New Sony HDV 1080i

[Guest]

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040907/latu053_1.html

This is the new HDV camera from sony. Official.
What do you think about it?

But I don´t see any progressive mode.
Am I wrong?

[araujofh]

Nope. It isn't progressive.

All the best

Fidel.

[Ranger]

Sounds interesting!

I saw no mention of it shooting in progressive mode, but then again at 1080i is it all that necessary?

** There is also a newly developed 16:9 aspect mode for recording in widescreen.

** Custom Features for a Film-Like Feel and Smooth Transitions: With the HDR-FX1 Handycam camcorder, the budding hobbyist as well as the seasoned videographer can make their video look like a professionally-shot film. The Cinematone Gamma(TM) and Cineframe(TM) functions enable high quality picture processing to create video with the warmth, softness and richness similar to a big screen movie.

** The HDR-FX1 camcorder will be available in November for about $3,700.

This video camera has definitely peaked my curiousity.

[alpi69]

http://www.global-dvc.org/Sony%20HDV.htm

once again an intersting cam which apparently also has its knacks (they speak of softness with all lens-adapters) , but i wonder if anybody will buy the XL2 now......

[kbar]

im confused. I thought mini dv only lets you give 720x480 lines of resolution. Then how does a high definition 1040 recording show it??? I understand it will still look better, but nonetheless you cant exceed teh 720x480, right?

[Jestorius]

If anyone gonna buy a XL2?

Read this : http://www.abcdv.com/article/articleprint/87/-1/32/ , you can make more if you just make it without to wait for higher and higher gears.

[Jean-P_Archibald]

kbar, DV is, as you stated, 720X480. But this new cam is HDV, an entirely new format that use MiniDV tapes as medium, but write date in a compressed form (mpeg 2) on it .

[Anhar_Miah]

****GO SONY***GO SONY******* :D :D

OOPS! soory Jarred (i must not arouse your wrath upon me!! :D ), but you must admit its exciting news for me anyway ;D

Digital Video has just been given ANOTHER big kick forward (yea i know lots of people will hate it, well you have your right to your views)

[Kidster]

http://www.global-dvc.org/Sony%20HDV.htm

once again an intersting cam which apparently also has its knacks (they speak of softness with all lens-adapters) , but i wonder if anybody will buy the XL2 now......


I don't think this consumer version of HDV will be a big hit with the pro's. But will be when their prosumer version hits the street. ie 720p..XLR audio etc.

[Isaac_Brody]

"But will be when their prosumer version hits the street. ie 720p..XLR audio etc."


...not to mention 24P.

[Kidster]

"But will be when their prosumer version hits the street. ie 720p..XLR audio etc."


...not to mention 24P.


Who know's? If it is anything like when the VX1000 was introduced then followed by the PD-150 it could be a long time.

Has anyone heard any news on the Panasonic HD camera. I saw the prototype picture once and I believe it was supposed to have 1080i & 720p recorded with P2 cards.

[the_director]

The new Sony HDV is an excellent filmmaking choice. We tested PD150 against the DVX. The PD150 deinterlaced footage looked nearly as good as the DVX progressive footage, on a gig screen, with some people commenting that it was equally good.

There are two issues with this new Sony cam. One is lack of 24p; other is compression artifacts.

You can deinterlace and slow down 60i to 24p nicely.

There are software products made for HDV that clean the compression artifacs very nicely.

Verdict: SD for low end indie film production was just delivered the final blow.

More: JVC will be showing New HDV products in Holand very shortly.

[Barry_Green]

Man, Canon must be furious. They had the spotlight to themselves for about a week...

(not to say the Sony will be a superior camera, but this new announcement certainly diverts a lot of attention away from the XL2).

[Jestorius]

"We tested PD150 against the DVX. The PD150 deinterlaced footage looked nearly as good as the DVX progressive footage, on a gig screen, with some people commenting that it was equally good. "

Can you tell me please what did you do with the custom preset. I'm using a PD150 and I have some great shout made with custum preset. I'm using the PD150 (PAL) only with the Century 16:9.

[David Jimerson]

The $3700 price tag is definitely attractive. Waiting anxiously for THESE reviews . . .

I can imagine having this guy and the DVX alongside each other in my arsenal. Very nice thought, indeed.

[Ranger]

Man, Canon must be furious. *They had the spotlight to themselves for about a week...

(not to say the Sony will be a superior camera, but this new announcement certainly diverts a lot of attention away from the XL2).
Isn't that the truth.

Until a few hours ago, I was actively making plans to buy the XL2 at the beginning of next month. I even completely paid off my Ford Explorer today to financially make room for my new addition. However, the announcement of Sony's new puppy has changed all that.

I will probably wait for the pro version to come out. I'm heading back to Tokyo in April, so I hope it will come out before then.

The question remains for me - what will the pro version consist of?
My guess: 1080i/720p, XLR inputs, blu-ray writable disks, 24fps. Those features, I believe, would justify the $3000 jump in price.

Sony is in a great position to clean house with this camera if they play their cards right with the pro version.

Time will tell.

[Barry_Green]

Yeah, provided you either get some lame Beachtek adapter, or get some cheapo 1/8" minijack mic's, because the Sony DOESN'T HAVE XLR's! ARGH!

[David Jimerson]

Why blu-ray writable discs? That seems an odd gamble to take in a world where the HiDef DVD standard isn't anywhere near settled.

Also, I think I'd find writing to DVD to be rather consumerish.

[David Jimerson]

Yeah, provided you either get some lame Beachtek adapter, or get some cheapo 1/8" minijack mic's, because the Sony DOESN'T HAVE XLR's! *ARGH!

It is a weakness.

[Ranger]

Why blu-ray writable discs? *That seems an odd gamble to take in a world where the HiDef DVD standard isn't anywhere near settled.

Also, I think I'd find writing to DVD to be rather consumerish.
I say blu-ray only because Sony has been pushing this format pretty hard in the last few years. I read somewhere of Sony's attempt to install the blu-ray format into their future line of video cameras. I even heard that Sony was also pushing blu-ray into their upcoming Playstation 3. However, this is stuff I read on the grapevine several weeks back and thus cannot validate its content.

[David Jimerson]

I agree they're pushing it, but I don't see it being added to the pro version of this camera. I doubt pros would want it, and it would be a substantial redesign.

[Jestorius]

You need HD progressiv to blowing the video upp to film. Than if you follow the process of filmmaking you don't need XLR. Actually you can use any XLR with a spes. cabel but you don't need killer sound. You need something for SMPTE or to use the sound as a reference. You record the sound on DAT, MiniDisc or HD.

I don't need XLR if the prize is ~ 500,- less.

[Ranger]

I agree they're pushing it, but I don't see it being added to the pro version of this camera. *I doubt pros would want it, and it would be a substantial redesign.
Here ya go David. This is an old article that semi-supports the argument of using blu-ray into this camcorder.
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/sony-hdv-nab-prototype-04_18_04.htm

[Guest]

I cant belive this!

Sony introduces an HDV camera 2 days after I pay $5000 for an XL2 I waited all summer for! AND I havent even got it in the mail yet! If I could cancel the shipment I would and wait for the sony HDV.

I always get ripped off!

Plus, some guys are getting there XL2 for $500 dollars less at ebuyer.com.
I am so jellous of other people who win in life.

Maybe the XL2 will be better than the sony HDV in some way that makes me happy I bought it for 5 thousand dollars.

Anybody want to cheer me up?

[gcaus]

Does the Sony allow interchangeable lenses?

It's not even 24P. Yea it has cine-mode, but what are you so upset about?

The XL2 appears to be an amazing camera. You're the second person to appear worried. Even though this camera appeared, I'm still considering the XL2 and the DVX100a, for that matter.

HD doesn't mean it is automatically the best. Or am I missing something?

-Jerry

[Ranger]

Anybody want to cheer me up?
Ummm ... it's a pretty color and looks cool? *;)

Okay, seriously.

Joey, look at it this way, at least you will have your camera within the week. *Whereas, if I wait for the Sony pro version to surface, it will probably be six or seven months down the road before I will ever get my hands on a camera.

I envy you.

[kbar]

Joey, I wouldnt worry at all, the XL2 Im sure will be found to be a great camera within the next few weeks- The images already posted have been stunning to say the least. And as far as the HD sony cam goes, it wont be out for a few months at the least, and it doesnt have progressive modes (specifically 24p), xlr's, or interchangeable lenses. Plus, as you can see in some of the articles about it, a few more things it needs for proper easy use may end up costing a good amount of more money as well.

Cheer up! You've got a sweet ride! Drive it across America and back!

[Barry_Green]

The XL2 has interchangeable lenses, true progressive scan, and actual XLR audio inputs. The XL2 is available today, the Sony doesn't offer any of that. The Sony isn't slated to be available for about three months. But then again, the Sony should be $1300 less also.

If you're unsure, and it sounds like you are, I'd recommend trying to cancel your order. Even though the XL2 may be superb, there's nothing quite like $5,000 of "buyer's remorse"...

[Glenn_Gipson]

I would not buy this cam for fiction movie making because interlace 1080 video looks VERY 'videoish.' Once again, Sony has prooven that its head is far up it's a#@ by not including either 30p or 24p with this cam. Sony will never get it.

[Kidster]

Glenn,

remember that this new Sony HDV is a "consumer" camera, not "prosumer". We don't know what the pro version of this camera will or will not feature. Maybe it will do 24p, maybe not.

