JVC HD100 focus problems!!!

Well, Barry, a professional format has in the past been what the professionals and (more importantly) the broadcasters adopt. In the early days, no-one believed DV25 would be a professional format, but it turned out to be... JVC had then the ProfessionalDV-line (a small tweak of the standard DV, i.e. locked audio). JVC was quite succesful then, and I suppose they're taking the same gamble: make a small tweak of the HDV-format and build a pro-line around that. Ideally for newsgathering and stuff.

I think it's smart. With the DV they had the 'downward' compatibility with Standard DV, witch is very usefull, especially for news-purposes (amateur foortage, easy available media, ...). ProHD will have this downwards compatibility also with the standard HDV format. (only audio channels and TC are included)...

Problem with DVCPRO has always been that it isn't compatible (enough) with the other DV25 formats, until the firewire-link showed up. And even then. Now a connection won't be possible, because there's other compression involved. It is restricted to Panasonic only (perhaps Ikegami as wel...) - and that ALWAYS makes something less interesting.
 
DVCPRO hasn't had any problem getting adopted; something like 70% of the news market in the US is now controlled by DVCPRO. There's probably not a station in the US that doesn't have at least some DVCPRO gear.

May be different in the UK, where DVCPRO25 is not bitstream compatible with DV, but in the US it sure hasn't proven to be any sort of problem.

About the "professional format" thing: I don't think HDV is a professional format. That's not to say that it doesn't have its uses, but I don't think it meets the criteria to be called "professional". I do see that manufacturers are finding a lot of interest among professionals for professional HD cameras, and so they are stuffing HDV into pro camera bodies (most notably the HD100 and the Z1). But in my opinion that's not the best way to go. JVC introduced the consumer HD format with a terrible camera, the HD1, but they introduced it there because that's where they felt the format was most suitable. Sony's first camera is technically a consumer model, the FX1. Their HC1 is clearly a consumer model. And Canon and Sharp are HDV members, and all Sharp cameras are only consumer models, and all Canons but the XL2 are consumer models. HDV was designed, developed, and initially marketed towards CONSUMERS. It just so happened that there was a lot of interest in low-cost HD from professionals, but that doesn't mean the format was designed for, nor will it necessarily prove suitable for, professional applications.

The "pro" HD10 was a total afterthought -- at NAB JVC was swamped with interest from people who wanted a professional camera, so they said "heck, let's slap a cheeseball XLR adapter on top of the thing and call it the HD10!" Didn't work out too well, it was still a horrid camera. But JVC obviously got it right with the HD100, giving people exactly the kind of camera they wanted. And Sony came pretty close; the FX1 is such a superior camera to the HD1 that it's not even funny.

Yes there will be pros who will use HDV (I'm one of them). But that doesn't mean it's a professional format, and I'm already taking steps to minimize the risk associated with the format (by using HDV Rack and the DR-HD100 to eliminate tape dropout risk).

People seem to want to compare HDV's development (and adoption) by referencing what happened with DV25. But HDV is not DV. HDV has issues that DV never had. Think about DV as a format: it's every bit as good as BetaCam SP, the then-reigning, most-widely-used professional format. DV was revolutionary: a component recording system, plus digital recording (when DigiBeta was about the only digital recording system out!) DV delivers image quality that's just as good as BetaSP, no compromises demanded (other than the tiny metal-evaporated tape, a restriction that both Sony and Panasonic moved quickly to address by introducing alternate, "pro" variants on the format).

HDV isn't the same game at all: it's significantly lower quality than the reigning HD standards (HDCAM and DVCPRO-HD). It has issues. It is a lot lower color sampling. It's extremely compressed. It is susceptible to artifacting. In 1080i, dropouts can cause the image to seize for half a second, fer cryin' out loud! :shocked:

Let me try to say it this way: HDV is not to HDCAM nearly the same as DV was to BetaCam SP. HDV is more like SuperVHS was, compared to BetaSP. S-VHS was a big step up from VHS, but it wasn't in the same class as BetaSP. I believe HDV is a big step up from DV (in that it's HD) but it's not in the same class as HDCAM.

DV was as good as BetaSP. HDV is not nearly as good as HDCAM. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

When S-VHS was introduced, professionals could have rushed to adopt it, but they didn't. And S-VHS is not as good as what they were using (BetaSP), whereas DV was.

