christriplet
Active member
Will the release of the Panasonic AG-HMC40 lead to a drop in price for the DVX100B? I think it should because SD is basically
on life support.
on life support.
Will the AG-HMC40 release drop the price of the dvx100b? I think it should.
- Thread starter christriplet
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
Says who?
And where?
SD 4x3 is still the standard for basic cable production, and there are massive swaths of the world who aren't even really thinking about HD at this time. India, with its fifth of the world's population, is an SD 4x3 territory...
But in the USA, yes, SD is in much less demand.
The only thing that will lead to a price drop in the DVX100B is if people stop buying it at its current price. The HMC40 doesn't do what the DVX does -- it doesn't record standard-def DV to tape. So the HMC40's introduction probably won't do anything to the DVX's price.
If/when people quit buying the DVX at its current price, then maybe the price will go down. But it's got its own unique niche in the production world.
And where?
SD 4x3 is still the standard for basic cable production, and there are massive swaths of the world who aren't even really thinking about HD at this time. India, with its fifth of the world's population, is an SD 4x3 territory...
But in the USA, yes, SD is in much less demand.
The only thing that will lead to a price drop in the DVX100B is if people stop buying it at its current price. The HMC40 doesn't do what the DVX does -- it doesn't record standard-def DV to tape. So the HMC40's introduction probably won't do anything to the DVX's price.
If/when people quit buying the DVX at its current price, then maybe the price will go down. But it's got its own unique niche in the production world.
christriplet
Active member
I'm sure that the DVX100B still has some life in it. I still love the picture quality and I'm sure it's rather popular in Europe and India but I live in Dallas and everyone I know is dumping their dvx100b for DSLR hybrids and other HD camcorders. I would think the American market for the dvx100b is shrinking rapidly. Why buy the dvx100b when for $1,000 more I can future proof myself. It seems now thanks to Wal-Mart that every home, trailer or ghetto in America has access to HD.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Because those "future-proof" products don't do the job that the DVX does.
It's not about whether one's "better" or not, it's about whether someone needs A or B. If they need A, what does it matter whether B is cheaper or better, if it doesn't do A?
Hence there are still plenty of folks who want a tape-based 4x3 camera. Certainly many fewer than there were three years ago, but there's a niche that the DVX is pretty much the last contender out there... professional, 4x3, tape.
Mike_Raddport
Well-known member
I'm looking to buy an HMC-150, but I think I'll always keep my DVX for that certain look. Just like there was a resurgence for Super-8 film camera's, there will always be a market and love for the DVX. My first digital video camera was a Sony Trv-900 in 1998. It's still a sought after camera. I still have my Super-8 cameras and I hope the DVX never goes away. I am fantasizing of course 
The DVX is standard def and 4:3. While many standard def 24p DVD movies look great on my 50-inch TV, I have a strong feeling against 4:3. I suppose that Barry will say that nothing wrong with 4:3, it is an established format, for the long time used in movies, then adopted by TV, lots of good stuff shot in it and there is nothing technically wrong with it... I understand. I simply don't like watching 4:3 shows on a large widescreen TV, period. I don't like silly "stretching" of 4:3 video either. So I accept 4:3 for classic movies like Casablanca. But why modern movies and videos are shot in 4:3? This is beyond me.
I just finished watching Rocket Science, a 3-DVD, 9-hour documentary shot in 2002-2003. It is SD 4:3! It is not even SD 16:9. The real people that were interviewed made the space history of this country. This documentary has huge historical value, it should have been made as future-proof as possible.
It was pretty stupid of Panasonic not to deliver true widescreen mode in the DVX. Same goes for Sony and the VX/PD. After all, widescreen had become commonplace in PAL countries like 10, or maybe 15 years ago. I've read it was expensive to create a widescreen chip. I don't know. Cheap consumer $200 cameras that are being sold now, and were sold a year ago and two years ago have native widescreen chip. I don't believe that Panasonic could not upgrade the chip cost-effectively in the A or B modification of the camera.
I just finished watching Rocket Science, a 3-DVD, 9-hour documentary shot in 2002-2003. It is SD 4:3! It is not even SD 16:9. The real people that were interviewed made the space history of this country. This documentary has huge historical value, it should have been made as future-proof as possible.
