Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

SONY UNVEILS WORLD'S FIRST HDV 1080i CONSUMER CAMCORDER

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
September 7, 2004 5:28:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

New Handycam Model Brings High-Definition Quality to Personal Content

SAN DIEGO, Sept. 6, 2004 — Sony, the worldwide camcorder market
leader, today took another leap forward with the introduction of the
world's first HDV 1080i camcorder. The HDR-FX1 Handycam® camcorder
records and plays back high definition video with 1080 interlaced
lines of resolution - the highest resolution (1440 pixels x 1080
lines) of any consumer camcorder available.

"With U.S. sales of HDTV sets exploding, along with the availability
of high-definition programming, the expectation of having personal
content in HD is growing rapidly," said Linda Vuolo, director for
camcorder products for Sony Electronics. "The introduction of the
HDV-FX1 has been timed and targeted to meet this desire."

http://news.sel.sony.com/pressrelease/5118

Gary

Videoguys.com 800 323-2325
We are the Digital Video Editing & DVD Production Experts!
For all the latest NLE,DVD & HDV news check out the Videoguys Blog http://www.videoguys.com/blog/
Anonymous
September 7, 2004 10:06:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

dang... I KNEW that was going to happen right after I bought an AGDVX100a.
Why 1440 though?
"Gary Bettan" <videoguy@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:413def8d.4765963@news.concentric.net...
> New Handycam Model Brings High-Definition Quality to Personal Content
>
> SAN DIEGO, Sept. 6, 2004 - Sony, the worldwide camcorder market
> leader, today took another leap forward with the introduction of the
> world's first HDV 1080i camcorder. The HDR-FX1 Handycam® camcorder
> records and plays back high definition video with 1080 interlaced
> lines of resolution - the highest resolution (1440 pixels x 1080
> lines) of any consumer camcorder available.
>
> "With U.S. sales of HDTV sets exploding, along with the availability
> of high-definition programming, the expectation of having personal
> content in HD is growing rapidly," said Linda Vuolo, director for
> camcorder products for Sony Electronics. "The introduction of the
> HDV-FX1 has been timed and targeted to meet this desire."
>
> http://news.sel.sony.com/pressrelease/5118
>
> Gary
>
> Videoguys.com 800 323-2325
> We are the Digital Video Editing & DVD Production Experts!
> For all the latest NLE,DVD & HDV news check out the Videoguys Blog
http://www.videoguys.com/blog/
Anonymous
September 7, 2004 10:06:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Gee, only $3,700! Like an 'affordable' Ferrari!

Funny that they'd price the world's first consumer HD camcorder at a
price that matches or exceeds other HD camcorders for 'pros' that are
already available, like the JVC's. (I'll leave the interlaced vs
progressive image quality issue up to you.) Guess moms around the world
will have to save up a little more for this 'consumer' priced camcorder...
Related resources
Anonymous
September 7, 2004 11:48:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"David Chien" <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote in message
news:chl1hu$9tr$1@news.service.uci.edu...
> Gee, only $3,700! Like an 'affordable' Ferrari!
>
> Funny that they'd price the world's first consumer HD camcorder at a
> price that matches or exceeds other HD camcorders for 'pros' that are
> already available, like the JVC's.

the JVC is no comparison to the new Sony. It is a single chip. $3700 is
great price for 3 chip 1440 x 1080 camera!!!

I will buy one for sure.


(I'll leave the interlaced vs
> progressive image quality issue up to you.) Guess moms around the world
> will have to save up a little more for this 'consumer' priced camcorder...
Anonymous
September 7, 2004 11:48:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

nappy wrote:
> "David Chien" <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote in message
> news:chl1hu$9tr$1@news.service.uci.edu...
>> Gee, only $3,700! Like an 'affordable' Ferrari!
>>
>> Funny that they'd price the world's first consumer HD camcorder
>> at a price that matches or exceeds other HD camcorders for 'pros'
>> that are already available, like the JVC's.
>
> the JVC is no comparison to the new Sony. It is a single chip. $3700
> is great price for 3 chip 1440 x 1080 camera!!!
>
> I will buy one for sure.

I'm already trying to decide what to sell to offset the cost.
Anonymous
September 8, 2004 1:17:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"David Chien" <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote in message
news:chl1hu$9tr$1@news.service.uci.edu...
> Gee, only $3,700! Like an 'affordable' Ferrari!
>
> Funny that they'd price the world's first consumer HD camcorder at a
> price that matches or exceeds other HD camcorders for 'pros' that are
> already available, like the JVC's. (I'll leave the interlaced vs
> progressive image quality issue up to you.) Guess moms around the world
> will have to save up a little more for this 'consumer' priced camcorder...
>
If you are talking about the similarly priced JVC camera, that is a
actually consumer camera. As for professional HD cameras, you are
off by more than an order of magnitude. This is very inexpensive for
a HD camera. The AGDVX100a cost about that much, but is a
standard definition camera. I think you will find that it is technically a
prosumer camera, as is the Canon XL-1, (even though there are
some "professionals" using it ). I think you will likely see this camera
achieve a great deal of popularity in the low budget independent
"film industry".

