Sony is introducing yet another format?
- Thread starter puredrifting
- Start date
Barry, I was not around during video tape days, but I was around during audio tape days. I mean, consumer "compact cassette" tape, but tape nevertheless. There was Type I, Type II and Type IV. All came in the same shells. Type I was the cheapest and the lowest sound quality, but was the easiest on the heads. The chromium dioxide Type II was better but more abrasive. Type IV was pretty much of no use on consumer equipment. To get most from Type II and Type IV the heads and the record/play circuits had to match. So, how this is relevant to MP vs ME? Will Sony machine blow into pieces? Will its heads be torn off? Will it experience more signal loss? On the other hand, will DVCPRO recorders make a hole in ME tape?
If you are saying that tape was an inherent part of the spec, why Panasonic did not make MP MiniDV tape? Because this, according to you, is what prevents recording DVCPRO on the HVX200. Still, I call this BS. If DV can be recorded with 10 micron track onto ME tape, if DVCAM can be recorded with 15 micron onto ME tape, why DVCPRO cannot be recorded with 18 micron onto the same tape? Panasonic could produce small MP tape to make a prosumer version of DVCPRO. Instead, Panasonic neither allowed using MiniDV format, nor have ever produced MP MiniDV tape, effectively locking DVCPRO for professionals only. You call this good and sensible strategy?
BTW, DVCPRO HD-LP is 9 micron, less than DV and HDV. What is the difference in dropouts between 9 micron on MP and 18 micron on ME? Ah, whatever. I think neither of us will convince another in this argument. I think that it is my choice whether I want to use a certain format with certain media or not, especially when there are absolutely no technical reasons for restricting it.
> They used 4:2:0 on PAL DV because that's what the standard was, but when they made
> a professional format they went with 4:1:1 because it works better with interlaced footage.
This was my question. AFAIK, Panasonic was one of the creators of DV. Why Panasonic have not insisted on using 4:1:1 for baseline PAL DV instead of creating its own version of DV?
> That's what you'd think. But then why is XDCAM-EX only offered on SxS,
> and why is SxS only used for XDCAM-EX? Makes no sense.
Can you record DVCPRO HD @ 24p on a SDHC card? With 40 Mbit/s a Class 6 card should not have problems, they always faster than the spec. JVC uses Class 6 cards for 35 Mbit/s XDCAM EX and it works fine. At least, can you record DVCPRO25 onto SDHC card? The HMC150 is AVCHD only. Can the HPX300 record AVCHD? It can record AVC-Intra, but can it record AVCHD?
> Media IS still part of what a format is. XDCAM-EX cannot be recorded on an SD card
> or a MSPro card at all its frame rates, so basically if you want XDCAM-EX,
> you MUST use the SxS or the hard disk recorder.
No. Media is not part of a format anymore if it can be treated as a file-based storage. It is the manufacturers that shove a particular media/format combination down customers' throats. But as long as there is an adapter, there will be a way. There are MS-to-SxS and SDHC-to-SxS adapters. There are MicroSDHC-to-MS adapters. There are MicroSDHC-to-SD adapters. But there is no SDHC-to-P2 adapter. Huh? BTW, the JVC HM100 and HM700 record XDCAM EX onto SDHC card. The HM700 could not do that originally, but with a firmware update it can now.
If you are saying that tape was an inherent part of the spec, why Panasonic did not make MP MiniDV tape? Because this, according to you, is what prevents recording DVCPRO on the HVX200. Still, I call this BS. If DV can be recorded with 10 micron track onto ME tape, if DVCAM can be recorded with 15 micron onto ME tape, why DVCPRO cannot be recorded with 18 micron onto the same tape? Panasonic could produce small MP tape to make a prosumer version of DVCPRO. Instead, Panasonic neither allowed using MiniDV format, nor have ever produced MP MiniDV tape, effectively locking DVCPRO for professionals only. You call this good and sensible strategy?
BTW, DVCPRO HD-LP is 9 micron, less than DV and HDV. What is the difference in dropouts between 9 micron on MP and 18 micron on ME? Ah, whatever. I think neither of us will convince another in this argument. I think that it is my choice whether I want to use a certain format with certain media or not, especially when there are absolutely no technical reasons for restricting it.