[Jestorius]

The XL2 is a very god equipment. It gonna take years before the indutry can accept the HDV as a standard. They will have DVD now. Sometimes I still have to make VHS and Video-CD.

"34. Can I use the JVC HD-1 to shoot hi-def and transfer to film?

No. The JVC's 16:9 HDTV (720p30) format is 30 frames/sec progressive-scan and cannot be converted to 24 frames/sec. (Normal interlaced NTSC is 60 fields/sec and is easily converted to 24, but 30P formats have only 30 motion samples per second and no smooth conversion to 24 is possible).

The other modes of the JVC are standard definition and offer no real advantages. Wait for the European version (720p25) if there will be one."

From the www.dvfilm.com

[boo]

i love my dvx. it's tried and proven. ;D

[J.R. Hudson]

I cant belive this!

Sony introduces an HDV camera 2 days after I pay $5000 for an XL2 I waited all summer for! *AND I havent even got it in the mail yet! If I could cancel the shipment I would and wait for the sony HDV.

I always get ripped off!

Plus, some guys are getting there XL2 for $500 dollars less at ebuyer.com.
I am so jellous of other people who win in life.

Maybe the XL2 will be better than the sony HDV in some way that makes me happy I bought it for 5 thousand dollars.

Anybody want to cheer me up?

Joey

You have a sweet camera. Start making films and dont fret the technology. DVX, XL2 or Sony; it doesnt matter. What matters is what yo put on the screen. Neither camera has a make or break option that will make your work that much more compelling. Look at Pieces of April and Open Water: Both shot on PD150's (OW also shot on VX2000 I think) and Ill take the DVX, XL2 or new SONT anyday over those.

Something new and improved will always come out and you need to start worrying about your art now and not the "OMG a new camera!"

[Barry_Green]

People keep mentioning a potential "pro" version of the Sony -- did I miss it in the press release? Is there a definitive statement from Sony saying that they WILL produce a pro version? I'd sure like to know about it...

Sony didn't necessarily "miss the boat" on 24P -- by choosing 1080i, and making it HDV compliant, they can't have progressive scan. There is no progressive scan in the HDV standard at 1080i res, the only progressive scan in HDV comes at the 720p rate. And even then HDV doesn't provide for 24P.

Sony does include an in-camera filmlook type of process to convert the 1080/60i into a simulation of 24P and of 30P. We should withhold judgement until we see it -- it could look great.

[kbar]

oh, im sure it will look great! But we're trying to cheer up Joey right now, so talking about its possible greatness may not do the job.

BTW, one of the articles I read, if not both, said that there will almost for sure be a Prosumer version. The Sony guy in LasVegas was quoted saying that.

Watch out Hollywood fancy land! Technology is catching up so that we can ALL make professional quality movies!!!

[Mike_Donis]

Just watch though - they'll soon have a forty eight megapixel, 70mm CCD 4:4:4 UD (ultra definition) camera with more dynamic range and resolution than IMAX film does today! ::)

[Jean-P_Archibald]

Camcorderinfo have this comment at the end of the HDR-FX1 article:

"Since the introduction of their first MiniDV camcorder in 1995, Sony has a history of introducing professional versions in their broadcast line of their highest end consumer camcorders. The consumer DCR-VX1000 has the broadcast DSR-PD100, the DCR-VX2000 has the broadcast DSR-PD150, and recently the DCR-TRV950 and the DCR-VX2100 have the DSR-PDX10 and the DSR-PD170, respectively. Although not much information is available, it appears that Sony Broadcast is planning to introduce a higher-end version of the HDR-FX1. According to Sony consumer, that camcorder will be available in the 1st quarter of 2005 for under $7,000. Further details are not available. However, considering the timing of this release, it seems likely that Sony will display at least a prototype of their first professional HDV camcorder at the International Broadcasters Conference being held later this week in Amsterdam. "

But there is nothing official.

[Barry_Green]

If they introduce a DSR250-caliber prosumer version (meaning, a real viewfinder, real XLR's, bigger form factor, etc) and keep it around $5000 or so, that would be *extremely interesting*.

[Policar]

This camera looks awesome. There's apparently a "cinema mode" which may mean "frame mode" 24p and 30p which would still be a TON of resolution. I don't like 60i to 24p, though...it never looks quite right although it can look pretty good nonetheless. I'm not going to replace my dvx, but the price is definitely right and the features are totally innovative. Sony has impressed me. They could have pulled an XL2 and introduced a dvx clone (with the pd170's advantages of low light performance and..uhh...sonyness), but they made something totally new and different. Very cool. I'm not dismissing the xl2, though, I'm just saying that it was in no way revolutionary. It's basically just a VERY refined mix of the xl1s and dvx.

Once we have HD and 24p coupled together the next big advancement will be in dynamic range from larger CCDs. We must hope that eventually there are video cameras with dSLR sized chips. And 50mpbs recording onto memory cards. And 24p native footage with NO PULLDOWN to remove meaning no wasted frames or wasted data. Are you listening, panasonic?

[Policar]

Ooops...no XLR ports. Nice job crippling a good product so you can sell a slightly different version for more after forcing anyone who wants good audio to wait four months, sony. Also, "cinema mode" is 2:3:2:3 frame mode (I think) which probably looks gorgeous but would require reverse telecine and that's a pain. I won't buy an hdv cam until it has 24pA or 24p native footage so I don't have to worry about dealing with interlaces. (3d animation and green screening are horrible with interlaced footage.)

[Jestorius]

You don't need XLR for film. You need DAT or higher equipment.

I'm a little bit confused now. It's not more than a couple af years when we got the field rendering in 3D software. They had motion blur and DOF controll all the time but we wanted the field rendering (interlace). And now we want motion blur more than ever.

[Neil Rowe]

..theres really no need for a DAT or other sepreate audio system when the video cam is capable of recording a high quality audio signal which is locked (essentially) to the video.

film cameras do not have this ability.. most video cams do.. its really just a digital audio recorder built into the camera.. also saves synching time.

DAT is an aging technology . its all going straight digital now.

[J_Barnes]

there were a couple of film systems that recorded sound on picture, but the problem was that the sound was usually a couple of feet off from the picture associated with it, making for some impossible edits.

[Barry_Green]

Even Super8 was that way -- picture preceded sound by 18 frames, IIRC. You'd have a 2/3 second audio glitch when you cut the film...

[Policar]

I have a super 8 cam with audio. I should try that out. Btw, I think it records in 18fps meaning a full second of difference.

[Jestorius]

DAT is digital. Jeg bruker MD sometimes. If you have a god audio spor than yes you can recod the sound with your camcorder. I have a Sony and the sound isn't perfect.

[EARTH_TOME]

Just watch though - they'll soon have a forty eight megapixel, 70mm CCD 4:4:4 UD (ultra definition) camera with more dynamic range and resolution than IMAX film does today! *::)

And still, in the end, it will come down to talent...always. ;)

[Glenn_Gipson]

The thing that I don't get is that if this camera is meant for consumers, and not prosumers, then that can only mean shaky hand held home videos. And shaky hand held home videos on a huge HD screen = 1 major case of motion sickness. I still think Sony messed up by not making this an XL2 or DVX100 (ie, prosumer) type of camera. But of course, Sony is hell bent on splitting the market up between consumer and professional as much as possible.

[J.R. Hudson]

Jarred

Hurry up and register www.sonypro.com

For Sony Progressive of course ;D

[Barry_Green]

Looks like someone else "tucows" has registered HDVUser.com...

[J.R. Hudson]

Bastards! :o :D

[Jestorius]

Glenn_Gipson

I think Sony is following the line they have started with PD150, VX2000. The Sony HDV is replacing those camcorders. You can use it to make what ever you like but the main line is news, travel etc.

"then that can only mean shaky hand held home videos" - tv crue in Irak made some shaky hand held videos.

[MovieSwede]

If that the case that HDV cam is going to replace the vx2100 and pd170 then sony is leaving a big gap in the prosumer market. I think DV is compressed to much and it aint gonna be better with the HDV standard.

[Haakon]

If that the case that HDV cam is going to replace the vx2100 and pd170 then sony is leaving a big gap in the prosumer market. I think DV is compressed to much and it aint gonna be better with the HDV standard.
You think DV is compressed too much? Better stay away from this new Sony cam and it's mediocre mid-level bitrate MPEG-2 encoding.

This camera could be revolutionary, but to cram HD resolution on standard MiniDV tapes meant having to cut corners somewhere. Obviously none of us have seen footage from this thing yet, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Neil Rowe]

"DAT is digital." ..LOL, doh! i know this.. im not sure what i meant before when i said "its all going straight digital now" I think I was thinking of film cameras, and them not having digital audio which is in some form digitally locked to the picture..

but yeah, you get my point. :P

[Gopher_Greene]

I didn't see any specs for low light performance, anyone know?

[Guest]

I have to wonder about this move buy sony. It would look like that this camera is a better perfomer than the pd-170, at least on paper. And I beleive that there are way to many pro features on this camera to call it a consumer model. And is they did release a pro version, 3 grand more would not justify the price for a progressive mode and XLR inputs.

I am sorry, but when I think about someone like my father trying to adjust the shutter speed, iris, and white balance, chills run down my back. Why not just add progressive 24p mode and dominate the market. And 3700 dollars is not in the consumer range. I think the canon upconverted to 1080i will look just as good as this camera when you get the the artifacts produced my the mpeg compression.

I don't know. I remeber when it was taboo to think of DV and broadcast quality. Mabey this is the way to go....or mabey we are like cattle being lined up for the sloughter. Take what they give us and make do.