HDV is not as good as DVCPRO-HD or HDCAM. It's more like S-VHS was. Whether it will, in the end, be embraced by professionals and widely used is a very open-ended question; the final chapter hasn't been written on that yet (heck, I don't think the final chapter has even been started being typed!)

If XDCAM-HD, at 36 megabits, includes 4:2:2 color sampling and the disc provides resiliency from dropouts, I'd say that it would be a pretty good contender to become a lower-cost, professional HD format (although details remain to be released). Or JVC's forthcoming 1920x1080@4:2:2 MPEG-2 50-megabit format. Or, yes, Panasonic's full-fledged DVCPRO-HD system, on P2. Those are the contenders that I think are vying to become the lower-cost professional HD format.

ProHD will have this downwards compatibility also with the standard HDV format. (only audio channels and TC are included)...
Click to expand...
ProHD isn't downward-compatible with HDV, it *is* HDV. No difference. "ProHD XE" is their proposed new format which would feature the additional audio tracks etc... that's the one that would retain downward compatibility. The ProHD as used on the JVC HD100 is not any different than regular 720p HDV.
 
Well, I has no idea DVCPRO had such succes in the US, here in Europe, that's a different story. anyhow, we'll see how it goes. It is indeed obvious that HDV has its problems, but in the end, if the broadcasters would start to adopt it... then it's there. In the end, the contenence makes lots of things possible. BBC for instance is quite prone to quality - they used JVC's GY-DV700 as we all know -, dutch TV seems not to care anyhow (no 16/9 broadcast, and even programming recorded on single chip cams.

Anyhow, since we have PAL, the migration to HD hasn't even started here so everything remains to be seen.

ProHD *ISN'T* HDV, because it will have (in the future) extra audiochannels and some other sort of TC-recording (can't remember exactly). The compression and image *IS* HDV indeed, so it will be fully compatible, except for that PCM-audio and TC. (I know the difference is minimal, but that was what I was referring too.
 
Barry_Green said:
If XDCAM-HD, at 36 megabits, includes 4:2:2 color sampling and the disc provides resiliency from dropouts, I'd say that it would be a pretty good contender to become a lower-cost, professional HD format (although details remain to be released). Or JVC's forthcoming 1920x1080@4:2:2 MPEG-2 50-megabit format. Or, yes, Panasonic's full-fledged DVCPRO-HD system, on P2. Those are the contenders that I think are vying to become the lower-cost professional HD format.
Click to expand...

Won't DVCPRO HD seem a little dated and bit hungry in that company? Obviously guessing, but MPEG2 used like that should be better is every way (apart from absolute extreme frame differences) and be only around half the bitrate. I guess the processing power needed would be greater though.

Any news as to Pany updating DVCPRO HD at all? I'm not expect anything for a few years, but just wondering.
 
FWIW: There is no such thing as "professional format" or "consumer format" to the engineeers, they are just "formats". The ProHD 720/24P is under the HDV standard. m2t is the HDTV format as well so this whole notion about what's pro and what's not is B.S. People who use film, look down upon DV and then DV is subdivided by BetaSP (analog but I have to include it) and DigiBeta, and DVCPro (25/50/100) and miniDV, HDV and now ProHD and many more.

From what I've seen of the ProHD codec it is very professional and worthy of broadcast (and making $$$$), screencaps for print (and making $$$$), compositing and downsampling (more commercial $$$$). At it's price point I don't thing there is anything close to it. I think you could literally spend the very cheapest and get the stock camera and go into production.

I too am waiting to see the HVX200 and what it has to offer. I really think the HVX200 will steal the show format wise and frame rate wise which is superior. Real world, I think JVC steals the show with longer record times and an ENG style form. I mean, right out of the gate you've got to buy a bunch of stuff for an HVX200?! Plus, JVC has proven something (to me) with ProHD. I've been editing Z1/FX1 HDV for almost a year (since Liquid 6 came out in Oct '04) and the ProHD is better in every way.

That brings up another issue. Post production and supporting the camera after the images are shot. My systems (3 edit stations) are prepaired for P2, DVCPro50, HDV, XDcam, and MXF. We are not prepaired for DVCPro100 and don't know if Avid will extend the DVCPro100 codec to our timeline. See what I mean? YOu have to leverage what you've already got and In our case the HVX200 comes at a high price with P2 cards and a very limited camera run. Real world, the HVX200 doesn't make sense.

