HV 20 announced
- Thread starter BARYE
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
No, it wasn't. HDV was "designed" as a consumer format. AVC-HD was designed to replace HDV, to be the new low-bandwidth acquisition format. It's superior to HDV in nearly every way.AuditoryVisuals said:
So far only cheap low-cost camcorders have been put out that use it, but that will change.
No, it isn't. It's Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, Sharp, Canon... there are more manufacturers supporting AVC-HD than there ever were with HDV. And, most importantly, both of the behemoths (Sony and Panasonic) are on the same side this time with AVC-HD.
http://www.avchd-info.org/index.html
? AVC-Intra will likely never appear in a prosumer camcorder, because the lowest bitrate is 50 megabits. AVC-HD was designed for lower bitrates. AVC-HD is also scalable, you can scale it down to 6 megabits or up to 24, or rates in between. At 8 megabits it about matches 25 megabits of HDV; at 24 megabits it should be substantially better.
But that all also depends on having a worthy camera head. I think an XHA1 with AVC-HD would be a dynamite combination, and (for me at least) vastly preferable over HDV.
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
Barry_Green said:
LOLKholi said:
Here are these interesting resolution results (Canon HV10 related):
784.5 Lines Horizontal
704.8 Lines Vertical
vs.
[A1 1080/60i]
810.0 Lines Horizontal
660.4 Lines Vertical
[A1 24F mode]
810.0 Lines Horizontal
590.4 Lines Vertical
LINK
As Barlow already said: «The HV10 is a full raster 1920x1080 sensor, with a chip that's actually slightly larger than 1/3. It should actually achieve higher res if the lens is good enough.»
dippytwitty
Member
Emanuel said:
What Barry said is 100% true, you will not get "full glorious" (paraphrasing, sorry) 1080 output from a single-chip *BUT* it's important to see that *very good* results can be obtained from the bayer demosaic - coming from background in still digital photography, I'm not surprised that the HV10 gets around 70% 'apparent' resolution.
Sadly, the fact that so many 3-chip cams are cost-cutting by using lower-res chips and just pixel-shifting, means they won't be much better than a well designed single-chip. If you can spend the $80k+ on a full-frame 3-chip Varicam or CineAlta you can see what "glorious" really is, but I wouldn't be surprised if the next year or two changes the whole landscape totally- make a 3-sensor design from progressive chips like the HV20, and suddenly we don't need $80k anymore! Well, ok there's still the DOF issue with small sensors... ;o)
In short though, the single-chip bayer sensor is a compromise, but a very effective compromise, and is a mature bit of technology. Check out results from some of the better DSLR cams and you will find similar resolution results.
It's also good to keep in mind, that most resolution charts are black-and-white, where bayer sensors do their best in resolution- parts of an image predominantly red or blue will be softer. A 3-sensor design should improve in those parts, but we can also argue that 4-2-0 encoding takes away a good deal of that improvement!
I'll hold off on the HV20, but only because I too suspect more prosumer models with manual focus, AVCHD etc are on the horizon. Pushing the envelope is a good, good thing!
Dip
Wasn't it 2 years ago that a U.S. Panasonic marketing person hinted that eventually 24 fps would be brought to their consumer line? Ah, here it is:
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/More-Details-Revealed-Regarding-Panasonic-PV-GS400.htm
One might wonder how badly this announcement will hurt presales of Panasonic's latest AVCHD products. Methinks the HV20 will dominate that product category for at least 18 months (my guess at a full product development cycle).
Question: How many of you who are shooting with the HVX200 would now consider a HV20 for your B camera?
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/More-Details-Revealed-Regarding-Panasonic-PV-GS400.htm
One might wonder how badly this announcement will hurt presales of Panasonic's latest AVCHD products. Methinks the HV20 will dominate that product category for at least 18 months (my guess at a full product development cycle).
Question: How many of you who are shooting with the HVX200 would now consider a HV20 for your B camera?
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
That's the point.dippytwitty said:
If you have definition (not exactly the same than resolution considering that and other explanations previously given by Barry on the color subject and around that), you can risk going with a 35mm adapter, for example. But you need definition in order to dream.
I know and agree.
The same here. And here's that point above-mentioned.