It was pretty stupid of Panasonic not to deliver true widescreen mode in the DVX. Same goes for Sony and the VX/PD. After all, widescreen had become commonplace in PAL countries like 10, or maybe 15 years ago. I've read it was expensive to create a widescreen chip. I don't know. Cheap consumer $200 cameras that are being sold now, and were sold a year ago and two years ago have native widescreen chip. I don't believe that Panasonic could not upgrade the chip cost-effectively in the A or B modification of the camera.
Barry_Green
Moderator
4:3 was the standard in movies for the first 50-some-odd years that movies were made. Cinema film is a 4:3 aspect ratio.
"widescreen" came about pretty much because film producers were worried that TV would erode their market, so they had to differentiate themselves. They tried lots of things, including 3-D, but the one that stuck was widescreen.
You want some comedy? Do you know how movie cameras achieve that widescreen look? BY LETTERBOXING THE FILM! They actually throw away almost 1/3 of the film image. So, in general, film quality became lower, because the image was now using a smaller section of the film and having to optically blow it up bigger. *anamorphic 2.4:1 is a different matter, but 1.85:1 is still done today by matting/letterboxing the 4:3 film image. And even in 2.4:1, the "Super35" widescreen technique results in matting off about HALF the film!
The DVX came out in 2002. Contrary to Cranky's assertion, there was pretty much no established base for 16:9 televisions in 2002. The Sony VX2000/PD150 came out in 2000. Nine years ago! There was pretty much no such thing as widescreen television when these cameras were introduced. I don't know what the percentage of 16:9 TVs in USA households was back in 2002, but I'd guess it was no more than 5%. So do you compromise the image-making process for 95% of the country? Or 5%?
Keep in mind that back then, you couldn't have both. You either got a native widescreen image (and a compromised 4:3), or a native 4:3 image (and a compromised 16:9).
Anyway, today, in the USA, there is still pretty much no such thing as widescreen SD being broadcast anywhere. The only 16:9 signals being broadcast are HD. SD, in the NTSC world, has always been and will pretty much always be, 4:3.
So was it "pretty stupid" to not deliver true widescreen 8 to 9 years ago? And was it "pretty stupid" of Sony to make the VX/PD 4:3? Are you kidding? You're talking about the two most successful camcorder releases of all time. I think they got it right.
In 2009, it wouldn't fly again to introduce a new 4:3 product. But for the world of 2000-2002, it was completely the right choice.
"widescreen" came about pretty much because film producers were worried that TV would erode their market, so they had to differentiate themselves. They tried lots of things, including 3-D, but the one that stuck was widescreen.
You want some comedy? Do you know how movie cameras achieve that widescreen look? BY LETTERBOXING THE FILM! They actually throw away almost 1/3 of the film image. So, in general, film quality became lower, because the image was now using a smaller section of the film and having to optically blow it up bigger. *anamorphic 2.4:1 is a different matter, but 1.85:1 is still done today by matting/letterboxing the 4:3 film image. And even in 2.4:1, the "Super35" widescreen technique results in matting off about HALF the film!
The DVX came out in 2002. Contrary to Cranky's assertion, there was pretty much no established base for 16:9 televisions in 2002. The Sony VX2000/PD150 came out in 2000. Nine years ago! There was pretty much no such thing as widescreen television when these cameras were introduced. I don't know what the percentage of 16:9 TVs in USA households was back in 2002, but I'd guess it was no more than 5%. So do you compromise the image-making process for 95% of the country? Or 5%?
Keep in mind that back then, you couldn't have both. You either got a native widescreen image (and a compromised 4:3), or a native 4:3 image (and a compromised 16:9).
Anyway, today, in the USA, there is still pretty much no such thing as widescreen SD being broadcast anywhere. The only 16:9 signals being broadcast are HD. SD, in the NTSC world, has always been and will pretty much always be, 4:3.
So was it "pretty stupid" to not deliver true widescreen 8 to 9 years ago? And was it "pretty stupid" of Sony to make the VX/PD 4:3? Are you kidding? You're talking about the two most successful camcorder releases of all time. I think they got it right.
In 2009, it wouldn't fly again to introduce a new 4:3 product. But for the world of 2000-2002, it was completely the right choice.
