Why doesn't the HVX do HDV?

[mezelf27]

Barry, I thgink we're agreeing, just not saying it properly.... If resolution is what you are after: you need the pixels on the CCD's. which does indeed bring problems along about resolving power of lens etc, etc...

On the other hand does it have advantages to have less pixels indeed: higher sensitivity, ...

BUT: I clearly stated "if definition and sharpness is what you're after...." you need the pixels. Actually, I'd like the HVX to stick to 720p if (!) the CCD turn out to be just 960x720... All kinds of uprezzing can be done in post - rather than when shooting (with the obvious exception of pixel shift, but that does enhance resolution just like 1/3...).

I have to agree that it sometimes is better to have a nice shot with the right colours and suffer some resolution. In some curcumstances you won't notice the lack of resolution.

People that are asking about the pixel-count are obviously after the "sharpness and definition", so it is valuable information for them - and frankly, I need to agree with them that only saying the footage will be wonderful and "we don't want to start a war of numbers" are coy words.

No disrespect to you Barry, you indeed bring lots and lots of valuable info to these boards and give very good advice to these people.

 

[steindj]

It's not unlike filmmaking. Make a movie on a $500 budget and most of the jaded distributors will say "uh, no thanks." Let them see the movie first and get them excited to where they want to buy it, have them actually offer you a million bucks for it, and THEN tell them you made it for $500, and they'll be blown away. Same movie. Same budget. The difference is all in how you manage the info.

The advantage for us more creative types is that while most of this technical talk flies way over our heads and we'd really like to understand more of it, at the end of the day we arrive at the same place. The footage looks good or it doesn't.:thumbsup:

 

[Barry_Green]

No disrespect to you Barry, you indeed bring lots and lots of valuable info to these boards and give very good advice to these people.

And I very much appreciate your participation in these discussions as well! You're exceptionally knowledgeable and level-headed.


I know people are interested in the chip specs; I'm just amazed at how persistently (and how passionately) this question keeps coming up. Especially because there is no concrete answer we can give -- we don't know the specs.

Here's how I look at it: I was a professional videogame programmer for 15 years, and gamers are at *least* as rabid at following new product introductions as we camera geeks are. Tons of chatter in the forums about this new game or that new game. But in the 15 years I was a programmer, I don't think I EVER heard anyone say "yeah, but what LANGUAGE are they programming it in?" or "If they program it in C++ I'll buy it, but if they write the program in C then forget it, I'll buy Warcraft instead." I mean, it never, ever entered into any discussions.

If the game played well, if it was responsive and fast and had great design and it was fun, then it would do well in the marketplace and we'd sell lots of them.

If it didn't play well, it didn't matter what language we programmed it in -- it'd tank!

And who, among the gaming community, was qualified to judge what language we should be programming it in anyway?

Occasionally we'd hear someone being excited about something because it was programmed in machine language -- and yes, machine language CAN lead to the greatest efficiency, in terms of speed. But a game like Command & Conquer: Red Alert programmed in machine language? It'd never happen! You simply couldn't do it -- the task would be so enormous, so unwieldly, and the complexities involved would make it an impossible task. An object-oriented langage like C++ was the only rational choice. Yet I can still imagine if HVX buyers were gamers: "no way, C++ is no good, it's 'compiled' -- if it's not machine language, I don't want it."

With all due respect to gamers, and understanding what they want, um... how do I say this... the decision of which language to use should be made by the programmers. The gamers should judge the game on how it plays, not on what language was used to program it.

That's why I say: the decisions on the chips, and the reasoning behind those decisions, should be made by camera engineers. We users out in the field are not qualified to know the factors they use to make those decisions. All we can know is whether we agree with the end result. Does the game play great? Then let's buy it. Does the camera footage look stellar? Then let's buy it. Does the image fail? Then let's not buy it -- no matter what the specs are.

 

[mezelf27]

And I very much appreciate your participation in these discussions as well! You're exceptionally knowledgeable and level-headed.

Thanks Barry.

I know people are interested in the chip specs; I'm just amazed at how persistently (and how passionately) this question keeps coming up. Especially because there is no concrete answer we can give -- we don't know the specs.

... I can imagine that is annoying, perhaps irritating ...

 

[Bob Diesso]

Barry or Jan: Understand the question is annoying and irritating. A straight answer would make the question go away, but also understand Panasonic feels information is not ready for prime time. (It's hard to understand why, when every one of their competitors has released this information weeks in advance of product launch...)

