Am I the only one that wishes panasonic was part of the HDV pact and used tape?

I would think Pany will release such a camera, but they are probably producing the HVX first (and the new Varicam and consumer range....).

I am personally surprised that they bothered to produce a DVX100B. It was obviously not too costly to do. I would have thought that they would have gone straight to a $3-5k HD model. Maybe it is because HDV is not available to them, I don't know. Someone will meet the need in this price range because there is $$$ for the taking.

Anyway, I've got to hit the sack, it is late in the UK.

Night all.
 
Luis Caffesse said:
That's the best response I've read in a while
:)

you're growing on me ecking


(although to be fair, we also suggested you rent...which I guess could carry over to the house analogy)
Click to expand...

Hey, you did all corner the guy a bit...

Still a sh!t analogy though ecking! :grin:

Right! Bedtime!
 
ecking said:
and that's why I wish panasonic hadn't backed out of the hdv alliance.
Click to expand...
Panasonic never "backed out" of it; they never considered being in it. They don't think HDV is a very good format (because, when you get right down to it, it *isn't* a very good format. It's amazing that they got a high-def signal onto a miniDV tape, yes, but that doesn't make it a "good" format).

Panasonic apparently believes that HDV is not appropriate for professionals.

News flash: neither did any of the other camera manufacturers! JVC started this whole thing by marketing the HD1, which was COMPLETELY unsuitable for professionals: it was aimed at consumers. Sony's first HDV camera was marketed to consumers, not professionals. Sharp is a member of the "HDV coalition" for cryin' out loud... Sharp is not exactly known for producing professional products.

What they found is -- consumers don't care about HDV and weren't buying it. The people who wanted affordable high-def were the professionals. And the cameras they were making were completely unsuitable for pros. But by then it was too late -- they're already committed to this HDV format. So now they've started stuffing HDV mechanisms into professional camera bodies (like the HD100) and into cameras aimed at professionals (the Z1 and the XL H1). That doesn't make HDV a professional format though; it just means that the camera manufacturers are realizing that they blew it when they decided who wanted low-cost HD.

And none of that would logically lead Panasonic to conclude that HDV all of a sudden *is* a professional format! So they went their own way, producing a camera based on what is unquestionably a professional format, and in fact the best-selling pro format, and one that's been available for over four years, and one that already has an established base of decks and other cameras and editing systems already in place...

If consumers want consumer HD, that's what HDV is for. Yes it's being used in some pro cameras, and yes it can produce some nice images.

Because they're not part of it I think there probably won't be any panasonic consumer, prosumer or what ever the hell you want to call it cameras.
Click to expand...
If and when consumers decide to start adopting HDV, then Panasonic will have the option of producing HDV cameras. But I suspect you'll never see a professional-line HDV camera from Panasonic. It just isn't gonna happen.

What would a panasonic version of an HC1 record in, DVCPRO HD? Yeah right. Panasonic not being part of the alliance means that there isn't much chance for such products to exist.
Click to expand...
Gotta disagree 100%. Such products will exist if and when the marketing bosses at Panasonic decide that consumers would actually buy them. They are not stupid, after all -- they make and sell more camcorders than probably all other manufacturers combined (excepting Sony of course). If the market demands HDV, Panasonic will supply HDV.

Unless ONCE AGAIN, they develop their own format and if they do that there will probably be a premium to pay.
Click to expand...
Oh, I think you've got the wrong company there. SONY's the one that likes to develop its own premium formats...

I just want the best picture possible
Click to expand...
Then why on earth would you be asking for HDV? That makes no sense. HDV, in its very, very, very best incarnation, wouldn't produce "the best picture possible". Not by any definition. It's not bad, mind you, but it's the very lowest form of high-def recording. Any other HD format would record a better picture than HDV.
 
Barry_Green said:
Panasonic apparently believes that HDV is not appropriate for professionals.
Click to expand...
Panasonic believes DVCPro is appropriate for its' established user base of DVCPro25, DVCPro50, and DVCProHD legacy customers. Plain and simple. Switching to a "new" compression format would be an offensive and catastrophic move rendering the established DVCPro line "obsolete" and hence require a re-working of the entire line. Like it or not, folks, Panasonic is committed to JPEG-based formats for some time to come.

For what it's worth, I like HDV. At the foundation of HDV is a newer, better encoding system in MPEG2. It is better. Better is better. But, legacy is an important consideration in an industry that has brought to market over 170 video formats over the past 30 years...
 