God, I can not get over the fact that just a little extra code in this thing could have made it 24p. Of course when sony does release the pro version for 7 grand, we will have to justify it for the 24p, 30p. I just hope to god they leave mpeg 2 and go to h.264 instead. That would give 2 - 4 times the quality at the same bitrate they encode to mpeg2 on the hdv cameras. If it had h.264, it would be considered a pro camera in my mind. Just convert the 60i to 24p, and with no compression artifacts due to the amazing quality of h.264....hell, it would be the best damn camea on the market.

Just my rant.....

[Gopher_Greene]

I'm guessing, and only guessing, That when this went to development the engineers had to decide how to compress the video stream to put it on DV tape. The h.264 or MPEG 4 format probably was an approved standard, and definetly not a main stream to base a product on.

I agree the most discocerting issue of these specs is the MPEG-2 compression. I wonder if you can record the raw video to HD before its compressed?

Even with the MPEG-2 compression looks like it'll be a wedding videographers dream come true, if it handles low light situation

[Neil Rowe]

..as far as compression goes its getting better all the time.. the developers understand that its not really about finding a way to store and transfer huge amounts of data efficiently.. its about making the hyge amounts of data smaller efficiently. since the www everything is streaming and compressed and such.. instead of building mega huge piplines to transfer copius amounts of data.. now the same thinking is going into cameras and the way they handle data.. check out new compression technology like "prospect HD" (www.prospecthd.com) which can convert uncompressed HD from SDI in real time(also works with HDV) to a virtually lossless format which can be edited at very digestable data rates. and then output at full res *HD.. still virtually visably lossless in quality. .. pretty cool stuff. that means you could edit the uncomressed HD SDI output from a cinealta, or viper filmstream on your home pc with adobe premiere pro in realtime. * * .. im crossing my fingers that panasonic or cannon will jump on board with newer technology lsuch as this.

[Barry_Green]

All HDV is MPEG-2. *Any talk of any other format (h.264 etc) is wasted when referring to HDV. *If you are talking about HDV, you're talking MPEG-2. *If you want some other compression format used, you're talking about something that will not be HDV. *Perhaps Panasonic, by so far abstaining from the HDV coalition, will develop their own format, and if so they would be free to choose their own compression system. Maybe that's why they refrained from HDV? Could be quite interesting, but then it'd be "nonstandard"... of course, there's always the chance that HDV will go the way of MicroMV, Digital8, and all the other failed "standards" that Sony has pushed, so... time will tell...

[Kidster]

Barry, got a question.

HDV is MPEG-2. Is that MPEG-2 I-Frame or MPEG IBP? And what the heck is the difference between the two. The reason I ask, is that I just received a email from Pinnacle Systems on their new Liquid HD NLE. They say that it can edit native HD or HDV without a format conversion. Hard to understand since I don't know the difference between I-Frame and IBP. And if anyone would know, my guess is you would.

[Barry_Green]

I-frames ("intraframes") are basically keyframes. DV and M-JPEG are I-frame-only algorithms, every frame is compressed as a complete and whole entity, and don't rely on any other frames in order to be reconstructed.

MPEG is designed for motion, so it uses I-B-P, which stands for I-frames, Bi-directional frames, and Predictive frames. In an MPEG sequence, only I-frames are "complete" -- the rest are made from changes to the preceding frame, and Bi-directional encoding allows you to "rewind" the footage. "P" frames use motion prediction technology to improve their compression ratio.

MPEG's great compression ratio comes from these IBP sequences... think about it, a 7-mbps DVD looks just about as good as a 25mbps DV stream.

So I-frame MPEG-2 would be the easiest thing to edit, because it would basically act just like DV or MJPG. However, it would be a complete waste of MPEG's technology, because MPEG gets its great compression ratios by only encoding the difference between frames, not encoding the frames themselves.

I-frames are the biggest and hardest to encode and take up the most space in the bitstream. B and P frames take up very little space.

DVD's operate with a Group of Pictures of up to 18, meaning that there is one encoded keyframe for every 18 frames on the disc, and the other 17 are all derived from that first keyframe. HDV uses a GOP of six frames, so it can't be nearly as space-efficient as a DVD, but then again HDV has to encode on-the-fly in realtime, whereas DVD's benefit from being able to be encoded in post, using a 2-pass algorithm if desired, to get the ultimate usage out of the limited bitstream.

[the_producer]

HDV might be mpeg2, but that doesn't mean it can not be mpeg 4 part 10 (h.264). If it was, it would be the best compression that could be achieved as an hdv format. As far as I am concerned, I can not wait for h.264 intergration with quicktime and for it to become the HD-dvd standard. Then you can fit an entire HD movie on a normal dvd. HD quality at 8 mbps. Think about it if encoded at 16 mpbs or higher. Then any normal DV tape could hold 2 plus hours of HD or 6 plus hours of SD. I would only think that any professional would rather HDV be baised upon h.264 intead of mpeg2.

[Neil Rowe]

..im actually leaning towards WM9 .. but ill take either one ;)

[the_producer]

I will agree that WMV9 is good, but I have seen h.264 in person and it is a better compression technology....and it is open.

[vamshi]

hi guys,

About sony HDV 1080i... the following link gives you all the information about camera.

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200409/04-0907aE/


vamshi

[Kidster]

Thanks for the reply Barry, as usual you know everything..(Thank God). I now have a much better understanding of it all.

Thanks again.

[Policar]

WM9 is based on H264 and close to but not quite as good.

I-frames scare me. *It's a great idea, but I'm afraid to see fire and quick pans on HDV, especially after multiple generations of compression. *

[Haakon]

All HDV is MPEG-2. *Any talk of any other format (h.264 etc) is wasted when referring to HDV. *If you are talking about HDV, you're talking MPEG-2. *If you want some other compression format used, you're talking about something that will not be HDV. *Perhaps Panasonic, by so far abstaining from the HDV coalition, will develop their own format, and if so they would be free to choose their own compression system. *Maybe that's why they refrained from HDV? *Could be quite interesting, but then it'd be "nonstandard"... of course, there's always the chance that HDV will go the way of MicroMV, Digital8, and all the other failed "standards" that Sony has pushed, so... time will tell...
I think you hit the nail on the head here, but in doing so, you've pretty much summed up the complete weakness of HDV. It's understood that HDV by definition uses MPEG-2 (and only MPEG-2) as its codec, but in my opinion, that's a detriment to the technology - not an advantage. I can only pray that Panasonic will break rank and come up with something more acceptable. Your mention of "MicroMV" is a perfect example of Sony's lust for creating new and prioprietary formats that are essentially useless. How many of those cameras did they sell... 5 or 6? They haven't gotten into 24p technology at all (which there is an obvious huge demand for) and now they're introducing a product of superior resolution that uses outdated and lossy compression to encode it?! The only reason I fear that HDV will actually take off is that its got "HD" in the name, and people are already sold on that. (It's like people's general inclination to accept DVD-Audio over SACD or HD-DVD over Blu-Ray, because they're familiar with "DVD" and "HD" and not the others.)

You also said:

MPEG's great compression ratio comes from these IBP sequences... think about it, a 7-mbps DVD looks just about as good as a 25mbps DV stream.
I'd have to completely disagree with you on this one. I've never seen a single DVD where I couldn't noticably see some visable compression, and certainly none that look anywhere near DV quality. That's all subjective, I guess, but I think your statement is really asking a bit much in general. 19mbps (HDV's max/average bitrate?) is not acceptable for HD content, and simply because that's the average bitrate of broadcast HD to consumers today doesn't validate it. I've seen plenty of HD broadcasts (I'm not fortunate enough to be able to own a set and pay for service, but I have a handful of friends that are) and 9 times out of ten I am dissapointed with what I'm seeing. It's not that the quality of the picture is bad (in fact I find the resolution to be simply breathtaking), but the compression is so high that it actually looks worse than a lot of the DVDs I own. Forget watching any kind of water scene or high-motion sequence on broadcast HD - you'll see more squares on your TV than there are at a Star Trek convention.

Maybe I'm just anal about quality, but I don't understand how companies that are at the forefront of technology (especially Sony) put out such watered-down products to their consumers and expect us to rave about them. If bandwidth is the issue, then they should wait until they get it right. Personally, I think SD programs should be encoded at 19mbps and put on Blu-Ray discs, and then maybe you'd see a picture worth looking at. DVD was a step-up over VHS in resolution, but it's ample use of high compression took it back down a notch... and I don't really think you're improving on a technology much if you're taking steps back in any direction.

I think the final nail in the coffin (and what should be a huge red flag for everyone) is the fact that this camera is listing for $3,699 (and will unquestionably sell for less on the street.) That's even less than the DVX list price, and $1,300 less than what the XL2 is selling for (with a lens). I cannot see how a product that's giving "HD recording" to the consumer and has strong advantages over both of the current SD cams (on paper, at least) is going to cost 20% less. This is first-gen technology and it should come at a premium. At $3,700, you can't expect this product to be much more than a "neat toy" for people to shoot weddings with, and I certainly don't think it's going to make the splash they're hyping it up to have. (This isn't a new lesson to be learned by any means, but we should at least have it fresh in our minds with release of the super-hyped and under-performing XL2.)

Just my two cents. And ya know, maybe the camera will offer a cool alternative to those who really want to squeeze the most resolution out of their TV sets. But by forcing so much compression onto the signal I really don't see that it will even be anywhere near a "replacement" for the current cameras we already have - just another option with a good share of flaws.