David
Anonymous
September 8, 2004 1:40:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

you and be both. I wonder how long it will take for our entire workflow to
accomodate the format.
"twobirds" <notareal@eaddy.com> wrote in message
news:sf2dnSG8DMpcgqPcRVn-tw@bresnan.com...
> nappy wrote:
> > "David Chien" <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote in message
> > news:chl1hu$9tr$1@news.service.uci.edu...
> >> Gee, only $3,700! Like an 'affordable' Ferrari!
> >>
> >> Funny that they'd price the world's first consumer HD camcorder
> >> at a price that matches or exceeds other HD camcorders for 'pros'
> >> that are already available, like the JVC's.
> >
> > the JVC is no comparison to the new Sony. It is a single chip. $3700
> > is great price for 3 chip 1440 x 1080 camera!!!
> >
> > I will buy one for sure.
>
> I'm already trying to decide what to sell to offset the cost.
>
>
Anonymous
September 8, 2004 2:31:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I wonder if you can plug the firewire into your notebook computer and capture
directly to hard drive. Or even better, capture directly to a firewire drive
connected to the notebook. Of course, even better would be straight camcorder to
firewire drive, but from my understanding, they don't want to shakeup the
industry by doing that.

The reason I ask is that the 1 hour limit of the tapes could be a problem, say
you are filming a long play or recital. If you had two of these, you could cover
a school play or recital, using one for closeups and the other for distant
shots.

From the little experience, converting HDTV to DVD format results in much better
DVDs than mini-DV to DVD. So even if you are distributing the final product in
DVD, you should see a substantial boost in final quality.
Anonymous
September 8, 2004 4:16:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Big Brother is Watching You" <big brother is watching you-@attbi.com> wrote
in message news:EEq%c.148790$mD.113947@attbi_s02...
> I wonder if you can plug the firewire into your notebook computer and
capture
> directly to hard drive. Or even better, capture directly to a firewire
drive
> connected to the notebook. Of course, even better would be straight
camcorder to
> firewire drive, but from my understanding, they don't want to shakeup the
> industry by doing that.

Of course!

And Camera to firewire drive solutions already exist.


>
> The reason I ask is that the 1 hour limit of the tapes could be a problem,
say
> you are filming a long play or recital. If you had two of these, you could
cover
> a school play or recital, using one for closeups and the other for distant
> shots.

DV is only 1 hour also.


>
> From the little experience, converting HDTV to DVD format results in much
better
> DVDs than mini-DV to DVD. So even if you are distributing the final
product in
> DVD, you should see a substantial boost in final quality.
>
>
Anonymous
September 8, 2004 4:43:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"nappy" <no_spam_@sorry.com> wrote in message news:%Mm%c.17154$TT2.1480@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> dang... I KNEW that was going to happen right after I bought an AGDVX100a.
> Why 1440 though?
>
Yeah, isn't it 16x9? And shouldn't that be 1920x1080? Isn't that
the resolution delivered by HDTV broadcasts?
Anonymous
September 8, 2004 6:12:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

L David Matheny wrote:
>
>>dang... I KNEW that was going to happen right after I bought an AGDVX100a.
>>Why 1440 though?
>>
> Yeah, isn't it 16x9? And shouldn't that be 1920x1080? Isn't that
> the resolution delivered by HDTV broadcasts?

Traditionally, the highest horizontal resolution numbers are reserved
for industrial cameras, which are drastically more expensive (and larger
and more difficult to operate and/or travel with) than even the best
prosumer units.

I'll be very surprised if the new Sony isn't pretty amazing.









C.
Anonymous
September 8, 2004 6:35:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"manitou910" <manitou910@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:IrE%c.51$hax.48@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> L David Matheny wrote:
> >
> >>dang... I KNEW that was going to happen right after I bought an
AGDVX100a.
> >>Why 1440 though?
> >>
> > Yeah, isn't it 16x9? And shouldn't that be 1920x1080? Isn't that
> > the resolution delivered by HDTV broadcasts?
>
> Traditionally, the highest horizontal resolution numbers are reserved
> for industrial cameras, which are drastically more expensive (and larger
> and more difficult to operate and/or travel with) than even the best
> prosumer units.
>

What?


> I'll be very surprised if the new Sony isn't pretty amazing.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> C.
>
Anonymous
September 8, 2004 10:46:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"nappy" <no_spam_@sorry.com> wrote in message
news:NME%c.17481$FO3.5984@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> What?
>
Yeah, Sort-of :-)

I was under the impression that the profesional cameras that support 1080i
do have a horizontal resolution of 1920 when used at that resolution. A trip
to Sony Broadcast, or Panasonic, on the web would probably clear that up.

But there are special purpose industrial cameras that have much higher
resolution.
For instance
Redlake ES-11000 does 4008 x 2672 Only 5 FPS though
http://www.edmundoptics.com/US/onlinecatalog/displaypro...
http://www.redlake.com/high_res/mega2_ES11000.html

ES 2093 does 1920x1080 at 30 FPS

HG-100K 1504 x 1128 less rez, but it does 1000 FPS
http://www.redlake.com/high_speed/HG100K.html

David
Anonymous
September 8, 2004 11:24:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Instead of doing a whole lot of guessing about this camcorder, I'd suggest
reading the review at http://www.camcorderinfo.com/ and then going to the
official site at http://www.sonyhdvinfo.com/
I'm sure most questions will be answered.

