Is 720p Real High Definition ?
 

Not according to Sony. Sony says real high definition starts with 1080i. 720p is only extended definition. What about the progressive scan capabilities of 720p? Sony says the real future is 1080p and 1080i is the stepping stone to 1080p so 720p is dying. Even 720p diehards like ABC Fox and ESPN will dump 720p in favor of 1080p.

Pretty hardline attitude isn't it ? Sony predicts they will have a 90 percent market share in HDV. Bigger numbers sell so does JVC have any bigger numbers to offer ?

Is 720p Real High Definition?

Well now, that depends on who you ask and how you frame the question, doesn't it? ;-)

Obviously, this topic has already been beaten-to-death around here, so I don't see any need to go open that can-o-worms again.....but I'm responding in this thread to ask you a question: WHERE did you see/hear/read SONY say that "real high definition starts with 1080i" and that "the real future is 1080p..."???? I mean, maybe I just missed it somewhere (I'm certainly not omniscient, so it's quite possible I missed it) but so far all I've seen/heard/read is SONY touting the 1080i capability of thier new HDV cams, rather than speaking out against 720p.

So did SONY actually SAY those things, or are you just inferring that as an assumption?

720p
 

Personally I prefer 720p over 1080i, but it only stands to reason that 1080p will be even that much better then 720p. Eventually I think people will choose 1080p, but where does that leave 1080i?

Typical marketing bruhaha. 720p is higher definition than 480p, and certainly 480i, and is an HD standard, regardless of what any company says.

Properly displayed with suitable bandwidth:
at 24p, 1080p looks better than 720p
at 30p, 1080p looks better than 720p.
at 60i, 1080i ais very comparible both spatially and temporally to 60p 720p.

In my opinion, people should be striving for 1080(i/p) content, as it delivers superior or equal performance to 720p in all cases. The 1080 format is inherently more expensive due to higher bandwidth requirements and the higher pixel density of the displays.

Considering all the content I actually am interested in watching for picture quality is recorded at 24p or 30p, I couldn't care less about 60i/p, and for me that makes the 1080 format a winner.

-Steve

1080i vs. 720p...or if you look at it reduced to standard definition that we are all used to seeing ....480i vs. 320p.

Would you rather work with 480i footage or 320p?

I don't know that Sony did or didn't say that HD starts with 1080, however...
HD standards were set by NHK. NHK defined HD as 1080 in 1971. In 1987, the FCC adopted the NHK-submitted standard, and further defined it. Since NHK is a Japanese broadcaster, since Sony is a Japanese-owned company...it would stand to reason that Sony would make a comment along those lines.
No one can argue that 1080p isn't the most superior format available in our sight today, unless they're just simply blind. Arguments will always be had of 720p vs 1080i, and they're very legitimate arguments. On the other hand, if the focus is put on 720p, then it leaves yet another leap in the reasonably near future, or consumers will have to deal with scaled down vid. Neither is very appealing to anyone.

JVC argues that 1080p is not the most superior high definition format available today but rather 1500i. And yes 1500i televisions have been available for years not as plasmas which would be too expensive to use but rather as cathode ray projectors a relatively inexpensive technology. These televisions give the full 2560 x1440i resolutions and as no native programming exists they by using Digital image scaling technology and 3 dimensional interpolation upconvert all signals to 1500i. This is no different and no more radical than the 1080p televisions that are appearing on the market that lack 1080p native programming but upconvert. So it would seem that 1080i is not the only format that is future proof 720p is also future proof and natively upconvertable to the new real high definition specifications.

1440i broadcasting
 

Actually 1440i broadcasting could be legally done in the united states. Since with digital television involves the use of multiplexing two 720p signals would be broadcasted. on 2 subchannels. Each image would be identical except for the fact that the pixels in one image would be offset from the other image by half a pixel. an ultra high definition television would then combine the 2 fields and create a super high definition picture. A single HDV camera using pixel shifting technology could generate the two fields

I feel its a bit of a shame that 720 was brought in. Mostly due to the fact that technology moves so fast... i cant understand why we'd chose to take baby sidesteps when we could have easily just went 1080p50/60 and had less consumers get pissed off after their 720 displays last only 6 months (and yes irealise "if it works and does the job its not absolete" but thats beside my point).