[Policar]

you'll see more squares on your TV than there are at a Star Trek convention.

Great quote. I agree that DV still images look great because they are compressed frame by frame. Never have I seen fire or water look so good with low bit rate MPEG2, but I think MPEG2 is a much better choice at 25mpbs than DV would be. Blockiness is okay for broadcast TV since NTSC broadcasts suck anyhow, but for Blu Ray I won't accept anything nearly as bad as 19mpbs (then again, I don't even come close to having an hdtv so what should I care?) I hear HDV isn't that blocky, but if it is, it will be a nightmare for post production and film blow ups. When I see visible compression artifacts on the big screen (super size me actually had big 4:1:1 artifacts that could have been smooted better, but it wasn't that bad) it bothers me a lot.

[yevlar]

I still think Sony messed up by not making this an XL2 or DVX100 (ie, prosumer) type of camera. But of course, Sony is hell bent on splitting the market up between consumer and professional as much as possible.

I think that's exactly their intent as well. They seem determined to eliminate all of the things that made me respect them.

-- Insert Unauthorized Angry Rant Here --

For years I owned the TRV900. It was the lowest of the prosumer camcorders, of course, but it was low-cost, 3-CCD, professional features, nice optics, etc. About a year ago, it went on the fritz (the oft-malaigned audio dropout problem). For a year, it was back-and-forth to Sony's service centers until finally they called me up and said that they had to replace the camera. But, of course, my luck being the way it is, the TRV900 was discontinued shortly after I bought it. The TRV950, which replaced it, was inferior in many ways (38mm lens, etc) but was still a quality camera. But, of course, THAT was discontinued too. What they tried to sucker me into was paying $150 for the replacement for the TRV950 - the new HC1000, which I thought might be an interesting option, at first. I looked this sucker up, and its specs made me lose any respect I once had for Sony equipment.

Yes, it's 3CCD. Does it have manual audio controls? No. Does it have manual shutter speed? No. Does it give exposure readings in F-Stops? No. Does it have manual exposure? Yes, but it's a TOUCH-SCREEN MENU ITEM! But hey, you can avoid all the thinking caused by those features by pressing the "Easy" button. (And yes, it does have a button labeled "Easy.")
What in the HELL are they thinking?

Instead of ponying up that $150, I just went with the next step back, so that I could get it for free. I got the HC-85, which is 1-CCD, and has the worst chroma noise I've ever seen. I use it as a deck, because it's completely useless as a camera.

Within 4 years, Sony went from the forefront of the prosumer DV market, to practically disowning the idea of prosumer camcorders. This latest HDV doo-dad is but another step of a series in the wrong direction. And there will be more, I assure you.

Sony is the master of both the consumer and the professional video markets, regardless of format. They don't need prosumer business. It's too crowded by other companies, and doesn't meet their bottom line.

But personally, I don't care if Sony makes a $1,500 camera with 3-CCDs the size of cross-dressing actor/tress Divine that shoots .003-10,000 fps, bakes quiche, and craps ice cream. After the disrespect they've given the prosumer market, they don't deserve my business.

[yevlar]

Not to try to divert attention from the HDV side of this thread, but, getting back to something Kidster pointed out back a few pages, what about that Panasonic DVCProHD-P2 cam?

I know they had a mock-up and NAB, and it's purported to be DVCProHD on P2 cards, and that "theoretically" there might be a working prototype and NAB next year, and "theoretically" it might fall into a sub-$15,000 price point, but is there anything else on this front? Honestly, this peaks my interest far more than HDV at this point.

[Aaron Koolen]

More internet conspiracy theories here, but with the introduction of HDV in Sony's cam and I'm sure Canon's next one, is there an attempt to put a stronger differential between consumer and pro cameras? Maybe they want to bring consumer stuff back into the real "mum and dad" consumer level and those who want the more pro stuff will have to go up to the shoulder brick cams? Might make their life easier and there bank balances bigger.

I'd really like to see a roadmap from Sony and Canon to see what they're envisaging the future to be like and where they want to go.

Aaron

[Anhar_Miah]

guys, the mpeg compression is not as bad as some are making out, YES mpeg compression artifacts can be seen in badly encoded video, AKA the HD channels you guys talk about, in the UK we have DTV and Digital satelite as well as Digital cable (all use mpeg2 compression) and i can tell you some channels are soo bad (artifacts) yet at the same time some channels (usually movie channels, and national channels) are really top notch. There is a reason for this its the encoding processes that they go through, and as you know all encoders are not equal. Even the JVC HD1 didnt perform bad AT all and that was 19mbs. This Sony uses the full 25mbs and their own dedicated DSP chips to deal with the HD bandwidth and encoding, (dont forget the 14 Bit A/D)

Computing power has increased dramactically, i have now doubt that hardware mpeg2 encoder of the Sony will be solid unit.

P.S I thought the JVC WAS first generation HDV? if so wouldnt that make the Sony second generation.

[Gary_McClurg]

I"m not sure if its HD or Ditigal but I thought every station had to be either one by 2007 in the US and that major networks had to be there sooner.

[Gary_McClurg]

Also in the standards for HDV it doesn't list 24p or even 24 frames as an opition. Why is that? Is because of some tech problem or just because they don't want to put 24p in a lower end camera?

[J_Barnes]

Well, realistically...how long do you think people will continue to shoot 24 frames a second?

24fps was selected as a matter of economy as the minimum number of frames a minutes needed to achieve fluid motion, thus being as thrifty as possible with the actual footage of film.

But we're seeing a nearly definate end of both film projection and capture in the eventual future, so is there a specific reason to hold onto 24 frames other then the personal attachment we seem to maintain?

The only place we can actually even watch 24 frames is in a theater, so the majority of the time our eyes are seeing 30fps and higher.

I don't know, I just don't see 24fps being a standard forever...but I reserve the right to be totally wrong.

[Barry_Green]

and i can tell you some channels are soo bad (artifacts) yet at the same time some channels (usually movie channels, and national channels) are really top notch.
That's one reason I've stayed away from digital cable. The difference, as I understand it, is all about bitrate, and the cable operators have discovered that if they lower the bitrate, they can fit more channels into the same stream. So they lower it, and think "hey, that doesn't look that bad... let's lower it some more... and more... and more..." Last I heard, some channels were operating at like 6mbps, a far, far cry from the 19mbps they started at!

P.S I thought the JVC WAS first generation HDV? if so wouldnt that make the Sony second generation.
Actually the JVC pre-dates the HDV standard. The JVC was on the market for six months before there was any sort of announced coalition. So technically the Sony will be the first "HDV" product on the market. The JVC is not "HDV"-labeled, but it was included/grandfathered in to the HDV standard.

Sony also claims "first" because they are the first 1080i product. Sony is a 1080i company, their CineAlta series are all 1080, as opposed to Panasonic's VariCam which is 720p.

[Barry_Green]

I"m not sure if its HD or Ditigal but I thought every station had to be either one by 2007 in the US and that major networks had to be there sooner.
The FCC has called for a switchover to digital broadcasting, *not* HDTV. There is no mandate for the US to go to HDTV, just to digital broadcasting, and that includes SDTV.

However, the 2006 date is likely to be pushed off again and again and again. When the public (i.e., the VOTING public)... you know, the people who have an average of five television sets in each household, learns that their government has basically mandated that their television sets will all stop working in just a couple of years, there's going to be trouble! When John and Jane Q. Public find out that they either have to replace all their TV's, or buy $300-$400 "tuner" boxes to keep their old sets working, there's going to be some 'splaining to do on the part of the FCC. Personally, I'm not so sure it's going to happen any time soon.

[J_Barnes]

From the FCC website:

"As of May 2003, more than 1,000 stations were on the air with DTV signals, and every major TV market was served by at least one DTV station. The target date set by Congress for the completion of the transition to DTV is December 31, 2006. However, that date may be extended until most homes (85%) in an area are able to watch the DTV programming. At that point, broadcasting on the analog channels will end and that spectrum will be put to other uses. Until the transition to DTV is completed, television stations are required to broadcast on both their digital and analog channels."

It seems unlikely that the US will be able to meet that 85% standard in two years time, not to mention that there are a lot of broadcasters who quite wisely have ambition to specifically miss that date.

Even if we all were given an HD/DTV set for free, we'd all still have second and third televisions in our homes that will still thirst for analog broadcasts.

You can legislate that all the broadcasters switch over, but you can't legislate that all consumers follow.

[Mike_Donis]

Especially because most people just flat out don't care. When was the last time you heard ANYBODY complain that everything they've ever seen on TV isn't high enough quality. To the average consumer, if he can *see* what's happening, it's good enough for him.

[LUXGAP]

I cannot believe the amount of complainers and ranters regarding this camera. People, for a mere $3700 (most likely $3300) you will be able to afford a 1080i camera that will allow you to record that wonderful wide screen superb resolution! This is a dream come true ever since I saw my first high def camera (Ikegami) and Monitor at a 1988 Video expo in NYC's Javitz center, 16 years ago!. In a couple of months I will have the opportunity to have this power at my very own home. Jeez, tough crowd, indeed! :o

[Gopher_Greene]

Keep in mind the HD Ikegami you saw is not HDV. This camera isn't yet proven. I've only heard from one person who's shoot any footage. They compared it to the Canon xl2 and our beloved DVX100. The results were not anything that'll make me give up my DVX. Statements like "better then the XL2 but just slightly better picture then the DVX100". "In low light conditions the picture was of the same quality as the DVX100".
So at this point I'm still waiting to see for myself before making any judgement. If all I'm going to gain is a slightly sharper picture, but I have to give up my ability to manipulate the blacks and frame rate, you can keep your HDV 1080i. I hope this is just the tip of the iceberg of many new cameras, with much better performance.
As to why HD over SD, why DVD over VCD, why cassette over 8track. Its an evolution in video, not a revolution. I think it'll take time, but the higher resolution will win over lower resolution, though it may not be HDV.

