this thread is all about features we WANT, doesn't mean it's reality. we live in an age where consumer miniDV debuted at $1,000+ a few years ago and can be had now for around $300. i don't see why those full-res HD systems couldn't be had for less. economies of scale. it can be done. only engineering, time and market needs. it's 2simple, but like i said, i'm no engineer. i do have an idea what i'm asking for. $10/uncompressed 4:4:4 HD tape&$300 4:4:4 1080pHD consumer cams. how many years? i dunno 10 years? 20 years? why? because it's the future and i think that 1920x1080p will be the last great consumer format. after that, it'll be be niche markets. i'm willing to settle at that resolution.

smaller HDs aren't practical yet. 3.5 has the volume to justify the cost. the cost/MB is much lower on 3.5 HDs than 2.5.

i have a front screen projector and HDTV cable. @100" most of the time HDTV streams run under 25 and it looks fine by me. no big bad artifacts
PS do you re-read some of the stuff you write?

I've had to edit this thread due to violations of DVinfo policy. Everyone: please keep the discussion civil and avoid making personal references to your opinion of other forum members' abilities. If you aren't already familiar with DVinfo policy then please read the following. By registering at DVinfo you agree to abide by these principles. Thanks for your cooperation!

http://www.dvinfo.net/network/policy.php

MPEG-4 recording to DV tape
 

[QUOTE=Alexander Ibrahim]MPEG-4 is a container format, like .avi Quicktime and Windows Media.


"I usually convert any h.264 video I get into DVCPRO or uncompressed HD for editing. That doesn't improve the image of course, but it does allow for a smoother edit workflow and a better end product."

This is a process that I would anticipate that would be used to edit MPEG 4 encoded video. It is my understanding that HDV will be edited in a similar fashion. And it is my assumption that with a 25 Mb per second recording bandwidth the recording quality could be very good. I would also hazard to guess that the motion artifacts associated with MPEG-4 (with a 25 Mb per second bandwidth) would be significantly less than those associated with HDV. I'm not an expert in this area so this is just speculation.

First off, though it has been removed by the "wrangler", apparently you thought I offended you. I apologize.

Second, I can appreciate a typo and it looks like you made one. You wrote 250', not 250". 250' is a big IMAX screen, and you are talking instead about a huge home theater or a very small theater. It was so off the wall (pun sadly intended) I should have asked rather than going insane.

Still even at 100" I suggest that you may not be seeing artifacts present in the image. There may be a technical reason, or you may not be used to picking them out. With a home projection set up I'd ask if the projector is in an HD resolution. I'd ask if the projector was calibrated, what screen you were projecting onto, and if light levels are appropiate in your theater.

As for seeing issues with images, I can very clearly see faults with HDV and DVCPRO HD images on both my Sony CRT's and my Apple Cinema HD 23" (Over DVI most of the time, but on a few occasions via SDI-DVI converter.)

If you have software like Lightwave or Maya I suggest creating an animation in 1920x1080 32 or 48 bit TGA or TIFF uncompressed still sequence. Then bring it into your NLE. Then output it as DV, HDV, h.264, DVCPRO 50 and DVCPRO HD. (HDCAM and HDCAM SR if you have it.) Don't forget uncomressed SD and HD. The difference is clear.

I have the results of such an experiment. This is using 960x540 resolution. Using various codecs. The uncompressed image is at 4:2:2. H.264 is included, but not HDV or any SD codecs. Even this VERY simple image shows some flaws. Look at the lens flare. Also you can see the colors are different in all three versions.

http://www.zenera.com/images/HD_codec_comparison.tiff

Remember those are CG images! That's as clean as the codecs will get! Keying a strawberry blonde's hair while she is running out at the beach gets ugly fast. Can you say rotoscope?

Now, as far as the future of HD is concerned. HDV is one of the best possible 25Mbps codecs for HD video. I think we might be able to get 1920x1080 60i or 30p into 25Mbps, but the quality will be worse than what we see now.

