Camcorderinfo has the picture of the proposed Sony HD as well as a short article. The article title states that the camera will have 3 CCDs.

If nothing else, at least all this speculation helps build-up a little more excitement for NAB this year. Last year, excitement going into NAB was pretty flat and not without good reason. Nothing big in the prosumer market was unveiled as I recall.

Happy dreams gentlement and ladies. Nick

Here's a couple of larger, better pics. One of 'em was re-sized by Tommy:

http://www.dvinfo.net/media/sonyhdv1.jpg

http://www.dvinfo.net/media/sonyhdv2.jpg

Tommy -- can you email the original 3mb image to me please? Thanks,

Thanks, Chris! now we need a pic of the JVC 3 ccd camera.

heath

> Sony would never agree to fewer minutes and better quality.
> Who needs better quality and more editing lattitude when you
> can get a few more minutes per tape?

Jjajaja. You mean you did not notice that they give us less time with the *same* quality with DVCAM? :D

Now, as I mentioned months ago, it is highly unlikely that they can get professionally acceptable 1440x1080 into 25Mbps or less (unless maybe at 15fps or something like that), so I think the Sony prototype is a consumer model and it is likely that we will have 30 or 40 minute tapes with a higher data rate for the pro model. It would not make much sense to have 3 CCDs and then lose so much to compression. Bot it still makes sense for the high-end consumer who will not be doing fancy stuff like color correction.

any info about european frame rates on this camera?
25p?

maybe links?

thanks,

filip

The Sony camera pictured....
 

..will have to be seriously de-tuned, as not to compete with Sony's higher end HD cameras.

3CCDs, manual controls, ND filters, variable audio inputs etc... Seems too good to be true. Maybe Sony will make up for it with the frame rate. Maybe 15 frames interlaced??

I'm trying to figure out what the "catch" is.

-Chris Gordon

Chris,

The list of differences between the F900 series and this PD???? HDV version would be too long to describe. It don't think the HDV model poses any risk of cannibalizing sales from the high end HD models.

I think however that DV will be completely phased out ultimately. As a matter of fact, I am certain of it.

This reminds me of Adam Wilt's column in the April issue of DV magazine in which he discusses the HD-10U and HDV:

Good point Boyd,

One thing to keep in mind. HDV isn't compressed more than broadcast digital television in SD or HD. The only difference is that the compression occurs during acquisition.

I think that a 3CCD HDV Camera like Sony's or JVC's new model will do wonders for the format.

> One thing to keep in mind. HDV isn't compressed more
> than broadcast digital television in SD or HD. The only
> difference is that the compression occurs during acquisition.

That is only partially correct. There is also an important resolution difference. Even though the camera has 'pro' controls, it pours it's output into a format without full HD resolution (the high quality HD spec is 1920x1080, not 1440x1080). This is like what happened years ago, with the best Hi8 gear, sure it had all the manual controls so you could make the best of it, but there was no way Hi8 gear could compete (even had it had the same optics and sensors) to Betacam SP.

I agree that HDV is a nice format and the image quality will most likely surpass that of standard definition DV, but HDV has been designed from the ground up as a consumer solution. So was DV, I think when they designed DV they did not suspect it would cannibalize so much pro acquisition the way it did. So now they are taking extra steps to make sure the consumer gear can never be as good as the full high-quality spec. No matter how well your HDV footage is aquired, it will always have less resolution than your 1920x1080 HDTV.

I'll bet there will be HDVCAM or something like that with the full res and a wider data rate for pro's, but that will happen very gradually, after they sell each and every one of us 'semi-pro' guys some 17-25Mbps HDV equipment and have milked all 'legacy' HD's milk (DVPROHD, D9HD, HDCAM, HD-D5, CineAlta). By the time that happens, it might not be MPEG2-based. MPEG4 is a likely candidate.

And then by the time we are all feeling comfortable with HD crammed into de MiniDV form-factor, they will have us throw all our gear away and switch to optical disks, removable hard disks or solid state memory. Oh well...

That is if you have a 1080p HDTV (very few currently exist). Most consumer HDTVs sold today are only capable of displaying 720p and 1080i of which there is little difference.

1080p - 1920x1080
1080i - 1920x540 (two fields)
720p - 1280x720

So is it still up in the air whether the Sony will be 720p or 1080i?

I don't think we'll be seeing a 1080p consumer cam anytime soon.

Here's a good article on the topic:

http://www.uemedia.net/CPC/videography/printer_7015.shtml

ITU HD 1080i is 1920x1080, HDV 1080i seems to be 1440x1080.

Tommy can you tell us where the 1920x540 number comes from?

You are correct Ignacio.

I removed my question after doing a bit of research.

