HD Video Cameras

[Mutt]

ok show me them - give me the manufacturer and model numbers of what's currently out there and any new ones just about to hit the street.

thanks

[Mutt]

i mean 'pro-sumer' type cameras - not interested in expensive cameras over 10K.

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

I shoot with the JVC GR HD 1 and the Sony FX I just got.

I still like the JVC though, in some ways I think it is better.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by AlienQ

I shoot with the JVC GR HD 1 and the Sony FX I just got.

I still like the JVC though, in some ways I think it is better.

how much $$$ did each cost you?

[tony286]

The new panasonic will be coming out its actual HD ,the hvx100 and their is the hd canon. I would wait a few months some of the new stuff coming out will be very strong. A good place to go for info is www.dvxuser.comYou want to make sure what you get is 3 ccd.

[jaYMan]

we picked up the sony hc1 little over 2k

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Score em off of Ebay they get pretty cheap there.

I got the FX for $800.00, a friend of mine is a Distributor.
The JVC I got off ebay for 1800.00 or somthing after the whole package.

Hardware and software upgrades another 5K.

Ya would be better off waiting for the Panasonic though.
Thats my next one.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by tony404

The new panasonic will be coming out its actual HD ,the hvx100 and their is the hd canon. I would wait a few months some of the new stuff coming out will be very strong. A good place to go for info is www.dvxuser.com

thanks for the info - that's what i'm thinking - that we're just on the cusp of some better HD cameras coming out and possibly lower prices.

i just looked at the HD samples at http://www.hdcontent.net The vids looked nice BUT the bitrate on those samples was 3190 kbps - i'm no video guru but no way is any video at 3200 kbps approaching HD video - I could make a stunning looking normal WMV file or MPEG at that bitrate and it would look similar to the HD sample.

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

DVC PRO HD stream comes in at 100 Mbps.
No matter how ya look at it, for the web thats alot, and a weee bit to much.
3000KBS for net is pretty massive and the quality hangs in very nicely not to mention 16X9 aspect ratio.

If ya making True HD for the players comming out this Xmas go with it but for the net to run with 100Mbs is clearly unnecessary. Most ALL monitors would not be able to tell the difference between the quality of a 100Mbs stream VS a 5000Kbs and maybe a 3100kbs stream on a full frame size.

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Rumor has it that even the HD players comming out expect compression from the HD disc's. So a "TRUE" Hd signal by definition of the "Official HD standard" will not be the result even for most all Entertainment Systems, even "HD" ones.

[Expo_Vids]

Originally Posted by AlienQ

DVC PRO HD stream comes in at 100 Mbps.
No matter how ya look at it, for the web thats alot, and a weee bit to much.
3000KBS for net is pretty massive and the quality hangs in very nicely not to mention 16X9 aspect ratio.

If ya making True HD for the players comming out this Xmas go with it but for the net to run with 100Mbs is clearly unnecessary. Most ALL monitors would not be able to tell the difference between the quality of a 100Mbs stream VS a 5000Kbs and maybe a 3100kbs stream on a full frame size.

The "100 Mbps" just means that it does not get compressed to hell before you can edit the video. You can still compress it down the the same size as any other HD source as (with similar resolution) after you edit the footage.

I started using the Sony HDV cams one year ago. I actually have owned all 3 modes they put out. For web you can just get the HC1 because you won't be able to tell the difference between that and the Z1/FX1. If you compare the footage of the HC1 and Z1/FX1 on a big widescreen TV the Z1/FX1 completely blows the HC1 away - not even a competition. The HC1 does make a cheap HDV deck though

After shooting and editing hundreds of hours on HDV I would have to say I don't really like the format but I think it is here to stay since so many cheap HDV cams have flooded the market.

The Panasonic that will be out in a few months will not kill the HDV market by any means. The HVX will cost a hell of alot more because of the P2 storage. You can't record DVCPRO HD (with this particular camera) onto tape so that will make the camera about 3x more expensive than the Sony. You could just strap a laptop to your back and record to disk if you want to avoid the P2 storage but that will get old (and tiresome) very fast.

You gotta wonder what all this HDV footage will look like when people begin to watch it on huge widescreen TVs. I bet there will be lots and lots of out of focus shots because you cannot really tell on the small LCD if you have sharp focus. The FX1 peaking feature is a complete joke because they just crippled it on purpose so you would have to buy the Z1 if you want to be visible. Also the same crowd who has gotten away with the amazing low light performance of of the VX2100 is now using the FX1. The FX1 needs lots more light to create a decent image and for the autofocus to lock onto the subject. The days of these guys just showing up on set with a VX2100, wide angle lens, and a little plastic Sony light is over. Time to use some Kino Flos unless you want your video to look dark.

I think most of the HDV content on the web is just a waste of bandwidth and I doubt many surfers will join one site in favor of another just because they see the term "HD" plastered all over the site. I can get just as good as looking of a web video from an SD source as I can from a 750p video from the FX1. Remember that resolution is not everything. There are so many other factors that go into creating a good image then just raw resolution. The extra quality of picture you get with an HD web video (from an HDV source) is not worth the extra download time.

Of course I do agree that if you intend on selling your content to customers who will be watching your content on the HD widscreen TVs then you better be doing it in some form of HD ( or at least a 16x9 SD camera) because people mostly hate it when the picture does not fill up their entire screens. IF the picture does not fill it up their screen then they tend to select "fill screen" in their menu and then your models get scretched (not in a good way). Also, SD looks like shit in comparison to HD when played big TV.

I have my order in for the HVX mainly because I will be using it for mainstream production. If a client expects me to shoot their content with that camera then they will have to pay me more money or else I will just use the Sony.

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

I like SD source myself, it does the trick very nicely.