@B.Green-People will argue about the HVX's format as well. You probably already know that, but the DVCPro100 codec is 8 bit (256 gradations) so there is some limitation even with 422 compaired to 10 or 12 bit systems. It is definately a giant leap at the price point but the eventual cost does not include just the camera and P2 cards. That solution I could see would run around 15-25K and even higher very easily. I'll leave that to the rental house...

real world I think the HD-100 will mop up.
 
Hey! I'm just a small cog in the wheel here at BIRNS & SAWYER (sp), but thanks for making me feel like a big cheese. Thanks!
 
I also forgot to mention, both American Idol and Fox are using the HD 100 (they got a few on pre-release), upconverting on a DVCproHD deck and are loving the results. Needless to say but we like the camera.
 
Jim,

we all like the 'camera', too!

it's that damn LENS we can't stand. So find us a reasonable priced alternative that doesn't BREATH so damn much! PLEASE?
 
Jim - nice points. My intention is to shoot 2 to 3 horror films on whatever new camera emerges as the best for what I do - and the JVC camera has, for many of the reasons you listed, garned much of my interest.
That said, I am greatly concerned about the JVC split-screen effect and dead pixels.
I know Barry Green and others have said that the split screen isn't a issue for them as they never use gain - but in my past experience (I've shot 3 full-length horror films with the XL1), I have often been forced to use gain in run-and-gun situations....
All that said, if JVC does not address these issues, all the other ones (HDV vs other formats, etc) will be moot in my mind.... Or should I re-think my position?
Thanks for any imput... John Vincent

PS - what a great web site and wonderful contributors - truly the best I have seen - keep it up!
 
I'm not convinced that the split-screen "isn't an issue", although I will say that the effect is influenced by gain -- it can be visible with no gain, but the more gain you apply the more visible it becomes.

JVC may be able to fix it with a firmware update, but as of yet I haven't heard any confirmation from JVC as to whether that would be a possibility or not.

I'm also wondering if the split-screen would become more visible when doing color correction; if so, that may make it more of an issue. As it is, it's not usually visible at all under 0db, so I don't know that it's much to worry about. But if you intend to be using gain, I would definitely not buy until they've adequately sorted out whatever the issue is.
 
I'm sure the split-screen will be adjusted. (JVC GY-HD100A, perhaps? :-) )

Icarus: Welcome to the pro-world: Lenses, especially good ones are costly. And that isn't about to change. The lens is fine for the price. You can always get better (right now: the 13x or any 1/2 inch lens. But you will know also that it will just be a matter of time until there's an immense scala in lenses to choose from (cfr XL-series by canon: without counting the photolenses, there are about 10 - 15 possibilities, although not all as easy to find - but they're out there)...
 
mezelf,

thanks, nice to be here among some people that know their craft. I hope to learn a lot along the way.

I'm sure the lens thing will be resolved in the coming year or two as HD becomes the standards for all micro-budget films and newby filmmakers. At the moment, however, the solutions for this particular camera seem to be way too costly for me.

Given the numbers need to put a good lens on this camera it makes for sense to buy the HVX with the micro35 and some good more moderatly priced primes. this is my intent.
 
I don't want to sound like a jackass, but I never get it why people INSIST on commenting on a lens that came with a body. Buy the body only and the 13x lens... or the 1/2 inch adapter and a better 1/2 inch lens (that'll cost the same as the 13x...)

If you really want you could go for the 1/2 inch adaper and a 2/3 inch adapter on top ... and get a 25k$ 2/3 inch HD lens (quite long focus, but whatever...)

Besides, you can always go for the Mini35 :-)

Anyhow: the stock lens breathes, and is too narrow. Get the 13x....

Too expensive? Name me any HD lens with similar wide angle for that price.... It is a normal price... If you insist on needing to have such a wide angle: it has always been in this price range AT LEAST. Sorry - I can't see your point. Besides: look at it like this: the camcorder costs $11.000 - $12.000 over here (In Belgium - Europe): That means you guys are getting a $6.000 discount. That pays a big part of the lens already... :-)
 
mezelf27 said:
I don't want to sound like a jackass, but I never get it why people INSIST on commenting on a lens that came with a body. Buy the body only and the 13x lens... or the 1/2 inch adapter and a better 1/2 inch lens (that'll cost the same as the 13x...)