Panasonic's been dodging this question for months. Will a straight answer be forthcoming from Panasonic EVER? If so, any ballpark idea when? If not, why?

 

[stabwound]

So yes, DVCPRO is better than HDV in some ways. But HDV also has advantages over DVCPRO-HD, like a more efficient compression. DVCPRO is not that much better in the real world and not better in every scenario. If shot with a Varicam, against a HD100, DVCPRO will sure look better. But we don’t know about the HVX200. As mezelf27 , I will also take a superior camera head on an inferior format, over a mediocre camera head on a superior format any day of the week.
The real test will be when the HVX200 comes out. We will see if it will be the better camera or just have the “better” format. Until then, all this ridiculous comments only sound like cheerleading from people who have no idea of what they are talking about.

I don't see HDV's "more efficient compression" as being an advantage at all. That would be true if we were stuck with DV tape with its ancient 25mbs bandwidth. Let's bring in the dreaded car analogy....

If the price of gas was $100 per gallon then efficient cars (eg a Toyota Prius)would be highly valued as opposed to a gas guzzling hummer. HDV is like the Prius, efficiently utilizing the meager bandwidth of DV tape.

HVX and P2 brings us a whole new world. The price of gas is now suddenly close to zero. Efficiency is now no longer prized. We are no longer trapped by narrow bandwith. The HvX hummer is faster and get the job done quicker.

The benefits of P2/dvcproHD are an improved workflow (no capturing, intermediate video creation, recompressing) and better color (lots of headspace for color correction and easy greenscreen keying). Now THAT'S efficiency I value.

I'm not knocking high efficiency compressions... mpeg 2, and mpeg4 types are designed for delivery, not capturing. They are efficient because they NEED to be... and it's got nothing to making the video process easier for the producer.

If someone could prove to you that mpeg4 is more efficiently compressed than HDV, would you run out and buy an mpeg4 camera?

If they made HDV version 2 with a GOP of say, 60 frames, would you think it's even better? It would certainly be more efficient.

 

[mezelf27]

...with its ancient 25mbs bandwidth.

Why does everyone keeps hitting on the 25? If it was compression 'per'-frame (as DVCPRO) it would be not a whole lot. Thanks to the efficiency of MPEG2, 25 IS a whole lot.

You want to talk cars? Well, If some car has a reservoir of 'only' 25 liters, you'd say that's not a lot... you can barely touch the throttle. But you should know it is a VERY, VERY economical car. With this 25 liters is does about the same distance and with the liters/seconds that it can shift it has about the same performance....

I understand that efficiency of compression isn't important to aquisition, it is just important to know, so you also know you can't compare the 25 Mb/s interframe compression to a 100 Mb/s intraframe compression as if it would be 1/4th of the quality....

 

[esperman]

geez..you guys are killing me with the car analogies already.
Bottom line, who cares how efficient the mpeg is....why start super compressed and super processor intensive to edit?

 

[stabwound]

Why does everyone keeps hitting on the 25? If it was compression 'per'-frame (as DVCPRO) it would be not a whole lot. Thanks to the efficiency of MPEG2, 25 IS a whole lot.

You want to talk cars? Well, If some car has a reservoir of 'only' 25 liters, you'd say that's not a lot... you can barely touch the throttle. But you should know it is a VERY, VERY economical car. With this 25 liters is does about the same distance and with the liters/seconds that it can shift it has about the same performance....

I understand that efficiency of compression isn't important to aquisition, it is just important to know, so you also know you can't compare the 25 Mb/s interframe compression to a 100 Mb/s intraframe compression as if it would be 1/4th of the quality....

You have happily embraced a limited bandwidth format, which only works by virtue of it being efficient.

I personally would want as much bandwidth as I can afford. If Panasonic sold a cam that gave uncompressed video on zillion megabyte p2 cards at a reasonable price I'd buy it.

I supposed you'd argue that it's not efficient enough to put on a 25mb tape so therefore it's no good.

Yes, I can't compare 25mb/s interframe compression to a 100mb/ intraframe compression... but if I have 100mb/s intraframe compression... why would I still want the former?

I like the HVX for its format. If you like hdv, there's lots of cameras to choose from.

 

[Bob Diesso]

"If you are working with the P2 card in 720P at 24 frames, the P2 card can be set to record just the 24 flagged frames(works differently on the 1080I/24P). At 720P/24, it is the same thing as the VariCam but the flagged frames being saved constitute 24/60ths of the entire data rate, or roughly a little more than 1/3 or 100Mbs. It comes out at 40Mbs, and thus it takes up less real estate than DVCPRO50. " Tosh Bilowski, Panasonic Broadcast.