Last edited:
> You want some comedy? Do you know how movie cameras achieve that widescreen look?
> BY LETTERBOXING THE FILM! They actually throw away almost 1/3 of the film image.
Yes, I know. I happen to have two versions of Back to the Future, fullscreen and widescreen. Still, I prefer the widescreen version because the movie was shot with this aspect ratio in mind, and because resolution of matted film still looks pretty good on my TV. After all, film has enough resolution even for HD (there are rumors about Blu-ray version of the movie, I am eager to see will it look any better).
> The DVX came out in 2002. Contrary to Cranky's assertion,
> there was pretty much no established base for 16:9 televisions in 2002.
> ...
> Today, in the USA, there is still pretty much no such thing as widescreen SD
> being broadcast anywhere. The only 16:9 signals being broadcast are HD.
> SD, in the NTSC world, has always been and will pretty much always be, 4:3.
There was no such thing as widescreen NTSC, correct. Even now when analog TV is no more, and when most DVDs are released in widescreen, an old mindset remains: standard def is 4:3. No, it is not! Digital standard def can be widescreen, not only on DVD, but in broadcast too! It is right in the ATSC spec, which defines SD formats too. Widescreen SD is totally possible and legal now, it is not my fault that those who are in charge cannot realize that the epoch of analog 4:3 has ended. Some has to wake them up.
And don't forget widescreen PAL. One of the reasons why Europe is adopting HD with much slower pace than the U.S. is because it adopted widescreen PAL first (google for PALPlus), then switched to widescreen digital standard def. Top Gear switched to widescreen in 2002 or 2003 I believe, I have to check my archives. By the way, widescreen 576p is officially considered HD in Australia. Anyway, widescreen broadcast existed as far back as 15 years ago, even in analog. And no, the U.S. of A. is not the only country in the world where people watch TV.
> So do you compromise the image-making process for 95% of the country? Or 5%?
It is not about compromise, it is about thinking forward. Use one or another as it fits, or shoot 16:9 and pan&scan for 4:3, owners of older 4:3 CRT TVs won't see a loss of resolution anyway. This is what Scrubs DP did, he has been shooting the show in 16:9 from day one, it was simply cut to 4:3 for broadcast. Newer HD variant of this show is shot with the same camera using the same exact process. Now this is forward thinking. Sadly, DVD release is 4:3, pulled straight from TV version. I wish they released the whole thing in Blu-ray, it is possible, because they thought through and saw the trend for HD and widescreen.
Same with ER or The Sopranos. ER went widescreen in 2000. http://www.slate.com/id/2061664/
From the above link (the article was written in 2002):
> image (and a compromised 4:3), or a native 4:3 image (and a compromised 16:9).
You cannot have both now too. This is one of the reasons for me ranting, I don't like black bars on the sides In Europe most shows are widescreen, they are letterboxed on 4:3 TVs. Don't like letterboxing? Get a new TV set, consumerism is good for economy.
> So was it "pretty stupid" to not deliver true widescreen 8 to 9 years ago?
> And was it "pretty stupid" of Sony to make the VX/PD 4:3? Are you kidding?
> You're talking about the two most successful camcorder releases of all time.
> I think they got it right.
I've read enough technical papers on how to shoot 16:9 with Sony cams (actually, it has been suggested to shoot 4:3 and then ARC it in post) and how to use anamorphic converters. Some of those papers from BBC no less, because as I said above Europe brodcasts mostly in widescreen, even standard def, and BBC did not have affordable widescreen camcorders! These camcorders were successful only because there was nothing better, so users had to cope with limitations these camcorders had. An anamorphic converter costs $700-1000, Panasonic could make a proper widescreen camera for a fraction of that. And if they were stupid enough to not do it right from the start, they could fix it in the A or B versions, but they did not. Of course, they were idiots, no doubt about that.
On the other hand, maybe not. Maybe they intentionally programmed the obsolescence into the DVX so that people switched to the 150 more eagerly. I can believe in this too, considering other things Panasonic (and Sony, and Canon, no doubt about that) has done to segregate the market.
> In 2009, it wouldn't fly again to introduce a new 4:3 product.
> But for the world of 2000-2002, it was completely the right choice.