> They used 4:2:0 on PAL DV because that's what the standard was, but when they made
> a professional format they went with 4:1:1 because it works better with interlaced footage.
This was my question. AFAIK, Panasonic was one of the creators of DV. Why Panasonic have not insisted on using 4:1:1 for baseline PAL DV instead of creating its own version of DV?
> That's what you'd think. But then why is XDCAM-EX only offered on SxS,
> and why is SxS only used for XDCAM-EX? Makes no sense.
Can you record DVCPRO HD @ 24p on a SDHC card? With 40 Mbit/s a Class 6 card should not have problems, they always faster than the spec. JVC uses Class 6 cards for 35 Mbit/s XDCAM EX and it works fine. At least, can you record DVCPRO25 onto SDHC card? The HMC150 is AVCHD only. Can the HPX300 record AVCHD? It can record AVC-Intra, but can it record AVCHD?
> Media IS still part of what a format is. XDCAM-EX cannot be recorded on an SD card
> or a MSPro card at all its frame rates, so basically if you want XDCAM-EX,
> you MUST use the SxS or the hard disk recorder.
No. Media is not part of a format anymore if it can be treated as a file-based storage. It is the manufacturers that shove a particular media/format combination down customers' throats. But as long as there is an adapter, there will be a way. There are MS-to-SxS and SDHC-to-SxS adapters. There are MicroSDHC-to-MS adapters. There are MicroSDHC-to-SD adapters. But there is no SDHC-to-P2 adapter. Huh? BTW, the JVC HM100 and HM700 record XDCAM EX onto SDHC card. The HM700 could not do that originally, but with a firmware update it can now.
Barry_Green
Moderator
It is my understanding that the Sony equipment was only designed to handle the ME tape, and could not play MP tape.
DVCPRO decks could not take ME tape either. You had to use a special tape adapter in order to play back a DV tape on a DVCPRO deck.
Tape *is* an inherent part of the spec! Always was. You don't get a choice in whether to believe this or not, tape was everything in the tape days. And metal particle was not part of the miniDV specification. Metal Evaporated was. That's the way it was. miniDV = miniDV. MiniDV was the last universal format. Any miniDV tape could work in any miniDV deck.
If you start throwing MP in there, you've got a different and incompatible format. Which is what DVCPRO was. It was a professional variant off of DV, adding a more robust tape format, locked audio, and much faster tape speeds, all designed to handle the heavy-duty shuttling and frame-accurate seeking of professional tape decks.
You can call it whatever you want. You could call it oranges and pineapples. You could call it frogs and kitchen cabinetry. I really don't care what you call it. Because you'd be equally wrong. Things are the way they are, and they don't require you to believe in them in order for them to be true.
Because DVCPRO was designed, originated, conceived, and implemented on METAL PARTICLE tape! That was the primary reason for making DVCPRO at all! It was the tape that was the difference! ME tape is, comparatively, cheap consumer crap. MP tape is industrial heavy duty stuff. Different decks, different heads, far more robust stuff.
Why is this hard to understand?
Good lord. Am I to understand that you're complaining that Panasonic produced a professional format for use by professionals, and that they made it better than the consumer format specifically to handle the challenges that professionals would put it to, that consumers wouldn't? You have a PROBLEM with that?
I call it not only a "good and sensible" strategy, I call it a highly successful strategy.
Look -- you're asking why they couldn't have put DVCPRO on metal evaporated tape. Do you know what that would have been? DVCAM!!! DVCAM and DVCPRO share (in NTSC) the same compression. The difference IS THE TAPE! The MP tape is the whole entire reason that DVCPRO existed! And, because they made it on heavy-duty, industrial-strength MP tape, that's why they took over 70% of the broadcast news business across America! Sony owned approximately 100% of the analog broadcast news business (with BetaSP), but when the transition came to digital, broadcast REJECTED metal-evaporated tape and EMBRACED metal-particle! That was the whole difference!
So why in the HELL would they have wanted to put DVCPRO on metal-evaporated? That already existed (DVCAM) and it was a broadcast FAILURE. It did okay in professional use, but it was a huge flop in broadcast.
How can anyone possibly see that as anything other than a brilliant strategy? It took Panasonic from being an also-ran into being the dominant player in broadcast/news applications.