Mike
Anonymous
September 9, 2004 2:10:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"david.mccall" <david.mccallUNDERLINE@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:YrI%c.158685$mD.115827@attbi_s02...
>
> "nappy" <no_spam_@sorry.com> wrote in message
> news:NME%c.17481$FO3.5984@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> >
> > What?
> >
> Yeah, Sort-of :-)
>
> I was under the impression that the profesional cameras that support 1080i
> do have a horizontal resolution of 1920 when used at that resolution. A
trip
> to Sony Broadcast, or Panasonic, on the web would probably clear that up.
>
> But there are special purpose industrial cameras that have much higher
> resolution.
> For instance
> Redlake ES-11000 does 4008 x 2672 Only 5 FPS though
>
http://www.edmundoptics.com/US/onlinecatalog/displaypro...
> http://www.redlake.com/high_res/mega2_ES11000.html
>
> ES 2093 does 1920x1080 at 30 FPS
>
> HG-100K 1504 x 1128 less rez, but it does 1000 FPS
> http://www.redlake.com/high_speed/HG100K.html
>
> David
>


Yes.. that's true. Although many of the industral high rez cameras are
monochrome. Even Digital SLRs have higher resolutions.. I was just curious
about the irrelevant comparison as I don't know anyone who has shot a show
or a commercial or even an antiwar documentary with an industrial camera! ;) 
Resolution is less of the issue than cost and tape format. 4k ccd chips have
been around for over a decade in scanners.. etc..
>
Anonymous
September 9, 2004 2:31:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

david.mccall wrote:
>
>>What?
>
> Yeah, Sort-of :-)
>
> I was under the impression that the profesional cameras that support 1080i
> do have a horizontal resolution of 1920 when used at that resolution. A trip
> to Sony Broadcast, or Panasonic, on the web would probably clear that up.
>
> But there are special purpose industrial cameras that have much higher
> resolution.
> For instance
> Redlake ES-11000 does 4008 x 2672 Only 5 FPS though
> http://www.edmundoptics.com/US/onlinecatalog/displaypro...
> http://www.redlake.com/high_res/mega2_ES11000.html
>
> ES 2093 does 1920x1080 at 30 FPS
>
> HG-100K 1504 x 1128 less rez, but it does 1000 FPS
> http://www.redlake.com/high_speed/HG100K.html

Just to clarify, I was thinking more of the Betacam format which, for
VTR and broadcast purposes, had comparatively low horizontal resolution
numbers (enabling Sony, during its Hi8 heyday, to crow that Hi8 rez
exceeded broadcast standards...), but that the best Betacam cameras
usually had horizontal rez specs in the 700-900 range.








C.
Anonymous
September 9, 2004 3:02:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"manitou910" <manitou910@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:tLL%c.1$ZGF.0@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> david.mccall wrote:
> >
> >>What?
> >
> > Yeah, Sort-of :-)
> >
> > I was under the impression that the profesional cameras that support
1080i
> > do have a horizontal resolution of 1920 when used at that resolution. A
trip
> > to Sony Broadcast, or Panasonic, on the web would probably clear that
up.
> >
> > But there are special purpose industrial cameras that have much higher
> > resolution.
> > For instance
> > Redlake ES-11000 does 4008 x 2672 Only 5 FPS though
> >
http://www.edmundoptics.com/US/onlinecatalog/displaypro...
> > http://www.redlake.com/high_res/mega2_ES11000.html
> >
> > ES 2093 does 1920x1080 at 30 FPS
> >
> > HG-100K 1504 x 1128 less rez, but it does 1000 FPS
> > http://www.redlake.com/high_speed/HG100K.html
>
> Just to clarify, I was thinking more of the Betacam format which, for
> VTR and broadcast purposes, had comparatively low horizontal resolution
> numbers (enabling Sony, during its Hi8 heyday, to crow that Hi8 rez
> exceeded broadcast standards...), but that the best Betacam cameras
> usually had horizontal rez specs in the 700-900 range.
>
>

I understand.


>
>
>
>
>
>
> C.
>
Anonymous
September 9, 2004 7:32:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

so.. what did you thinkof it Mike?
"Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:2q9ilpFsc82pU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Instead of doing a whole lot of guessing about this camcorder, I'd suggest
> reading the review at http://www.camcorderinfo.com/ and then going to the
> official site at http://www.sonyhdvinfo.com/
> I'm sure most questions will be answered.
>
> Mike
>
Anonymous
September 9, 2004 7:33:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

There will, under the HDV format, never be a resolution higher than
1080i because that's the max available. That or 720p are you're two
main choices. That's why there's no 1920+ resolutions.

They can modify the HDV format or add new resolutions and call it
something like HDV+ if they will ever support higher resolutions.

Don't have the actual HDV reference, but here's a page with the basics
of what resolutions & frame rates are possible:

http://www.yenra.com/hdv-format/
Anonymous
September 9, 2004 11:59:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

nappy wrote:
> so.. what did you thinkof it Mike?

One word comes to mind immediately.
AAAGGGHHH!!!
After reading all the "hype" about this camera, I spent time reading Adam
WIlt's articles (Editing HDV, Mind the GOP & Size Isn't Everything: Aspects
of Image Quality) on www.dv.com about the whole issue of editing with this
stuff. End result, I'm more worried and confused than ever :-)

Consider me one of the "old" guys. I learned about video on Sony B&W 1/2"
reel-to-reel VTRs (AV-3600). I then "graduated" to Sony EV-320 (the
original 1" VTR). From there to 3/4", BetaCam & MII and finally mini-DV.
Throughout most of these changes, the underlying technology stayed fairly
consistent. Sure, things like gen-lock no longer meant timing switchers to
the nanosecond using delay lines but the basics remained the same. The last
few years have been a virtual explosion of new formats and the resulting
things to be learned. When I went to college, we had no idea we would have
to learn about things like codecs and their associated problems.