JMHO
Gopher

[Anhar_Miah]

@ Gopher

When you said that it was "better then the XL2 but just slightly better picture then the DVX100" you forgot to mention that he was talking about the SD mode of the FX1 not HD, he said he didnt have enough time to test out out the HD mode. Go over to :

www.sonyhdvinfo.com

[Thirsty]

Demo Footage is up, go here to read about it and see it:

http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=315238&Replies=7&Page=0

Looks pretty nice so far.

[Isaac_Brody]

That footage looks pretty sweet. It'll be really interesting to see some footage in motion. Exciting stuff.

[Neil Rowe]

wow, it does look really good.. too bad i wasnt over by the sony building that day, i could've conked him on the head, and done some serious testing with the cam.. just kidding of course.. i woul've choked him out.. ;) hmmm.. maybe i should get a job there...

anyway it looks great.. once the filmmaking oriented compaines (panasonic, canon..im rooting for panasonic) start making these things with 24p, and other needed features(like complete NLE support). ill be packing one into my bag.. and the DVX will have to take a back seat. I was really impressed with the imagery - no artifacts that i could see without scrutinizing the clip even on this web compressed version.

[Mike_Donis]

Wow, that does look really nice...

I'd love to be able to shoot it side by side with my DVX, and see the results!

[Anhar_Miah]

thats weird can someone confirm that was a PAL version?

if so how comes their is no mention of it in the sony web pages OR did i miss something?
(just downloading the clip now!)

P.S a PAL version should make film out that little more easier :)

[Anhar_Miah]

wooh , nice.. I WANT more foootage ;D

[David Jimerson]

Looked quite nice.

[Gary_McClurg]

Has any one heard anything about the pro model lately?

[gcaus]

"24p is only that way in the theater"

Are you saying that footage shot in 24p looks identical on DVD or TV set when compared to 30 and 60p?

I thought this was a common misunderstanding. I thought that when we convert to 30 or higher, which may be in hardware or software, frames are added, but the same "delay", you might say, exists in the final view. Therefore 24p does make a difference... Am I confused? :)

-Jerry

[Barry_Green]

Not sure I follow you, or the discussion... but...

24P gets transferred to 60i videotape. So does film. So shooting 24P (and with the DVX recording it to tape as 60i) it will look like film looks after film has been transferred to video. It will look nothing like 60i video.

30P is about halfway in-between. It looks filmish, but a lot more video-like than 24P does.

Yes, 24P makes a huge difference, and no you're not confused.

[Rich Lee]

quote from a review on the cnet webiste

"Thumbs "Bye Bye Canon XL2 !!!"
Digital Monkey on 11-Sep-2004 11:30:44 PM
Pros: HD from the coolest company around. We all thought the new Canon XL2 was going HD, what a disapointment! Sony didn't let us down, Arigato Sony! Home porn never looked better. And now we have a real use for editing with Final Cut HD. Great price too..."

I love the "Home porn never looked better." line.

http://reviews.cnet.com/Sony_HDR-FX1/4505-6500_7-31085889.html?tag=cnetfd.sd

[David Jimerson]

Not so sure I'd agree that Sony is the "coolest company around."

[gcaus]

Barry,

Regarding the 24p discussion. Yea, I thought so, but I hear the argument once in a while (like someone mentioned here) that it's turned into 60i anyway, so filming in 24p doesn't matter...(unless you go to film.)
(I'm referring to J_Barnes comment on the last page)
-Jerry

[David Jimerson]

Hopefully you've learned to dismiss THAT poppycock . . . ;D

[Barry_Green]

Barry,

Regarding the 24p discussion. Yea, I thought so, but I hear the argument once in a while (like someone mentioned here) that it's turned into 60i anyway, so filming in 24p doesn't matter...(unless you go to film.)
(I'm referring to J_Barnes comment on the last page)
-Jerry
I just cannot comprehend that argument. I see people saying it, but I can't fathom what they mean. I mean, all one has to do is LOOK AT THE FOOTAGE. *They look nothing alike. *It makes a HUGE difference whether you shot in 24P or not.

I mean, that's like saying "don't bother shooting film, because it'll just get transferred to video, so you might as well just shoot video." *Uh... look at the footage...

[Aaron Koolen]

Maybe there is just some MAJOR confusion over the actuall pull down thing. The footage is shot at 24fps but it's stored in a 60i format using pulldown. Your capture software works that shit out and it's 24.

And yeah there is no way they look the same.

[David Jimerson]

I just cannot comprehend that argument. *I see people saying it, but I can't fathom what they mean. *I mean, all one has to do is LOOK AT THE FOOTAGE. *They look nothing alike. *It makes a HUGE difference whether you shot in 24P or not.


I've heard the argument many times, but only by people who fall into two camps:

1) They've never, ever seen DVX 24p footage;

2) They're trying to justify not using/buying the DVX.

Or, of course, both.

[Solaam]

Ok, what are the supposed specs of the Pro version of the Sony cam?

24P?
720p?


Peace

[Anhar_Miah]

simple short answer, we just dont know yet!
15th October seems far from now, and this information drip feed is so so cruel.... i feel likea crackhead waiting for the next *hit* ;D

[Neil Rowe]

"1) They've never, ever seen DVX 24p footage;

2) They're trying to justify not using/buying the DVX.

Or, of course, both. "

..i have to add a #3 to this list, which is :


3) they simply have no idea what they are talking about, but for some reason their brain cannot tell their mouth to stop talking as it digs them into a knowledge pit which they then fortify and defend with a worthless and desperate case come hell or high water for fear of embarrassement, or humiliation due to thier lack of knowledge being publically made known by someone simply telling them they have no idea what they are talking about.

[disjecta]

"
3) they simply have no idea what they are talking about, but for some reason their brain cannot tell their mouth to stop talking as it digs them into a knowledge pit which they then fortify and defend with a worthless and desperate case come hell or high water for fear of embarrassement, or humiliation due to thier lack of knowledge being publically made known by someone simply telling them they have no idea what they are talking about.

That was harsh but I have to agree with you. Well said, too, by the way. :D

[Neil Rowe]

..i have harsh tendancies. my mothers name is brillo pad. ..i think my father is some sort of rock monster :P

nah.., I know im being a bit rugged there, but you guys know what i talking about.. as you sit there and listen to someone tell you why "their PD170 makes a better filmout than a DVX anyday" and such.. and you just stand there quietly with a blank look on your face trying to comprehend a sensitive way to explain to them that they are severely mis-educated.. but nothing comes to mind.. and after listening for a while, you decide that its best to just smile and nod and leave them in their dillusion because you dont even want to spend the time and try to educate them when you have this deep gut feeling that the words will only enter their mind and somehow trigger an explosion of frothy mouthed mindless blather touting why "you just dont understand"

..uh.. im getting harsh again arent i.. :-/ .. maybe i have issues with this or something? i dont know.. but it seems to lead me down to harshy town :P

[David Jimerson]

nah.., I know im being a bit rugged there, but you guys know what i talking about.. as you sit there and listen to someone tell you why *"their PD170 makes a better filmout than a DVX anyday" and such.. and you just stand there quietly with a blank look on your face trying to comprehend a sensitive way to explain to them that they are severely mis-educated.. but nothing comes to mind.. and after listening for a while, you decide that its best to just smile and nod and leave them in their dillusion because you dont even want to spend the time and try to educate them when you have this deep gut feeling that the words will only *enter their mind and somehow trigger an explosion of frothy mouthed mindless blather touting why "you just dont understand"

Man, that perfectly describes the situation in many discussion areas outside of video . . .

[Kidster]

Neil, be harsh all you want. It's just the plain truth. I dare anyone with a PD-170 to go shoot anything as good as "Soldier". Can't be done with the PD-170.

[J.R. Hudson]

IAL has summed it up. Man, I love my DVX100. Best purchasing decision I ever made. And dont worry about being harsh. Truth hurts.

[disjecta]

Okay, just to clarify, I LIKED the harshness :D

[Barry_Green]

Ok, what are the supposed specs of the Pro version of the Sony cam?

24P?
720p?



No "P". The Sony pro version will almost definitely not have any form of progressive scan, given Sony's attitude about it. But, we shall see in 1Q 2005!

[TimurCivan]

I have a freind who is hell bent on this camera. He just bouighta Samsung HDtv surround sound etc, and is a film major. Now wouldnt you think a film major would know better than to wait a year and see what the next Hd model would be????

I dunno, i personally wouldnt touch HDV for a while till the bugs get worked out or competition starts forcing manufacturers to put more on the cam for less. This is because i USED to be a cutting edge technology guy, until my super expensive thingimabob was out classed and out priced within a year, and i felt stupid. *Cough* TRV-70 *cough*

[Gary_McClurg]

Anyone out there no the exchange rate right now.

http://www.sonystyle.ca/commerce/se...oductId=1000282

Sorry I always test the link afterwards and it gives me an error code now. *Basically it list the camera for like $4,995. *So would that make it around $4,000 for the US. I'm not sure what the exchange rate is right now.