It would have been the right choice for 1980, maybe for 1990 (I remember reading a lot of articles about HDTV in mid-eighties), but not for 2000. The first public broadcast in digital HD in the U.S. occurred in 1996, and John Glenn's flight on the Shuttle Discovery in 1998 was broadcast in HD. Any product that was about to be released at that time or later should have supported widescreen format for -- you got it -- future-proofing.
> BY LETTERBOXING THE FILM! They actually throw away almost 1/3 of the film image.
Yes, I know. I happen to have two versions of Back to the Future, fullscreen and widescreen. Still, I prefer the widescreen version because the movie was shot with this aspect ratio in mind, and because resolution of matted film still looks pretty good on my TV. After all, film has enough resolution even for HD (there are rumors about Blu-ray version of the movie, I am eager to see will it look any better).
> The DVX came out in 2002. Contrary to Cranky's assertion,
> there was pretty much no established base for 16:9 televisions in 2002.
> ...
> Today, in the USA, there is still pretty much no such thing as widescreen SD
> being broadcast anywhere. The only 16:9 signals being broadcast are HD.
> SD, in the NTSC world, has always been and will pretty much always be, 4:3.
There was no such thing as widescreen NTSC, correct. Even now when analog TV is no more, and when most DVDs are released in widescreen, an old mindset remains: standard def is 4:3. No, it is not! Digital standard def can be widescreen, not only on DVD, but in broadcast too! It is right in the ATSC spec, which defines SD formats too. Widescreen SD is totally possible and legal now, it is not my fault that those who are in charge cannot realize that the epoch of analog 4:3 has ended. Some has to wake them up.
And don't forget widescreen PAL. One of the reasons why Europe is adopting HD with much slower pace than the U.S. is because it adopted widescreen PAL first (google for PALPlus), then switched to widescreen digital standard def. Top Gear switched to widescreen in 2002 or 2003 I believe, I have to check my archives. By the way, widescreen 576p is officially considered HD in Australia. Anyway, widescreen broadcast existed as far back as 15 years ago, even in analog. And no, the U.S. of A. is not the only country in the world where people watch TV.
> So do you compromise the image-making process for 95% of the country? Or 5%?
It is not about compromise, it is about thinking forward. Use one or another as it fits, or shoot 16:9 and pan&scan for 4:3, owners of older 4:3 CRT TVs won't see a loss of resolution anyway. This is what Scrubs DP did, he has been shooting the show in 16:9 from day one, it was simply cut to 4:3 for broadcast. Newer HD variant of this show is shot with the same camera using the same exact process. Now this is forward thinking. Sadly, DVD release is 4:3, pulled straight from TV version. I wish they released the whole thing in Blu-ray, it is possible, because they thought through and saw the trend for HD and widescreen.
Same with ER or The Sopranos. ER went widescreen in 2000. http://www.slate.com/id/2061664/
From the above link (the article was written in 2002):
> Keep in mind that back then, you couldn't have both. You either got a native widescreen
> image (and a compromised 4:3), or a native 4:3 image (and a compromised 16:9).
You cannot have both now too. This is one of the reasons for me ranting, I don't like black bars on the sides
In Europe most shows are widescreen, they are letterboxed on 4:3 TVs. Don't like letterboxing? Get a new TV set, consumerism is good for economy.> So was it "pretty stupid" to not deliver true widescreen 8 to 9 years ago?
> And was it "pretty stupid" of Sony to make the VX/PD 4:3? Are you kidding?
> You're talking about the two most successful camcorder releases of all time.
> I think they got it right.
I've read enough technical papers on how to shoot 16:9 with Sony cams (actually, it has been suggested to shoot 4:3 and then ARC it in post) and how to use anamorphic converters. Some of those papers from BBC no less, because as I said above Europe brodcasts mostly in widescreen, even standard def, and BBC did not have affordable widescreen camcorders! These camcorders were successful only because there was nothing better, so users had to cope with limitations these camcorders had. An anamorphic converter costs $700-1000, Panasonic could make a proper widescreen camera for a fraction of that. And if they were stupid enough to not do it right from the start, they could fix it in the A or B versions, but they did not. Of course, they were idiots, no doubt about that.