An article I read just this past week was talking about similar issues and
said that the shooter of today HAS to be aware of which medium his/her
footage will end up on so that they can shoot accordingly to maximize the
end result. Say what!! As a shooter, I care about getting the best image
quality possible. I shouldn't have to worry about maximizing it for
playback on a dial-up line, a DSL line, a satellite braodcast, etc. In
theory, that's someone else's job. Doesn't sound like it's going to be
though.

My biggest fear is that the average consumer will buy (get pushed?) into
another new format and will get evn more lost than thery are now. Just read
some of the posts here about the simple questions people are asking, things
that we take for granted but are completely new to them. And most folks are
now aware of resources like this. Instead, they get their information from
the sales clerk at Best Buy/Future Shop/Circuit City - and we all know how
"knowledgeable" some of them are. Case in point - I was at the local Future
Shop last week and came across Monster Cable sets for doing a component
hook-up for a DVD player. It was $200 Canadian for a 1 metre (3 ft.)
piece!!! The sales clerk attemted to justify the price by saying this was
their "premium" grade. When I told him I could do it for less than $5 with
3 lengths of good coax, he refused to believe me. This is the same kid who
told me Monster Audio cable was worth the price too. Oh well :-(

Mike


> "Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:2q9ilpFsc82pU1@uni-berlin.de...
>> Instead of doing a whole lot of guessing about this camcorder, I'd
>> suggest reading the review at http://www.camcorderinfo.com/ and then
>> going to the official site at http://www.sonyhdvinfo.com/
>> I'm sure most questions will be answered.
>>
>> Mike
Anonymous
September 10, 2004 3:05:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"David Chien" <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote in message
news:chqlnh$29s$1@news.service.uci.edu...
> There will, under the HDV format, never be a resolution higher than
> 1080i because that's the max available. That or 720p are you're two
> main choices. That's why there's no 1920+ resolutions.

Not sure what you mean here David. Can you elaborate? 1920 is Hz rez .. 1080
is V no?


oh.. I see what you mean.. it simply is not in the spec yet.... got it.

1440x1080 is awesome! But it is MPEG2. hmmm.. Also, it looks like the
144x1080 is right up against the 25Mbps DV rate..


Upon looking at the specs it will be interesting to see if editing is
problematic etc...

thanks for the link!

>
> They can modify the HDV format or add new resolutions and call it
> something like HDV+ if they will ever support higher resolutions.
>
> Don't have the actual HDV reference, but here's a page with the basics
> of what resolutions & frame rates are possible:
>
> http://www.yenra.com/hdv-format/
Anonymous
September 10, 2004 5:35:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

That DV article was terribly out of date (or he was just plain uninformed.) This
particular HD format is in fact going to have a plug in that works with
Premiere. I've read quite a few things that say editing HDTV is in fact much
easier than the DV article stated. I thought that in the next issue Adam Wilt
corrected his pessimistic vision of HDTV editing. What he failed to realize is
that modern computer's have lots and lots of horsepower, which should be plenty
to do the job.

"Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:2qc92qFttivnU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> nappy wrote:
>> so.. what did you thinkof it Mike?
>
> One word comes to mind immediately.
> AAAGGGHHH!!!
> After reading all the "hype" about this camera, I spent time reading Adam
> WIlt's articles (Editing HDV, Mind the GOP & Size Isn't Everything: Aspects
> of Image Quality) on www.dv.com about the whole issue of editing with this
> stuff. End result, I'm more worried and confused than ever :-)
>
> Consider me one of the "old" guys. I learned about video on Sony B&W 1/2"
> reel-to-reel VTRs (AV-3600). I then "graduated" to Sony EV-320 (the
> original 1" VTR). From there to 3/4", BetaCam & MII and finally mini-DV.
> Throughout most of these changes, the underlying technology stayed fairly
> consistent. Sure, things like gen-lock no longer meant timing switchers to
> the nanosecond using delay lines but the basics remained the same. The last
> few years have been a virtual explosion of new formats and the resulting
> things to be learned. When I went to college, we had no idea we would have
> to learn about things like codecs and their associated problems.
>
>
> An article I read just this past week was talking about similar issues and
> said that the shooter of today HAS to be aware of which medium his/her
> footage will end up on so that they can shoot accordingly to maximize the
> end result. Say what!! As a shooter, I care about getting the best image
> quality possible. I shouldn't have to worry about maximizing it for
> playback on a dial-up line, a DSL line, a satellite braodcast, etc. In
> theory, that's someone else's job. Doesn't sound like it's going to be
> though.
>
> My biggest fear is that the average consumer will buy (get pushed?) into
> another new format and will get evn more lost than thery are now. Just read
> some of the posts here about the simple questions people are asking, things
> that we take for granted but are completely new to them. And most folks are
> now aware of resources like this. Instead, they get their information from
> the sales clerk at Best Buy/Future Shop/Circuit City - and we all know how
> "knowledgeable" some of them are. Case in point - I was at the local Future
> Shop last week and came across Monster Cable sets for doing a component
> hook-up for a DVD player. It was $200 Canadian for a 1 metre (3 ft.)
> piece!!! The sales clerk attemted to justify the price by saying this was
> their "premium" grade. When I told him I could do it for less than $5 with
> 3 lengths of good coax, he refused to believe me. This is the same kid who
> told me Monster Audio cable was worth the price too. Oh well :-(
>
> Mike
>
>
>> "Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:2q9ilpFsc82pU1@uni-berlin.de...
>>> Instead of doing a whole lot of guessing about this camcorder, I'd
>>> suggest reading the review at http://www.camcorderinfo.com/ and then
>>> going to the official site at http://www.sonyhdvinfo.com/
>>> I'm sure most questions will be answered.
>>>
>>> Mike
>
Anonymous
September 10, 2004 5:35:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Big Brother is Watching You wrote:
> That DV article was terribly out of date (or he was just plain
> uninformed.) This particular HD format is in fact going to have a
> plug in that works with Premiere. I've read quite a few things that
> say editing HDTV is in fact much easier than the DV article stated. I
> thought that in the next issue Adam Wilt corrected his pessimistic
> vision of HDTV editing. What he failed to realize is that modern
> computer's have lots and lots of horsepower, which should be plenty
> to do the job.