Please educate yourself. You simply do not understand. Especially when you claim there were "no technical reasons", when in fact going with MP was THE technical reason behind everything.
They DIDN'T CREATE THEIR OWN VERSION OF DV!!! Why do you say they did? Panasonic DV is 100% compatible with JVC and Canon and Sony and Sharp and Samsung and every other DV.
They made their own version of DVCPRO. That is a different format.
I think I am starting to understand the problem here. You are thinking that one meaningless little specification (such as card speed, or compression ratio) is the sole and only determining factor, and you're hell-bent-for-leather to ignore everything that doesn't fit into your preconceived notion of what's important. You, for example, don't seem to care about the rigors of shuttling tape mechanisms in a professional tape-to-tape edit, crash-edit system. You think the only difference in a format should be, oh, whether it uses 4:1:1 or 4:2:0. Let me put this succinctly -- your vision of how things "should be" is not shared by the manufacturers and standards organizations who determine how things ARE.
DVCPRO is not recorded on an SD card regardless of the speed of the card, because DVCPRO is recorded by Panasonic Broadcast units that use the P2 recording media, and P2 is NOT a memory card. It is a microcomputer with over 42 different commands that it responds to and executes, it write-verifies all data, it handles wear-leveling and file integrity checks. It is not some cheap-ass SD card.
Of course, if you choose to ignore the forest and instead look at the individual trees, then you will never see what the actual picture is here. Panasonic produces P2 cards for professionals and the broadcast industry -- the SAME professionals who rejected cheap-ass metal-evaporated tape and embraced rugged and robust MP tape, are the SAME broadcast professionals who have rejected cheap-ass SD cards and have instead overwhelmingly embraced the rugged/indestructible P2 cards. For the SAME REASONS. P2 holds about 80% of the worldwide broadcast market. Why? Because of what it IS. Would they have bigger success if they recorded on SD cards? NO! Because the broadcasters would have said "HELL NO, we're not going to trust our footage to some no-name off-the-shelf cheapo memory card."
It is specifically BECAUSE the media is what it is, that the formats have been accepted and embraced.
And, the argument could be made, that it is specifically because of the media costs, that people who DON'T care as much about their footage (i.e., consumers) have chosen SD card recorders instead. Consumers bought metal-evaporated DV tape, and they're buying SD cards. Different market with different priorities.
Sure. And JVC's market is who, again? What national broadcasters, what station groups, what networks use JVC cameras? What individual network affiliate stations use JVC stuff? Anyone? Bueller? JVC has had a little bit of success selling into low-power UHF-type stations. ABC affiliates and all NBC o&o stations standardized on P2. The low-power UHF station in Pahrump, Nevada, bought JVC stuff. Different market.
No, and that's profoundly disappointing, to me. The HPX300 records every format Panasonic makes (DV, DVCPRO, DVCPRO50, DVCPRO-HD, AVC-Intra50, and AVC-Intra100) but it doesn't get to record AVCHD. Why? You can probably thank Sony for that. Sony and Panasonic jointly administer the AVCHD license, and I'll bet you dimes to doughnuts that Sony won't allow AVCHD to be recorded on a P2 card. And I'll bet you those same dimes to doughnuts that Panasonic won't allow the AVCHD logo to be used on SxS cards.
You are technically right, and realistically wrong. Technically anything could be stored on anything in a file-based age; you could store HDCAM-SR on individual DVD-ROMS if you wanted to. But HDCAM-SR records on HDCAM-SR tape, as part of the format. AVC-Intra records on P2, as part of the format. Could they record AVC-Intra on a fast-enough SD card? Possibly; I mean, they can teach dogs to walk on their hind legs, so they could probabyl put AVC-Intra on an SD card. But they WON'T, not unless the recording media is robust and bulletproof enough to warrant that.
You are so wrong as to be almost floundering at this point. The customers DEMAND those media. Well, the customers I'm talking about, which is the ones that the products are being marketed to.
If you truly, seriously, really think that the BBC would be perfectly happy shooting Planet Earth on some Kingston SD memory card, well, I can't help you there. If you truly think that the BBC would spend whatever tens of millions of pounds producing "Doctor Who" and that they would be comfortable recording that on a dime-store SD card... then you simply do not understand the market to whom AVC-Intra and P2 are marketed so very successfully to.