Having said that, i'm not knocking the format and its benifits in itself. But i'd much rather take a decent step forward and get a much more solid benifit or "upgrade": 1080p50/60, 1:1PAR! AFter all.. its easy to take away 'material' (downconvert anyone?) then it is to create or have to add it (spot the person that works in the design/manufacturing industry :P).

So it makes me torn. On one hand 720p has the benifits of the future (progressive, high frame rate,higher quality). But just makes you go "argh doh" because the potential to save so much hassle and angst was just missed and seems to be a no-brainer decision (why not just go all the way?).

:)

"Actually 1440i broadcasting could be legally done in the united states. Since with digital television involves the use of multiplexing two 720p signals would be broadcasted. on 2 subchannels. "

And the point is?....Of course it could be done legally, but what's the point in even bothering to discuss it in this particular context or thread? We have 2 accepted/designated standards for delivery. Regardless of what JVC or anyone else argues/debates/puts forth, the bottom line is the ATSC isn't likely going to change anytime soon, and unlikely that broadcasters, manufacturers, or industry folks are open to other formats. Ubiquity. That's what counts these days.

So uh, I guess I'll just ask again.....

Tommy, where did you see/hear/read SONY say that "real high definition starts with 1080i" and that "the real future is 1080p..."? Did SONY actually say those things, or are you just inferring that as an assumption?

Actually there was a Sony representative on a Sony HDV Forum who touted the Sony hard line that stated " I suppose 720p could be called high definition but real high definition starts with 1080i which is the stepping stone to the ultimate standard 1080p".
I don't know if its included in Sony's product literature but their representatives are the most aggressive in the business and they have the market share that proves the effectiveness of their tactics.

The worst thing that can happen to a JVC owner is buyers remourse when he is told that 720p is not real high definition and that the format is dying in favor of 1080i and 1080p. Many JVC owners sold their cameras when the Sony camera was introduced and the same will happen when
Sony introduces a shoulder mounted camera.

So in order for the 720p format to stay alive it has to have room to grow. Broadcasters may not like any changes however in the Digital Cinematography business it is widely agreed that not even 1080p will have the resolution to replace 35mm film. Both 1440p and 2160p will be considered vialable cinematography formats. Not only do JVC home theater televisions support the 1440i format but the Apple 30" cinema display supports the 1440p format. And I bet had a lot of JVC camera owners known about the 1500i television they could have used that as way to upgrade their video camera rather than auctioning them off at E-Bay.

I think that the 720p format has a lot of chance for sucess if people realize that they are buying a camera that can be upgraded and can grow with future advances in technology.

Tommy,
I can tell you straight up that if a Sony rep posted this statement anywhere, he/she could be terminated for cause. Sony has a written, signed policy that employees cannot participate in communities at that particular level, nor make those kinds of comments. While Sony might posit in such a manner, I'd question someone who said they were a Sony rep making such a comment. Even as an independent contractor who does a LOT of work for Sony at 3 different sub-corp levels, I'm reasonably leashed in what I'm permitted to say and not say as a "representative" of the company. I for one, would surely love to see that post.
BTW, there IS NO Sony HDV forum. Never has been, never will be. Sony does not like, want, nor offer corporate-sponsored forums on any product except Sony software, and those forums existed for years before Sony bought Sonic Foundry. Sony has clamped those down very tightly as well.

720 just isn't a big jump up over PAL... it's, what, 75% more pixels? Nice, but that's about it. Certainly I can easily tell the difference between 720p and 1080i footage when they're displayed side-by-side or one after the other, though I'm not sure I could look at a single monitor and tell you whether it was displaying 720p or 1080i with more than about a 60% success rate (unless it was obviously interlaced :)).

Compared to NTSC, obviously it's a much larger improvement.

That's pretty much waht I've been thinking all along...that if anyone from SONY said something like as a representative of the company, they wouldn't be a representative for very long. LOL!