Uninformed? Adam Wilt? Hardly.
I know what his background is. What's yours?

For a start, which of the 3 articles I quoted are you referring to?
If your referring to "Editing HDV", it could be considered out of date as it
was in the August 2004 issue and, since magazines typically have a 3-month
lead time, it was probably written sometime in May. Still, I saw nothing in
the article even close to your comments about his "pessimistic vision". For
example, in the 5th paragraph, he wrote:
"Modern PCs are fast. They're so fast that they've got plenty of power to
handle the user-interface aspects of nonlinear editing, and have enough left
over to handle the hassle of fetching and decompressing long-GOP video in
the background, with no perceptible impact on system responsiveness."
Sounds to me like he does realize computers have lots and lots of
horsepower, contrary to your statement.

The other 2 articles were written for the April & May 2004 issues. The lead
time required means that he wrote them before NAB happened which is when a
lot of new hardware and software hits the market.

Yes, Premiere has announced a plug-in for the HDV format - so did Ulead the
very same day. But guess what? Using the Cineform plug-in, Vegas can do it
now.

Mike


> "Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:2qc92qFttivnU1@uni-berlin.de...
>>
>> nappy wrote:
>>> so.. what did you thinkof it Mike?
>>
>> One word comes to mind immediately.
>> AAAGGGHHH!!!
>> After reading all the "hype" about this camera, I spent time reading
>> Adam WIlt's articles (Editing HDV, Mind the GOP & Size Isn't
>> Everything: Aspects of Image Quality) on www.dv.com about the whole
>> issue of editing with this stuff. End result, I'm more worried and
>> confused than ever :-)
>>
>> Consider me one of the "old" guys. I learned about video on Sony
>> B&W 1/2" reel-to-reel VTRs (AV-3600). I then "graduated" to Sony
>> EV-320 (the original 1" VTR). From there to 3/4", BetaCam & MII and
>> finally mini-DV. Throughout most of these changes, the underlying
>> technology stayed fairly consistent. Sure, things like gen-lock no
>> longer meant timing switchers to the nanosecond using delay lines
>> but the basics remained the same. The last few years have been a
>> virtual explosion of new formats and the resulting things to be
>> learned. When I went to college, we had no idea we would have to
>> learn about things like codecs and their associated problems.
>>
>>
>> An article I read just this past week was talking about similar
>> issues and said that the shooter of today HAS to be aware of which
>> medium his/her footage will end up on so that they can shoot
>> accordingly to maximize the end result. Say what!! As a shooter, I
>> care about getting the best image quality possible. I shouldn't
>> have to worry about maximizing it for playback on a dial-up line, a
>> DSL line, a satellite braodcast, etc. In theory, that's someone
>> else's job. Doesn't sound like it's going to be though.
>>
>> My biggest fear is that the average consumer will buy (get pushed?)
>> into another new format and will get evn more lost than thery are
>> now. Just read some of the posts here about the simple questions
>> people are asking, things that we take for granted but are
>> completely new to them. And most folks are now aware of resources
>> like this. Instead, they get their information from the sales clerk
>> at Best Buy/Future Shop/Circuit City - and we all know how
>> "knowledgeable" some of them are. Case in point - I was at the
>> local Future Shop last week and came across Monster Cable sets for
>> doing a component hook-up for a DVD player. It was $200 Canadian
>> for a 1 metre (3 ft.) piece!!! The sales clerk attemted to justify
>> the price by saying this was their "premium" grade. When I told him
>> I could do it for less than $5 with 3 lengths of good coax, he
>> refused to believe me. This is the same kid who told me Monster
>> Audio cable was worth the price too. Oh well :-(
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>> "Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:2q9ilpFsc82pU1@uni-berlin.de...
>>>> Instead of doing a whole lot of guessing about this camcorder, I'd
>>>> suggest reading the review at http://www.camcorderinfo.com/ and
>>>> then going to the official site at http://www.sonyhdvinfo.com/
>>>> I'm sure most questions will be answered.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
Anonymous
September 10, 2004 7:36:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Big Brother is Watching You" <big brother is watching you-@attbi.com> wrote
in message news:Xw70d.10607$MQ5.5617@attbi_s52...
> That DV article was terribly out of date (or he was just plain
uninformed.) This
> particular HD format is in fact going to have a plug in that works with
> Premiere. I've read quite a few things that say editing HDTV is in fact
much
> easier than the DV article stated. I thought that in the next issue Adam
Wilt
> corrected his pessimistic vision of HDTV editing. What he failed to
realize is
> that modern computer's have lots and lots of horsepower, which should be
plenty
> to do the job.
>