On the other hand, I will grant that very few of us P2 users use P2 cameras on vacation to disneyworld. I'd rather use an SD card for that.
Tell you what. When you build an SD card that is its own microcomputer, with a 1500G shock rating, an internal raided 1200mbps data transfer rate, fault-free memory, write-verification that certifies that EVERY BIT is written perfectly and read back out and verified, wear leveling and everything else that a P2 card does, THEN maybe you'll see an SD-to-P2 adapter. But not until then.
Look -- do you understand why a FireStore costs more than a regular firewire hard disk? If you can understand that, then you should be able to understand the difference between a P2 card and a memory card.
Sure they do. And who is JVC selling to, again?
Look -- there are customers who of course want cheap media. They are the type who would be enticed to record XDCAM-EX on an SD memory card. And for those, Panasonic offers a non-P2 alternative, the HMC series, which recoreds better-than-EX quality on cheap SD cards. The whole market is covered. Everyone gets what they want. Why is it a problem?
Last edited:
Whoa! Barry, please cool down, I am really trying to understand here.
First of all, should we separate tape formulation (MP vs. ME) from cassette form-factor (small a.k.a. MiniDV, medium, large and XL). Second, should we separate the physical media (cassette or a memory card) from codec.
Video8/Hi8 were analog video standards. DV was digital. Different tapes too. But then Sony ported DV to 8mm tape and created Digital8. DV codec on Video8 tape. Did it work? Hell yeah, there is even a documentary shot on two Digital8 cams that won a festival prize. Btw, Digital8 used 18 micron track pitch, just like DVCPRO. Wikipedia says that Video8 tapes were MP, while Hi8 tapes could be either MP or ME. One could use either tape for Digital8 recordings.
You are saying that MP is part of DVCPRO spec. Fine. Why Panasonic did not make small MP tape and instead focussed on medium and large tapes? No handheld camcorder can accept medium tape, so DVCPRO was effectively limited to shoulder mount models.
You are saying that "DVCPRO decks could not take ME tape either. You had to use a special tape adapter in order to play back a DV tape on a DVCPRO deck." I am sorry, how an adapter can change tape formulation from ME to MP? It is the same small tape being played in a medium adapter! You are basically confirming that yes, one can play ME tape in a DVCPRO machine, with an adapter. So how these are not compatible?
You have to understand, I am not calling for Panasonic to push SD cards or MiniDV tapes to broadcast. I am asking why Panasonic did not allow using its professional recording format in consumer and prosumer handheld models. The DVX uses small tape, and most (all?) of these cassettes are ME. Tons of stuff has been shot on DVX, including films that were broadcast and/or shown on festivals. I still cannot get this: why DV+ME+DVX is ok for professional use, but DVCPRO+ME+umm, say, HV200 is not. If there are no objectionable dropouts with 10 micron track, things should be even better with 18 micron track, and it is my problem as a user that I get only 33 minutes instead of one hour on one tape. I am not insisting on using ME small tapes in broadcast, I am asking why I cannot use DVCPRO on ME small tapes for consumer/prosumer stuff? Yes, I do separate codec from media, because codec is what makes digital video. You can have DV on P2 or SxS or PD and it will still be DV, with its intraframe encoding, color sampling and bitrate.
Now thinking of it, tape speed for DVCPRO50 and DVCPROHD might be just too fast for ME. Is this the reason? But with DVCPRO25, tape is pulled with about the same speed as with DVCAM, so why not allowing at least DVCPRO25 on ME tapes? Locked audio and 4:1:1 chroma in PAL?
> DVCPRO was a professional variant off of DV, adding a more robust tape format, locked audio,
> and much faster tape speeds, all designed to handle the heavy-duty shuttling and frame-accurate
> seeking of professional tape decks.
DVCAM offered the same locked audio and faster tape speed. AFAIK, it was used in professional productions, still is. BBC used first-gen HDV camcorders like the Z1 in DVCAM mode as widescreen DV cameras, because the PD150 and DVX100 did not offer native widescreen.
First of all, should we separate tape formulation (MP vs. ME) from cassette form-factor (small a.k.a. MiniDV, medium, large and XL). Second, should we separate the physical media (cassette or a memory card) from codec.