AuditoryVisuals
Well-known member
Barry_Green said:
:huh: But the HVX200 uses DVCPRO HD at 100mb/s! You can't say that prosumer cameras won't use 50mb/s!
Barry_Green
Moderator
HVX200 isn't a prosumer camera, for one thing. For a second thing, AVC-Intra is only being developed and marketed by the broadcast division; AVC-HD is going to be supported by both broadcast and consumer. The AVC-Intra option board costs almost as much as an HVX does. You're not going to see a $2000 camcorder with a $3,000 or $4,000 option board in it.
The point of AVC-HD, and what it brings to us that's new and that's important, is cheap disposable giveaway media. Over-the-counter SD cards that you can shoot an hour to and then hand off to a client, if that's what you want.
AVC-Intra would double the recording time on a P2 card, sure. And for broadcast use that's fine. But AVC-HD can increase recording times by, say, 13x as long at HDV-caliber quality. For those uses where that's appropriate, it opens up new avenues. AVC-Intra doesn't really do that. Doubling is nice, but it still isn't going to go on a standard SD card at 50 megabits.
The point of AVC-HD, and what it brings to us that's new and that's important, is cheap disposable giveaway media. Over-the-counter SD cards that you can shoot an hour to and then hand off to a client, if that's what you want.
AVC-Intra would double the recording time on a P2 card, sure. And for broadcast use that's fine. But AVC-HD can increase recording times by, say, 13x as long at HDV-caliber quality. For those uses where that's appropriate, it opens up new avenues. AVC-Intra doesn't really do that. Doubling is nice, but it still isn't going to go on a standard SD card at 50 megabits.
xray
Well-known member
Big German broadcasters that invests in P2, did not bought any HVX200, they consider the 1/3" palmstyle camcorder as 'prosumer'. What you read in that word. It is prosumer, but used by professionals like the Sony Z1 is used bij BBC, VPRO etc.
HDV is getting mature right now, as is the old DVCPRO 8 bit codec, new developments will follow. AVC-HD is developing, Sony said loud that AVC-Intra is not ready now, they want acceptance for AVC-HD first.
HDV is getting mature right now, as is the old DVCPRO 8 bit codec, new developments will follow. AVC-HD is developing, Sony said loud that AVC-Intra is not ready now, they want acceptance for AVC-HD first.
Barry_Green
Moderator
A Big German broadcaster may not have bought it, but the biggest Indian broadcaster, NDTV, bought nothing but HVXs. The Weather Channel bought HVXs. Raycom Media bought 82 HVXs. It's a professional tool used by professionals.
The BBC did buy some Z1s, but they specifically told their shooters *not* to use them for HDV, they were only to be used for standard-def 16:9. When the BBC wanted a handheld HD camera to use for the Olympics, they used the HVX.
And Sony won't have anything to do with AVC-Intra, that's a Panasonic-only format.
The BBC did buy some Z1s, but they specifically told their shooters *not* to use them for HDV, they were only to be used for standard-def 16:9. When the BBC wanted a handheld HD camera to use for the Olympics, they used the HVX.
And Sony won't have anything to do with AVC-Intra, that's a Panasonic-only format.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Definitely. The only AVC cameras out right now are cheapy little consumer cams. Put a comparable camera head on it, something like the XLH1 or XHA1, and you should see noticably/significantly better images from the AVC-HD.
But that camera head doesn't exist yet.
But that camera head doesn't exist yet.
Barry_Green
Moderator
I've been lobbying for an AVC-HD DVX/24p camera, but Jan's said it's not gonna happen soon.Kholi said:
Frankly I think Canon has caught Panasonic and Sony napping. I doubt we're gonna see a $1000 24p camcorder from anyone else any time in the near future. It's just pulled the rug out from everyone else for an entry-level camera. Seriously, the DVX has been the cheapest 24p camcorder; Canon and Sony had finally just caught up to offering something at that price point or near it, and then Canon goes and offers something at 1/3 the price. I'd love to see the other companies mix it up and spice it up, but I bet we're quite a ways away from that.
DammitJanet
Well-known member
Holy crap. This is great that so many will be able to jump in on 24p at such a price.