That's kind of an amatuerish viewpoint. horsepower is largely irrelevant.
Premiere is NOT an MPEG editor. MPEG is a format that depends on frame
history so editing it is a pain in the ass, code wise. This is NOT HDTV ..
is it MPEG2 at 1440x1080. Think of it like that. MPEG is a delivery format.
Not really a good originating format. DV is a format which is compressed on
a frame basis with no history needed. Each frame has its own compression. So
editing is much easier.

I have seen a few of your posts here and while you are more than welcome ,
you can learn a lot by simply watching some of the discussions and asking
questions.. ." listen more and talk less ". Adam Wilt is a highly
respected DV author and while I don't know everything he has ever written I
am respectful of him because of what I have read.


I think Adam WAS talking about 'modern computers' as opposed to antique
computers. That's a given. He's definately computer savvy and up to date.
Count on that.




> "Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:2qc92qFttivnU1@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > nappy wrote:
> >> so.. what did you thinkof it Mike?
> >
> > One word comes to mind immediately.
> > AAAGGGHHH!!!
> > After reading all the "hype" about this camera, I spent time reading
Adam
> > WIlt's articles (Editing HDV, Mind the GOP & Size Isn't Everything:
Aspects
> > of Image Quality) on www.dv.com about the whole issue of editing with
this
> > stuff. End result, I'm more worried and confused than ever :-)
> >
> > Consider me one of the "old" guys. I learned about video on Sony B&W
1/2"
> > reel-to-reel VTRs (AV-3600). I then "graduated" to Sony EV-320 (the
> > original 1" VTR). From there to 3/4", BetaCam & MII and finally
mini-DV.
> > Throughout most of these changes, the underlying technology stayed
fairly
> > consistent. Sure, things like gen-lock no longer meant timing switchers
to
> > the nanosecond using delay lines but the basics remained the same. The
last
> > few years have been a virtual explosion of new formats and the resulting
> > things to be learned. When I went to college, we had no idea we would
have
> > to learn about things like codecs and their associated problems.
> >
> >
> > An article I read just this past week was talking about similar issues
and
> > said that the shooter of today HAS to be aware of which medium his/her
> > footage will end up on so that they can shoot accordingly to maximize
the
> > end result. Say what!! As a shooter, I care about getting the best
image
> > quality possible. I shouldn't have to worry about maximizing it for
> > playback on a dial-up line, a DSL line, a satellite braodcast, etc. In
> > theory, that's someone else's job. Doesn't sound like it's going to be
> > though.
> >
> > My biggest fear is that the average consumer will buy (get pushed?) into
> > another new format and will get evn more lost than thery are now. Just
read
> > some of the posts here about the simple questions people are asking,
things
> > that we take for granted but are completely new to them. And most folks
are
> > now aware of resources like this. Instead, they get their information
from
> > the sales clerk at Best Buy/Future Shop/Circuit City - and we all know
how
> > "knowledgeable" some of them are. Case in point - I was at the local
Future
> > Shop last week and came across Monster Cable sets for doing a component
> > hook-up for a DVD player. It was $200 Canadian for a 1 metre (3 ft.)
> > piece!!! The sales clerk attemted to justify the price by saying this
was
> > their "premium" grade. When I told him I could do it for less than $5
with
> > 3 lengths of good coax, he refused to believe me. This is the same kid
who
> > told me Monster Audio cable was worth the price too. Oh well :-(
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >> "Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >> news:2q9ilpFsc82pU1@uni-berlin.de...
> >>> Instead of doing a whole lot of guessing about this camcorder, I'd
> >>> suggest reading the review at http://www.camcorderinfo.com/ and then
> >>> going to the official site at http://www.sonyhdvinfo.com/
> >>> I'm sure most questions will be answered.
> >>>
> >>> Mike
> >
>
>
Anonymous
September 10, 2004 8:17:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Premiere can edit HDV now with a new Main Concept MPEG II TS codec. Premiere
pro forums show lots of problems for people using this setup. Some or all of
the issues might be from the JVC camera, as that's the only HDV unit in use at
this time. Future Adobe in-house solution could be better or worse.
Vegas 5 can handle the HDV mpeg II TS (transport steam) files captured with
the KDDI Studio Pro LE software that ships with the JVC cameras. Vegas is
considered a "native mpeg" editor when used this way. Vegas 5 can print back to
HDV tape all on its own just fine. It does require everything be rendered from
a 6 frame GOP to a 15 frame GOP mpeg ts file. That means a render hit for cuts
only projects. Steve Mullen has a Vegas 5 review in the aug. video systems
magazine. With a 3.2ghz P4 it took him 10 mins. to render a 4.5 min project
that had a few simple transitions. Adding a filter to every clip slipped the
render to 16 minutes. First project on the KDDI Edit Studio Pro LE showed 3
minutes. It renders to a 6 frame GOP file.
Steve didn't offer any info on how the end results LOOKED. That's the info we
are all waiting to hear. Will the new Sony handle high contrast areas better
than the JVC? As a reference, the 19Mb stream from the JVC is the same data
rate broadcasters use to transmit HDTV. The Sony is using 25Mb, might be that
much better.
In the end, all these HDV cams also do DV so I guess it's a no brainer where
the market is heading. Kinda safe investment.
Pinnacle might be THE HDV NLE. They have GOP MPEG in their blood and the
new Pinnacle Liquid Edition 6 has a new interface. Who knows at this point?
All I do know is that these are really heady times for video geeks. Get to go
play with a friends XL2 tomorrow. Whoohoo