Video8/Hi8 were analog video standards. DV was digital. Different tapes too. But then Sony ported DV to 8mm tape and created Digital8. DV codec on Video8 tape. Did it work? Hell yeah, there is even a documentary shot on two Digital8 cams that won a festival prize. Btw, Digital8 used 18 micron track pitch, just like DVCPRO. Wikipedia says that Video8 tapes were MP, while Hi8 tapes could be either MP or ME. One could use either tape for Digital8 recordings.
You are saying that MP is part of DVCPRO spec. Fine. Why Panasonic did not make small MP tape and instead focussed on medium and large tapes? No handheld camcorder can accept medium tape, so DVCPRO was effectively limited to shoulder mount models.
You are saying that "DVCPRO decks could not take ME tape either. You had to use a special tape adapter in order to play back a DV tape on a DVCPRO deck." I am sorry, how an adapter can change tape formulation from ME to MP? It is the same small tape being played in a medium adapter! You are basically confirming that yes, one can play ME tape in a DVCPRO machine, with an adapter. So how these are not compatible?
You have to understand, I am not calling for Panasonic to push SD cards or MiniDV tapes to broadcast. I am asking why Panasonic did not allow using its professional recording format in consumer and prosumer handheld models. The DVX uses small tape, and most (all?) of these cassettes are ME. Tons of stuff has been shot on DVX, including films that were broadcast and/or shown on festivals. I still cannot get this: why DV+ME+DVX is ok for professional use, but DVCPRO+ME+umm, say, HV200 is not. If there are no objectionable dropouts with 10 micron track, things should be even better with 18 micron track, and it is my problem as a user that I get only 33 minutes instead of one hour on one tape. I am not insisting on using ME small tapes in broadcast, I am asking why I cannot use DVCPRO on ME small tapes for consumer/prosumer stuff? Yes, I do separate codec from media, because codec is what makes digital video. You can have DV on P2 or SxS or PD and it will still be DV, with its intraframe encoding, color sampling and bitrate.
Now thinking of it, tape speed for DVCPRO50 and DVCPROHD might be just too fast for ME. Is this the reason? But with DVCPRO25, tape is pulled with about the same speed as with DVCAM, so why not allowing at least DVCPRO25 on ME tapes? Locked audio and 4:1:1 chroma in PAL?
> DVCPRO was a professional variant off of DV, adding a more robust tape format, locked audio,
> and much faster tape speeds, all designed to handle the heavy-duty shuttling and frame-accurate
> seeking of professional tape decks.
DVCAM offered the same locked audio and faster tape speed. AFAIK, it was used in professional productions, still is. BBC used first-gen HDV camcorders like the Z1 in DVCAM mode as widescreen DV cameras, because the PD150 and DVX100 did not offer native widescreen.
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
Sorry for getting steamed.
Yes, formulation should be separated from form factor. But you wanting to separate physical media from codec is counterproductive, because it is in that desire that you lose all perspective on what a "format" has always been. If you want to understand tape formats, and what was, and why it worked, you can't apply tapeless methodology to it. The tape was and is an inherent factor in what a format was and is.
DVCPRO was "limited" to shoulder-mount models because that's all that anyone would want from DVCPRO. That's like saying that the Hummer is "limited" to an "SUV" model, why didn't they ever make a Hummer sports car? Because the entire concept simply makes no sense! Who would want it? Especially at the time DVCPRO tape was popular. They made DVCPRO for the broadcast/ENG market. That market wanted good quality shoulder-mount cameras, longer record times, and bulletproof dropout-proof tape that could stand up to anything they could throw at it. So that's what Panasonic built. Nobody wanted handheld in those days.
Nowadays, you CAN get DVCPRO-HD in a handheld model.
As for professional formats being used on consumer media -- again, it makes little to no sense. Who would want it? They made DV for the consumers, and the consumers loved it -- it was a massive hit and killed off all analog recording. Did any consumer, anywhere, ever, say "man, I sure wish I had DVCPRO instead?" No. The visual quality was identical. The difference was in the ruggedization. I don't understand why you'd think they should have put their premium stuff on the cheap stuff. Why would someone do that? That's a recipe for failure, because sooner or later the cheap stuff will fail, and when it does, do you think the consumer will blame himself? Do you think he'll say "well, it was my fault, I shouldn't have been trying to push the gear further than the manufacturer really wanted me to?"