None of the cam's mentioned cept one does all 3.

JVC GR HD 1, which was my first and still favorite for its flexibility.

Shoots DV, SD and HD(V) with a built in still camara that takes a flash card. The stills are not tits but hey at least JVC thought of it!
The thing is a swiss army knife.

[Expo_Vids]

Originally Posted by AlienQ

I like SD source myself, it does the trick very nicely.

None of the cam's mentioned cept one does all 3.

JVC GR HD 1, which was my first and still favorite for its flexibility.

Shoots DV, SD and HD(V) with a built in still camara that takes a flash card. The stills are not tits but hey at least JVC thought of it!
The thing is a swiss army knife.

The Panny will do DV, DVC PRO SD, DVCPRO HD in 720p, 1080p, and 1080i so I sure you will be happy with that.

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Originally Posted by Expo_Vids

The Panny will do DV, DVC PRO SD, DVCPRO HD in 720p, 1080p, and 1080i so I sure you will be happy with that.

Absolutly, I will be all over it when it comes out.
I only worry about how unwieldy it will be in post.
Big stuff means big drives and big processing.
I wont be shooting for the net with that stuff.

But for the web production I like to think I got some pretty good tools and grabbing a nice lock before the wave. Is HD for the net?
I do think so, otherwise I would not have invested in the things I have to produce

[Expo_Vids]

Originally Posted by AlienQ

Absolutly, I will be all over it when it comes out.
I only worry about how unwieldy it will be in post. Big stuff means big drives and big processing.

Yeah big drives but the real issue will be archiving that raw footage since you cannot record it to tape. Perhaps BlueRay disks will be the best way. Panasonic is suggesting using DLT

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Originally Posted by Expo_Vids

Yeah big drives but the real issue will be archiving that raw footage since you cannot record it to tape. Perhaps BlueRay disks will be the best way. Panasonic is suggesting using DLT

Yeah, lets see how economical it is to keep everything on p2 cards LOL.

Its still a trip into the unknown with HD.

[Validus]

The new Canon... HAIL TO THE CANON!!!

[Mr Cheeks]

Originally Posted by Expo_Vids

The "100 Mbps" just means that it does not get compressed to hell before you can edit the video. You can still compress it down the the same size as any other HD source as (with similar resolution) after you edit the footage.

I started using the Sony HDV cams one year ago. I actually have owned all 3 modes they put out. For web you can just get the HC1 because you won't be able to tell the difference between that and the Z1/FX1. If you compare the footage of the HC1 and Z1/FX1 on a big widescreen TV the Z1/FX1 completely blows the HC1 away - not even a competition. The HC1 does make a cheap HDV deck though

After shooting and editing hundreds of hours on HDV I would have to say I don't really like the format but I think it is here to stay since so many cheap HDV cams have flooded the market.

The Panasonic that will be out in a few months will not kill the HDV market by any means. The HVX will cost a hell of alot more because of the P2 storage. You can't record DVCPRO HD (with this particular camera) onto tape so that will make the camera about 3x more expensive than the Sony. You could just strap a laptop to your back and record to disk if you want to avoid the P2 storage but that will get old (and tiresome) very fast.

You gotta wonder what all this HDV footage will look like when people begin to watch it on huge widescreen TVs. I bet there will be lots and lots of out of focus shots because you cannot really tell on the small LCD if you have sharp focus. The FX1 peaking feature is a complete joke because they just crippled it on purpose so you would have to buy the Z1 if you want to be visible. Also the same crowd who has gotten away with the amazing low light performance of of the VX2100 is now using the FX1. The FX1 needs lots more light to create a decent image and for the autofocus to lock onto the subject. The days of these guys just showing up on set with a VX2100, wide angle lens, and a little plastic Sony light is over. Time to use some Kino Flos unless you want your video to look dark.

I think most of the HDV content on the web is just a waste of bandwidth and I doubt many surfers will join one site in favor of another just because they see the term "HD" plastered all over the site. I can get just as good as looking of a web video from an SD source as I can from a 750p video from the FX1. Remember that resolution is not everything. There are so many other factors that go into creating a good image then just raw resolution. The extra quality of picture you get with an HD web video (from an HDV source) is not worth the extra download time.

Of course I do agree that if you intend on selling your content to customers who will be watching your content on the HD widscreen TVs then you better be doing it in some form of HD ( or at least a 16x9 SD camera) because people mostly hate it when the picture does not fill up their entire screens. IF the picture does not fill it up their screen then they tend to select "fill screen" in their menu and then your models get scretched (not in a good way). Also, SD looks like shit in comparison to HD when played big TV.

I have my order in for the HVX mainly because I will be using it for mainstream production. If a client expects me to shoot their content with that camera then they will have to pay me more money or else I will just use the Sony.

very well said

[Tat2Jr]

Originally Posted by Expo_Vids

I think most of the HDV content on the web is just a waste of bandwidth and I doubt many surfers will join one site in favor of another just because they see the term "HD" plastered all over the site. I can get just as good as looking of a web video from an SD source as I can from a 750p video from the FX1. Remember that resolution is not everything. There are so many other factors that go into creating a good image then just raw resolution. The extra quality of picture you get with an HD web video (from an HDV source) is not worth the extra download time.

I agree! Since I just do web stuff I'm sticking with the VX2100. Will have to go HD someday, but I'm holding out till the end! Plus I absolutely HATE Premiere Pro over Premiere 6.5

[HDADULT]

Am I reading this right? The new panasonic records to DV as well as the P2 Card? If so this is one bad ass camera. The only thing I wish it had was in interchangeable lenses but I guess for $6k you cant get everything.

http://broadcastengineering.com/news...x200-20051212/