Craig Holtorf
Anonymous
September 10, 2004 8:39:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:2qc92qFttivnU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> Case in point - I was at the local Future
> Shop last week and came across Monster Cable sets for doing a component
> hook-up for a DVD player. It was $200 Canadian for a 1 metre (3 ft.)
> piece!!! The sales clerk attemted to justify the price by saying this was
> their "premium" grade. When I told him I could do it for less than $5
with
> 3 lengths of good coax, he refused to believe me. This is the same kid
who
> told me Monster Audio cable was worth the price too. Oh well :-(
>
Oh, I'm sure it makes a "measurable difference", but I'll bet very few
people
could tell the difference in a double blind test. Have you seen the "monster
cables"
they want you to use to get good bass in your car? It looks like the welding
cable we used for a 400 amp tie-in. Yeah, that ought to carry the bass the
6'
it has to go to get from the amp to the woofers :-)

I just did a theatrical production that called for a lot of bass to simulate
explosions.
I used a pair of 40 year old stereo bookshelf speakers (12" woofer) driven
by
a 30 year old Crown DC-300A by way of ~50' runs of thin lamp cord, with a
consumer JBL subwoofer. It worked surprisingly well. I suspect the welding
cable
wasn't even needed, even for the long runs. I also suspect you could tell
the
difference between decent wire, and lamp cord, but I haven't tested it.
I think some of the fancy cables are a bit of overkill.

David
Anonymous
September 10, 2004 10:27:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

good info all.
"HighPeaksVideo" <highpeaksvideo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040910001721.25615.00000366@mb-m17.aol.com...
> Premiere can edit HDV now with a new Main Concept MPEG II TS codec.
Premiere
> pro forums show lots of problems for people using this setup. Some or all
of
> the issues might be from the JVC camera, as that's the only HDV unit in
use at
> this time. Future Adobe in-house solution could be better or worse.
> Vegas 5 can handle the HDV mpeg II TS (transport steam) files captured
with
> the KDDI Studio Pro LE software that ships with the JVC cameras. Vegas is
> considered a "native mpeg" editor when used this way. Vegas 5 can print
back to
> HDV tape all on its own just fine. It does require everything be rendered
from
> a 6 frame GOP to a 15 frame GOP mpeg ts file. That means a render hit for
cuts
> only projects. Steve Mullen has a Vegas 5 review in the aug. video
systems
> magazine. With a 3.2ghz P4 it took him 10 mins. to render a 4.5 min
project
> that had a few simple transitions. Adding a filter to every clip slipped
the
> render to 16 minutes. First project on the KDDI Edit Studio Pro LE showed
3
> minutes. It renders to a 6 frame GOP file.
> Steve didn't offer any info on how the end results LOOKED. That's the
info we
> are all waiting to hear. Will the new Sony handle high contrast areas
better
> than the JVC? As a reference, the 19Mb stream from the JVC is the same
data
> rate broadcasters use to transmit HDTV. The Sony is using 25Mb, might be
that
> much better.
> In the end, all these HDV cams also do DV so I guess it's a no brainer
where
> the market is heading. Kinda safe investment.
> Pinnacle might be THE HDV NLE. They have GOP MPEG in their blood and
the
> new Pinnacle Liquid Edition 6 has a new interface. Who knows at this
point?
> All I do know is that these are really heady times for video geeks. Get
to go
> play with a friends XL2 tomorrow. Whoohoo
>
> Craig Holtorf
Anonymous
September 10, 2004 11:21:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

david.mccall wrote:
> "Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:2qc92qFttivnU1@uni-berlin.de...
>>
>> Case in point - I was at the local Future
>> Shop last week and came across Monster Cable sets for doing a
>> component hook-up for a DVD player. It was $200 Canadian for a 1
>> metre (3 ft.) piece!!! The sales clerk attemted to justify the
>> price by saying this was their "premium" grade. When I told him I
>> could do it for less than $5 with 3 lengths of good coax, he refused
>> to believe me. This is the same kid who told me Monster Audio cable
>> was worth the price too. Oh well :-(
>>
> Oh, I'm sure it makes a "measurable difference", but I'll bet very few
> people
> could tell the difference in a double blind test. Have you seen the
> "monster cables"
> they want you to use to get good bass in your car? It looks like the
> welding cable we used for a 400 amp tie-in. Yeah, that ought to carry
> the bass the 6'
> it has to go to get from the amp to the woofers :-)
>
> I just did a theatrical production that called for a lot of bass to
> simulate explosions.
> I used a pair of 40 year old stereo bookshelf speakers (12" woofer)
> driven by
> a 30 year old Crown DC-300A by way of ~50' runs of thin lamp cord,
> with a consumer JBL subwoofer. It worked surprisingly well. I suspect
> the welding cable
> wasn't even needed, even for the long runs. I also suspect you could
> tell the
> difference between decent wire, and lamp cord, but I haven't tested
> it.
> I think some of the fancy cables are a bit of overkill.
>
> David