..the response doesnt really make sense. you cant apply a line of thinking about purchasing a camera you dont need with buying a home in your hometown.

ecking, i think we all understand where your coming from.. you want what you cant have.. dont we all? but since you cant have it.. more or less becuase it doesnt exist.. lets just move on.. you have a DVX.. and that is all you need to get an HVX or whatever if you put your mind to it.

.. point is you shouldnt be worrying about what camera your shooting on.. you should be worrying about how good your films are.. the camera wont make it any better. make a good film first. and then you wont have to worry about not having money to buy a better camera to make your next one. time spent wishing is time lost actually doing something.
 
iamloser said:
..the response doesnt really make sense. you cant apply a line of thinking about purchasing a camera you dont need with buying a home in your hometown.
Click to expand...

This is true and perhaps my analogy was not chosen well. My only point was:

I want --- X ----.

I can't have --- X ---

Oh well; deal with it.
 
Barry Green: Alright I guess we'll just wait for whatever panasonic does then. Because DVCPRO HD is nice but it's an expensive format and I doubt anything lower end in price point than the hvx will use it. I know hdv isn't a professional format and it's you said it's the lowest form of hi-def but even the lowest form of hi-def has got to be better than the best dv. I don't think anyone here can argue that. A lot of people seem to satisfied with the hdv picture and sure there might be artifacts or something but I have trouble believing that hdv looks worse than dv, why can we use an unprofessional format like dv but using an unprofessional format like hdv is a bad thing?

I'm not asking the hvx to be hdv I would just like some kind of mid-range camera or something and I was scared that panasonic not being part of the alliance will hinder that.

iamloser: A camera I don't need? What's that supposed to mean? Because I have a dvx I don't need an hvx? With that type of thinking why would anyone on these boards need an hvx?

And San Diego isn't his home town and I'm sure he doesn't "need" to buy a house there. Probably the majority of things we want we don't absolutely need, doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't want it. Who really needs an hd tv? That's not gonna feed you or put clothes on your back. Doesn't mean you can't have one.

I don't see how buying a camera I don't "need" is that different from buying a house he doesn't "need". The real estate market is a lot like the camera market, both have highs and lows and eventually both become outdated. Not many people live in houses built 80 years ago, the only thing that can retain it's value is the land usually.

I'm not worrying about the camera I'm shooting on but I as a consumer have a right to care about the market I give money to, so do you and everyone else...that's why this hvx forum on this site exists because people care about how the market is changing and the options that are going to be presented to them.

I do worry about how good my films are, I'm working on the second draft of my feature screenplay as we speak but filmmaking is as much a technical art as it is a creative one.
If I shot my feature on a Canon ZR100, instead of a dvx would it be as good? No one can tell me it would. Which would look better a feature shot on dvx24p dv or an hvx720p24HD? If the dvx would look better why would the hvx even exist?

Under the same situations (good script, good actors, good lighting, good sound, good cinematography) a better camera will make better films. That's why camera technology changes in the first place. Or else the first video format would have broke mold and nothing would change.

Just because I care about what I'm shooting on doesn't mean I have put time into making a good film. Why does everyone here assume I haven't? I've spent the last 4 months hammering out my screenplay, now I'm revising it. And I'll spend from Nov-April in pre-production. I think I'm spending plenty of time working on the non-camera part of my movie so why can't I care about what camera I'm gonna use?
 
And San Diego isn't his home town and I'm sure he doesn't "need" to buy a house there.
Click to expand...

I think you're talking about me?

San Diego is my native home town. I cannot afford a home.

Yes it is something that is needed (when you are married with a 5 year old son you'll feel this way).

The reality is:

I dig what you are saying ultimatley. Goddamnit why can't we make films with S16 ? Why does it have to be some elitist bullshit format that I'll lnever afford?
 
ecking said:
Barry Green: Alright I guess we'll just wait for whatever panasonic does then. Because DVCPRO HD is nice but it's an expensive format and I doubt anything lower end in price point than the hvx will use it. I know hdv isn't a professional format and it's you said it's the lowest form of hi-def but even the lowest form of hi-def has got to be better than the best dv. I don't think anyone here can argue that.
Click to expand...

DVCPRO50 looks better than HDV. Any broadcast quality format looks better in my opinion than HDV.