I guess anything above or equal to 1280 X 720 is considered HD.

Ignacio, I went back and edited my post to reperesent the two 1920x540 fields. 1080i is of course interlaced which leaves two fields of 1920x540.

1440x1080i is not a specific HD format. So technically, if Sony does not have a 1280x720p mode and it uses the 1440x1080i format exlusively, then it is not a true HDV camcorder according to specs.

But of course its image quality will be HD. But keep in mind that reducing the horizontal resolution to 1440 is not a big deal. The resolution is still superior to 1280x720p and far superior to SDTV.

One concern about the resolution loss is that it is not a natively 16:9 resolution. This is a big deal, because it indicates that the CCD will be 4:3 and the video will be anamorphically squeezed to widescreen. This is similar to what High Resolution CCDs like the PDX-10 and Optura Xi/300 do now with DV's 720x480 format (a 4/3 resolution with non-square pixels).

Concerning the issue of wanting progressive video. Think of it like this: If you want progressive using a 1080i format, just separate fields and select even/odd and resize to 16:9 EDTV resolution. You will get 960x540 in true progressive (no interlaced artifacts or field blending). Of course this is perfect for DVD production, the benefits of HDTV are mostly lost (except for increased detail, sharpness, lower noise, etc).

So its what best fits your needs really. The previous JVC 1280x720p is best for high motion filming (sports), but the increased resolution of 1440x1080i is significant enough to warrant its use for most cases.

Edited:

I just read that Sony's pro HDCAM also has 1440 horizontal pixels? And the chroma is subsampled below 4:2:2?

Here's the link:
http://videoexpert.home.att.net/artic3/262hdvr.htm

Even comparing 1080i to 720p will bring about much debate as each have their own strengths. I prefer 720p just because I use a HTPC and my TV is native 768p. 720p may have fewer dots and lines but it handles motion much better with no artifacts (temporal resolution). 1080i is best with static images for delivering its full resolution potential (spatial resolution).

The following is from Joe Kane of http://www.videoessentials.com.

Very interesting Johann, Tommy, thanks for all the insight.

Love this place. And can't wait to get my hands on one of these new cams and see what their video looks like on the right monitor!

Wow! I guess all you folks already have your Hi Def televisions?

Anyway, here is some additional information: http://tinyurl.com/3cbnl

The wife says "no" until they come down substantially in price. But she did give two thumbs up on the home theater, so it ain't all that bad around this house.

Tommy thanks for the post.

I have one of those "cheap" sony HD LCD displays witha DVI input so I could run it from my computer. WHen I select the monitor it gives me two options either 640x800 or 1920 x540 and for the life od me I couldn't figure out why that was now if only I could figure out how to get the 1280 x 720 resolution...

Also I may be mistaken but I believe even the cinealta camer when it's hooked up to a monitor only does 1080 48i so I agree VERY few 1080/24p displays exist.

I bought my first HDTV in 1998 and its been a long wait for widescreen (let alone HD) consumer cams.

Unfortunately digital TVs don't always cooperate with the output from your computer. I don't want to stray off this topic but you can try using Powerstrip to obtain a custom resolution that both your PC and TV will be happy with (ATI video cards are usually better for this). You can also check out the HTPC forums over at http://www.hometheaterforum.com and at http://www.avsforum.com.

I actually think an AVI based format would have been better then MPEG2. I mean lets look at the positives. Every editor out there is compatible with AVI. The bitrate's that we could be using would be "high" for any MPEG4 varients so the lack of quality that MPEG2 is brigning would actually be dismissed because they'd be high bitrates for MPEG4 there for giving us more data to play with and greater quality (which is what i want). Also every frame could be a K frame for perfect editing and quality as said. And all still with 1 hour on a tape (if not more). :P

But oh well no use dreaming we're stuck with shi*y MPEG2 for a long time now. Guess we'll just have to hope they dont choke it and the features to much. Come on Canon :)

<<<-- Originally posted by Nick Hiltgen : I have one of those "cheap" sony HD LCD displays -->>>

Which display do you have? Is it one of the 16:9 panels that is native 1280x768? I have a 17" Sony 16:9 LCD (SDM-V72W) and it supported 1280x768 right out of the box when plugged it into my Macintosh. I believe that all newer versions of Windows and MacOS should recognize the available display resolutions due to some self-configuring circuitry built into the monitor. Otherwise you might need to install some drivers, which should have been provided on a CD with the monitor.