I think the future will be higher bitrate studio profile codecs. I doubt very much we'll see another consumer 25Mbps HD editing format. HDV is barely an editing profile- actually it may not qualify by MPEG consortium standards.

As far as 3.5" vs 2.5" drives are concerned, a 100GB drive is excellent for 25, 50 amd 100Mbps recording.

Laptop drives have all sorts of features that are not available in 3.5 drives. For one they support fast drive parking. If you ever drop or bump your camera you'll be thankful for this. It is essential for all those laptop features (Apple and IBM/Lenovo laptops) that detect that the laptop is moving too fast and park the drive heads, preventing data damage.

They are just generally more rugged, since it is assumed they will be moving, as opposed to 3.5" drives which are expected to be installed in stationary enclosures.

Also, in 2004 laptop sales exceeded desktop sales. Economies of scale have tipped now in favor of laptop hardware.

Finally, and to reenforce a point I thought I had made: You talk about DV dropping in price from $1000+ to $300. Well I think that those numbers are wrong but my memory is fuzzy, so we'll use them.

That means that DV dropped in price by ~66% in ten years.

Today a full resolution 4:4:4 HD camera (HDCAM SR) is $117,000 USD. That does NOT include a lens, batteries etc. Tapes run ~$210.00 USD for two hours.

If we see the same rate of decrease in price in ten years a camera with the same specs will run about $39,000 USD. Tapes will run about $70 for two hours.

We won't see a full resolution 4:4:4 HD camera at a price of $300 for at least 15 years, and my guess would be 30+ years, if ever! As another hint, we don't have 4:4:4 SD cameras for anywhere NEAR $300 today.

By then, we'll all want to shoot "Digital IMAX" or some such. IF videography is even a viable business for most of us involved in it today. It may well go the way of Typists and Word Processing professionals.

[QUOTE=Terry Johnson]Well your anticipations accuracy depends entirely on the MPEG-4 codec you choose. Pretty much all the MPEG-4 we have seen to date is for consumer use. So called Simple Profile.

If you have a codec meant for editing, Studio Profile (There are provisions for Simple Studio Profile and Core Studio Profile.) then you don't have to.

MPEG-4, is very strongly based on Quicktime. So for a preview of the future of MPEG 4 editing compare editing HDV (Which is MPEG-2 in a simple profile) to editing DVCPRO HD (which is I think supports most features of Simple Studio Profile MPEG-4 ) in Final Cut Pro or another Quicktime based editor.

Did that clear up or confuse the matter ? I can never tell- it makes sense to me. <shrug&grin>

that's no typo. @a small display. 1080p is pretty subjective. but @100", you can definitely begin to examine true details. beyond that, it's pretty moot. whether 250 FEET or 3,000 FEET. yesh i can see more grain on IMAX screen vs. regular cinema, but the future of content delivery will rest heavily on the home front. not many people have space for 250' screens @home. therefore, somn under 100" is still pretty feasible and is a great judge of how content will affect the future of video entertainment. beyond that, it will become less and less as important a event as the here and now. it'll be very much like what theater is now to the common people. therefore, aiming to have such a high bit-rate can seem like the point of dimishing returns.

as for cost lower consumer cam, relating to the point i just made in the above paragraph. it won't matter because when we get 1920x1080p consumer cams for $300 and $10 for 1080p 1 hour tapes, we'd all be old and gray =). i don't think any of us can enjoy the high-quality anymore because our senses will have become too dull. plus, most of the home delivery methods will be displayed on average of 60" hi-def panels on the walls. not 250' screens.

100GB laptop HDs aren't practical yet because of one simple reason: cost. take the MAXIMUM capacity of the latest hard drives and compare the cost:
-120GB ata/ide 5400rpm HD is $2.083/GB.
http://www.computergiants.com/items/...t=114773&aff=2

-500GB sata 7200rpm HD is $0.68664/GB. http://www.pricegrabber.com/p__Hitac...rch=500gb+sata

Here we go again...
 

