consumer vs. professional formats, and 24p again.

[Chris Hurd]

Tony I'm not sure that you appreciate just how far these companies have already taken the democratization of filmmaking... just a few short years ago, a camcorder like the DVX for under $4,000 or an HD camera under $10,000 was just a pipe dream. Frankly, speaking in relative terms, I'm amazed at just how *inexpensive* this gear is these days. While you choose to be offended about those prices, as for myself I'm grateful that we can have so much for so little. If these manufacturers could sell these things for $100, don't you think they would? And yet I'll bet there will still be some people complaining about the pricing even then.

The bang-for-buck return on the current $4,000 to $10,000 camera range is nothing short of revolutionary, and certainly does not shut out anyone who has the passion, drive and ambition to actualize their dreams.

[Tony Tibbetts]

Chris,

I'm not offended at the prices per se. Granted I think the prices are moving a little slow for my tastes. I was merely offended at the idea that it should be an "elite" club. That you can only achieve by having money. Hey, I just remember what it was like being a 14 year old kid trying to make films and absolutely hating the look of video. I am grateful, but I'm also a working man that can afford these cameras. Some people can't.

Obviously there is a market for sub $2k cameras to have a filmic look.

[Chris Hurd]

I think what Peter meant when he said that filmmaking is an elite club, has more to do with the fact that many try but few succeed. Elite not meaning snobbery but instead being successful in the face of a variety of seemingly insurmountable odds, as opposed to those who try at it and fail for any number of reasons spanning a wide range of circumstances.

Nobody needs a camera or a lot of money to be a filmmaker... all anybody needs in order to become a filmmaker is a business card, a telephone and people skills.

[Tony Tibbetts]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Nobody needs a camera or a lot of money to be a filmmaker... all anybody needs in order to become a filmmaker is a business card, a telephone and people skills.

True...but it doesn't hurt either. I personally needed a Canon 8mm camcorder, my friends, and the woods behind my house. :)

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Greg Boston

and the Sony rep said pointblank, "AVCHD is a consumer format."

The thing is, it's not up to Sony to decide that. It's up to the MARKET to decide.

What did they say about S-VHS? "It's a consumer format." Consumers never adopted it, but a whole lot of pros shot a lot of footage on AG-456's.

What did they say about DV? "It's a consumer format." Didn't stop a whole lot of pros from adopting the VX1000, and then cameras like the DV500, DVX, and anything related to DVCAM (which is, let's not forget, fundamentally identical to the "consumer format" but for tape speed).

What did they say about HDV? "It's a consumer format." Didn't stop the Z1 and HD100 and XLH1 from being introduced and adopted by some who find that "consumer format" enough for them.

So -- again, I must pose the question, for those who insist that this is targeted and sentenced to be "consumer only": if HDV is "good enough" for pros, why on earth wouldn't you rather have AVC-HD?

Let's go through it again:
HDV = 1440x1080, AVC-HD = 1920x1080
HDV = 4:2:0, AVC-HD = 4:2:0
HDV = long-GOP, AVC-HD = long-GOP
HDV = compressed MPEG-1 Layer 2 audio, AVC-HD = uncompressed 7.1 channels of 48khz 16-bit audio
HDV = compressed MPEG-1 Layer 2 audio, AVC-HD = 5.1 channels of Dolby Digital AC-3 audio
HDV = no support for 24p, AVC-HD has support for all the same resolutions and formats as HDV, plus 24p in both 720 and 1080

HDV = 19 or 25 megabits of MPEG-2. AVC-HD = 18 (and perhaps 24?) megabits of H.264, which is 2.25 to 2.5 times more efficient than MPEG-2 at equivalent bitrate (so, spoken in terms of MPEG-2, that would be like having somewhere between 40 and 60 megabits of MPEG-2).

HDV = tape-based, AVC-HD = tapeless (to hard disk, SD card, or mini-DVD)
HDV = largely incompatible between manufacturers, AVC-HD should be 100% cross-compatible among all manufacturers.

The way I read that chart, in the 9 categories, AVC-HD is the clear winner in 7, and they tie in 2.

There's a world of difference between saying that AVC-HD is a "CONSUMER FORMAT" and saying that the existing Sony products are "consumer products." Yes the ones Sony announced are aimed squarely at consumers and only consumers. But the AVC-HD format appears (on paper) to be better in almost every conceivable way than HDV, and the only ways that it's not better, it's at least a match. Not inferior at all. So if HDV is "good enough" for some pros, why wouldn't AVC-HD be better?