Of course, I certainly DO believe that someone who works for SONY could/would say that off-the-record. ;-)

Well if Sony hadn't crippled 1080i with that crap hdv compression I might be more inclined to buy in. So give me a low compression 1080i and I'll like it fine.

And your opinion is based on what experience with the camera?

If you look at Sony's HDV IBC statement it comes very, very close to saying ONLY 1080i is HD. I was shocked they would play that dirty a game.

There is no ATSC or QAM specification for 1080p60 -- so it doesn't really leglly exist. Sony's new camera can shoot 1080p but I know of no infrastructure than can handle 1080p60. (HDCAM SR at some point will record 1080p60.)

SO -- it is BS to say we should have skipped 720p. Even HDV is ONLY 72p30. So claiming we should have waited for 1080p60 -- which stil ain't even a legal spec AND will require every cable/DBS company cut their number of channels in half in nonsense.

Without 720p we would only have interlace video. And no matter what Sony claims -- interlace is not only horrible it is obsolete. It is the worst possible format for a world of progressive displays -- which in the HD world is about 90%. (Even Sony has phased-out CRTs.)

So not only does capturing interlace screw-up an image, FX editing screws-up interlace, and every new display when it tries to display interlace screws it up evem more.

The real slogan should be ONLY PROGRESSIVE VIDEO IS HIGH DEFINITION!.. 1080i should be called "high-resolution," but not HD. It is too plauged with artifacts to offer high DEFINITION.

All you need to do is watch sports on 1080i verses 720p. There is no comparision! 720p is pristine -- although slightly soft. But softer only in an A/B test. Nothing you would really notice.

Which is why I call the FX1/Z1HDV "under-sampled, high-resolution DV."

That's why JVC could compare their HD100 side-by-side with HDCAM.

ProHD may not be a format, but sure is much more than Sony's HDV. Which is why behind the scenes Sony is trying to find some HDV answer to the the HD100. And, why Panasonic is bashing the HD100. Right now I believe both Sony and Pansonic are in panic mode. And, Canon must be a basket-case.

Oh c'mon, gimme a break! at the moment, interlaced is still the best acquisition format for anything with high motion. Sure, 1080p will be better, but we're not there yet, as you point out. But to suggest that interlaced is obsolete? I participated in Thomson (now Grass Valley) test shoots at a variety of framerates; progressive, and interlaced. Test subjects couldn't stand watching basketball acquired at 30p. It was terrible.

As far as the FX1/Z1, both are substantially better resolved cameras than the HD10U, which you have been a champion of. So is it that the JVC was great even though it was a lesser camera than the Z1, but now the Z1 sucks too because the JVC is coming?

I concur that progressive is a superior delivery format, but not everyone has flat panels just yet, and it's gonna be a while til we're there. Interlaced will be around for a long, long time. And by the time it's not, we'll have real 1080p, most likely. And that, is the grail for where we're currently headed. Surely you don't dispute that?

Well first of all even if Sony fired the representatives that spread the rumors that 720p is not real high definition. Even though Sony fired the CEO of the company to me that is a slap on the wrist and a small price to pay to gain a 90 percent HDV market share.

There is indeed evidance that the terms of the HDV consortium were violated by the refusal to acknowledge 720p as a real high definition format. Therefore the only remedy that can be obtained through a greivance procedure cannot be disciplanary action against Sony representatives but rather an expansion of the HDV specifications to allow higher resolutions like 1440i. JVC already has Sonys permision to do this because it was Sony that said 720p is not real high definition so if by upgrading 720p to 1440i JVC is only meeting Sonys demands so that 720p can can conform to real high definition specifications. So why not upconvert 720p to 1080p. Sony has indeed said that it is impossible to upgrade 720p to 1080p because scaling artifacts will be introduced and you will still not have true high definition. Don't get me wrong 720p converted to 1080p produces a very nice picture but it still cannot be considered true high definition coming from natively originated 1080i or 1080p. Most 1080i networks will not accept 720p cameras even if they can output 1080i by conversion because they will produce inferior results. But 720p networks will accept 1080i cameras because 1080p is the future so they allow conversions in the meantime.