That's not how things work. The professional divisions staff up with service members and sales support engineers, they go and travel to the customer, they install the product at their installations, they sell service contracts -- do you think they want that all hinging on whether the customer used some wal-mart SD card, or a $3 miniDV tape? That's fiscal suicide. They build a robust, bulletproof environment, and they sell it as a package.
You're asking why they don't offer their top-end stuff in consumer-priced gear? Probably for the same reason that BMW doesn't make skateboards and Lexus doesn't build lawn mowers. Different market, different world.
As for DVCAM being used in professional productions, yes it was -- I used it extensively, and most independent producers used it instead of DVCPRO. I was talking about broadcast/news work, that's where DVCPRO was utterly dominant and DVCAM was pretty much unheard of. I logged many hours behind a DSR500, DSR300, DSR200, and DSR570. I never used a DVCPRO tape camera in my life. But I wasn't a news shooter, nor did I ever work in a news room. As a consultant I've dealt with many news organizations, and I've been friends with news shooters over the decades and I was there during the whole transition, but my field has always been dramatic/narrative, not news. I didn't need the robustness or shuttle-ability of DVCPRO. So, up until the DVX, I always went Sony.
You ask about JVC -- do you have much experience with them? JVC pretty much does everything you're asking about. They'll put professional features on consumer-level stuff, they'll put XDCAM-HD on an SD card, etc. Ever wonder what the letters "JVC" stand for, among the professional videographer group? "Junk Video Company". They have been notoriously unreliable over the years. So why on earth would they worry about putting XDCAM-HD on an SD card?
But that's also why broadcasters, by and large, don't buy JVC. The only folks who I see buying JVC stuff are, like I said, low-power stations, UHF stations, little groups that don't have the dough to buy stuff from the big companies and ... frankly, they're not really doing anything that would justify such an investment anyway.
Yes, formulation should be separated from form factor. But you wanting to separate physical media from codec is counterproductive, because it is in that desire that you lose all perspective on what a "format" has always been. If you want to understand tape formats, and what was, and why it worked, you can't apply tapeless methodology to it. The tape was and is an inherent factor in what a format was and is.
DVCPRO was "limited" to shoulder-mount models because that's all that anyone would want from DVCPRO. That's like saying that the Hummer is "limited" to an "SUV" model, why didn't they ever make a Hummer sports car? Because the entire concept simply makes no sense! Who would want it? Especially at the time DVCPRO tape was popular. They made DVCPRO for the broadcast/ENG market. That market wanted good quality shoulder-mount cameras, longer record times, and bulletproof dropout-proof tape that could stand up to anything they could throw at it. So that's what Panasonic built. Nobody wanted handheld in those days.
Nowadays, you CAN get DVCPRO-HD in a handheld model.
As for professional formats being used on consumer media -- again, it makes little to no sense. Who would want it? They made DV for the consumers, and the consumers loved it -- it was a massive hit and killed off all analog recording. Did any consumer, anywhere, ever, say "man, I sure wish I had DVCPRO instead?" No. The visual quality was identical. The difference was in the ruggedization. I don't understand why you'd think they should have put their premium stuff on the cheap stuff. Why would someone do that? That's a recipe for failure, because sooner or later the cheap stuff will fail, and when it does, do you think the consumer will blame himself? Do you think he'll say "well, it was my fault, I shouldn't have been trying to push the gear further than the manufacturer really wanted me to?"
That's not how things work. The professional divisions staff up with service members and sales support engineers, they go and travel to the customer, they install the product at their installations, they sell service contracts -- do you think they want that all hinging on whether the customer used some wal-mart SD card, or a $3 miniDV tape? That's fiscal suicide. They build a robust, bulletproof environment, and they sell it as a package.
You're asking why they don't offer their top-end stuff in consumer-priced gear? Probably for the same reason that BMW doesn't make skateboards and Lexus doesn't build lawn mowers. Different market, different world.