I like this format, too, but when recording HD to P2 cards, it's not always a 100Mbs format...

Seems it's always a 100 Mbs format only when recording to tape, or when Panasonic PR "spin" is on the scene. Otherwise, data rate is reduced to save media space. Isn't this just another way of saying "compression"?

 

[mezelf27]

40 Mb/s interframe, vs. 25 Mb/s intraframe... That means the quality-advantage should be at the 25Mb/s intraframe-compression... (I know, I know, 4.2.0 vs. 4.2.2 and all, but still, during compression you create a difference vs. the original image. That should be less in the intraframe-compression here...)

 

[stabwound]

40 Mb/s interframe, vs. 25 Mb/s intraframe... That means the quality-advantage should be at the 25Mb/s intraframe-compression... (I know, I know, 4.2.0 vs. 4.2.2 and all, but still, during compression you create a difference vs. the original image. That should be less in the intraframe-compression here...)

I'm a bit confused with that post. I assume you're answering Bob's post, who quoted a Panasonic official who stated that P2 takes DVCproHD (720p) at 40mb/s and 1080p at 100mb/s.

DVCproHD is intraframe compression.

http://www.newmediarepublic.com/dvideo/compression/adv06.html

HDV is interframe compression.

http://newmediarepublic.com/dvideo/compression/adv07.html

 

[harddrive]

I don't really think anybody can deny DVCPRO HD is intrinsically better than HDV (though the latter isn't as bad as sometimes made out).

In very controlled conditions, with the ability to download often and easily, the choice is easy - which is why independent filmmakers are probably right to be very interested in the HVX200. It will work in their workflow.

But not all filmmaking happens in controlled conditions - far from it - downloading at convienient times is not always easy, or sometimes possible at all, and under those circumstances (with the cost of P2) being able to record AT ALL becomes the most important factor. Surely better to have a little artifacting on your footage, than just sit there and miss the most important action because the P2 cards are full!? I stress my point is not against any feature of the HVX200 - rather that it could be stronger still, and really wipe the floor, if it included other features AS WELL.

Given the cost problems of P2 for some applications, the most obvious things to have done would be to give an HDV to tape OPTION, or an inbuilt hard drive OPTION. (I'll say again, OPTION, not ALTERNATIVE.) Yes, it may suit some purchasers fine out of the box, but it would suit an awful lot more if something along those lines had been considered at an early stage of design. And I'm sorry, but the excuses given for not doing so don't convince me.

 

[Barry_Green]

HDV is not and will not be an option on the HVX. Panasonic isn't a member of the HDV "coalition", and Panasonic doesn't believe HDV is a professional solution, nor is Panasonic satisfied with the quality delivered by HDV. So wishing and wanting is not going to make it happen. It will never happen. I asked them for it as well -- and I was told what I just told you (although probably in less bold terms, of course). But the gist is, HDV isn't up to Panasonic Broadcast standards, and Panasonic Broadcast isn't going to put HDV on any product that bears the Panasonic Broadcast name.

As far as recording time, 16gb cards should be out around NAB in April, and 128gb cards may be out as soon as the end of next year. Not cheap, I'm sure, but you're talking about two and a half hours of 1080, or five and a half hours of 720/24p -- PER CARD. You could have two cards loaded and record over 10 hours of 720/24p, or five hours of 1080. And that's perhaps as early as one year away (based on Samsung's new 32gb SD cards that are slated to be introduced mid-2006.) Yes it'll be expensive, but when you compare it to the competition (er, are there any other HD cameras of any type whatsoever that can record FIVE HOURS of continuous footage?) it'll be downright cheap! No Infinity, no HDCAM camera, no XDCAM-HD and no HDV camera will be in the same ballpark as far as recording time goes. The JVC GY-HD7000U is the only one that may be able to compete in recording time, since I think it'll use the large cassettes -- but that's a $28,000 camera without lens, and more like $40,000 with lens.

Finally, there's going to be a FireStore available in March, which offers at least 100 minutes of recording time and perhaps as much as four hours of 720/24p depending on how they implement it. And it should cost the same or less than a single 8gb card would.

So with all due respect to those who are concerned about recording times, it really does look like things are well in hand.

 

[wabbit]

But I think this has already been adequately addressed. Panasonic doesn't want it's camera associated with the bugs and workarounds that HDV entails. Call it a marketing choice, whatever. We will see soon enough if their choice pans out. Second guessing it will not change the decision.