I'm reminded of a CBC study done years ago when Monster cable first came
out. They were considering it as their primary audio cable so they ran very
extensive tests comparng it to several other brands. Their conclusion -
lamp cord was just as good :-)

Mike
September 10, 2004 5:23:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <tea0d.275508$8_6.11750@attbi_s04>,
david.mccallUNDERLINE@comcast.net says...
>
> "Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:2qc92qFttivnU1@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > Case in point - I was at the local Future
> > Shop last week and came across Monster Cable sets for doing a component
> > hook-up for a DVD player. It was $200 Canadian for a 1 metre (3 ft.)
> > piece!!! The sales clerk attemted to justify the price by saying this was
> > their "premium" grade. When I told him I could do it for less than $5
> with
> > 3 lengths of good coax, he refused to believe me. This is the same kid
> who
> > told me Monster Audio cable was worth the price too. Oh well :-(
> >
> Oh, I'm sure it makes a "measurable difference", but I'll bet very few
> people
> could tell the difference in a double blind test. Have you seen the "monster
> cables"
> they want you to use to get good bass in your car? It looks like the welding
> cable we used for a 400 amp tie-in. Yeah, that ought to carry the bass the
> 6'
> it has to go to get from the amp to the woofers :-)
>
> I just did a theatrical production that called for a lot of bass to simulate
> explosions.
> I used a pair of 40 year old stereo bookshelf speakers (12" woofer) driven
> by
> a 30 year old Crown DC-300A by way of ~50' runs of thin lamp cord, with a
> consumer JBL subwoofer. It worked surprisingly well. I suspect the welding
> cable
> wasn't even needed, even for the long runs. I also suspect you could tell
> the
> difference between decent wire, and lamp cord, but I haven't tested it.
> I think some of the fancy cables are a bit of overkill.
>
> David
>
>
>

Back in the 80's we did testing with multiple wire
types, and sizes. We were quite surprised that the
larger sized wire did not always sound the best.
In fact, we obtained the best sound consistently with
standard thin phone cable. Even with bass response.
Sound quality was also quite different with high end
speakers, and it sounded better on the speakers that
had multiple drivers. It was so pronounced, that we
could actually do a "blind" test, using blind people
to tell the differences 99% of the time.

Ok, so I am kidding about using blind people, but we
did obtain the results stated with seeing eyed
persons.

When it comes to sound quality, bigger is not always
better, I have found it is more the summ of all parts.




--
www.fiveminutesoffame.com
Get your five minutes of FAME
Anonymous
September 10, 2004 6:34:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Five" <Niko@fiveminutesof____.com> wrote in message
news:wVh0d.277452$8_6.183671@attbi_s04...
>
> Back in the 80's we did testing with multiple wire
> types, and sizes. We were quite surprised that the
> larger sized wire did not always sound the best.
> In fact, we obtained the best sound consistently with
> standard thin phone cable. Even with bass response.
> Sound quality was also quite different with high end
> speakers, and it sounded better on the speakers that
> had multiple drivers. It was so pronounced, that we
> could actually do a "blind" test, using blind people
> to tell the differences 99% of the time.
>
> Ok, so I am kidding about using blind people, but we
> did obtain the results stated with seeing eyed
> persons.
>
> When it comes to sound quality, bigger is not always
> better, I have found it is more the summ of all parts.
>
Very interesting.

I'll bet you can "see" the difference on a scope,
but I never look at scopes when listening to audio.
Nor do most people.

David
Anonymous
September 10, 2004 6:44:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

It is supposedly all about the 'skin' effect regarding high frequencies. Add
to that super low capacitance and resistance. Trouble is.. no one can tell
the difference. Except Monster Cable salesman, of course.

..
"david.mccall" <david.mccallUNDERLINE@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:WXi0d.277651$8_6.263004@attbi_s04...
>
> "Five" <Niko@fiveminutesof____.com> wrote in message
> news:wVh0d.277452$8_6.183671@attbi_s04...
> >
> > Back in the 80's we did testing with multiple wire
> > types, and sizes. We were quite surprised that the
> > larger sized wire did not always sound the best.
> > In fact, we obtained the best sound consistently with
> > standard thin phone cable. Even with bass response.
> > Sound quality was also quite different with high end
> > speakers, and it sounded better on the speakers that
> > had multiple drivers. It was so pronounced, that we
> > could actually do a "blind" test, using blind people
> > to tell the differences 99% of the time.
> >
> > Ok, so I am kidding about using blind people, but we
> > did obtain the results stated with seeing eyed
> > persons.
> >
> > When it comes to sound quality, bigger is not always
> > better, I have found it is more the summ of all parts.
> >
> Very interesting.
>
> I'll bet you can "see" the difference on a scope,
> but I never look at scopes when listening to audio.
> Nor do most people.
>
> David
>
>
Anonymous
September 10, 2004 7:49:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"nappy" <no_spam_@sorry.com> wrote in message
news:G5j0d.13869$QJ3.110@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> It is supposedly all about the 'skin' effect regarding high frequencies.
Add
> to that super low capacitance and resistance. Trouble is.. no one can
tell
> the difference. Except Monster Cable salesman, of course.
>
Well that was my first chuckle today. Thanks
David
!