On the other hand, maybe not. Maybe they intentionally programmed the obsolescence into the DVX so that people switched to the 150 more eagerly. I can believe in this too, considering other things Panasonic (and Sony, and Canon, no doubt about that) has done to segregate the market.
> In 2009, it wouldn't fly again to introduce a new 4:3 product.
> But for the world of 2000-2002, it was completely the right choice.
It would have been the right choice for 1980, maybe for 1990 (I remember reading a lot of articles about HDTV in mid-eighties), but not for 2000. The first public broadcast in digital HD in the U.S. occurred in 1996, and John Glenn's flight on the Shuttle Discovery in 1998 was broadcast in HD. Any product that was about to be released at that time or later should have supported widescreen format for -- you got it -- future-proofing.
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
Okay, work with me on this -- do you remember the video industry of 2000-2002? I'd say a conservative estimate is that 95% of what was being shot, was being shot for 4:3. Heck, all cable broadcasts today are 4:3.
You talk about ER going widescreen... ER was a 35mm film production. We're talking about $3,000 professional camcorders here.
The mindset of today (all widescreen, all the time) is NOT the mindset of the country or the world ten years ago. Ten years ago, DVDs were routinely released in "full screen" and "widescreen" formats, and it was a major hassle to get people to understand why the widescreen version was better! Fullscreen outsold widescreen for years and years; I can't remember when DVD release of anamorphic widescreen versions became viable, much less the standard.
In the early days of DVD distribution, you had to specifically check if the disc said "anamorphic" or not. I've got a copy of the original release of "The Hunt For Red October", that came advertised as "widescreen". It is, in fact, letterboxed 4:3. That's how early DVDs rolled. People had 4:3 TVs. It was a 4:3 world.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, it's so easy to look now and then project back 10 or 20 years and say "why didn't they just do THIS to make it easier for us?" Looking forward... that's the hard one.
You talk about ER going widescreen... ER was a 35mm film production. We're talking about $3,000 professional camcorders here.
The mindset of today (all widescreen, all the time) is NOT the mindset of the country or the world ten years ago. Ten years ago, DVDs were routinely released in "full screen" and "widescreen" formats, and it was a major hassle to get people to understand why the widescreen version was better! Fullscreen outsold widescreen for years and years; I can't remember when DVD release of anamorphic widescreen versions became viable, much less the standard.
In the early days of DVD distribution, you had to specifically check if the disc said "anamorphic" or not. I've got a copy of the original release of "The Hunt For Red October", that came advertised as "widescreen". It is, in fact, letterboxed 4:3. That's how early DVDs rolled. People had 4:3 TVs. It was a 4:3 world.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, it's so easy to look now and then project back 10 or 20 years and say "why didn't they just do THIS to make it easier for us?" Looking forward... that's the hard one.
> You talk about ER going widescreen... ER was a 35mm film production.
> We're talking about $3,000 professional camcorders here.
I know that ER was a film production. Most lush high-quality shows to date are shot on film. Scrubs is shot with Aaton Super16 camera, which turned out to be good enough for HD. My main beef is not with DPs but with equipment manufacturers. Panasonic, Sony and others were too shortsighted (or had another agenda) for not producing widescreen SD camcorders. Was it really so expensive? My three year old consumer camcorder that I bought for $300 new, has native widescreen chip, it was priced about the same as the camcorders with 4:3 chip. You are saying that Panasonic could not afford a widescreen chip in a "sub-$4000" camcorder? Even at the time they updated it, twice?
By the way, ER was shot with 16:9 in mind right from the start. DVD releases starting from the very first season are widescreen. First season came out in 1994. So the trend towards widescreen was appreciated here in the good old U.S. 15 years ago. Maybe not by everyone. Maybe Panasonic did not know about it.
The SDX900 was released in 2003, and had 16:9 chip. Sure, it was almost 10 times more expensive, but still... Tons of TV series have been shot with the SDX900 in widescreen progressive including Space Race and Rome. (I wonder how ER would look like if it were shot with the SDX900.) Could Panasonic reuse some of this technology when it was updating the DVX?
> Hindsight is a wonderful thing, it's so easy to look now and then project
> back 10 or 20 years and say "why didn't they just do THIS to make it easier
> for us?" Looking forward... that's the hard one.