A lot of people seem to satisfied with the hdv picture and sure there might be artifacts or something but I have trouble believing that hdv looks worse than dv, why can we use an unprofessional format like dv but using an unprofessional format like hdv is a bad thing?
Click to expand...

Nobody is debating that DV is a consumer format. They both are.. and both aren't that great.

I do worry about how good my films are, I'm working on the second draft of my feature screenplay as we speak but filmmaking is as much a technical art as it is a creative one.
If I shot my feature on a Canon ZR100, instead of a dvx would it be as good? No one can tell me it would. Which would look better a feature shot on dvx24p dv or an hvx720p24HD? If the dvx would look better why would the hvx even exist?
Click to expand...

Films are technical of course... but I can gaurentee you.. that your film could have "technical" mistakes up the wazoo.. but as long as your audience is hooked and in the story, they won't care or notice... these come back to haunt you on repeat viewings of course.

The only thing I think the HVX will improve, is the number of pixels getting put on the screen. Oh yes, and also better colour reproduction, but that is something that can be controlled more or less with DV(proper lighting etc..).

Under the same situations (good script, good actors, good lighting, good sound, good cinematography) a better camera will make better films. That's why camera technology changes in the first place. Or else the first video format would have broke mold and nothing would change.
Click to expand...

Damn straight. But that isn't related in the least to your plea. Since the HDV format isn't any better than mini-DV(DV25). In fact, it is worse, with far heavier compression. Your conflicting your ideas... you want the best image possible.. yet you want HDV... you say HDV's image is "good enough" but you have said "best image possible"... well.. DVCPRO-HD is the best image possible in this class of camera..not HDV..

Just because I care about what I'm shooting on doesn't mean I have put time into making a good film. Why does everyone here assume I haven't? I've spent the last 4 months hammering out my screenplay, now I'm revising it. And I'll spend from Nov-April in pre-production. I think I'm spending plenty of time working on the non-camera part of my movie so why can't I care about what camera I'm gonna use?
Click to expand...

You can care about the camera you want to use... but geez man... again that wasn't what your original post or subsequent posts were even talking about..

I hope panasonic never uses HDV on their products.. I hope they just develop there own format.. or better yet.. just use DVCPROHD on their consumer cameras.. after all.. the image quality comes from the camera not the format.

cheers
 
John: Didn't know your home town was San Diego because of the way you talked about it. If I said "I wish I had a home a in LA" I don't think most people would assume I lived there, unless they assumed I live on the street.

Loki: I'm not talking about DVCPRO50, the dvx doesn't shoot that. I'm talking about the dv we use everyday. You think regualr 60i is better than 1080i? I don't no how many people would agree with that. Sure there's a lot of compression but an hdv image still has more resolution than dv, how can more resolution make for worse image quality?

Fine I'll revise my statement: I want the best image quality for the lowest price. DVCPROHD is not the cheapest option to record in.

That wasn't what my posts were about? Yes they were you just didn't see the big picture. The point was about about hoping for the best and cheapest solution, that is caring about the camera.

Using DVCPROHD in comsumer cameras would be crazy it'd be too much for a regular person to handle. Most people can barely shoot video or even comprehend editing it, it's over the heads of the majority of people because of the price of DVCPROHD tape drives according to some people on the board, recording straight to harddrive is the cheapest option for a format like DVCPROHD. How would a consumer DVCPROHD camera keep what it's been shooting? I know plenty of people that have shot hours and hours of tape that have never been loaded into a computer. We are the minority market, most people can't put up with editing and harddrives and whatever else.

"Films are technical of course... but I can gaurentee you.. that your film could have "technical" mistakes up the wazoo.. but as long as your audience is hooked and in the story, they won't care or notice"

That's not even remotely true. A shitty picture, poor lightings, boom diping into frame constantly and other errors will not be overlooked. You give common audience too little credit, no one is gonna be like "that looked like **** but the story was good." People can't get into movie that looks like crap.

Now I'm not saying the dvx isn't acceptable to a common audience, it is I'm just saying a million technical errors isn't.

"the image quality comes from the camera not the format."
You just contradicted yourself. You've basically been saying that because of compression an HDV hvx would have lesser quality than a DVCPROHD hvx, because of the format. Now your saying it doesn't matter?
 