Now if Sony can get away with upconverting its 1080i material to 1080p even though 1080p is not an official HDV specification. Why can't JVC owners upconvert 720p to 1440i even though 1440i is not a part of the official HDV specification?

So why doesn't JVC just produce a 1080i camera. The fact is that JVC cannot compete with Sony head on because Sony always has the reputation for quality. If the consumer had a choice between two 1080i televisions they would always buy the Sony over the JVC unless JVC lowered the price but that would further damage the JVC reputation of quality. But when JVC introduced the 1500i series of televisions back in 2003 JVC declared itself to be the aggressive competitor in the high definition television market by giving consumers an unprecedented level of quality.

JVC is also gained a lot of respect in Japan when they invented the HDV format with its introduction of the JVC GR-HD 1 single chip high defintion video with a color resolving power that exceded the limitations of the MPEG-2 codec. Rich psychadelic colors were produced which could not be surpassed without the use of higher bit rate codecs. And if that were not enough JVC introduced the HD-VHS format for the low cost distribution of high definition video that rivals Blu-Ray as being a legitamite low cost alternative and blew conventional DVD out of the water with its larger storage capacity and its high definition capability.

And if that were not enough JVC included ATSC tuners in its HD-VHS decks so that the poor consumer could watch for the first time real HDTV by decoding free off the air digital signals. Far too often the poor consumer spends thousands of dollars on an HD ready television only to watch crummy analog programing or standard definition DVD. JVC offers HD built in whether built into the television or built into its HD-VHS decks. Now if you think that HD-VHS decks are a failed format then so are off the air ATSC digital high definition recievers. It took an act of congress and the FCC to force television makers to include ATSC digital tuners in every television by the year 2007. Unfortunately there is no FCC mandate for the production of high definition VCRs so consumers thinking that DVD is high definition or thinking that VHS is inferior will stear clear of these high definition products further crippling the distribution of HDV content. And also since there is a format war going on between Blu-Ray And HD-DVD along with copyright infringement issues the consumer may take an apathetic approach to these products as well.

I can assure you with all humor and sincerity, Sony's non-renewal of their CEO had absolutely nothing to do with HDV, or broadcast tools whatsoever. I'd be surprised if Stringham even knows the initials "HDV." You can bet your butt that Sony sells more consumer digital still cameras every day than they do HDV cams in a year. Broadcast/prosumer camcorders are such an insignificant part of the overall Sony Corporation that it's silly to even bring that into the discussion. You can also bet there is a lot more profit in 10 million CDs than there is in a year's worth of F900's, with a lot less hassle.

To bring us back to point:
Folks forget about the migration path to 1080p. When "legacy" HD
material needs to be up-rezzed to 1080 60p (it's just a matter of
time), what will look better, line-doubled 1080 60i material, or
heavily scaled 720p material? For that answer, I think all you have to
do is look at how nice 480i DVD material looks when it's line-doubled
with a modern DVD player and displayed on an HD monitor. Of course, the
some will always fall back to their buttressed position: "The
softer image gives it a film look!"

In closing, why even have this discussion in this particular forum? The camcorder isn't available, so it's just all circumspection. Sony will have their niche, JVC will have theirs, and Panny will have theirs. None will "kill" the other. Futuristically, it will all be 1080p at some point, and for some, it makes sense to work towards that now, and to others, it doesn't. But neither position negates any of the cameras coming on line.

I'd say that the terminology could be cleared up here a little. High refresh rates are the best aquisition format for anything with high motion. Interlace is a lousy acquisition format, but 60i beats 30p for motion aquisition. However, 60i isn't as good as 60p; so I would modify the full statement to say: 30p is not a good format for high motion; 60i is better, but 60p is the best acquisition format for anything with high motion.

I didn't see that test, but I have no doubt it's true. That's one of the big concerns I have about the HD100 -- no provision for recording 60p means that there will be several circumstances where it just won't be a viable option. Under those circumstances, I think the Sony would be the better choice, interlace or not.