Stick a great camera head in front of AVC-HD, and that same great camera head in front of HDV, and you should get better results from the AVC-HD format. Just like you could stick a $299 Sharp Viewcam on the front of a DV deck, or a Sony DSR450 or SDX900 recording to DV. DV may be a "consumer format" but an SDX900 recording DV is by no means a "consumer camera", and the format certainly holds up plenty well.

I don't doubt that these little AVC-HD cameras won't hold up as compared to an FX1. But an AVC-HD FX2 would be substantially better than an HDV FX1, of that I have no doubt.

It just remains to be seen if the manufacturers will build a product that takes advantage of the format's potential.

[Wayne Morellini]

Originally Posted by Ash Greyson

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.

Unless the license is somewhere near $3K what is the point of $3K, what is the actual license cost, and what is it for, true 24p, or some 24p lookalike? The reality is that until enough HDTV's get sold, there is no real use for 24p for consumers. Until the majority of sets are HD that support 24p modes, then it might not appear outside prosumer equipment.

I consider HDV a consumer format, and as such they offer prosumer models that professionals and serious users use. The same may happen with AVCHD one day, otherwise they might as well stick to 12 and 15mb/s.

Still, I would like to see what Steve Mullen has to say, he has been around and probably knows a bit about what JVC is upto with it's HDD HD camera (that they announced to dealers but didn't release).

Re-edit:

I think also that the Sony rep might have been reflecting an official opinion of where AVCHD is being targeted for the present future. Despite what we may think here, it is not in our hands, but in the manufacturers' hands.

[Evan C. King]

Originally Posted by Barry Green

The thing is, it's not up to Sony to decide that. It's up to the MARKET to decide.

I agree one million percent. I mean even in the end if they never end up taking AVCHD farther than basic consumer cameras, people would be crazy not to at least admit that that makes no sense.

Anyone that says:
"Prosumer cameras should be HDV and consumer cameras should be AVCHD"
Would be crazy, what would be the reasoning behind that? The format has more technical potential than HDV even if it's never realized.

[Wayne Morellini]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

...just how far these companies have already taken the democratization of filmmaking... just a few short years ago, a camcorder like the DVX for under $4,000 or an HD camera under $10,000 was just a pipe dream. Frankly, speaking in relative terms, I'm amazed at just how *inexpensive* this gear is these days. While you choose to be offended about those prices, as for myself I'm grateful that we can have so much for so little. If these manufacturers could sell these things for $100, don't you think they would? And yet I'll bet there will still be some people complaining about the pricing even then.

In large business this is a common strategy, if you sell yesterdays product forever people stop buying and you go broke (unless it's food etc). They lower cost to keep demand up but this lowers profit. To raise cost and profit up, and start the cycle again, they introduce new products, and hold the cost up as long as it provides the best return. It is as much about what you are prepared to pay as it is about cost/profit. This is the sort of supply and demand modeling that big business had been using most of last century. If you look at the HD prosumer equipment all it did was go into similar price categories to what SD prosumer started out in (except for the HD1/10).

I read an article about small camcorder/still manufacturers eating into the market and forcing the camcorder manufacturers to drop pricing (those sub-$100 solid sate consumer cameras that consumers buy). They must be rubbing their hands together, as they realise they can offer HD level cameras at SD prices.

I have been involved around the consumer electronics area for sometime, and what I am about to say does not include excessive salaries and top heavy infrastructure and waste of some big companies. I am familiar with some of the costing, and consider this. The DVCPRO/HD standard was based off the idea of stringing a number of SD compression units together to make 50-100Mb/s. If these sub $100 camera manufacturers wanted to they could string four 2-6mb/s Mpeg4 SD codec chips together to make a 720p camera, or more for 1080p. The chips would be a fraction of the price of the camera. It is possible, I would not like to see the results, unless it was done very well, but it is possible. Will it happen, maybe not, because the whole industry is aimed towards limiting features to price, so as not to eat into higher profits, but it is possible. Not so much a conspiracy, just business.

I have though about synchronising cheap cameras together to get HD, but the Sanyo HD1's price rather puts water on that in most cases.

[Wayne Morellini]

Originally Posted by Ash Greyson

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.

I agree, I think AVCHD at 24mb/s would be good enough for TV, and at the low end for cinema, but the Pana 100Mb/s 10bit AVC Intra as possibly in the sweet spot, with cineform and lossless above it.