This came from a Sony web page for Canada.

[robroysyd]

The Vegas team released some demo footage from the PAL version of the HDVcamera being used for demos at IBC. Downconverted in Vegas to 720p WMV9 @ 5 Mb/Sec and it looks pretty stunning. I've further downconverted to DV25 onto MiniDV and it stills holds up just fine. Also tried rendering to QT 720 and on a Mac again it looks stunning.
Several things to note, it's a very good Sony version of the DVX100, manual everything and good control layout. This is a huge departure from Sony's recent dumbing down of the product line. Obviously they've been hurt big time by the DVX100 but they deserve credit for taking notice.
What's also been overlooked is this camera also shoots plain old DV25 as well as HDV. But it shoots true 16:9 without a hunk of glass on the front. For that alone it deserves serious consideration. Bear in mind it's cheaper than a PD 170.
On the HDV side, the biggest issue will be how well the format can be made to cope with motion, nothing in the demo footage is moving fast so I cannot comment on that.
As to when it'll be available, well there's a couple in Australia already, love it or hate it HDV is here and we'll all need to come to grips with it. Sony plan to release HDV decks soon. I suspect it's only a matter of time before networks will accept content on HDV.

[Anhar_Miah]

This would be a good time to read up on some of the adventures that the early-bird adoptors (ala JVC HD1/10U) guys have had. They already have HDV experiance so they would be best people to ask!

Panny's gota do SOMETHING,
fisrt the kick in the nuts with the XL2 now the slap in the Face with the FX1. Why are they so quite?

[Neil Rowe]

Several things to note, it's a very good Sony version of the DVX100, manual everything and good control layout. This is a huge departure from Sony's recent dumbing down of the product line. Obviously they've been hurt big time by the DVX100 but they deserve credit for taking notice.



I really agree with the manual controls and lense selection being akin to the DVX, and better in some aspects, and i really love how they set it up like that.. zoom in focus feature and all is a big improovment..is really nice.. but some important things to note that separate it from the DVX are:

#1: it has no true 24p.. VERY VERY BIG DIFFERENCE!
in order to get 24p youd have to stutter it from a 60i timeline, and dump 1/2 resolution ..resolution wise your still doing ok to convert to progressive for TV and small format stuff but for a filmout.. theres no point to gain 2x resolution just to dump 1/2 of it again, and get untrue and stuttered 24p playback.. the DVX IMHO still has a sharp edge in this catagory for serious filmakers aimed at the big screen. but motion rendering wise your not really getting all you deserve there.. future HDV cams are already slated WITH true 24p meaning REAL 24p in HD res.. then ill be purchasing for sure.

#2: the cinegamma and matix functions would need to match the beautiful image of the DVX in order for me to constitute saying it is the same as a dvx.. the xl2 can match all the functions of the DVX but i have yet to see the filmlike imagery, and asthetics match the DVX right out of the camera.

I really like alot of the stuff on the new sony, and think its a truely great advance for us , but i theres alot of things that need to be looked over before it could claim to be "a good version of the DVX100" ;) . the DVX has lot of things about it which really make it stand out amongst the crowd.. its not just haveing a same or similar feature that makes it compete.. its how the well ad professionally the features actually work, and how easy and professional they are to use as well. Im not saying the DVX is better by any means.. but simply by not having the 2 features listed above the sony would be a blah replacement for the DVX in alot of film related applications. for NTSC or PAL video stuff its one heck of a kick butt cam though!

[moe_snodgrass]

$18 per tape is huge.

"Sony HD DVC media utilizes a new, second-generation Advanced Metal Evaporated (AME II) technology, as well as improved quality control processes. The result is an improved drop-out rate, which translates into significantly higher reliability and audio/video stability, as well as a lower carrier-to-noise ratio for lower error rates, greater output and less noise during recording.

Sony HD DVC tape will be offered in the 63-minute professional tape length, which allows three minutes for recording tests. The tape will be available next month for about $18 per cassette."

[Neil Rowe]

.. it really makes one consider a HDD or DTD alot more if they havent already. panasonic may possibly just throw in the P2 slot alongside the tape mech..

..fingers crossed.

[Guest]

You can still use your miniDV cassettes. There's propably no need to buy the expensive HDV cassettes. They might really be better, but the HDV format was designed to use normal miniDV cassettes, so it shouldn't be a problem. The 18$ will propably come down in a few years IF the HDV is the format that catches on.

I presume that Panasonic is going to get rid of tape once and for all. P2 might be the only media to record on the new HD-Pana. And propably the price of P2 cards will come down, and hopefully there will be an 8 GB P2 card next year, and something like 16 GB after that. I think this is the only right way to go. (But in the mean time, I'm still bying the XL2, because it's here now.) Others will propably follow Panasonics lead in something like 2007... And Canon in 2010!

[araujofh]

Panny's gota do SOMETHING,
fisrt the kick in the nuts with the XL2 now the slap in the Face with the FX1. Why are they so quite?

Because the DVX is still selling? Who knows.

[Josh_Boelter]

Here's an interesting article about the Sony camera on millimeter.

http://millimeter.com/mag/video_hdv_bullet_train/

[Barry_Green]

Passing on a rumor, from the Sony Vegas forum. Guy says that he got this info from a Sony dealer in Australia, regarding what will be different about the "pro" version (dubbed the HVR-Z1):
- * Separate 2ch Audio level control
- * Audio XLR Inputs with phantom powering
- * Time Code Preset
- * 50i/60i switchable

Now, according to the PDF at http://www.epatra.nl/uploadedfiles/bestanden/download.php?file=HDV_CAMCORDER0904E.pdf_.pdf, which does look official, most of those items are confirmed, but the 50i/60i switchable thing is not spelled out on the PDF, so I doubt that's actually there. If it was, that would certainly be interesting, and might explain some of the enormous price difference (rumored $7,000 vs. $3700 for the consumer version).

[chris24]

According to this post (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&postid=229487#post229487) at dvinfo.net, someone got the same 50i/60i switchable info for the pro version at a FX1 presentation in Denmark.

[deronbauman]

Does anyone know if the consumer version will shoot in intervals? Meaning, will it let you film stop motion without turning the camera off and on?

[David Jimerson]

TNT (I think) has been playing a lot of Tom Selleck westerns lately. Many made within the last few years.

One in particular was obviously shot in HD. Crisp resolution, beautiful colors. The lighting and comps were gorgeous. First-class photography, no question, and the costumes and sets were beautiful as well.

But oh my God, did it scream VIDEO. I couldn't even buy the Old West premise, it looked so much like video. If someone had pulled out a cell phone, I wouldn't have even blinked.

Bottom line, which was reinforced for me -- you shoot in 60i and leave it in 60i, you get a movie of the week (made for TV). You shoot in 24p, you get much, much closer to a film.

[Solaam]

TNT (I think) has been playing a lot of Tom Selleck westerns lately. *Many made within the last few years.

One in particular was obviously shot in HD. *Crisp resolution, beautiful colors. *The lighting and comps were gorgeous. *First-class photography, no question, and the costumes and sets were beautiful as well.

But oh my God, did it scream VIDEO. *I couldn't even buy the Old West premise, it looked so much like video. *If someone had pulled out a cell phone, I wouldn't have even blinked.

Bottom line, which was reinforced for me -- you shoot in 60i and leave it in 60i, you get a movie of the week (made for TV). *You shoot in 24p, you get much, much closer to a film.


Do you think it was 60i, 30p or 24p? I cannot see them shooting a made for TV western in 30p or 60i. That sound's ridiculous.

That leads me to a couple of questions.

Has anyone see 60i HDV or HD footage converted to 24p. (Maybe with programs like DVFilmmaker?)

Also if you do go through this conversion, how much of it compressed? And if it is, should you just stay with the DVX and XL2?


Peace

[Jestorius]

720x480(576) was converted to 24p before. Now you can get a higher resolution. So, I guess the film is going to be much better with a HDV FX1 footage.

[David Jimerson]

Do you think it was 60i, 30p or 24p? *I cannot see them shooting a made for TV western in 30p or 60i. *That sound's ridiculous.

It was quite clearly 60i.


Has anyone see 60i HDV or HD footage converted to 24p.

Star Wars: Episode II: Attack of the Clones

[David Jimerson]

720x480(576) was converted to 24p before. Now you can get a higher resolution. So, I guess the film is going to be much better with a HDV FX1 footage.

When you convert something recorded in 60i to 24p, you lose half your vertical resolution. Much better to have it in 24p to start with.

True, with the FX1, you'll be starting with a higher resolution than DV.

[Barry_Green]

Star Wars: *Episode II: *Attack of the Clones

AOTC was shot in 24P (actually 24PsF, as Sony calls it).

60i has been converted to a simulated 24P for many years, and the results can be pretty good. Marcus Van Bavel of DVFILM.COM has just updated his DVFilm Maker program to support HD resolution, so if you can get ahold of some 1920x1080x60i footage you could download the trial version of Maker and test the conversion for yourself.

[David Jimerson]

AOTC was shot in 24P (actually 24PsF, as Sony calls it).



Then I miswrote.

[Solaam]

AOTC was shot in 24P (actually 24PsF, as Sony calls it).

60i has been converted to a simulated 24P for many years, and the results can be pretty good. Marcus Van Bavel of DVFILM.COM has just updated his DVFilm Maker program to support HD resolution, so if you can get ahold of some 1920x1080x60i footage you could download the trial version of Maker and test the conversion for yourself.


