL HC1 either deinterlaced or shot in CF25 mode and slowed to 24fps is a pretty nice budget tool...

www.philipwilliams.com

It's very tempting to believe that the HC3 will be pulled in favor of this. It looks like the HC3 body with a few HC1 options put back in. However, consumers want to shoot and watch HD material on their HDTV's and don't want to bother with editing. This makes for happy customers and protects Sony's entrance fee into the pro market.

I'm sure that Sony would rather sell an A1U in favor of a pro whom rather have and HC3 for the image only, placed into harms way, or as small form factor. They can get another $1000 that way. Those of us whom already have an HC3 or HC1 in our arsenal may be lucky if this turns out to be the case.

Of course, I could be blowing smoke, but it makes sense from a bottom-line point.

Tony, it's not marketing BS it's the fact that extra features cost money for R&D and Patent licensing and the fact that if these cameras did have 24p and other features how many CONSUMERS will appreciate and take advantage of this, to them it would seem too juddery and stick with 60Hz.
There are people like us, and then there are consumers. Guess who outnumbers who.

Dont you think that this will be the case for quite some time? Everyone has this dream/fantasy/nightmare of killing film but the ONLY way you will ever get CLOSE is uncompressed. Just as the photo market is quickly going RAW and less compressed, I see the professional and even pro-sumer market moving this way as storage solutions become cheaper and mroe reliable. Compression will be king for delivery but not for acquisition. I mean, think about audio, it is being delivered compressed over the air or SUPER compressed over the internet/mp3 but nobody is even TALKING about acquiring anything that way. Most people have moved to ProTools HD 24bit, etc.



ash =o)

It would not make sense at all to pay the 24P licensing fee for such a camera. AFAIK, the license is per camera made...



ash =o)

1. 24p will likely never be considered a consumer format framerate. Heck, professionals have difficulty shooting it, *scores* of tests show that most people hate high action ie; sports captured with it, so what on earth makes you think that consumers could cope with it?

2. The 24p license ain't cheap, and every penny in cost equates to at least 30 times that in end retail price.

3. You *can* get a progressive image from CMOS chips, I didn't suggest you can't. What I suggested is (and know very well from a variety of external sources) is that Sony considers AVC-HD as a consumer format. I'm quite well aware of what Sony was doing with this format several months ago, and just as well aware of what's coming.

4. You're welcome to suppose it's marketing BS, but having been around this industry for as long as I suppose you've been alive....it's not anything of the kind.

IF ANYTHING sony might release a camera through the broadcast division very similar to what they have done with the HC1 to the A1 and the FX1 to the Z1, and probably include the 24p framerate. This is the camera to look out for, prosumer or pro or what ever you want to call it, this would be the hero cam for AVCHD. Panny will probably do the same.

Okay, thats a valid opinion, but it's just that...an opinion.

Maybe, but what exactly does it cost? Nobody seems to want to mention that. I'm not looking for exact figures, but what kind of ballpark are we talking about here?

I get that Sony only considers this a consumer format, but that still doesn't tell me why they have 720/24p listed in the specs for AVCHD as an option. Maybe another company will do something along those lines and that's what I was originally implying.

A little testy Douglas? I follow the technology, I don't obsess on the details as much. I'm a filmmaker it's my passion, and while I do like the advancement of technology I don't obsess over every detail.

Tony, you just proved DSE's point... you say you are a passionate filmmaker but cameras like these are not aimed at filmmakers... they are CONSUMER cameras and it is a CONSUMER format. As for the 24P license? Last I checked the cheapest cams with true 24P retailed for over $3000.

As a filmmaker and a professional there are many features that you need that the consumer MASSES do not, you will always pay a premium for those features because the competition is less and the market smaller...



ash =o)

I guess my point was that 720/24p is in the specs for the format. If AVCHD is only aimed at a consumer market (as DSE claims). What's the point of making it a part of the official specs if no company plans on using that resolution and frame rate. I don't know much in this given field, but I can read and I do know that 720/24p is a part of the format. I get that Sony isn't inclined towards those ends, but claiming a strictly consumer base for AVCHD seems a little premature when the format specs dictate that it is geared for prosumer needs as well.