But remember, progressive doesn't stop at 30p. 720/60p captures motion better than 1080/60i. You get 60 motion samples per second, but full frames with no interlacing artifacts. Motion is cleaner in 720/60p (and would be as clean, but higher definition, under an eventual 1080/60p). 720/60p is the highest motion sampling currently available, and ideal for sports, which is why the big sports channels Fox, ABC, and ESPN all chose 720p.

Actually it's almost six times as many pixels per second. A PAL frame is 720x576, but due to interlace pre-filtering you only really get about 720x432 of discernible resolution, at 25 frames per second = about 7.8 million pixels per second.

720p is 1280x720, every pixel completely discernible, at 50 full frames per second, = 46.1 million pixels per second. 46.1 / 7.8 = 5.91 times as many pixels.

The European Broadcast Union (EBU) has been doing extensive research into high def to make its formal recommendations about what format Europe will adopt for high-def. And they're almost unanimously choosing 720p.

Of course you're right, Barry; I was sticking with the words being used. Interlacing has been heading to the dumpster for a long time now, but it will still be with us for a bit longer.

720p is obviously better for delivery, but still isn't the acquisition of choice, and that keeps coming back to my point. Acquire as much as you can, then remove/blend/process whatever you're gonna process at.

that said, 720p is only a stepping stone on the path to greater resolution and progressive images, which again, is what many folks seem to forget. How long will it be the better stepping stone? Probably not as long as I originally thought, based on the progress in our industry.

Again the argument that 1080i looks terrible on natively progressive displays is only true if the footage is not deinterlaced. The Sony HDV camera with its psuedo progressive CF30 modes of operation can produce footage that can fool many people into thinking that they are watching progressive footage. While the footage may not be as good as natively obtained progressive footage nevertheless the real high definition arguments offer a psychological advantage as the consumer thinks 1080p is better than 720p. Also footage may be deinterlaced in post further enhancing quality.

Also a new trend is that everyone of Sony's flat panel displays is being marketed as a Hi Scan 1080i HDTV. You see a 1280 x 720 flat panel display is only a 720p display but a 1365 x 768 flat panel display is suddenly a Hi-Scan 1080i HDTV and a 1920 x 1080 display is a 1080p television. Broadcasters like NBS CBS and PBS must be very happy that more televisions are now 1080i.

Saying nothing of acquisition format. I'm under the impression the only camcorder that records 720p60/50 is the Varicam, but it doesn't record 1280x720, only 960x720... which is 1.5x fewer pixels than the 5.91 you count - making the actual resolution of any 720p50 format 3.94 more pixels per second than PAL. Comparing with NTSC, the result is exactly 4x as many pixels per second at 60p. At 30p, exactly 2x the number of pixels. In 1080 land, the acquisition formats are 1440x1080 for HDCAM, and 1280x1080 for DVCPRO-HD, offering an even 4.5x and 4x NTSC respectively.

In short:
1920x1080(60i, 30p, 24p) = 6x NSTC
1280x720 (60p) = 5.33x NTSC
1440x1080 (60i, 30p) = 4.5x NTSC
1280x1080 (60i, 30p, 24p) = 4x NTSC
960x720 (60p) = 4x NTSC
1280x720 (30p, 24p) = 2.67x NTSC
960x720 (30p, 24p) = 2x NTSC

PAL = 1.2x NTSC if you want to adjust the numbers.

The argument that 1280x720p60 is "not high definition" doesn't hold water. As soon as 1920x1080i60 and 1280x720p60 are compared with a Kell factor, they are nearly identical... but this argument stops at high refresh rates. If you watch 720p60 content, and 1080i60 content and notice a significant difference in the perceived quality of the images - it is more likely due to compression and bandwidth sacrafices than the "definition" of the format.

Frankly, I don't see any flaw in a reduced-channel-1080p60 future. There's not a lot of good TV on anyway, and the vast majority of it is redundant. The current recipe for television is "qauntity over quality". I'd rather see it the other way around. 720p is a baby step. One that can be jumped IMO.