Barry_Green said:
Even so: a 35mm sync-speed camera like the Konvas 1M can be had for maybe $1500. 32,000 feet of short ends (4:1 ratio) would cost you maybe $3,200. Processing would cost maybe another $3200. Total of $7900. So yes, you could shoot a movie on 35mm film for less than it costs to buy one of these HD cameras. (you couldn't transfer it to video or edit it at that price, but then again you can't edit HD footage straight out of the camera either, you'd need a deck and a computer and hard disks and all that as well).
Click to expand...

So true. The difference is once you have a camera, editing set up and an FS, you never have to get these things again, versus shooting film were you'll always have to find 35mm film. You save money and time because all your info is there (movie and sound) versus having to sync film and sound etc, so in the long run you save time and money.

-Nate
 
Fine I'll revise my statement: I want the best image quality for the lowest price.
Click to expand...

That makes things more clear then.


"the image quality comes from the camera not the format."
You just contradicted yourself. You've basically been saying that because of compression an HDV hvx would have lesser quality than a DVCPROHD hvx, because of the format. Now your saying it doesn't matter?
Click to expand...

well since I didn't say that at all in any of my posts... I guess you just made that up.. but onward..

I think your skewing my words and looking into them too much for your own cause.

HDV shot on a (non existant but for this example) 2/3 " CCD camera will look much better than an HDV image shot on 1/3" CCD camera.

Same goes for DVCPRO-HD. Let me say this instead to make it "less contradictory" for you.

Same camera + 2 different formats = different image quality.
2 different cameras + 1 image format = different image quality.

One thing you said is true and I do believe.. that "because of compression an HDV hvx would have lesser quality than a DVCPROHD hvx"...

Format and Camera are interweaved of course... but the camera is what is giving you the image.. not the format.

DVCPROHD camera would work fine.... of course my assertions are based on the future P2 type storage on consumer cameras as well. Joe Handycam wouldn't know the difference.. he'd pop a P2 into his latop or just capture from the p2 via firewire.. etc... this is where the camera quality would come in.. sure it's DVCPROHD but it is from a consumer camera...

ever take a picture with a dispoable camera? try taking that same picture with a professional quality still camera..

I am pretty sure I am not crazy.. I mean if I am.. then all the info I have read on this site and others about formats.. cameras.. etc. is BS.. but somehow I don't think so.
 
It has been said that you should never let the truth get in the way of a good story. It might follow that you should never let logic and reason get in the way of a good argument... convoluted logic has a way of extending a discussion way past the time when everyone wants to go to sleep.

IMHO, DV is a very good SD codec. HDV is a mediocre HD codec at best. DVC Pro HD is a great HD codec. And camera quality can at best maximize the capability of a codec. A camera cannot ever make the codec better than it is. The HVX is a highly anticipated camera because it is the least expensive form of the currently available great HD codecs. If Sony put out a $10K HDCAM we might have a real discussion on our hands...
 
Ecking, trust me, I understand your point, yet, I honestly think that you are hung up about the format issue. Your statement that all things being equal, a film shot on an HVX, as opossed to being shot on a DVX, will be better, is absolutely relative. Will it be better if blown up to film? Probably. Yet, is a film blow up a very realistic presentation format for your film? In all honesty, probably not. I know we all have the dream that our $5k film will be accepted at Sundance, become the critics darling, causing a bidding war with all the studios and by the end of the festival, we are skiing with Jack Nicholson. Trust me, if you can make a $5k movie that gets accepted at Sundance, become the critics darling, causing a bidding war with all the major studios and helps you ski with Jack Nicholson, nobody is going to care that you shot it on DV versus an HD format. Really. Also remember, to blow up a movie from HD is going to cost as much as from DV. If it is a feature length film, you had better budget $100k to get it right.

One thing I was wondering, you said that you are still in college. What is it you want to do in filmmaking? If it is cinematography, you had better start shooting film. You can get jobs "dp"ing videos, but video and film are not the same thing and if you want to be a cinematographer, you need to be shooting film. Now, If you want to be a writer/director, that is different. You say that you have a DVX, I am assuming a way to post DV and a script. You are all set. Take the money you would spend on an HD camera and put it into your film. Make it look, and sound as best you can. Then show it to anybody with eyeballs that will set still long enough.

Trust me, and the other posters in this thread, if you make a movie that can move an audience and shoot it the best you can on a DVX, there is nobody in the world that will say, "Wow, if he had only shot that on HD, I might have liked it".
 
Learning film today would be like going to engineering school to learn internal combustion engine design. Suicide. Industry is moving onto new systems and those that are entrenched in the old will quickly have no marketable skills and no prospects. Yah, we all love film, but there are better ways.