However, should P2 and the lack of HDV cause the HVX to "fail" then the second guessing and pointing Panasonic in a direction that "everyone" wants can and should occur. If nothing else Panasonic has demonstarted it's skill at listening to it's customers. As much as their are people that dislike the lack of HDV there appears to be plenty of people who don't care and are glad HDV is not on it driving up the cost of the camera. People have options and everyone will be voting with their pocketbooks soon. Let's see how it works out. :happy:

For people like you describe, the Canon looks like a great options. Even has the removable lens. No one camera is gonna satisfy everyone. Get the XL H1 and be happy.

Bob: Only recording the 24 frames instead of full 60 fields is not compression, it's making efficient use of not having to have a constant data rate recorded like you do with tape.

Best

 

[harddrive]

But the gist is, HDV isn't up to Panasonic Broadcast standards, and Panasonic Broadcast isn't going to put HDV on any product that bears the Panasonic Broadcast name.

Sorry Barry, I don't find that excuse convincing. We'd better agree to differ. If we were talking about a Varicam or whatever I may go along with it. But in connection with a camera in the same price range as a Z1, HD100 etc, with no facility for interchangeable lenses it rings hollow. And I stress (if it wasn't clear enough before ) that I'm talking about an option, not alternative - I think people in the market for this sort of camera have more sense than Panasonic seem to be giving credit for. I don't want HDV instead of DVCPRO HD - I want it as well as, use one or the other as appropiate. (Not an option with the Canon, so no, it's not a case of get one of those and be happy.) Would HDV really drive up the price of the camera? Given that a DV tape deck is already there?

But let's forget about HDV, and think of the other possibility - an inbuilt harddrive, again as an "as well as" to P2, and recording a DVCPRO HD recording just as P2. Yes, the Firestore is a possibility, but it comes with problems of it's own - weight, mounting, powering, reliability of connections and (from personal experience) less than 100% reliability. And with small consumer cameras with inbuilt drives costing half a single P2 card all up, surely price couldn't have been an issue?

(On the subject of price, are there any estimates of what two 128GB cards will be this time next year?)

OK, in many ways it's a dead argument, as presumably the details are already finalised and won't change no matter what's said here. That's not to say it's not worth going through these points. It's good business practice to find out what your customers DON'T like about your products, as well as what they do, in order to hopefully refine the next generation, and the generation after that. That applies to all manufacturers, and not just of cameras. If nobody ever states what doesn't work for them, manufacturers can't have any idea where to go next. Regrettably too many seem to go through the motions of consulting, only to do their own thing anyway.

ALL the cameras so far announced in this price range have their strong and weak points, and IMO none of them is anywhere near ideal, even allowing for current technological constraints. What is annoying is that there is no real technical reason why the best points of each couldn't be brought together. And saying "if you don't like the weak points of A, just go and put up with B and it's weak points" helps nobody.

 

[Barry_Green]

Sorry Barry, I don't find that excuse convincing.

Excuse? They say it doesn't meet their standards for quality. How is that an excuse? There's plenty of projects I refuse to work on because they don't meet my standards, and I don't call that an excuse. And yes I turn down a paycheck (usually a small one) but, hey...

I don't want HDV instead of DVCPRO HD - I want it as well as, use one or the other as appropiate.

I asked them for exactly that. And they said "no, we wouldn't put HDV on this camera, and then went to great lengths to explain why they were not happy with HDV and don't think it properly represents a product coming from Panasonic Broadcast. You can argue price tag all you want, but the thing is coming from the broadcast division, not the consumer division. And broadcast wouldn't put their name on an HDV product.

Would HDV really drive up the price of the camera? Given that a DV tape deck is already there?

When did price enter the equation? Nobody said anything about price being the reason why. I would assume it'd be quite inexpensive for them to add it (other than the licensing fee to the consortium and the cost of the MPEG-2 encoder chip). But they wouldn't do it, any more than Mercedes would introduce a Mercedes with naugahyde seats. Not gonna happen. Mercedes might let Dodge make a Neon with naugahyde, but they're not going to put it on their top brand. And Panasonic may choose to offer consumer HDV cameras, but they're not going to be putting it on anything that's manufactured/sold through the Panasonic Broadcast division. That's a settled matter.

For the record, I asked them *to* include an HDV option. I said "more options = better". They said something along the lines of "no, we won't have our tools using that format, it's not good enough for us."