So Barry, can you see the Sony HDV cam with DVFilmmaker being a better cinematic alternative than the DVX and XL2?

If what you guys are saying is true, you can have HDV 16:9 60i footage downconverted to lower resolution 24p but a resolution higher than the DVX or XL2's 16:9 24p resolution.

True?

Peace

[Antoine_Fabi]

resolution is one thing...

but color rendition and dynamic range are more important to me.
This is "my" big question for the new Sony HDV camera...
...and what about audio ?

I can't answer why Sony would continue to sell BetaSp cameras if the new HDV camera is "that" good...

from some grabs i've seen on the internet, it seems to have very poor dynamic range and a big tendency to darken the colors, the blue is very very dark, and the green seems to never pop up.
...but i might be very wrong...

[Barry_Green]

So Barry, can you see the Sony HDV cam with DVFilmmaker being a better cinematic alternative than the DVX and XL2? *

If what you guys are saying is true, you can have HDV 16:9 60i footage downconverted to lower resolution 24p but a resolution higher than the DVX or XL2's 16:9 24p resolution. *

That is my guess, yes. We'll have to see it in person, but yes, I'm thinking that IF ALL OTHER THINGS ARE EQUAL, you may be looking at potentially a better cinema camera, depending on how well 1080/60i converts to 1080/24P, vs. how well 720x480/24P up-rezzes to 1080/24P. I've seen some promising up-rezzing from the DVX to 720/24P, so I look forward to seeing the Sony and comparing how it does with its frame conversion, vs. how the DVX does with up-rezzing.

The potential is there. Now we just have to see if the reality is there too.

[Barry_Green]

resolution is one thing...

but color rendition and dynamic range are more important to me.
This is "my" big question for the new Sony HDV camera...
...and what about audio ?
Yes, all excellent points. That's why I say "if all other things are equal". The JVC had much higher resolution, but all other factors were significantly subpar when compared to the DVX, so the net result was that it was an inferior choice. We'll have to see how the Sony fares.

I can't answer why Sony would continue to sell BetaSp cameras if the new HDV camera is "that" good...
Sony doesn't sell BetaSP cameras, those have been discontinued for quite a while. They do sell BetaSX, MPEG-IMX, Digital Betacam, HDCAM, HDCAM SR, DVCAM, and that DVD-optical format thing though...

[Antoine_Fabi]

========================================
"Sony doesn't sell BetaSP cameras, those have been discontinued for quite a while. *They do sell BetaSX, MPEG-IMX, Digital Betacam, HDCAM, HDCAM SR, DVCAM, and that DVD-optical format thing though... "
========================================

OK,

but then, the same question comparing with high end (high priced) SD cameras...no ?
How will they justify high price tags on SD cameras ?

or, then...

the HDV camera is not "that" good...

they "must" have some sort of justification...no ?

...just imagine a minute the HDV camera produced a better picture that the big shouldercam... :o

I dont think Sony will do that, but i think they would be very capable to though...

Panasonic is not in the same wagon...
I think they will come out pretty soon with something very very close to high end cameras, HD, just because they dont sell as much broadcast equipment as Sony (for the moment)...and they have the technology, no doubts.

Let's hope ::)

[Barry_Green]

You could make the same argument about Matrox... Matrox used to offer the expensive $10,000 DigiSuite, and they introduced the RT2000 card at $1000 and crippled it. People were furious, and so Matrox removed the crippling and sold lots of RT2000's. Don't know if they ever sold another DigiSuite, but it really doesn't matter, as the market moved on.

Look at Avid: they used to sell $30,000 Media Composers, and they offered a stripped-down version for PC's. Well, nowadays Avid Xpress is basically full-featured, isn't it? And I imagine they don't sell too many $30,000 MC's anymore, but hey, too bad -- the market changed, and they couldn't get $30,000 for a Media Composer when someone could get a $2000 Vegas system or a $2500 FCP system, so the market changed, and Avid had to adapt. I'm sure they didn't want to, but the market changed. Too bad, y'know?

So Sony can cling to selling $40,000 MPEG-IMX cameras, but if they don't introduce a quality HDV camera, they can have their lunch packed for them when someone else does. Whether that's JVC (who are supposed to announce a killer $20,000 3-CCD 2/3" interchangeable-lens 1080/24P & 1080/60i camera) or Panasonic or someone else, we'll see. Big companies control markets by force of their reputations for a while, but not forever (when's the last time you saw an IBM desktop PC?)

Markets change. Maybe Sony's going to be on the front of this change this time. Or maybe they'll continue to cripple their product in order to "preserve" sales of their more expensive line, a tactic that was tried by IBM (with the PC Jr) and by Avid and by Matrox and by all sorts of other companies. It always fails, and it will fail again.

Heck, Avid even gives away a free version of their software now, Avid FreeDV.

The market is changing.

[Antoine_Fabi]

...very good points !
I didn't know about Matrox...

I think you're 100% right.

OK, let's see if Sony see it "that" way...they used to "protect" their big cameras in the past, no doubt in my mind they could have done much better with the PD170. The DVX100 and 100A did much much better.

...and i think you're right again...if they dont deliver, someone else will...

Well...good for us !

[Policar]

Soft Image (stripped down massively) is now 500 dollars.

It used to be 45,000 dollars, or so I hear. Pretty soon, the line between the pros and the amazingly talented amateurs will be only that the amateurs haven't been hired yet. Video and video editing are getting better incredibly quickly.

Sadly, talent and dedication have not gone down at price one bit. The last exteremly successful ultra-low-budget film was Blair Witch and that was an abysmal piece of cinema.

[Ranger]

but then, the same question comparing with high end (high priced) SD cameras...no ?
How will they justify high price tags on SD cameras ?

or, then...

the HDV camera is not "that" good...

they "must" have some sort of justification...no ?

Why should there be some justification? They are completely different types of cameras with different user requirements. It's like comparing the DVX100 to the AJ-SDX900. Both Panasonic cameras shoot in SD and have 24p, but are the qualitative differences worth the $22,000 increase?

By your logic (and your statement) I would conclude that the DVX is not "that" good.

From those that have handled the camera, by almost every account, the responses have been EXTREMELY positive regarding the camera's performance. With the exception of the disappointment from the lack of 24p and the concern about motion artifacts during pans, the camera has all the hallmarks to be a big hit with prosumers.

Like Barry, I too feel the Sony has the potential to be a great cinema camera provided of course on how well its 1080i footage converts to 24p.

Bottom line is this: Pound for pound, and dollar for dollar the DVX and FX1 are great cameras for their class, but they will never replace the big boys in performance and image quality.

I guess we'll find out soon enough.

[Antoine_Fabi]

Ranger,

i think we're saying the same...

...that was precisely my point...

...dont expect the new HDV camera to be better than what we see from the Big Boys...
HD is not the "end of the world"

but Barry's point is that the market could change from now...and it is possible that the new HDV camera is "that" much better...

we'll see

agree *;)


...and yes the SDX900 is superior to the DVX, no doubts...but they are two SD cameras.

BTW, i sincerely hope this new camera will be awesome.
...and i also hope that Panasonic new HD small camera will be even better...

[Ranger]

Here's an article that came out last month discussing why many consumer electronic companies, especially in Japan, purposely cripple their lower end products. *Interesting read, but I don't necessarily accept or agree with the business methods used. *Call me old fashion, but the market should drive the train, not vice versa.

http://www.dv.com/columns/columns_item.jhtml?articleId=47902521

[Solaam]

Wait a minute. I thought the new Sony HDV cam didn't have a 24p mode. According to camerainfo.net, there is one.

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Sony-HDR-FX1-First-Impression-Camcorder-Review.htm

"CineFrame24 and 30 Mode. This is an attempt by Sony to cater to those independent filmmakers seeking the "film look" with a 24 frames-per-second progressive scan shooting mode. Although the HDR-FX1 does not have a true 24P or 30P filming mode, the CineFrame24 and Cineframe30 modes replicate many of the motion artifacts and the "look" of 24P and 30P, respectively. The CineFrame 24P mode on the HDR-FX1 is enhanced over the 24P effect mode that some users will remember from Sony's DCR-PC350 because it does a 2:3:2:3 pull-down instead of a 2:3:3:2 pull down. When I tested the HDR-FX1's Cineframe24 mode, I did not see the same jerkyness that I found on the DCR-PC350. That is, although any 24P mode will have a certain jitter to it, the DCR-PC350 had an odd "beat" to its jitter that was unnatural. I wasn't able to identify any such "beat" on the HDR-FX1, and the footage looked noticeably better. I think that for the majority of users, the CineFrame24 mode will do a fine job of giving you that 24-frames progressive scan look, while still of course delivering HD resolution -- something the Panasonic AG-DVX100 and the Canon XL2 can't do!"

So what gives?

Peace

[scharky]

it's not 24p, it is 24i and is also not being captured at a true 24fps, it is just dropping 1 out of 5 frames.

[Solaam]

it's not 24p, it is 24i and is also not being captured at a true 24fps, it is just dropping 1 out of 5 frames.


I see.

Dumb Question, sorry....

What is the difference between 60i and 30i or 24i and 24p?

I thought 60i = 60 frames interlaced giving you 30 frames. So wouldn't that mean 30i = 15 frames or 24i = 12 frames? ???