The other thing I'd like to see gone is pixel aspect ratios (PARs). PARs are fine for analog displays, but they don't scale well digitally. The sharpness obtained by having a digital interface to a digital display is awe-inspiring. Make 1920x1080 cameras and 1920x1080 displays. IMO scaling up is just as bad as interlace, if not worse.

-Steve

So obviously, we can never shoot a 24fps movie about sports by your logic! Since we know sports are featured in movies all the time -- shot with a lower frame-rate than 720p30 -- your response is obviously simply incorrect.

What you saw was judder introduced by an incompetent cameraperson.

Moreover, JVC's Motion Filter will fix that problem so film experience is not needed. Post filter Motion Filter -- one will have effectively 1280x720 at 60fps. 60i can't touch 60p that for motion rendition because at display time 60i is reeally only 30fps.

Moreover, Z1/FX1 compositing/bgreen screen, and motion FX must deal with interlace motion artifacting, plus every vertical pan has line twitter.

Likewise there is no real detail in the Z1/FX1 because the CCD system undersamples 1440 by 50% and is offers only HALF what NHK assumed for the 10880i imaging system, e.g, 1920.

And, don't forget, that 25Mbps data-rate is essentially half JVC's 19Mbps -- leading to bit-starvation on rapid motion and that's why Panasonic is correctly bashing 1080i HDV. (You got to do math.)

So Sony's HDV "hi-rez DV" and not remotely what NHK had in mind. Even HDCAM is less than true 1080i. And NHK certainly didn't consider MPEG-1 compresed audio. With JVC we will get our PCM audio back.

It isn't that interlace is heading toward extinction, it is a "dead man walking."

That is just about a given. But when? Is the new JVC the answer? Probably not exactly. I would still like to have an affordable 1080p, but that might not be any time real soon.

So I make do with the FX1. It does produce some nice video. I don't see any competition in the $3K range any time real soon. But I really don't see a reason for interlaced anymore. The technology just isn't necessary.

"So obviously, we can never shoot a 24fps movie about sports by your logic! Since we know sports are featured in movies all the time -- shot with a lower frame-rate than 720p30 -- your response is obviously simply incorrect.

What you saw was judder introduced by an incompetent cameraperson."

No, what I saw was temporal delay. The cameraperson(s) were all reasonably well known guys that shoot NBA every week. Easy to target them because they're supposedly the variable.

Given 60 opportunities to capture motion vs 30 opportunties to capture motion, even a child can figure out which frames contain more AT ACQUISITION. Not talking delivery here.

Re: film; you don't see "sports films" that are shot like dramas, documentaries, or live events on film. It's not even a reasonable comparison, nor a participant in the discussion. If home viewers were subject to watching sports at 24p or 30p complete with pan shots of balls in the air, you'd have a bunch of sick viewers, because it affects their eye timing. It's not just a theory, it's a fact. There is too much time between frames for movement to occur and it's simply not natural.

Whats interesting is that while we're on a topic of technology, you're trying to sell me a JVC camera or telling me why Sony cameras are bad. So JVC's brand of "Hi Rez-DV" is better because it has PCM audio? You're suggesting that Mpeg1 Layer II audio is bad? This is one easily quantified, and something I've tested extensively. Please, I'd like to see (or rather hear) evidence of where the MPEG 1 audio has failed you. (or anyone) I didn't realize we were moving towards a discussion of JVC vs Sony, and I can't have that discussion intelligently, as JVC hasn't delivered the camera yet; my 20 minutes on the NAB floor with the camera don't qualify me as an expert on the JVC cam. But just because it's PCM audio doesn't automatically make it better. There are other, substantially more significant variables related to the quality of the audio, either from the mic or from mic input.

At display time, when properly displayed, 60i is exactly that: 60i. It isn't 30fps, it's 60 fields per second, each field separated by 1/60th of a second. We all know this. Properly displayed 60i should either be scanned by CRT, or on a progessive display deinterlaced and upsampled to 60p.