If you really want you could go for the 1/2 inch adaper and a 2/3 inch adapter on top ... and get a 25k$ 2/3 inch HD lens (quite long focus, but whatever...)

Besides, you can always go for the Mini35 :-)

Anyhow: the stock lens breathes, and is too narrow. Get the 13x....

Too expensive? Name me any HD lens with similar wide angle for that price.... It is a normal price... If you insist on needing to have such a wide angle: it has always been in this price range AT LEAST. Sorry - I can't see your point. Besides: look at it like this: the camcorder costs $11.000 - $12.000 over here (In Belgium - Europe): That means you guys are getting a $6.000 discount. That pays a big part of the lens already... :-)
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I was pointing out above. With the HVX you're still not getting away with just the price of the camera, you have to add a LOT of things unless you alread own them. The JVC is ready right out of the box and if you don't like the lens, ante up for the 13X. We all have to admit that the camera is so new that it's hard to properly access the lens options. The GREAT thing is that there are lens options....
 
Steph,

you contradict yourself, saying it's ready out of the box. Neither camera is ready out of the box.

My point was that the HVX will cost less to bring up to level I need than the JVC. At least until other lower cost lens options come around for the JVC.

Anyways, I think this thread has gone on long enough and we've all agreed that neither camera has the perfect lens and no matter what you buy you'll need to buy more toys to follow. ANd I think we all agree that both camera bodies and what they offer at their price points is wonderful.

at this point I think we are all just doing this I think Ford is better than Chevy or vice versa. theyre both very good products for what they cost and very similar. But when it comes down to it, ford people buy ford and chevy people buy chevy.
 
Icarus2005 said:
Steph,

you contradict yourself, saying it's ready out of the box. Neither camera is ready out of the box.

My point was that the HVX will cost less to bring up to level I need than the JVC. At least until other lower cost lens options come around for the JVC.

Anyways, I think this thread has gone on long enough and we've all agreed that neither camera has the perfect lens and no matter what you buy you'll need to buy more toys to follow. ANd I think we all agree that both camera bodies and what they offer at their price points is wonderful.

at this point I think we are all just doing this I think Ford is better than Chevy or vice versa. theyre both very good products for what they cost and very similar. But when it comes down to it, ford people buy ford and chevy people buy chevy.
Click to expand...

Quite true Ic, If everything else is in place then the HD-100 is ready out of the box. In my case, our group has been up and running with HDV for almost a year. The lens (to me) seems suitable. I know that's not true for everyone. Hey, maybe rent one for a project with the 13X lens and get some real 'hands on'.

Anyway, best of luck hombre... :thumbup:
 
Barry - could you explain further (or point out which thread you've already done so!) the exact difference in the codecs between the JVC100 and HVX?

Until this thread, I was under the assumption that both cameras used HDV.... But, that is not true? I know that you've said in other threads that you have not been terribly impressed by HDV generally (with the JVC100 being the most robust version).

Which under-$10 K camera (if any) does, or is likely to, use a more 'professional' codec? Thanks for all the great knowlege... John Vincent
 
Well, there's been hundreds of pages written on this, so I don't even know where to start in pointing you towards a summary...

Basically, HDV is a recording format. HD is the standard, and HDV is a way to record that standard. There are many ways to record HD, just like there are many ways to record SD (for example, DV, VHS, DigiBeta, DVCPRO50, S-VHS, 8mm, Hi-8, DVD... those are all recording formats for Standard Definition television signals).

There are three levels of HD recording that are currently in common use.

HDV is the lowest quality way to record a high-def signal. It is extremely compressed, with low color sampling. I view it as roughly the HD equivalent to S-VHS or Hi8 in the SD world. HDV uses MPEG-2 compression, at 4:2:0 color sampling (meaning basically one color sample for every four pixels), at a low 19mbps or 25mbps data rate (depending on whether you're recording 720p or 1080i).