BTW, when was the last time you saw a news photographer shooting film? They're all digital.
The transition away from film for movies and television is nigh.
 
ecking said:
Sure there's a lot of compression but an hdv image still has more resolution than dv, how can more resolution make for worse image quality?
Click to expand...
Very easily. There's a lot more to image quality than just resolution! There's perceived sharpness and contrast and latitude and noise and color and motion rendition and color sampling and compression artifacts and on and on and on. The more pixels you pack onto a chip, the less of the "good stuff" you get -- less sensitivity, less latitude, worse signal-to-noise ratio, etc. I think it's a fairly safe bet to say that an SPX800 shooting 4:2:2, blown up to film, would probably produce an overall more pleasing, better-looking image than any HDV camera blown up to film.

Resolution isn't everything. It's just one thing. There's a *lot* more that goes into making for good image quality!

I want the best image quality for the lowest price. DVCPROHD is not the cheapest option to record in.
Click to expand...
Well, that's true. Pixelvision would be the lowest price, since it uses cassette tapes to record on. Straight DV is hard to argue with, you could get a $299 camcorder and a $4 tape and get some passable quality.

Look, there's nothing wrong with wanting HDV. If you like it, and you think it's "good enough" for what you want to do, then go ahead and get it. There are several choices out there. Whether there's something better out there may or may not factor into your decision. Just make an informed decision, and don't try to convince other people that they're wrong (which was the basic premise of saying "Panasonic should have gone HDV, they're dumb not to have gone HDV"). That's probably why you ran into resistance...

I think if we boiled down your sentiments, it'd probably be "I sure wish that I could afford an HVX, but I can't, so therefore if they'd only have made it HDV then maybe I could afford it." Which is an understandable sentiment, but it flies in the face of one important factor: if they'd made the HVX use HDV, then nobody would be nearly so interested in it! It wouldn't be that much different from any of these other cameras! The thing that makes it so awesome is specifically because it DIDN'T use tape, and it DIDN'T use HDV. No HDV camera shoots 720 and 1080, because they can't. No HDV camera does variable frame rates, because they can't. No HDV camera does 4:2:2 color, because they can't. It's only because the HVX *isn't* HDV, is what makes it so special.

Using DVCPROHD in comsumer cameras would be crazy it'd be too much for a regular person to handle.
Click to expand...
Which is why we'll never see DVCPRO-HD in a consumer camera. It'd never happen.

Most people can barely shoot video or even comprehend editing it
Click to expand...
Correct. Which is why JVC was stunned when they put out a consumer HD camera, and the public yawned and said "so what?" Since the public doesn't shoot video or comprehend editing it, why should they care whether it's high-def or not?

It's the professionals who clamored for an affordable HD format, not the consumers...

When the day comes that consumers want high-def cameras, the manufacturers will deliver them. And yes, Panasonic will be among them. However, I suspect Panasonic will probably never go HDV, they'll probably skip it and go straight to memory-based recording on SD cards (like the new standard-def SD camera they just introduced).
 
Loki said:
I hope panasonic never uses HDV on their products.. I hope they just develop there own format.. or better yet.. just use DVCPROHD on their consumer cameras.. after all.. the image quality comes from the camera not the format.
Click to expand...

...You did say that Loki... and I also thought it was a bit or a dent in your arguement.

It is amazing that you all argued for the whole time I was asleep, but I really think this arguement has become about nothing.

Can't we all agree that a $2K-4K camera with 24p would be nice for the people who can't afford a HVX/HD100/XLH1? HDV would probably be the solution - fine, live with a codec that isn't HDCAM. I think that HDV vs HDCAM is very similar to DV vs DigiBeta... They aren't as good, but still very capable.
 
People can't get into movie that looks like crap.

What about:

Blair Witch
Clerks
Slacker
Open Water
Primer
Pi
(and any one of the InDigEnt movies)

Granted, people won't get into a movie that has 'inexcusable' technical errors.
You mentioned the boom dipping into the shot, etc. Well, regardless of format there's no reason for you to get the boom in the shot, or shoot out of focus, or have bad sound.

But there is definitely a point where the codec and camera can be considered "good enough."
And I think that in capable hands DV has proven itself to be "good enough."

"but I really think this arguement has become about nothing."

now THAT'S a statement we can all get behind.
I couldn't agree more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top