Okay, I'll do the HDV math. 1080i HDV has 1.5x as many pixels as 720p HDV (per unit time), but it also has 1.31x the data rate, in addition to a much longer GOP. Without taking the GOP into account, 1080i HDV is 14% more compressed than 720p HDV... assuming all 19 Mbps and all 25 Mbps are devoted to video. If the "ProHD" 24p format does in fact use all 25 Mbps, then you can argue that HDV is 50% more compressed, again, saying nothing of how GOP affects the efficiency of the codec, and subsequently the comparison of the images.

The biggest problem with 1080i HDV is how the interlace and colour sampling buggers essentially progressive images. If they ever make a 1080p HDV cam, they better make damn sure the camera encodes the image with progressive flags.

Will the JVC HD100 produce better quality images than the FX1? It had better... it costs a lot more. With the new HD camera releases, I can see Z1U sales slipping to the JVC in certain situations - and in order to get the Panasonic camera running as anything more than a miniDV camera, you need to spend nearly double the price of the Z1U/HD100 and triple the price of the FX1.

-Steve

One thing that people might be forgetting that I would like to remind everyone about....

We are going to have a blast shooting with the new JVC camera. People will try to protect their pride by claiming the Z1 is still as good, and others will praise the JVC as the second coming. OK. That is inevitable. But remember, it is a new camera providing new opportunities and new challenges. This stuff is still fun, isn't it? I realize that I am merely a hobbyist with expensive tastes, and many of the members here are professionals trying to get the correct tool at the correct price to make a living. But please, tell me that you guys don't get a rush when a new camera challenges for first place in your toolchest!

If you guys don't like playing with the new toys, tools, whatever, then why in God's name are you on this forum and in the business you are in? Isn't the goal to get the best shots and deliver the best footage you can, at a price you can justify?

In other words, cheer up! Smile, whistle and hum happy tunes. A new camera is coming. And it will be something to play with, test, read about, argue about. Hey, if it isn't fun at least some of the time, get a new job.

Sure wish you'd quit saying that, as it's completely untrue.

You could use it as a high-def camera on day 1, without a P2 card, if you're willing to plug in a firewire cable to a laptop or desktop. And while that's not quite as convenient as not being cabled, it certainly is a common thing -- people have been running cables to monitors for decades, so a cable is no big hassle.

And if you don't want to use a laptop, there will be a FireStore option. Might cost $800, but then you're totally mobile.

Yes you'll be dumping footage off to hard disks, but those hard disks cost less, per minute, than HD tape does. Or you could burn it off to DVD-R, which costs less per minute than DV tape does.

Your argument about multiple firestores and multiple P2 stores and multiple P2 cards just aren't valid for most shooting circumstances. If you want to shoot a four-hour event, this might not be the right camera. But to take that circumstance and then extrapolate forward to declare that "if you want it running as anything more than a miniDV camera" costing triple the price of an FX1, is just not true at all. You can have it running as more than a miniDV camera on day one, by using a $10 firewire cable. Or an $800 FireStore.

That discussion would be irrelevant anyway, at least as concerns the Z1 vs. the HD100, as the HD100 only offers compressed audio as well.

You'd have to wait for a future version of ProHD, on a future camera, to start talking about PCM audio.

Certainly not as good as uncompressed, of course, but that's irrelevant because...

for him to suggest it is bad would be counterproductive to his argument that the JVC is the better camera, since the JVC HD100 also uses MPEG-1 Layer II audio. There is no PCM or uncompressed audio option on the HD100.

I don't know where you heard this. At the JVC lunch for the press the Japan PM described exactly how we can use the PCM audio on the HD100.

There is no way a masking audio system can deliver the same sound quality as PCM. Which is why I won't listen to MP3. The computer is deciding what the average ear might not be able to hear. Sorry, I'll let my ears make that decision. You show me any major record level that records with MPEG-1 Layer 2?

Come on! I'm going to carry a camcorder tethered to a HDD into the field? I'm old enoough to remember when we carried a camera tethered to a VTR. Sorry, that not what I want I want to go back to!