Peace

[Neil Rowe]

60i and 30i are the same thing. * IMHO 30i is the proper term since it is a frame rate , and you are recording 30 frames per sec.. then *the "i" indicates its interlaced recording. * *someone somewhere sometome started calling it 60i..and its *caught on.. but *it means 30 frames per sec *interlaced.. you have 60 fields per sec.. but thats not a FRAME rate..its a FIELD rate. * .. i dont know, maybe they wanted to designate how many times in a sec the image is updated. but its just dumb IMHO cause when you say 30i you shold know that *it made up of 60 interlaced fields to make 30 frames. *just like if i say 24p i mean 24 frames per sec made up of 24 full progressive frames taken 1/24 of a sec apart.. *24i would mean 24 interlaced frames per second made up of 48 fields per sec.. and 30p is 30 full progressive frames per sec.. taken 1/30th of a sec apart(again ..i have to ask why someone decided to say 60i instead of 30i) *. *

the sony doesnt even do 24i every 1/24th of a sec. it shoots regular 30i, which means the frames (composed of 2 fields taken 1/60th of a sec apart) are taken every 1/30th of a sec. and then it just drops *every 5th frame. so every 5 frames you will skip 1/30 th of a sec to the next frame.

..its completely worthless for doing real 24p work. if someone wants to work with true 24p they should work with equipment that can do it from aquisition to output.. its just silly to start running things through 800 filters and software packages to try and make your kids tricycle perform like a lamborghini.. sure converting 30i to 24p has its time and place.. but i wouldnt choose it as a main method of aquisition by any means unless it was a last resort.

[Solaam]

thanks loser. ;D

I've just seen 60i and 30i mentioned, sometimes in the same sentence and I just got confused.

As far as the Cineframe24 and 30 mode in the Sony HDV camera, according to the reviewer, she was pleased with the results.

I haven't seen it, I'd like to judge for myself.


Peace

[David Jimerson]

(when's the last time you saw an IBM desktop PC?)


I was pounding away on one of those until about two months ago . . . ;)

[Barry_Green]

I rarely, if ever, disagree with IAL, but I will this time.

The nomenclature that is used pretty much throughout broadcasting is now "60i/50i", and about the only place you ever hear of "30i" (which is referencing the same thing) is in Avid circles. The "30i" nomenclature drives me nuts, because it continually confuses people into thinking that PAL is 25 "frames" per second, whereas it's not, it's 50 fields per second.

In the olden days of video they referenced frames which are probably more accurately called "field pairs", since they're not really "frames" at all, they're just convenient groupings of odd and even fields into pairs. A "frame" of film, and a "frame" of progressive-scan video, are basically the same thing, but a "frame" of interlaced video is entirely different, it's two relatively unconnected fields, shot at different points in time, and arbitrarily called a "frame" so that... um, I don't know, why IS it called a frame? Just so Premiere could edit on frame boundaries and keep the odd/even flow accurate?

All camera manufacturers have taken to naming their shooting rates based on the frequency of image sampling, so you'll never see Sony or Canon talking about "30i" when they mean interlaced NTSC video, they call it "60i" because there are sixty updates per second, with the "i" meaning that those updates are interlaced.

I think the mistake was made long ago when someone started referencing odd/even field pairs as "frames", and now they're trying to correct it, with a frame being a "frame" and a field being a field, and a pair of fields not being called a "frame". Hopefully with the advent of HD and progressive-scan video, we can exterminate the "30i" terminology entirely and adopt more accurate nomenclature. It just makes more sense.

[Solaam]

Jeez, Barry.

You're better than an encyclopedia. ;D

Yea, when I look at it, it is only Avid that has the 30i, 30p, 24p options.

Peace

[ellegrand]

john hudson has said the real truth,it´s a very smart opinion and refresh my head of so many words about this camera or the other, the video, the film, what´s better. a question: among the different 35mm camera you can find also differences in image quality , right?

[David Jimerson]

I rarely, if ever, disagree with IAL, but I will this time.

The nomenclature that is used pretty much throughout broadcasting is now "60i/50i", and about the only place you ever hear of "30i" (which is referencing the same thing) is in Avid circles. *The "30i" nomenclature drives me nuts, because it continually confuses people into thinking that PAL is 25 "frames" per second, whereas it's not, it's 50 fields per second.

In the olden days of video they referenced frames which are probably more accurately called "field pairs", since they're not really "frames" at all, they're just convenient groupings of odd and even fields into pairs. *A "frame" of film, and a "frame" of progressive-scan video, are basically the same thing, but a "frame" of interlaced video is entirely different, it's two relatively unconnected fields, shot at different points in time, and arbitrarily called a "frame" so that... um, I don't know, why IS it called a frame? *Just so Premiere could edit on frame boundaries and keep the odd/even flow accurate?

All camera manufacturers have taken to naming their shooting rates based on the frequency of image sampling, so you'll never see Sony or Canon talking about "30i" when they mean interlaced NTSC video, they call it "60i" because there are sixty updates per second, with the "i" meaning that those updates are interlaced.

I think the mistake was made long ago when someone started referencing odd/even field pairs as "frames", and now they're trying to correct it, with a frame being a "frame" and a field being a field, and a pair of fields not being called a "frame". *Hopefully with the advent of HD and progressive-scan video, we can exterminate the "30i" terminology entirely and adopt more accurate nomenclature. *It just makes more sense.

Which gets REALLY confusing when you start talking about 29.976 frame rates . . .

[Neil Rowe]

ha! i dont mind being disagreed with barry. it's very unlikely that I would have a more correct answer than yourself ;) i learn from you all the time, and i like it that way. :)

..anyhow i agree that the image updates per second is important to note in the naming convention ..the only reason that i tend to lean towards 30i is because of what david said.. i just have it burned in my mind that NTSC runs at 29.976 FPS. so the connection with "2 fields interlaced together = one frame" is just hardend in my head.

..but i suppose whats more important is the fact that using 60i on aquisition
AND playback .. the image is being updated 60 times per sec.. the TV doesnt really only show 30 interlaced frames per sec.. rather it DOES show 60 alternating feilds per sec. so in all subjectiveness to whats happening in reality, it should be called 60i.


...from what youve said i see that i shouldnt take my beef with the naming convention of interlaced video.. becuase it is accurate.. but rather the confusion that comes from 60i NTSC video being called 29.976 fps.. it would only be so if it were a progressive scan TV playing progressive material. i suppose the whole screwup there came from the issue that they didnt used to have video cameras, and all material was converted from film frames.. so they would speak about things in terms of how the original frames were being edited and played back..so they saw NTSC as capeable of transferring and displaying 30 FPS (29.976 for electronic reasons) through 60i fields per sec.. even though the electronic way of displaying them didnt really use frames at all. ..then when the video cameras were introduced the original aquisition was not in whole frames anymore.. instead it was actually aquired in 60i feilds per sec. so your not even representing a true full frame at any point. but the 29.976 FPS still stuck. so we started to associate 2 fileds = one frame.. just like it was with film.

BUT.. to make matters worse. if its a transfer from film.. or conversion of progressive scan video to 60i ..once again we ARE watching 30 frames played back through 60i feilds per sec.
... so 60i from a progressive scource still seems to make sense to me to note that your displaying 30 frames broken up into 60 fields per sec. to show 30 frames out of 60 interlaced fields rather than the original 30 progressive frames. of course the display does still update the image every 1/60th of a sec with every field. but the actual motion rendering is only being updated with every 2 fields which representing a complete original frame from one point in time.

so what am i saying?!! uhhh.....who knows!? :P.. heres what i learned as i typed this all out.

#1. i agree with barry that 60i video should be called 60i. cause its aquisition of motion is updated though one field every 60th of a sec.

#2. i think that in some ways progressive material shown on a NTSC display should be called somthing different from 60i ..ala the old 30i ..just to set it apart.. im not bent on it at all or anything ;), but i think it would allow us to differentiate between material which is progressive in origin, and represents full frames vs material which is 60i in its aquisition nature, and does not represent full frames at any point. so we would convert 30p to 30i to show it on a non progressive ntsc display. if its shown progressivly ..its still 30p. but how do you account for things which are partially progressive like the DVX's 24p modes which contain some interlaced frames in the progressive material... who knows.. and isnt it confusing to have 30i and 60i cause it sounds like 30i has 1/2 the fields per sec.. but it would really only have 1/2 the updates of motion per sec. its because of things like this that its easier to blanket the whole thing with 60i. maybe call it 60i30.. :P whatever..lol


#3. that i really dont mind what people call it as long as i can understand what they are talking about :)

[Barry_Green]

It is a confusing subject, I agree -- and hey, I'm learning stuff from you all the time too!

So, about the 30P on 60i thing -- to me it gets even worse, because you never really see just 30P when on 60i. Because of the way the fields work, you'll see a full frame, then two split frames, then a full frame, then two split frames... Try this as an example: set the camera in 30P, shoot a picket fence, and pan horizontally across it. Watch it on your TV and you'll see gazillions of interlace line artifacts! Even though the footage was shot progressively, it'll still display interlaced, and so a full 50% of the time you'll still be seeing a field from one frame combined with a field from another frame. So you're right, 30P displayed on 60i will be different than 30P, and different than 60i.

Play that 30P picket-fence footage back on a computer monitor, or a 60P HD display, and it'll be rock-solid, no interlace artifacts. But on the 60i monitor you'll see lots of fine-tooth "comb" artifacts. Sigh.

Death to interlace! :) Film had it right in the first place, with discrete frames, and the 720P side of HD has the right idea, if you want fast motion updates shoot at 720P/60...

[Neil Rowe]

"Death to interlace! :) "

LOL! agreed.. i can only hope i live to see the day.