DVCPRO-HD and HDCAM are the most common professional HD recording systems. DVCPRO-HD is used in the $70,000 VariCam; HDCAM is used in the $100,000 F900 CineAlta and the HDW700 and other Sony cameras. DVCPRO-HD is 4:2:2 (one color sample for every two pixels) and 100 megabits per second. HDCAM is 3:1:1 (one color sample for every three pixels) and about 140 megabits per second. HDCAM and DVCPRO-HD are far and away the most common HD formats in use in professional production companies. The CineAlta/HDCAM solution is the most common one used as an alternative to film when making medium-to-big-budget movies on HD (primarily because HDCAM offers a 1080/24p mode; DVCPRO-HD hasn't offered a 1080/24p mode until now). DVCPRO-HD is to HD as DVCPRO50 is to SD; HDCAM is to HD as Digital Betacam is to SD. They're both excellent formats.

At the top level are formats like HD-D5 and HDCAM SR. HDCAM SR is 4:4:4 at 440 megabits per second. Don't recall the specs for D5 right offhand. Then you have systems like the Dalsa Origin and the Thompson Viper, etc.

HDV uses the MPEG-2 codec using a long-form Group of Pictures (GOP) structure. This means it doesn't encode each frame individually; rather it encodes primarily the changes from frame to frame. This can give it tremendous efficiency if very little changes, but it can also cause the codec to fall apart if a lot changes from frame to frame. The 1080i version of HDV uses a 15-frame GOP, the 720p version uses a 6-frame GOP. 1080i is trying to encode 46.7 million pixels per second in 25 megabits, so it needs the extra efficiency of the longer GOP. 720p tries to encode a maximum of 27.6 million pps in 19 megabits, so it has a lot more bits per pixel available -- that lets it get away with using a shorter GOP while still providing lower overall compression. Especially when using the 24p mode: then it's only trying to fit 22.1 million pps. That's less than half the pixels per second of 1080i, but using only 20% less space to do it; as a result 720/24p will be a lot less "bit-starved" than 1080i.

The downside to the long-GOP form happens when there's too much information to fit in the bitstream. The whole GOP will become overly compressed, noisy, blocky, and ugly, and depending on how long the GOP is, that'll last for up to half a second. It's possible to get an effect where the whole screen will be soft and sort of out-of-focus for up to half a second, and then suddenly "snap" into focus when the next GOP starts. It's an effect not too dissimilar from early web video, except that it's obviously to a much milder degree.

The GOP also presents problems for editing systems. In order to decode a particular frame, the MPEG-2 decoder will have to start at the first frame in the group and sequentially decode each and every frame until it gets to the one you want. In HDV that can mean having to decode 14 frames before getting to the 15th. Every frame must be decoded because each successive frame depends on the information in the previous frame. (that's an oversimplification, ignoring bidirectional and predicted frames, but it gets the basic point across).

In DVCPRO-HD and HDCAM, none of that happens. In those formats each frame is encoded individually and discretely. Every frame is instantly accessible, and what happens in a previous frame can never have any effect on a succeeding frame. So where with HDV you can have some ugly and unpredictable results if there's a strobelight or fire or smoke in your shot, DVCPRO-HD and HDCAM will always just "work", and will always produce repeatable, dependable, predictable results.

The GOP nature of HDV can cause problems when recording, playing back, and digitizing as well. If there's a dropout on digital tape, the digital data will be scrambled at that point. But because in a GOP codec frames are dependent on other frames, and the whole group is so interconnected, if there's a problem on the tape at any point that results in scrambled data, that dropout will be propagated throughout the entire group of pictures! On the Sony 1080i HDV implementation, that means that any little tiny dropout anywhere on the tape will result in an entire half-second of footage being dropped. The camera just punts the entire GOP, freezing on the last frame of the prior GOP and holding a freeze-frame for 15 full frames. It doesn't happen all that often, but it's absolutely horrible when it happens. Sony has released a public statement commenting on the problem here:
http://www.sonydigital-link.com/dime/hotnews/cam/cam_hdv_tape.asp?l=en

With the Sony implementation, that's what happens on every dropout. In the JVC implementation, full-frame GOP seize-ups are less common, but instead you can get large scrags that still last the entire duration of a GOP (which is about 1/4 or 1/5 second on the JVC system). You can download a clip with examples of what JVC dropouts look like here:
http://www.24puser.com/hd100/30p-ms-off-dropouts.m2t

With DVCPRO-HD or HDCAM, if there's a dropout on the tape, it'll affect only one frame (which means 1/60th of a second).