[Pierre Barberis]

1/Some comparative info that i think might be usefull

HC3 Poids : 500 g
Dimensions : 82 x 78 x 139 mm
CMOS Super HAD 2 103 000 pixels

HC1 Poids : 680 g
Dimensions : 71 x 94 x 188 mm
CMOS Super HAD 2 969 000 pixels

SR1 Poids 720g
Dimensions 78×84×165mm
"number of entire pixels" 2 100 000 pixels

HC1 slimmer, longer, handier ?, somewhat better defined ??
HC3 Lighter but Bulkier, shorter

2/ According to the general page presenting theSR1

http://www.sony.jp/products/Consumer...feature01.html

the SR1 has indeed a USB connexion supporting stils and the video stream, as well as the announced HDMI ,Component and S outputs. But the HiRes pic sof the SR1 do not show the usb plug ?? and what about a Firewire ?? No firewire in a sony product ??

[Peter Ferling]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

I think what Peter meant when he said that filmmaking is an elite club, has more to do with the fact that many try but few succeed. Elite not meaning snobbery but instead being successful in the face of a variety of seemingly insurmountable odds, as opposed to those who try at it and fail for any number of reasons spanning a wide range of circumstances.

Nobody needs a camera or a lot of money to be a filmmaker... all anybody needs in order to become a filmmaker is a business card, a telephone and people skills.

You said it better than I Chris. It's a business.

[Ash Greyson]

Once again... why is there even talk of compressed formats? ONLY because of bandwidth and storage issues. How can anyone argue that professional acquisition will head the OTHER direction, meaning towards LESS compression. People keep talking of higher resolution and I say that is but a PART of the issue. I bet anyone, any amount of money that acquisition in the professional world (broadcast/film) will head toward uncompressed. Delivery will always look to compression because of bandwidth limitations and bandwidth cost money.

Need some examples... look at the world of pro audio and pro photography. Almost every professional digital camera has a RAW option and most retail CDs are recorded in 24-bit 96k... these are LESS compresssed than just a few years ago...



ash =o)

[Thomas Smet]

Isn't this entire DV Info Net forum built up on people using consumer formats for pro results? Where is the Varicam forum? Where is the F950 forum? I have to agree with Barry Green here. We for the most part are all using something that uses a consumer format. The fact that 24p is in the specs might mean at some point somebody will have it. 24p wasn't in the HDV specs but that didn't stop JVC and Canon. Granted the format is a mess because of the way they did it but now with AVCHD the specs are there. Why put 24p in the specs? Is it only to support a true 24p recording mode for cineframe so a 3-2 pulldown doesn't have to be added? The result would still be jerky but you wouldn't have to worry about pulldown. If a 24p license costs too much then just do what Canon did with 24F. If pros swear by it for HDV it would look even better with AVCHD.

[Lawrence Bansbach]

Originally Posted by Wayne Morellini

I agree, I think AVCHD at 24mb/s would be good enough for TV, and at the low end for cinema, but the Pana 100Mb/s 10bit AVC Intra as possibly in the sweet spot, with cineform and lossless above it.

Though a possibility, a Panasonic-developed 100-Mbps, 10-bit AVC Intra format is not a certainty -- while they haven't officially ruled it out, they haven't confirmed it, either. But if one were developed, why would Cineform be better, given that no one knows this as-yet hypothetical AVC Intra format's specs, let alone seen footage produced in it?

As a side note, if I were Panasonic, I wouldn't stop at 100 Mbps -- I'd go to 200 Mbps.

[Ash Greyson]

The reason DV became a prosumer and professional format is solely becaue networks adopted it. Barry says it was aimed at consumers which in general is true but the DV cam really exploded and created the "prosumer" segent. Before that, there was Hi8 and S-VHS but they saw very limited penetration. MTV and others began adopting DV and eventually almost everyone did. I do not see the same happening to a highly compressed format. Several networks are already anti-HDV and even HVX and require XDCAMs to be shot at the highest quality. The word "professional" is completely subjective but I refer to it as broadcast, corporate and film work. I just dont see a big adoption of super compressed acquisition with prices the way they are. DV made sense because it was a FRACTION of the cost of a Betacam. With so many cameras already under $10K, the broadcast world just doesnt care if it goes lower.

As far as evening the playing field or democracy, it has almost nothing to do with cameras and never has. I could could GIVE 99.99% of indie film makers a 35mm camera and all the free film they could use and most would not get their movie distributed. Script, ACTORS, crew and production values is the ticket, not a camera.




ash =o)