A few more pics of the Sony HDV.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-...15/ceb6_01.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-...15/ceb6_02.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-...15/ceb6_03.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-...15/ceb6_04.jpg

nice pics. thanks. Well i must say i've not always been a fan of Sony's appearance (shallow bastard arent i! lol). But this cam doesnt look to shabby at all :)

> I actually think an AVI based format would have been
> better then MPEG2. I mean lets look at the positives.
> Every editor out there is compatible with AVI. The
> bitrate's that we could be using would be "high" for
> any MPEG4 varients so the lack of quality that MPEG2
> is brigning would actually be dismissed because they'd
> be high bitrates for MPEG4 there for giving us more
> data to play with and greater quality (which is what i want).

I can see where you are going Daymon, but AVI is not a codec and neither is (necessarily) MPEG4. MPEG4, which is actually a QuickTime-based media architecture, supports many codecs and some codecs also support a broad range of bit rates. There is actually at least one high bit rate HD aquisition system out there, I think Sony has something to do with it. The cool thing about ISO is that when it makes something part of the MPEG standards, you don't get jealous companies implementing their own propietary codecs. This is what has actually allowed the awesome development and masification of 'MP3' audio, MPEG1 and MPEG2 video and other great stuff like the internet itself. So using a nice and open ISO-blessed codec is the way to go, whether it's higher bitrate MPEG2 or MPEG4 or WM9 (Microsoft has submitted WM9 as the video codec for a next generation DVD-like standard and is surpisingly interested in opening up the codec's source code and all that).

Also, using a codec that can live inside a media file on your Mac or PC, you will be able to edit it un any application that supports your operating systems media architectures, i.e: Windows Media, QuickTime, etc.

Just like today you can work with AVI or QuickTime files that contain DV-encoded content, you should be able to work in your favorite NLE with MPEG4 files that contain WM9 video or whatever the camera spits out. As long as it's a standard, industry-endorsed codec everything will work, because everybody will want to support it, every operating system, media architecure, NLE, etc.

<<<-- Originally posted by Johann Adler : 1440x1080i is not a specific HD format. So technically, if Sony does not have a 1280x720p mode and it uses the 1440x1080i format exlusively, then it is not a true HDV camcorder according to specs.
-->>>

Not true. The only 1080 format specified in the HDV standard is 1440 x 1080. HDV has no provision for 1920 x 1080.

Also, Sony's HDCAM records 1440 x 1080. The camera images at 1920 x 1080, but the HDCAM format records 1440 x 1080.

Both formats will be up-rezzed to 1920 x 1080 when displayed on an HDTV set.

<<---
One concern about the resolution loss is that it is not a natively 16:9 resolution. This is a big deal, because it indicates that the CCD will be 4:3 and the video will be anamorphically squeezed to widescreen. This is similar to what High Resolution CCDs like the PDX-10 and Optura Xi/300 do now with DV's 720x480 format (a 4/3 resolution with non-square pixels).
--->>
That's what the current JVC HD1 and HD10 do. They have 4:3 CCD's (which they use to take 1280 x 1024 still photos), and they sample a 16:9-shaped patch off of them to get their 1280 x 720 video. Sony may implement 16:9-shaped CCD's or do it the subsampling way. Time will tell.

<<---The previous JVC 1280x720p is best for high motion filming (sports), but the increased resolution of 1440x1080i is significant enough to warrant its use for most cases.
--->>
I don't think that's quite the best use of the cam. The interlaced 1080i, running at either 60 or 50 fields per second, would be much more suited for high-motion video. The faster sampling rate will better capture motion. In fact, the ideal mode for sports may be the 1280 x 720 x 60p format.

Originally posted by Barry Green :
"Not true. The only 1080 format specified in the HDV standard is 1440 x 1080. HDV has no provision for 1920 x 1080."

You are right, I meant to say that the camcorder would not be an HDTV standard.

"Also, Sony's HDCAM records 1440 x 1080. The camera images at 1920 x 1080, but the HDCAM format records 1440 x 1080."

I linked to an article that also says that in the previous post. This is shocking, because HDCAM should conform to HDTV specs, but does not. Well, I guess Sony can do whatever it wants, because they call it HDCAM, not HDTV...sigh

"That's what the current JVC HD1 and HD10 do. They have 4:3 CCD's (which they use to take 1280 x 1024 still photos), and they sample a 16:9-shaped patch off of them to get their 1280 x 720 video. Sony may implement 16:9-shaped CCD's or do it the subsampling way. Time will tell."

That is simply inefficient considering that we all want to move on to HDTV. HDTV is 16:9. Of course, if they are thinking people want to be able to flip a switch and shoot dv, like the JVC HD1/HD10, then backward compatability can be achieved with 4:3 more easily than 16:9 (a 16:9 native chip shooting quality 4:3 would have to be larger, I believe).

"I don't think that's quite the best use of the cam. The interlaced 1080i, running at either 60 or 50 fields per second, would be much more suited for high-motion video. The faster sampling rate will better capture motion. In fact, the ideal mode for sports may be the 1280 x 720 x 60p format."