I don't understand you.

What are you talking about:
1> Just watching a video
2> Producing a simple (no effects, some titles) video
3> Producing complex (some effects) video
4> Producing moderately complex (Lots of effects, some difficult) video
5> Producing very complex (LOTS of very difficult effects) video

Who is the user you are addressing ?
1>Consumer movie watcher
2>Video Hobbyist
3>Professional Videographer
4>Independent Filmmaker
5>Hollywood Production

Why do I ask ? Well we keep going round and round. I get the feeling we are talking about wildly different things. Different users have different needs.

For the record I am talking about ME. I am a all of those things I mentioned above. I have to edit a wedding with all sraight cuts and some titles one week, next week someone may want post work on a show for SciFi. (Yeah, I wish!)

I think HDV is a great codec for people watching video and hobbyists aiming for simple video production.

That's it. If you are looking at HDV on a 100" projector and you are happy then fine. Why do you even care about a higher quality media format

Until we all consider 1920x1080p to be standard definition and we are talking about some future format as high definition HDV will be more than good enough for home viewers and hobbyists.

You don't need 4:4:4 colorspace or any other whiz-bang features of the HD production world.

Well I think I agree with you here. Given the condition that we are talking about people watching TV in their living rooms.

I only started talking about 250' (as in feet) screens because I thought that is what you were talking about. (Hence my typo comment.)

Can we agree that people who produce video often need better picture quality to work with, and that sometimes they need the highest possible quality image ? Sometimes the best possible isn't really good enough.

Also, I want to emphasize that for me I can see artifacts in HD video formats on a 23" screen. I am talking about DVCPRO, H.264 and even uncompressed 4:2:2.

You claim to see no artifacts from HDV and broadcast HD on a 100" screen.

There is something wrong here. True we are not talking about the same codecs, but the codecs I am discussing are generally regarded as having superior quality to either HDV or broadcast HD.

Are you looking for picture problems ? Do you know what they look like ? Do you see them and think they are unimportant ?

What is going on here ?

Well I agree that price is an issue.

Of course for me its a business, and so I can justify spending more than some others might.

Others have bigger businesses and can afford a dolly to drive around behind the camera with long cable runs so that they can capture uncompressed 4:4:4 HD in the field.

Focus Enhancements sells a firewire hard disk video recorder. Their FS-4 PRO model, equipped with a 40GB hard drive retails for ~$700. (Best price I found was $622.24)

A 40GB laptop hard drive retails for about $75. Clearly the cost of the drive is not too important here. Focus thinks that everything else in the FS-4 PRO is worth ~$550 at retail.

We have to look at who needs or wants this device?

For who is it better than tape ? People who need to edit QUICKLY. News organizations for the most part.

I've already talked about how laptop drives are typically designed to be more robust. That doesn't concern you I think, but it should.

What I haven't mentioned as an issue is power. 3.5" drives need a lot of power. Much more than 2.5" drives of the same capacity. That means bigger, heavier and more expensive batteries. That or a power cable.

Price is not the only issue, it rarely is.

Let me give you another example. The iPod Nano replaced the iPod Mini. The Nano costs the same and has less storage. It is selling in staggering numbers according to Apple. In fact retailers are having a hard time keeping them in stock.

It's not always about price.

at the end of the day all those market segments mention comes home to relax and turn on their 30" display and watches a little sports, drink their fav bev. not everyone wants the highest quality all the time. what i'm trying to convey that in the future, the delivery of the final video content will be more direct than to the cinema. the cinema market will become smaller and smaller.

your workflow is not the modus operandi for everyone else. what applies to you may have little use for other professionals.

This thread is now locked. It's had to have posts removed already. It's definintely off topic and going nowhere fast.

regards,

-gb-