The other major thing about HDV vs. the other formats is the tape itself. You have to understand that HDV was designed around one central, controlling theme: whatever they came up with, it had to fit on an existing DV tape. The $4 tape was the overriding design decision. With DVCPRO-HD and HDCAM, that's not the case: those tape mechanisms employ over a dozen 8,000-RPM heads, and the tapes are around $50 to $90 each. The cheapest DVCPRO-HD tape deck is $21,000. The cheapest HDCAM deck is $39,000. But HDV was designed for consumer cameras, and that meant re-using the DV tape transport and the off-the-shelf $4 tapes. Obviously compromises needed to be made.

Which is really too bad, actually. The tape is what limits HDV most. Had they used a different recording mechanism with a higher bitrate, they could have made it much better. Sony is doing so with XDCAM-HD, where they're introducing a 36-megabit version. And JVC is producing a 1920x1080x4:2:2 50mbps high-def format which will record direct-to-hard disk... they couldn't record that signal to tape, so they chose hard disk. Sony couldn't record their 36mbps signal to tape, so they chose XDCAM blu-ray disks.

Which brings us to the HVX. The HVX uses full-fledged, 100% quality, 100-megabit DVCPRO-HD, the exact same recording format as used in the $70,000 VariCam. However, the HVX doesn't record to tape -- it uses the P2 cards. That lets them record the full 100-megabit signal (two to five times as much bandwidth as the other competitors' higher-end low-cost systems) while bringing the cost way down. A DVCPRO-HD tape deck alone may cost $21,000 but the HVX itself (without cards) costs under $6,000. The cards themselves are expensive, yes, but the overall package of camera+2 cards is still less than half the cost of a DVCPRO-HD tape deck alone.

(to be continued...)
 
Tape is the basis for HDV, under the premise that it's cheap. However, I think tape is what limits HDV the most. I cannot stand tape, and HDV to tape is just a bad idea, in my opinion. It involves too many compromises in the signal, and it leaves your footage at peril of dropouts. Recording HDV to hard disk or blu-ray disk would go a long way towards alleviating much of that concern; with my HD100 I intend to record always to either hard disk or to HDV Rack.



Much has been made of the cost of $4 tapes vs. $2,000 P2 cards, but I think it's almost entirely blown totally out of proportion. With HDV you have to record to hard disk, if you want to avoid dropouts. With the P2 camera, you record on the cards and then download the footage to hard disk. It nets out about the same, when all is said and done (although DVCPRO-HD does take up a lot more room on hard disk). Recording to tape-only on HDV, I think that's just risky (if not foolish, depending on what it is you're shooting!) So as long as you're going to end up on hard disk anyway, you have a choice: start with highly-compressed, variable-resolution, low-color-sampling HDV (in either 1080 or 720 but not both) or start with 100-megabit, frame-discrete, high-color-sampling, low-compression, 1080p or 1080i or 720p DVCPRO-HD footage. To me there's no contest -- assuming the cameras perform equally, the recording format of DVCPRO-HD will blow away HDV all day long.



Which is not to say HDV doesn't have its uses. We will never see consumer cameras recording DVCPRO-HD to P2, for example; by this time next year I expect that we'll see $399 handycams from Sony and Sharp and Canon down at Best Buy. Plus, if you want to record footage and hand over a tape at the end of the day, HDV has that tape and offers that capability; P2 does not. If you need interchangeable lenses, the HD100 offers that, and it's HDV-only. If you need the shoulder-mount form factor, the HVX doesn't have that, but the HD100 does. If you need to record an hour at a time, HDV 1080i allows that... it's tougher with HDV 720p because the HD100's battery doesn't even last an hour, but assuming you had an Anton Bauer battery system, yes you could record an hour of HDV on a tape in one continuous take. With P2/DVCPRO-HD that's not nearly so easy; yes you could record for far more than an hour by hot-swapping cards, and downloading them to a laptop or P2 Store in-between, but that would be significantly more labor-intensive than just letting the camera roll (such as would be possible with the tape system).



And, keep in mind, recording format is only one element of the imaging chain. It's not necessarily even the most important; the lens and the CCDs and the sampling system and the DSP all play a huge role in the quality of the final footage. Assuming equivalent-quality footage is fed to the recorder, there's no doubt DVCPRO-HD will blow away HDV... but there's also no indication yet that equivalent-quality footage will be generated by these cameras!



Which under-$10 K camera (if any) does, or is likely to, use a more 'professional' codec?
Click to expand...

Asking the question specifically about the codec, the answer is easy: the HVX200.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top