So it's a closed matter.

But let's forget about HDV, and think of the other possibility - an inbuilt harddrive

They gave a presentation on this at NAB, and said that they considered all options -- hard disks, optical storage, tape storage, solid state... and for various reasons, (mainly reliability), they ruled 'em all out except for solid state. Hard disks have numerous problems -- they're not in any way rugged enough to handle the production environment Panasonic expects their cameras to face. Panasonic figures these things will be used in Iraq for war coverage, in Miami for hurricane coverage, in the snows of Montana and the deserts of California and the humidity of Virginia. Hard drives would puke in many of those circumstances. Drop the camera, there goes the hard drive. Hard drives are noisy, and they have to be big to be fast. You mention consumer cameras using hard drives -- have you seen how SLOW those hard disks are? Nowhere near fast enough to support a minimum sustained transfer rate of 15 megabytes per second. You'd have to RAID four of those microdrives together before you had a chance at achieving the data transfer rate necessary to record a 100-megabit signal.

Yes, the Firestore is a possibility, but it comes with problems of it's own - weight, mounting, powering, reliability of connections and (from personal experience) less than 100% reliability.

Yes, and noise, and temperature and humidity concerns... add that all up and you're looking at most of the reasons why they ruled out hard disks as a viable option.

They'll let Focus make the hard disk recorder, but they themselves wouldn't do it, and I think it's for the same reason -- if the firestore fails on you, they don't want the panasonic broadcast name sullied by that experience. And they certainly didn't want to face that scenario on an inbuilt system.

And with small consumer cameras with inbuilt drives costing half a single P2 card all up, surely price couldn't have been an issue?

For how much storage, at what transfer speed? Are you talking about a little MPEG-2 stream of a standard-def image, where a 5mB/sec drive is overkill? Because that doesn't begin to think about approaching the requirements for the 100-megabit data stream on the HVX.

(On the subject of price, are there any estimates of what two 128GB cards will be this time next year?)

That's supposition on my part, based on Samsung's press release. I would guess they would be exorbitantly expensive to begin with. Thousands and thousands of dollars.

OK, in many ways it's a dead argument, as presumably the details are already finalised and won't change no matter what's said here.

That's exactly right, the product is finalized and isn't going to change.

That's not to say it's not worth going through these points. It's good business practice to find out what your customers DON'T like about your products, as well as what they do, in order to hopefully refine the next generation, and the generation after that.

Agreed, and they'll read this, I'm sure. But people have to keep practicality in mind, and keep an apples-to-apples comparison. People are looking at the ipod Nano and saying "hey, there's a 4gb RAM module and it's only $249, so why are P2 cards so expensive for 4gb?" And again, that's not a fair comparison at all -- you're talking about a RAM chip that only has to handle 256kbit-second data (probably does more, but that's all it *has* to handle) as opposed to something that runs at 80 megaBYTES per second. World of difference. So when you look at hard disk recording, make sure you're looking at a practical alternative, and not just little microdrives that'd never work.

If nobody ever states what doesn't work for them, manufacturers can't have any idea where to go next.

Agreed. Which is why it was so refreshing to see Panasonic ask us for a wish list, and then deliver almost everything on it (except for our pie-in-the-sky requests like 2/3" chips and removable lenses, although they are making exactly that product too!)

 

[wabbit]

That was me that brought up price. While I believe the quality issue of putting HDV on their professional product is the main reason it is not included, additional price would be another downside. Gotta figure it would add a noticable amount to a price people are already cautious of.

Since I am one that is completely disappointed in HDV, I am glad it is not even an option on the HVX.

Example 1 (HDV with HVX): Bunch of people buy HVX and for economy purposes skip P2 or Firestore and always use the HDV options. The issues of HDV present themselves to their clients. I come along and offer to shoot with HVX. They expect the same "quality" they received with the HDV, so they respond, "No we need something better." I am now stuck having to point out and sell the difference between the two different shooting formats on the same camera.

Example 2 (No HDV on HVX): The HVX gets a reputation for quality picture and sound (partial from the superior DVCPRO HD format) just like the DVX has for DV shooting. So clients actually start out requesting their cameraman use it because they were pleased with past performance and possibly disappointed in other HDV cameras. This has happened many time with our business and the DVX. Clients saying they want their piece done with the DVX and if you don't have it, they don't want to work with you. I can spend all day explaining stuff like camera B is just as good or better, or point out how the camera is not as important as the person behind it, but many clients are lost to this approach.