If Panasonic is now trying to claim you can record to HDD -- then why not build an HDD camcorder. What point is there to P2?

From the JVC website:

"Professional XLR connectors are provided for each audio channel. The GY-HD100U records CD quality audio at 384Kbps in the MPEG1 Layer 2 format. Independent input level controls are provided for each channel. Audio level indicators are visible in the viewfinder and on the flip-out LCD display."

Check out JVC's HD100 "Technical Description" Page here.

Seems like a pretty reliable source to me.

I would tend to agree with you Steve.

As I said, you saw judder (there is no such thing as "temporal delay" caused by incompitent VIDEO shooters. Any qualified filmmaker could have shot both 24fps and 30fps and it would look perfect.

And the HD100 will look even better because a videomaker will be able to get good results.

As Barry already mentioned, Firestore is planning on releasing a HDD recording option for the HVX. Their products are camera mounted, so no need to be 'tethered' to anything if that's a concern for you. I think Barry was just listing every possible option, and being tethered is an option that some people don't mind. For example, I think many HD100 users will put up with tethering themselves to computers in order to record the 720P60 option from the component outputs, seeing as the camera can't record 60P to tape.

They are not claiming anything other than Focus Enhancements being a Panasonic partner. This gives people the option to shoot on hard drives with a third party device, and I for one am all for options.

What point is there to P2?

P2 cards are much more rugged, reliable, consume less power, and will have a longer life than hard drives. So there are definitely advantages. Again, it's about options and what level of 'risk' you are willing to shoot with.

Many may not see the benefits of P2 cards as being worth the financial investment (like yourself), and so for them there will be hard drive options.

Since I'm barely containing my laughter, and trying to maintain a modicum of decency in this thread, I'll just submit that you are woefullyuninformed when it comes to audio compression and the human ear. Next thing you're gonna suggest is that you're past the age of 35 and you can hear the frequencies that matter in this compression format. Again, since I dont' know this camera, I can't argue the merits of the camera specifically. I can very competently argue the audio merits of either PCM or MPEG 1 layer II. Aside from seeing it on a scope, spectrum analyzer, and sample display, I've also listened to it on our Hothouse monitors, our Mackie 626 system, and on a pair of Etymotic ER4's. While MPEG 1/layerII is not optimal, it's superior to most compression schemes, especially at the bitrate of 384kpbs. JVC's own folks support this, by the way....So, your passion for the camera goes a little far afield from theirs.

PCM doesn't mean squat. It's the converters, samplerate, bitrate that count. PCM can hold virtually any bitrate/sample rate. But the quality of converters in MOST of these cameras are extremely weak. No one is using the Cirrus, which is the industry standard, unless you're looking to Apogee or high end Digi.

And in theory, MPEG 1/Layer II audio can support 24/96 at a lower bitrate, whereas the camera converters can't. PCM or not, if it's got weak converters, the audio will sound less than optimal. The only "real" benefit to PCM is in the hands of people who don't know sound, there is a little more forgiveness in post in certain frequency ranges and processes.

Arguing that the eventual PCM of the JVC is substantially better than MPEG 1/Layer II is arguing with the wind. And at the moment, all you're arguing is theory.

BTW, I'm still a Virgin Records recording artist and producer. I'd say that qualifies as a major label relationship.

Okay Barry, I'll quit.

No ill will or angst about it - but the way I see it we're talking about a hand-held camcorder, and the way I'll always do the math on pricing is that method which provides the same functional use as every other hand-held camcorder.

I don't see archiving as part of the cost of the camera - that's part of the cost of operation. But in terms of actually getting a camera that can shoot as the designers intended, I think it's perfectly reasonable to place P2 cards, hard drives and laptops into that up-front cost.

Is there even a device that does this? No one I've heard of is doing that for the FX1/Z1U to get uncompressed 1080i.

<- not going to debate audio issues with DSE. I've been to his website and looked around. Consumers are obviously really concerned with audio quality - that's for sure the reason MP3 players are outselling SACDs. ;)

-Steve