As for DVCAM being used in professional productions, yes it was -- I used it extensively, and most independent producers used it instead of DVCPRO. I was talking about broadcast/news work, that's where DVCPRO was utterly dominant and DVCAM was pretty much unheard of. I logged many hours behind a DSR500, DSR300, DSR200, and DSR570. I never used a DVCPRO tape camera in my life. But I wasn't a news shooter, nor did I ever work in a news room. As a consultant I've dealt with many news organizations, and I've been friends with news shooters over the decades and I was there during the whole transition, but my field has always been dramatic/narrative, not news. I didn't need the robustness or shuttle-ability of DVCPRO. So, up until the DVX, I always went Sony.
You ask about JVC -- do you have much experience with them? JVC pretty much does everything you're asking about. They'll put professional features on consumer-level stuff, they'll put XDCAM-HD on an SD card, etc. Ever wonder what the letters "JVC" stand for, among the professional videographer group? "Junk Video Company". They have been notoriously unreliable over the years. So why on earth would they worry about putting XDCAM-HD on an SD card?
But that's also why broadcasters, by and large, don't buy JVC. The only folks who I see buying JVC stuff are, like I said, low-power stations, UHF stations, little groups that don't have the dough to buy stuff from the big companies and ... frankly, they're not really doing anything that would justify such an investment anyway.
Last edited:
Yeah, I don't get exactly what the what is here. What's the big deal about not being able to record DVCPRO to Mini-DV tape? What would it possibly get you that DV doesn't, except maybe the advantage of 4:1:1 color in interlaced PAL? Any 50i shooters out there who lost their kingdoms for the want of that particular nail?
Seems like a whole lot of barking at a squirrel five houses down the street. Is it just to "prove" that Panasonic is "as bad" as Sony when it comes to formats?
Seems like a whole lot of barking at a squirrel five houses down the street. Is it just to "prove" that Panasonic is "as bad" as Sony when it comes to formats?
That was a great explanation, Barry. Thank you.
Panasonic did not make small MP tape because no one in ENG world wanted a handheld camera. Check.
Panasonic created medium tape format, because it did not want customers to use cheap Sony ME DVCAM tapes, breaking the equipment or tapes or both. Check.
JVC is junk. Check. Though my consumer-grade JVC TV set and VCR, bought about... um... 15 years ago still work flawlessly. I've read some articles about people shooting with ProHD cams. I know of at least two movies shot with a ProHD camera. I know a happy owner of a HD110 camera, who likes the camera, the ergonomics, the image, I saw the videos, they look great. He does not like the lens, but it is not a JVC product.
Panasonic did not make small MP tape because no one in ENG world wanted a handheld camera. Check.
Panasonic created medium tape format, because it did not want customers to use cheap Sony ME DVCAM tapes, breaking the equipment or tapes or both. Check.
JVC is junk. Check. Though my consumer-grade JVC TV set and VCR, bought about... um... 15 years ago still work flawlessly. I've read some articles about people shooting with ProHD cams. I know of at least two movies shot with a ProHD camera. I know a happy owner of a HD110 camera, who likes the camera, the ergonomics, the image, I saw the videos, they look great. He does not like the lens, but it is not a JVC product.
Barry_Green
Moderator
On JVC -- I've bought more than my share. And you're talking about a consumer TV set, sure. I'm talking about people who use it professionally in the field, in and out. Ask around. If you find a whole lot of people saying "JVC = Just Vabulous Cameras", then fine. But when I had an HD100, it was a very brief excursion into what-the-hell-did-I-buy, followed by the one and only time I have ever returned a camera to the store.
Your mileage is free to vary.
Your mileage is free to vary.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I am with Barry on JVC. A client of mine in the late 90s had a half million dollars worth of JVC pro cameras, decks, switchers and monitors. A good cross section of all types of production gear. It all broke, all of the time. I thought by the 2000s that they would get serious and get their act together as far as reliability. Never happened.
Sure, you can find lots of happy JVC owners but few of them are pros and none of them are rental companies. That says a lot to me. There were also quite a few satisfied Edsel and Corvair owners as well but that didn't make those cars very good overall.
Dan
Sure, you can find lots of happy JVC owners but few of them are pros and none of them are rental companies. That says a lot to me. There were also quite a few satisfied Edsel and Corvair owners as well but that didn't make those cars very good overall.
Dan