Well, I think you have used the JVC more than me (which is none). However, on theoretical terms, progressive is higher in resolution in motion than interlaced. If there is a 25% reduction in 1080i resolution in motion and interlaced averaging of lines reduces resolution by 25%, then 1080i in motion is 604.5 pixels -> less than 720p (in vertical resolution). Obviously, in strict vertical resolution terms 720p is better than 1080i in motion. Also, smoothness differences between 30p and 30i/60i (however you state it) is negligable, correct? (or am I missing something). Without a doubt 60p is ideal for motion.

And if you don't believe me, maybe ESPN holds more clout. They are swithing to 720p for all HDTV broadcasts. I will try to bring up that article I read from their head honcho in video.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tvlistings/espnhd/espnHDStory?id=1614556

That's not the same article I wanted, but it explains it a little.

Furthermore, NBC is going for 1080i, because of their sitcoms, news, etc. They also state why on their web page.

Edit: Just to clarify. I think you are misunderstanding 50/60 fields/second. That is really 25/30 interlaced frames/sec. That is similar to 25/30 progressive frames/sec. If I am wrong, please inform me.

Barry,

I found your post very informative and insightful.

Thank you!

<<<-- Originally posted by Ignacio Rodriguez :
I can see where you are going Daymon, but AVI is not a codec and neither is (necessarily) MPEG4. MPEG4, which is actually a QuickTime-based media architecture, supports many codecs and some codecs also support a broad range of bit rates.... etc etc -->>>

All this i realise. My point was exactly this. Put it in a none-broken, popular container and use the newer codecs (And standardise them) so we can have higher bitrates to saturate the stream and not choke it. AND so we can edit the stuff (properly) in the first place!

720 60P vs. 720 30P
 

The 720P that ESPN will broadcast and the 720P that the JVC cameras record in are two different animals.

ESPN will broadcast in 720 60P (60 non-interlaced frames per second)

The JVC camera records in 720 30P (30 non-interlaced frames per second)

60P has TWICE the frame rate information as 30P.

The difference is staggering. 60P offers beautiful, fluid like motion. Perfect for capturing the fast screen action of a sporting event.

30P is more film like where the motion is blurred and jumpy. Fast action looks horrible on 30P.

-Chris Gordon
Promo Producer
KABC-TV

Barry Green wrote:

<That's what the current JVC HD1 and HD10 do. They have 4:3 CCD's (which they use to take 1280 x 1024 still photos), and they sample a 16:9-shaped patch off of them to get their 1280 x 720 video.>

Hate to burst your very informative bubble Barry, but 1280x1024 is a 5:4 format. So if they use a 1280x1024 panel in the JVC, then they chop pixels to get they're 4:3 video for SD DV. 1280x960 would be a 4:3 format.

Sony HD specs
 

1440x1080 50/60i or 1280x720 25/50/30/60p
4:2:0 sampling / MPEG-2
(Bit rate after compression: 19/25 Mbps)
Audio 48kHz (384 kbps after compression)

Prototype Camcorder:
Has multi-mode down-conversion:
(i.e. record at HD, replay SD - i or p)
Depending on format chosen, available as different outputs from camera (inc. iLink).
1080i
3 x HD CCD (1/3")
16:9 LCD & Viewfinder
SD/HD switchable: 4:3 SD/'Precision'* 16:9 SD & HD/ 'Best quality 16:9 SD'
* i.e. All 576 scan lines, full resolution
---------

60p! I'll believe it when I see it, but thats NFL quality video....

Are you sure 4:2.0 sampling for interlaced? It's a strange choice, makes a lot of sense for progessive, but is not all that good for interlaced I think. I also find it amazing that 60p be supported. That would be truly awesome!

What is 'inc.' when you are referring to the output?

All 576 scan lines, full resolution, that would be for the PAL version, right? Or is it a single camera for the whole world? (that would be great, switchable PAL/NTSC, wow!)

"inc." is short for including.........but I'm wondering, Michael, what's the source for those specs? It sounds too good to be true.

<<<-- Originally posted by Aldo Erdic : ".....It sounds too good to be true. -->>>

You know what they say... if it sounds to good to be true.. it usually is. Though i wont mind being supprised believe you me. :)

I'm not an expert on this but I remember reading that 1080-60i takes up more information per hour than 1080-24p. Since it's not that bit intensive relatively speaking, is there any reason to hope some cam manufacturer will go ahead and put a 1080p option on a prosumer camera?

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-12/74415/ceb6_04.jpg


is that a flip out LCD panel?? Or a mic mixer panel?? curious..

looks nice and the potential is exciting..

Cant wait to see the footage!