Sony, Panasonic and other companies are the manufacturers of video equipment. They knew the situation and the trend better than anyone else. They knew that HD and widescreen were coming, they were part of the process!
I watch a lot of SD DVDs on my 50-inch TV and they look great. With 24p I get full-frame vertical resolution and no interline flicker which I hate, and with widescreen I get the whole area of my TV filled. I do not plan to upgrade to blu-ray releases of the DVDs that I already have. What I am saying, that progressive widescreen SD is good enough for me even in the age of HD. I can easily accept it, but I hate interlaced 4:3. Panasonic did right with progressive part, but it failed with widescreen.
> We're talking about $3,000 professional camcorders here.
I know that ER was a film production. Most lush high-quality shows to date are shot on film. Scrubs is shot with Aaton Super16 camera, which turned out to be good enough for HD. My main beef is not with DPs but with equipment manufacturers. Panasonic, Sony and others were too shortsighted (or had another agenda) for not producing widescreen SD camcorders. Was it really so expensive? My three year old consumer camcorder that I bought for $300 new, has native widescreen chip, it was priced about the same as the camcorders with 4:3 chip. You are saying that Panasonic could not afford a widescreen chip in a "sub-$4000" camcorder? Even at the time they updated it, twice?
By the way, ER was shot with 16:9 in mind right from the start. DVD releases starting from the very first season are widescreen. First season came out in 1994. So the trend towards widescreen was appreciated here in the good old U.S. 15 years ago. Maybe not by everyone. Maybe Panasonic did not know about it.
The SDX900 was released in 2003, and had 16:9 chip. Sure, it was almost 10 times more expensive, but still... Tons of TV series have been shot with the SDX900 in widescreen progressive including Space Race and Rome. (I wonder how ER would look like if it were shot with the SDX900.) Could Panasonic reuse some of this technology when it was updating the DVX?
> Hindsight is a wonderful thing, it's so easy to look now and then project
> back 10 or 20 years and say "why didn't they just do THIS to make it easier
> for us?" Looking forward... that's the hard one.
Sony, Panasonic and other companies are the manufacturers of video equipment. They knew the situation and the trend better than anyone else. They knew that HD and widescreen were coming, they were part of the process!
I watch a lot of SD DVDs on my 50-inch TV and they look great. With 24p I get full-frame vertical resolution and no interline flicker which I hate, and with widescreen I get the whole area of my TV filled. I do not plan to upgrade to blu-ray releases of the DVDs that I already have. What I am saying, that progressive widescreen SD is good enough for me even in the age of HD. I can easily accept it, but I hate interlaced 4:3. Panasonic did right with progressive part, but it failed with widescreen.
Last edited:
An interesting blog entry: http://zigzigger.blogspot.com/2008/04/shape-shifting-tv-opens-w-i-d-e.html
And a hilarious link from that entry: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30231
And a hilarious link from that entry: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30231
Last edited:
While having the DVX or the PD150 five years ago with widescreen capability would have been cool, what Sony does now is really surprising: http://www.sony.co.uk/biz/view/Show...rview&imageType=Main&category=DVCAMCamcorders
andythefilmer
Veteran
That's actually pretty cool, the PD175...
I'm getting in here late, so take this FWIW:
If I produce a training video, I replicate it on DVD. BlueRay is a non-issue, because not everyone has one. That limits things to SD and this will probably remain so for quite some time. When your corporate customer realizes that releasing on BlueRay will severely limit the audience, they always seem to think SD will be just fine thank you.
You can certainly shoot in HD and down res, but it isn't needed to get the job done.
The other issue is 4x3 versus 16x9, with 16x9 being the more modern choice, but still not essential. The DVX can do a decent job on 16x9, though not ideal.
Grant
If I produce a training video, I replicate it on DVD. BlueRay is a non-issue, because not everyone has one. That limits things to SD and this will probably remain so for quite some time. When your corporate customer realizes that releasing on BlueRay will severely limit the audience, they always seem to think SD will be just fine thank you.
You can certainly shoot in HD and down res, but it isn't needed to get the job done.
The other issue is 4x3 versus 16x9, with 16x9 being the more modern choice, but still not essential. The DVX can do a decent job on 16x9, though not ideal.
Grant