My only argument was that AVCHD is not going to strictly be a consumer format. That was my only point.

I don't think Douglas was being testy, he's more likely being factual.

You cannot say "filmaker" and "don't obsess over every detail" in the same sentence. It's not natural. Even your arguement here is testomony to obsessing over details.

What I don't get is that you are willing to become a member of an elite club, but don't want to pay the entrance fee.

Time after time I read posts about folks whom want and think that 24p on ANY camera will make them a filmaker. They get the cheapest cam they can afford, and then nickle and dime themselves to eternity trying to make it work. When after adding up the receipts and sweat equity in the end, they should have just paid the extra for the real deal to begin with.

I would tend to think that "passionate" film makers know this and go the extra mile, obsessing over the details to get the right tools for the job. I'm sorry but your point is not valid.

People seemed obsessed with acquiring at higher resolutions and not lower compression. For any decent posting, less compression is better, much better. The only I see this highly compressed format even leaking into the pro world will be via a camera that WILL shoot less compression that has the AVCHD compression as an option in emergency or remote field situations, say an HVX-200a that will allow the option to P2 cards as an alternative to DVCproHD.



ash =o)

Let's not forget that there will also be AVC Intra, maybe it isn't lower compression but at least it's friendlier, i.e. intra-frame instead of GOP based.

At the Apple/Sony XDCAM HD seminar in Dallas, a question was asked about the forthcoming AVCHD and the Sony rep said pointblank, "AVCHD is a consumer format." Those were the first words out of his mouth when the phrase AVCHD was mentioned. So that's not just DSE's claim, it's Sony's official stance also. Mike Curtis of HD for Indies was also present and can verify what I just said. Come to think of it, he might have been the one that posed the question.

-gb-

I don't obsess over the technology. Making films on the other hand... and even then only up to a point.

'sigh' ...again my point was that I don't think AVCHD is set up as strictly a consumer format. It doesn't matter if Sony is treating it as such.

First of all, I own both a DVX and an XL2, so that isn't even remotely what I was talking about, but yeah, I don't think you should have to pay some high price to be in some "elite" club. There are plenty of young filmakers out there with little money that would probably appreciate a 24p camera in a lower price bracket. I hated the look of video when I first started making films, but it's all that was available at the time.The technology is here, it can be done. It just isn't being done and I merely made some observations as to why.

The idea of a camera like the DVX is to democratize filmmaking and level the playing field. I just wish these companies would take it a step further.

Granted, 24p does not make you a good filmmaker, but it does make your works look more like film, thus making people a little more accepting of said films, thus giving your film a chance of wider audience. And don't even give me that cr@p about it's only the story that counts when I see filmmakers (good and bad ones) everyday stressing how professional their films look.

Why even put quasi frame modes (i.e. CineFrame, Pro-Cinema, Frame Mode, etc...) in cameras like the HC1, HC3, GS400/500, etc... if consumers don't want a filmic look? The idea that consumers and enthusiasts don't want this sort of thing is ridiculous when there are a number of cameras in the sub $2K category that attempt to mimic the look of film. I'll bet you money that at least one of these Sony cameras have some version of Cineframe mode. Why not not just go a little further and actually give the consumer/enthusiast 24p? Gee, could it be that some people might not buy the over $3k cameras any longer? Let's not forget Panasonic helped develop the AVCHD codec. Maybe Sony is trying to save the almighty dollar by using the same CMOS chip in every camera they make? The idea that consumers don't want 24p rings a little false to me. Do you think they aren't putting these faux film modes in these cameras just because the designers haven't got anything better to do.

Elitism and snobbery bore me to tears. Thinking that it's perfectly acceptable for 24p cameras to be only available to those who can afford thousands of dollars is offensive to me.