Since the camera is not out yet, we don't know what will happen. I think it's pretty obvious that if not having HDV dramtically affects sales, THEN Panasonic will listen when they go back to the drawing board. Until then, they really have nothing they can do anymore. HVX specs (save maybe a couple more frame rates )are locked in at this point.

As for the whole why they didn't go with a HDD or some other format, I think Barry has covered perfectly.

I believe the reason (other then cost) that there is no one perfect camera is there is no one purpose or type of owner for a camera. Ask around about what form factor people perfer, XL2 or PD170/DVX style? I don't think you can find a consensus. Right now our company is looking for a palmcorder style camera so the HVX is perfect for us. We also use shoulder mounts for certain shoots. Hopefully Panasonic or someone else will offer a similar quality shoulder mount style HVX camera (that Grass Valley camera is getting a lot of excitement). Since HD is hardly necessary right now, I am sure there will be a ton more options available by the time we all HAVE to get an HD camera.

One guy's perspective :grin:

 

[harddrive]

You can argue price tag all you want, but the thing is coming from the broadcast division, not the consumer division. And broadcast wouldn't put their name on an HDV product.!)

Perhaps here Sony have a corporate structure advantage? I believe they have consumer and Professional divisions (not Broadcast) and "professional" can easily cover anything from the highest end broadcast to the lowliest corporate. Sorry, it seems therefore the consumer is suffering from corporate pride. Sony are happy to put HDV, HDCAM and HDCAM SR logos across their range of professional products, and leave it to consumers to pick the price/quality point that suits them. Panasonic COULD have played a blinder by having a product that appealed to two markets at the same time.

When did price enter the equation? Nobody said anything about price being the reason why. I would assume it'd be quite inexpensive for them to add it .......!)

Well...... that completely contradicts what wabbit said in the post before my last one. Quote: "........plenty of people who don't care and are glad HDV is not on it driving up the cost of the camera".

For the record, I asked them *to* include an HDV option. I said "more options = better". They said something along the lines of "no, we won't have our tools using that format, it's not good enough for us."

So it's a closed matter.!)

At least for this camera! But perhaps if the message gets said enough it may influence the future, though no doubt that will bring a fresh set of options/challenges/technology to discuss.

They gave a presentation on this at NAB, and said that they considered all options -- hard disks, optical storage, tape storage, solid state... and for various reasons, (mainly reliability), they ruled 'em all out except for solid state. Hard disks have numerous problems -- they're not in any way rugged enough to handle the production environment Panasonic expects their cameras to face. !)

What worries me about all this is the amount of wanting to have ones cake, eat it, and have another portion as well! I seem to remember that when worries were expressed about the cost/linited recording time if relying on P2 cards that the official reply was "don't worry, there will be the option of the Firestore, no problem". I'll go along with all said above about reliability issues, but then how is it that the Firestore is then seen as the saviour? Surely an external solution, with flying cables, is even less reliable than an internal drive, or ideally a slot in device.

You'd have to RAID four of those microdrives together before you had a chance at achieving the data transfer rate necessary to record a 100-megabit signal.!)

Which begs the question of what Firestore will do!? And if they can overcome the problem in a small device, then surely something comparable could be inbuilt?

Agreed, and they'll read this, I'm sure. But people have to keep practicality in mind, and keep an apples-to-apples comparison. .............................So when you look at hard disk recording, make sure you're looking at a practical alternative, and not just little microdrives that'd never work.

So lets get this straight. Are you therefore saying that the Firestore will never work with an HVX200? Or if it will, why will a microdrive never work within a camera such as the HVX200?

Agreed. Which is why it was so refreshing to see Panasonic ask us for a wish list, and then deliver almost everything on it (except for our pie-in-the-sky requests like 2/3" chips and removable lenses, although they are making exactly that product too!)

Well - JVC and Canon don't consider interchangeable lenses to be pie in the sky for a camera in this price bracket. (Though, yes, those cameras have other issues, otherwise I'd just say lets all go off and buy one.) And HDV. If that would indeed have been a low cost additional option, and if it was on your wish list, was it really refreshing to see Panasonic deny it for what seems like departmental pride reasons? I'd be far more impressed with them including the option, and putting a big warning sticker on saying "this gives less good results than the other option, but the choice is up to you".

 

[stokestack]

HDV is uneditable? That's news to me since I've been editing it for months now in Final Cut Pro with no problems whatsoever.

Umm, no, you've been editing a converted copy of it. You can't edit interframe-compressed video except to remove entire GOPs.