|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 15th, 2005, 08:18 AM
|
#1 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 691
|
HDV Trademark
I'm thinking (and this could be wrong) that part of the ramped up $9K price tag for this camera is in fact royalties to Sony for the HDV trademark?
|
|
|
|
September 15th, 2005, 08:24 AM
|
#2 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: United Kindom, England
Posts: 290
|
Please read the HDV information website.
I far as I am aware, in order to have a HDV logo it must be a tape based system capable of playing and recording HDV video. So no, royalties to Sony. Anhar |
|
|
|
|
September 15th, 2005, 09:06 AM
|
#3 |
|
Wrangler
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Eagle River, AK
Posts: 4,100
|
Canon, Sony, JVC, and Sharp jointly developed and agreed to the specification, so I don't think royalties for the HDV logo are involved.
__________________
Pete Bauer The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. Albert Einstein Trying to solve a DV mystery? You may find the answer behind the SEARCH function ... or be able to join a discussion already in progress! |
|
|
|
|
September 15th, 2005, 09:29 AM
|
#4 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 547
|
Considering the Sony HDR-HC1 is also an HDV camera, and bears the logo - I don't think you have to worry about "HDV" royalties being a dominant part of the cost of the camera.
Personally I'm hoping that the extra cost of the XL H1 is due to superior optics and (likely) the HD-SDI interface. -Steve |
|
|
|
|
September 15th, 2005, 10:44 AM
|
#5 |
|
Obstreperous Rex
|
That $9K price tag doesn't really have a whole lot to do with HDV or the logo.
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