However, if Canon do indeed introduce an "XH A2" with 24p and HDMI, I'm going to be pissed big time. I mean, it's bad enough we have to capture from the A1 while everyone else (using HDV) can capture from any camera or deck. I mean, I could be way off base here. Has anyone introduced another way out of this other than buying ANOTHER camcorder? (Brilliant marketing move by the way, Canon.)
However, if Canon do indeed introduce an "XH A2" with 24p and HDMI, I'm going to be pissed big time. I mean, it's bad enough we have to capture from the A1 while everyone else (using HDV) can capture from any camera or deck. I mean, I could be way off base here. Has anyone introduced another way out of this other than buying ANOTHER camcorder? (Brilliant marketing move by the way, Canon.)
Last edited:
Elton
Veteran
Jeez, what's the problem here? Each product is a step up from the other. If and when an XH A2 hit the market (I can't imagine it for at least a year) would you look at the A1 and say it's not good enough?
IMHO, the A1 passes a quality threshold where the extra refinements that may come (CMOS, HDMI, even AVCHD) are just diminishing returns, at best.
I'm all for progress, but a little perspective is in order. The A1 is a breakthrough product and it's gonna have a healthy life of its own.
IMHO, the A1 passes a quality threshold where the extra refinements that may come (CMOS, HDMI, even AVCHD) are just diminishing returns, at best.
I'm all for progress, but a little perspective is in order. The A1 is a breakthrough product and it's gonna have a healthy life of its own.
Last edited:
DammitJanet
Well-known member
I understand that, and believe me, I'm blown away by the A1. Don't get me wrong. I'm very thankful to Canon for providing us with such a powerful tool, but I just can't help feeling a little like the odd man out when it comes to 24f. I guess I'm just biased because I have this nagging feeling that my A1's heads are going to explode every time I capture footage from the thing.
I just wish someone would give us a method of capturing that isn't using the A1 itself or another camcorder (especially a cam costing over $1,000). I understand that a deck would be expensive, but come on!
I just wish someone would give us a method of capturing that isn't using the A1 itself or another camcorder (especially a cam costing over $1,000). I understand that a deck would be expensive, but come on!
Elton
Veteran
You may think the Sony HDV decks are great, but guess what? They're just glorified Z1 camcorder transports. Personally, unless you have to impress clients with something that looks like a "real deck" I'd rather have a killer little camera as a bonus. And another thing: THERE'S ALWAYS FIRESTORE if you want to avoid tape capture!
On 24F: It's true progressive encoding and doesn't waste bandwidth on redundant fields. Do you think consumers would understand this concept at all? Do you think they would care about pure progressive? It's too confusing and it makes sense that Canon would just opt to make it work just like the V1's does. Plus, it makes sense for people that are only concerned about how it looks on their HDTV (which should actually be just about everyone!) because I'm sure they won't want to have to deal with the complexity of having to add pulldown in post in order for their stuff to be 1080i standards compatible. At least with the HV20's approach, you can easily edit 24p and regular 1080i on the same timeline.
It remains to be seen whether the 24p on the HV20 will be an improvement, but I'm doubting it. Unless they have a noticeably improved encoder (unlikely) it may be slightly worse in terms of artifact resistance than the A1.
All of this of course doesn't bother me because I'm excited as hell to have a mini 1080 24p camera in the near future!
On 24F: It's true progressive encoding and doesn't waste bandwidth on redundant fields. Do you think consumers would understand this concept at all? Do you think they would care about pure progressive? It's too confusing and it makes sense that Canon would just opt to make it work just like the V1's does. Plus, it makes sense for people that are only concerned about how it looks on their HDTV (which should actually be just about everyone!) because I'm sure they won't want to have to deal with the complexity of having to add pulldown in post in order for their stuff to be 1080i standards compatible. At least with the HV20's approach, you can easily edit 24p and regular 1080i on the same timeline.
It remains to be seen whether the 24p on the HV20 will be an improvement, but I'm doubting it. Unless they have a noticeably improved encoder (unlikely) it may be slightly worse in terms of artifact resistance than the A1.
All of this of course doesn't bother me because I'm excited as hell to have a mini 1080 24p camera in the near future!
Last edited: