Camcorders?

[caribadive 0]

I have done several searches, and I can’t seem to find all the answers. Here goes. I am trying to purchase a new video set up. I will be mostly freeflying with it, so I have decided on either the ff2 or ff3 helmet from 2k composites. My problem comes with trying to buy a camera. None of the standard definition Sony cameras listed on the Sony website have an LANC port. The only SD Sony camera with an LANC port that is still available for purchase is the HC 96. My only problem with this is that it seems bulky compared to other Sony cameras. It seems like Sony is either phasing out standard definition, LANC, or they are phasing out Mini DV. I have a few questions. Any information will be greatly appreciated.

1. Is Sony indeed phasing out HD/LANC or Mini DV?

2. If Sony is phasing out one of these things what is the best move for someone that doesn’t want to spend $800.00 on a camera?

3. Is it better to wait and see what happens in the camcorder market, before I trying to buy something?

4. Is HD going to drop in price again?

5. Is there another alternative to the cam-eye and LANC?

6. Is anyone using a memory stick camera, and what have been their results?

7. Does anyone side mount their HC96, and if so have they had any problems with it?

8. Does anyone know any of these answers?

[pilotdave 0]

Wow this is like the jackpot post... you can answer almost all your questions just by reading the other posts on page 1 of this forum!
MiniDV/LANC/SD are being phased out.

HD prices have dropped and will drop.

There is an alternative to cameye without lanc from Hypeye. I bet there will be a non-lanc cameye soon enough too, but i dont know.

Lots of posts on the CX-7 memory stick camera.

Yes people sidemount the 96 but its quite wide.

You can sidemount pretty wide cameras with the FF3 though.

Do you plan to add stills in the future? If not, just buy a top mount helmet.

Personally right now, I'd buy an HC-5 or something. MiniDV is just so convenient for skydiving. Not sure how I'd handle a memory stick camera for my uses. Seems like a major pain in the butt.

Dave

[DSE 3]

Quote

1. Is Sony indeed phasing out HD/LANC or Mini DV?
LANC itself is related to tape-only, none of the file-based camcorders offer LANC. A search of this forum will turn up this answer a dozen times over.
DV is going away rapidly. HD is still on miniDV tape, called "HDV."

2. If Sony is phasing out one of these things what is the best move for someone that doesn’t want to spend $800.00 on a camera?

Only you can answer this one. Do you want tape? Then you need to choose between SD and HD. If you don't want to spend 800.00, then expect to buy SD, but you won't be able to shoot HD. You might not care.

3. Is it better to wait and see what happens in the camcorder market, before I trying to buy something?
There is ALWAYS something new in the camcorder market. Every 6 months.

4. Is HD going to drop in price again?
Not by much, but the old HD prices are coming down quickly. CX7 went from 1299.00 to 849.00 recently

5. Is there another alternative to the cam-eye and LANC?
Search the forum. This is answered at least 50 or more times. HypEye-D, mirror, fiber optic, others.

6. Is anyone using a memory stick camera, and what have been their results?
Again...Search the forum CX7, EX1, Panasonic SD1, SD5 have all been jumped and reported upon.

7. Does anyone side mount their HC96, and if so have they had any problems with it?
HC96 is an old, discontinued camcorder. HC62 is the newest/best of the current DV lineup

8. Does anyone know any of these answers?

[caribadive 0]

i appreciate the responses.
1. If you were a beginning camera flyer (like myself) would you buy now or wait and see what happens to HD prices?

2. The HC 52 has 40x zoom and the hc 62 only has 25x would this be a factor in deciding which camera you purchase? If you are only using it for skydiving?

3. If you freeze a frame on a memory stick camera; is that frame in higher quality than Mini Dv?

4. Also I have an HDR-FX1 I use for shooting underwater. Is this camera too heavy to jump, or can it be jumped with the right equipment? It seems silly to not jump such a nice camera if it is possible

[DSE 3]

Quote

i appreciate the responses.
1. If you were a beginning camera flyer (like myself) would you buy now or wait and see what happens to HD prices?
depends on whether I need a camera now or not.

2. The HC 52 has 40x zoom and the hc 62 only has 25x would this be a factor in deciding which camera you purchase? If you are only using it for skydiving?
no

3. If you freeze a frame on a memory stick camera; is that frame in higher quality than Mini Dv?
no It's just a freeze frame of the same resolution. If you shot a still image, it would be of greater resolution.

4. Also I have an HDR-FX1 I use for shooting underwater. Is this camera too heavy to jump, or can it be jumped with the right equipment? It seems silly to not jump such a nice camera if it is possible

You own an FX1 and you're asking these questions?? Seems a bit odd.
No, you definitely don't want to be jumping an FX1 as a normal jump camera. If you had a special, then yes, it's a decent camera to jump, but it's heavy, it's a rudder, and a size best left alone for a long, long while. You're worried about sidemount vs top mount and you're asking about an FX1?

Search the forums. Read the FAQ/sticky at the top. They'll help.

[caribadive 0]

I am completely new to JUMPING a camera. I have shot hundreds of hours of underwater footage, but from what I have read it sounds completely different than shooting skydiving footage. We have a lot more control over the camera underwater than we do in the air (white balance, zoom, ND, and several others). We can take our time to set up shots underwater we do not have this luxury in the air. This is why I am asking these questions. I love my FX1, but I am looking for an every day camera. I am also new to memory stick cameras

1. Like everyone else I don't need a camera, but I want one. In your opinion will anything change in the next 2-6 months?

I'm sorry if I seem to be asking stupid question, but this is an entirely new style of shooting or me. In the past I have strictly shot underwater. I appreciate the responses, and at the very least this should consolidate some posts.

[base_nz 0]

Quote

I am completely new to JUMPING a camera. I have shot hundreds of hours of underwater footage, but from what I have read it sounds completely different than shooting skydiving footage. We have a lot more control over the camera underwater than we do in the air (white balance, zoom, ND, and several others). We can take our time to set up shots underwater we do not have this luxury in the air. This is why I am asking these questions. I love my FX1, but I am looking for an every day camera. I am also new to memory stick cameras

1. Will still frames taken from a memory stick camera be higher quality than still frames taken from Mini DV?

2. Like everyone else I don't need a camera, but I want one. In your opinion will anything change in the next 2-6 months?

I'm sorry if I seem to be asking stupid question, but this is an entirely new style of shooting or me. In the past I have strictly shot underwater. I appreciate the responses, and at the very least this should consolidate some posts.

Both of these questions have already been answered for you .

.....And you thought Kiwis couldn't fly!!!!

[DSE 3]

Quote

I am completely new to JUMPING a camera. I have shot hundreds of hours of underwater footage, but from what I have read it sounds completely different than shooting skydiving footage. We have a lot more control over the camera underwater than we do in the air (white balance, zoom, ND, and several others). We can take our time to set up shots underwater we do not have this luxury in the air. This is why I am asking these questions. I love my FX1, but I am looking for an every day camera. I am also new to memory stick cameras

1. Like everyone else I don't need a camera, but I want one. In your opinion will anything change in the next 2-6 months?

No one here can honestly tell you what will happen within the next 2-6 months, but it can be said that June is the announcement month for new camcorders due for the holiday season. Anything announced in June won't ship until around October. New cams to be announced are likely all AVCHD, and potentially one or two DV camcorders. Don't know if that helps.

I'm sorry if I seem to be asking stupid question, but this is an entirely new style of shooting or me. In the past I have strictly shot underwater. I appreciate the responses, and at the very least this should consolidate some posts.

Questions aren't at all stupid, they're asked often enough that the majority of the answers you seek are in the FAQ/sticky, and in the forum overall with some searching. Either way, you'll find that almost any camcorder can be adapted for skydiving. WB is often auto, focus is almost always manual, exposure is probably a mixed bag of those that use auto and those that use a preset, and a few that use manual settings. You're almost always shooting full wide, and often with a wide adapter, depending on the camera. EIS is preferable to OIS. Lighter is better. Tapeless vs tape...personal preference. Since you already have HDV, it makes sense in my mind, to stick with HDV, which limits you to the Sony HC 3, 5, 7, 9 models.

[mdrejhon 8]

Quote

MiniDV/LANC/SD are being phased out.

Just to be clear, there are two meanings for SD:

SD - Standard Defintion (Definitely being phased out)
SD - SecureDigital memory card (Becoming more popular)

My dream camcorder would be a HDTV camcorder that records full-quality full-rate HDTV (at least 20Mbps) to a multi-gigabyte SDHC postage size memory card of 166X performance.

Then I can quickly dump videos onto a laptop (an hour of full quality HD, on a high speed card, can in theory be copied VERY QUICKLY to a computer -- about 5 minutes to copy an hour worth of full quality high-def on a 166X memory card. No long DV dumps; just a quick copy operation in a high-speed memory card reader (I recommend FireWire 800 card reader: They actually perform faster than a USB2 card reader). These push the maximum copying speed of ultra high speed memory cards, so you can copy tons of HDTV clips off the memory card quickly, and recycle the same precious memory card over and over. Save tons of time over DV!

SD (as in SecureDigital) memory card camcorders are still somewhat skimping in recording quality, but they have lots of advantages -- nearly completely immune to shock, and works perfectly even in the middle of a slammer opening with absolutely no video breakups. HDD, disc, tape, DV, HDV often have difficulty with that.

I haven't jumped video, but memory card camcorders are The Way to go (eventually -- once the manufacturers get their act together). I may actually wait for a good high-def memory-card camcorder. Early memory card camcorders are crap though. But as 16GB and 32GB cards (Capable of holding hours of FULL-QUALITY high-def, defined as minimum 20 megabits per second MPEG2 -- similiar to the ATSC bitrate used for the top-quality OTA HDTV broadcasts). I'm not yet happy with many current AVCHD codecs, they need to support full H.264 quality, new codec chips are only coming out, and are becoming integrated into new camcorders; so shortly soon, H.264 compatible camcorders should have an explosion of amazing picture quality in the coming year or two -- perfect fast-motion clarity even at only 12 Mbps for 1080i.

Also, for high def camcorders of 1080i or 1080p, bayer-based CD/CMOS sensors need to be at least 6 megapixels to look really sharp at 1080i/1080p. 2 megapixels for a single CCD is not enough for 1080i/1080p because not each pixel is being used for red, green, blue. I find that many high def camcorders look only DVD quality, because they don't throw enough pixels at the video. To make it as good as many television broadcasts, it needs to be 3CCD x 2megapixels (1920x1080), or a single 6 megapixel bayer sensor that is downscaled a little for maximum sharpness. People familiar with this in the industry know that photographs taken by bayer CCD's look much sharper if downscaled by, say 50%. Which is why 2megapixel pictures taken by 4 or 6 megapixels downconverted to 2 megapixels (i.e. resized in Adobe Photoshop to 50% its original size), look much sharper taken by pictures taken by a native 2 megapixel camera. Although good debayer algorithms help a lot, most people agree that many of the current crop of HDTV camcorders even doing 1080p are't good enough. A frame from a good 1080p camcorder should look like a 6 megapixel photo (if from bayer sensor instead of 3CCD/CMOS) downsized to 2 megapixels, except that the photo'd be full motion. I give the industry a couple years to actually realize this and add the necessary processing power to the tiny consumer high def camcorders, in order to pull this off for amazing 1080p quality from compact camcorders. It's technically possible.

(Note -- I have worked as a video codec engineer)

[DSE 3]

Quote

I haven't jumped video, but memory card camcorders are The Way to go (eventually -- once the manufacturers get their act together). I may actually wait for a good high-def memory-card camcorder.

How is it you feel camcorder manufacturers "don't have their act together?" What aspect do you feel is still nebulous?

[mdrejhon 8]

Quote

How is it you feel camcorder manufacturers "don't have their act together?" What aspect do you feel is still nebulous?

Edited my post for adding additional information about the lack of sharpness in tiny pocket size HD camcorders.

Not really nebulous. The industry is really going through a lot of innovation right now, and it's taking time for the innovation to get there. It's getting more and more impressive, but the truth is that a framegrab from a 1080p pocket camcorder should look as crystal sharp as a good 6 megapixel photograph resized in Adobe Photoshop down to a 1920x1080 size, with amazing edge sharpness without soft looking edges. It can be done, all that is needed is the right kind of sensor and sufficient processing power -- they're gradually getting there. My Canon SD750 shirtpocket camera takes amazing 1080p still photos -- much sharper a screengrab from a video clip from the world's sharpest pocket high def camcorders. Screen grabs prove this. In three to four years, pocket cameras will also have high def video capability, and as codecs get powerful enough (i.e. realtime full-profile H.264 encoding at full 10-20Mbps, none of the 'lite' subset in the cheaper versions of AVCHD; the pro models do it better though - but we're talking tiny pocket size HDTV camcorders), this will become a reality, for both shirtpocket cameras and pocket camcorder-shaped cameras.

High def camcorder makers are getting the "zoom bug" (much like camera makers are getting the "too many megapixels bug") One side effect of this is a very narrow angle of view in compact camcorders, and the use of really small CCD's. I don't really want more than 3X zoom, I'd rather have the larger wide-angle-mode when zoomed wide. There's a tradeoff when you add extra zoom (Due to physical laws of optics, the widest setting suffers when you do 10X zoom in the same amount of cubic space with the same size CCD's instead of 3X).

This is the examples I'm talking about.

Now, this doesn't just apply to small cameras, but greatly improved video clip modes of regular large still cameras. Imagine being able to use the Video Mode of, say, your Canon Rebel XT III of the year 2011, generating 1080p/60 output with each frame exactly as crystal sharp as a regular still-photo downscaled to 1920x1080p, at full BluRay league quality. Through that existing big wide angle lens and huge CCD, for example, especially if it now also has a good motion stabilizer added too. Of course, not everyone may want to do this, but this is a wet dream of video/color quality. What's certainly true, is we need more processing power to push the maximum possible picture sharpness into each 1080p frame. We are still far away from pulling this off, as proven by a 6-megapixel (bayer) resized down to 1920x1080. BluRay sharpness IS possible on a shirtpocket camera: What's needed is better and faster electronics, since full-profile H.264 encoding is still a processing/power hog.

It's all very impressive and the cameras are already getting amazing as it is, but as an engineer, I trust you there is even better to come. *wink* Thus I say again, "as long as manufacturers get their act together".

[mdrejhon 8]

Here is precisely some examples of the low-quality stuff going around with pocket HD camcorders:

The Great HD Shootout link
Acclaimed by a few blogs...

Tomshardware HD Camcorder Shootout
link
Really good stuff, even if they're not as videophile as the pro people, it's very good reading by the everyperson evaluating compact HD camcorders.

For example, look at the Panasonic HDC camcorders. They use really low resolution CCD's. Only 560K pixels each for the 3CCD's. click for proof. And they claim to do 1080p. While these are very good camcorders in other respect because the 3CCD produce better color quality and all, this results in DVD-sharpness style images, looking like high quality 480p upconverted to 1080p. The truth is you need 1920x1080 sensors for each of the 3 primary colors (red, green, blue) for a total of 6 megapixels. If you want Blu-Ray 1080p quality in a pocket camcorder, you need about 6 megapixels worth of pixels. If it's a single bayer sensor, then it should be 6 megapixels. If it's 3 CCD, each sensor should be 2 megapixels, in order to get Blu-Ray sharpness out of each 1080p frame, akin to the quality of a stillframe from a still camera. Not denigrating the camera, the pictures are really good, but they shouldn't be advertising it as a 1080p camera -- it's not 1080p "quality". It's just approximately equivalent to inflated, upconverted top-of-the-line 480p. 1080p quality is a good Blu-Ray disc. 560 kilopixel CCD's is NOT high def. Multi-megapixel CCD is high def.

This is just like the megapixel war, or the zoom-ratio war. Marketing hype, ya know?

Want more? Just ask. I've got novels to write....

[DSE 3]

Quote

Quote

How is it you feel camcorder manufacturers "don't have their act together?" What aspect do you feel is still nebulous?

Edited my post for adding additional information about the lack of sharpness in tiny pocket size HD camcorders.

Not really nebulous. The industry is really going through a lot of innovation right now, and it's taking time for the innovation to get there. It's getting more and more impressive, but the truth is that a framegrab from a 1080p pocket camcorder should look as crystal sharp as a good 6 megapixel photograph resized in Adobe Photoshop down to a 1920x1080 size, with amazing edge sharpness without soft looking edges. It can be done, all that is needed is the right kind of sensor and sufficient processing power -- they're gradually getting there.

High def camcorder makers are getting the "zoom bug" (much like camera makers are getting the "too many megapixels bug") One side effect of this is a very narrow angle of view in compact camcorders, and the use of really small CCD's. I don't really want more than 3X zoom, I'd rather have the larger wide-angle-mode when zoomed wide. There's a tradeoff when you add extra zoom (Due to physical laws of optics, the widest setting suffers when you do 10X zoom in the same amount of cubic space with the same size CCD's instead of 3X).

This is the examples I'm talking about.

I understand your premise, but to suggest that 3 sensors are lesser than one isn't accurate. In fact, you'll see in a few years that all camcorders will have single sensors, and not necessarily larger.
We'll not in any reasonable time see camcorders offering an image identical to those from a point n' shoot or DSLR for many, many years to come. The horsepower required to record constant 60p fps is huge, not to mention glass issues, compression, etc. It can already be done, but at great expense, great storage, and great weight.
You're forgetting the optics element when wanting to compare a 1920 x 1080 image from a pocket camcorder (approx 2MP), not to mention all of the compression involved. There are camcorders that record RAW data from a VERY large imager, and it's a format that everyone is struggling with.

When we start seeing UXHD as the broadcast norm, we'll see camcorders more comfortably approaching the cheep point n' shoots of today, but until then, 1920 x 1080@72ppi is where we're at. Processing power requires CPU horsepower and CPU horsepower requires battery power and consumers (which is the price point the camcorders we're discussing fall into) won't accept 15-30 min battery life.
I'm not following your "zoom bug" idea. Zooms aren't getting longer, they're getting shorter as the optics are lesser and lesser, and body/weights are tremendously reduced in size.
One point to reiterate, the idea of multiple imagers being superior to single imagers with all space considerations, simply is no longer accurate. Sony, Canon, and other imager developers have made huge strides. Which is one reason that the newer camcorders for ENG, EFP, and film are not multi-imagers.

[edit]
I see you mentioned Panasonic as part of your comparative. Notice that Sony, Canon, and JVC aren't mentioned in the same light (BTW, TomsHardware should stick to hardware, they don't know optics (IMO). You know that Pansonic defined the lie in imager/HD, right? a 960 x 540 imager delivering 1080p???? Yeah...I can record VHS to HDCAM too, but that doesn't give me a quality master. Until Panasonic gave birth to the big lie, the industry had policed their marketing fairly well.
Sony=1920 x 1080 imagers (full raster)
1440 x 1080 imagers (full raster)
960 x 1080 imagers

Canon=1920 x 1080 imagers
1440 x 1080 imagers

JVC=1280 x 720 imagers (full raster)

Panasonic 960 x 540 (horizontal and vertical displacement)

[mdrejhon 8]

Quote

I understand your premise, but to suggest that 3 sensors are lesser than one isn't accurate. In fact, you'll see in a few years that all camcorders will have single sensors, and not necessarily larger.

I agree with your whole post.

But I think you are missing my premise: I did not say which is better or worse: 3CCD or 1CCD. Really good 1CCD can look better than 3CCD, or vice-versa. Just technicalities (codec quality, CCD quality, optics, etc)

What I'm saying is you need at least 2 megapixels for 3CCD, and you need at least 6 megapixels for 1CCD, in order to maximize the sharpness of a 1080p frame. Too many people think that you only need a 2 megapixel bayer sensor, in order to have Blu-Ray quality with 1080p. It's just not possible - you need good spatial resolution for EACH primary color. (De-bayer filters are pretty good nowadays, but a single 2 megapixel bayer sensor is guaranteed to never be as sharp as a downconverted 1080p from a 6 megapixel bayer sensor -- that's assuming all pixels are readout and then downconverted, rather than some of the shortcuts some manufacturers do, such as reading every other pixel row, for performance reasons)

But just look at the Panasonic's with 560K CCD's. While they excel in sharpness compared to DVD, it's not if compared to real HD (of the Blu-Ray league), it's all just glorified upconversion of high quality 480p (or equivalent).

Not to mention, 4:1:1 chroma sampling is ugly when it comes to colorful skydivers in a bigway formation - those tiny color pixels really need 4:4:4 or 4:2:2. Most compact HD camcorders do only 4:1:1 which is not ideal in the situation of oversaturated jumpsuit colors of faraway skydivers on colorful landscapes, especially if you want the "BLU-RAY" look from a compact camcorder. Even the JPG's generated by my lowly SD750 are just merely 4:2:2 instead of the top 4:4:4 (Top-of-the-line cameras can do "no-subsampling" JPEG's for even sharper chroma, such as the Sigma DP1 digital still camera using the Foevon sensor -- this is equivalent to 4:4:4 chroma sampling in video)

I have seen developments (45 nanometer H.264 compressors, and beyond) that is going to make amazing Blu Ray H.264 possible in a Canon SD750 form factor camera. The progress will be incremental for a few years.

Yes, the lens is the limiting factor, but watch the progress: The world is going to get 1080p with framegrabs as sharp and virtually the same quality as the same camera's own 1080p stills. We haven't gotten there yet. But mark my words -- we are getting there.

In other words, why do widescreen stills from my shirtpocket Canon SD750 look so much better than the framegrabs of most of of the HD camcorders even 10 times its size? These new chips I'm witnessing will solve this problem in the next few years.

[DSE 3]

Quote

[reply
But just look at the Panasonic's with 560K CCD's. While they excel in sharpness compared to DVD, it's not if compared to real HD (of the Blu-Ray league), it's all just glorified upconversion of high quality 480p (or equivalent).

.

Ouch. Now we'll get into an area where I guess we'll disagree. I *do* look at Panasonic's 560k CCD's and cringe each time I do. They suck. Period. They're soft, grainy, noisy, and for crap, in my opinion. One that's shared by most shooters in my world. Gimme any HD camcorder any day (including a high end PAL SD cam) over a Panny HVX 200, 500, or 3000 anytime.
Perfect examples:
Panasonic HVX @100Mbps) (Best it can do)

Sony EX1 @ 35Mbps Can do nearly twice this resolution)
Same size image, same originating resolution same chart, same framerate.
Quoting the company "of the big lie" doesn't give your point much support.

In theory, a 35mm film camera should be shooting the same image as a 35mm still camera, and this seems to be your point. But it's not the same, and can't be the same.
I do agree, some day we'll see frame grabs of 1080p matching a 2MP still camera point n' shoot. My response to that is two fold;
A-who cares? 2MP is nothing to crow about. *Most* folks here are shooting 8MP+ stills, some are shooting 16MP+ stills for skydiving purposes.

B-The optics plus cost will always be the limiting factor. Notice that one aspect of cameras have NOT changed in decades... That would be the cost of quality glass/optics. Given that the world is now down to 4 quality optics manufacturers, we're not going to see glass going down any time soon, and given the higher cost of precision required for HD, 2K, and UXHD, it's not likely we'll see that cost ever fall (not in my lifetime, anyway).

It's a really fun discussion, and one that has been going on amongst some cheap/low-end wedding videographers that are Scroogy enough to think they can offer stills from their crummy progressive video cameras. Ain't gonna happen for anything but the web for a long, long time.

[mdrejhon 8]

Quote

[reply
But just look at the Panasonic's with 560K CCD's. While they excel in sharpness compared to DVD, it's not if compared to real HD (of the Blu-Ray league), it's all just glorified upconversion of high quality 480p (or equivalent).

No argument there about HD, but notice I'm talking about excelling compared to DVD. DVD is not HD.

Notice how the Panasonic did a slightly better job at this outdoor scene than the Sony HDR-CX6 (yes, I know there's better Sony HD camcorders...), and far better than the Hitachi:
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/hd-camcorder,review-1066-8.html

However, have you seen the Hitcachi? Total crap:
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/hd-camcorder,review-1066-11.html

Generally I don't like the Panasonic, but I think you've misinterpreted me a tad -- I'm not giving it accolades. Comparing it to DVD is an insult, I think -- maybe I should have said "merely excellent DVD quality" not "excellent compared to DVD"; which could be a qualifier that applies to anything good HD... I was merely trying to insult it without insulting existing owners of the camera -- it's not bad compared to many of the crappy alternatives that's even worse than the Panasonic.

I agree that excellent optics will be the limiting factor. From what you wrote, I read you're also agreeing that HD video is still far behind resolution-equivalent stills through the exact same optics. So at least we agree on that point

A tiny RED Camera that can be helmet mounted would be a dream! You may have heard of the rave reviews by the RED Digital Cinema cameras. Did you know they are developing a pocket camcorder size model -- RED Scarlet -- maybe it will live up to its dreams. Ultra high end pocket memory card camera with RAW video recording capability. That means you can get your 4:4:4 and 1080p with RAW at 120 frames per second. It has a dual RAID CompactFlash memory card array (100MB/sec flash memory recording for RAW video at only $3000!).

This would be nearly lossless compression, according to my quick mental codec calculations, for 1920x1080 at 60 frames per second - with each individual frame competitive to top-quality JPEG stills, but for each and every frame. 100Mbytes/sec is enough for almost 2 megabytes per frame. For 1080p/60, and with the efficiency of motion compensated compression, this is may be similiar quality to 4:4:4 JPEG compressed at 99% quality. At slightly lower framerates such as 24p, it may actually record lossless video in RAW with just lossless compression algorithms. Time will tell. Now that's gonna require a powerful computer to convert it to H.264, so it's not going to be your quick tandem jump camera, but could be good for a theoretical future 450-way -- on one or two out of the many videographers that would be on such jump.... If I read right, it's a 3K format as in approximately 3072 pixel wide, bayer. (Don't take my word -- They clearly refer to 2K as 2048x1024, and 4K as 4096x2048 -- so I am definitely assuming 3K notation is somewhere in between. NAB seems to indicate this is the case. So at 3072x1536, this means for a bayer sensor, which RED uses, is about a hair above 6 megabytes uncompressed assuming 8 bits per channel (Though RED generally can record more bits per channel, optionally), which with a good lossless compression algorithm, might be able to squeeze into a 100Mbytes/sec stream. Hats off to them if they pull off full rez full bit depth lossless 3K/60fps recording without needing downconversion. But either way it'll definitely be near-lossless)

Sure, I'll just settle for less than this, and a much lower bitrate using good H.264 or even mere MPEG2, lesser quality optics, at least a much better video clip mode on a compact camera -- but at least this kind of camera (RED Scarlet) gives a promising taste of what's yet to come... They are actually scaring the 'traditional' brands a little.

[DSE 3]

I've seen TomsHardware reviews. No, I don't buy it. No, I don't accept it. Yes, they receive thousands of $$ in advertising from Panasonic directly.

Given that we own every camcorder in that "shootout" I'll suggest that there was some intentional bias

No offense to MB38, but a RED camera that simply WORKS would be great.

Using DVD as any basis of comparative doesn't do anyone any good. What encoder was used? What bitrate? One-pass? Two-pass? Multi-pass? In other words, nothing on a DVD can be compared. Variable resolution input, variable bitrate, variable encoders, anyone can take the same content and make it look bad (or good) on a DVD.

The other point is, even bad HD (at consumer levels) is better than good SD in virtually all cases, even when downconverted from HD to SD for delivery on DVD.

Yes, I agree that "HD video is still far behind resolution-equivalent stills through the exact same optics. " And have said so many, many times. (wrote that they would be in my first book on HD five years ago). They always will be. Peter Gloeggler (optics designer) has suggested they'll never match up, ever.

I don't think we're disagreeing as much as there may be different semantics in play, although I can't imagine anyone taking TomsHardware reviews of cameras to any degree of seriousness. Any more than I'd accept an HDforIndies.net review of computer hardware with any degree of seriousness.

[mdrejhon 8]

You may be right -- reviewer bias. Either way, we both agree a lot of consumer HD camcorders are plain crap!

Quote

Using DVD as any basis of comparative doesn't do anyone any good. What encoder was used? What bitrate? One-pass? Two-pass? Multi-pass? In other words, nothing on a DVD can be compared. Variable resolution input, variable bitrate, variable encoders, anyone can take the same content and make it look bad (or good) on a DVD.

Agreed -- It's really subjective. Right now we're getting into details...

Quote

The other point is, even bad HD (at consumer levels) is better than good SD in virtually all cases, even when downconverted from HD to SD for delivery on DVD.

In general, that's true, but...

At extremes, I would be inclined to disagree (Tomshardware nonwithstanding): I've seen really bad HD that looked worse than really good upconverted DVD. Have you seen the worst Comcast HD channels, for example - when they're multiplexed at 3 HD channels in one 6 Mhz slice? Good upconverted DVD in a top-end upconverting player to 1080p, looks better than some of that. (Just google "comcast HDTV compression" to see the nightmares posted on the Net)

Same thing applies, if we're talking about certain first-generation consumer HD recording.

The first model of Sanyo Xacti HD1 camcorder, for example, isn't nearly as good as the output from a top-of-the-line DV camcorder. The pixels on a HD sensor is much smaller, and the use of off-the-shelf compact still camera sensors, for use in motion HD, hasn't yet been a well-developed area of development, as well established DV, and of course, the camera skimped on its codec quite a bit, to the point where everything breaks up if there's any bit of motion. Hockey sharpness is better on a good DV camcorder than the worst HD camcorders. (As you talk about encoders, multi passes, etc -- you understand very well that poorly encoded HD can be worse than well encoded SD, even when SD is upconverted to HD). Say, Fifth Element DVD on a Columbia-Tristar Superbit DVD as one example of a superbly-encoded DVD disc. (There are many other examples, but this has been a classic example for a long time). This, upconverted to HD using a very good upconverter (i.e. Toshiba HDDVD player playing this DVD disc), look so much better than the video recorded by many of the current off-the-shelf HD camcorders. You probably know there are many ways to upconvert an image. I actually designed a deinterlacer/line doubler, so I am familiar with the science of upconverting. To a graphics designer, it's easy to imagine: Imagine purchasing a $300 Photoshop plugin to scale a 720x480 image to a 1920x1080 image to the best possible upconverting algorithms. This often look better than bilinear/bicubic scaling. It's not 100% full quality HD definitely, but it definitely looks better than the worse HD -- even blows away the current 2 megapixels consumer HD camcorders. Now, yes, you may argue we comparing apples to oranges, because the best DVD's are always much better than DV. But DVD's is still plain old standard definition. My argument still stands: The best SD always look better than the worst HD. And it still even applies to consumer camcorders: The best SD model can produce, on overall average, better output than the worst HD model. When all factors are judged in, quality of motion, noise, color, and to a certain extent -- even sharpness (influenced by things ranging from optics to excessive chroma downsampling). Have you tried panning a Sanyo Xacti HD1, or trying to film moving water in HD with some of these crappier models? Especially trying to capture white water rafting enthusiasts? Ugh - two models of current HD camcorders failed this test, while there were some DV camcorders that passed this test! Shockers, eh... The moving water is much sharper in DV. Now go film some white water rapids with the worst models, and tell me you're standing by your statement. Yes, most of the HD camcorders will be better (at their max quality settings), but you will observe some of them struggling far worse than the best DV.

Also, the color quality of the worst HD camcorders can be a lot worse than the color quality of the best SD camcorders -- i.e. red looking purple, etc. Many other factors... HD from a tiny CCD with one-third to one-sixth the pixel size of a really good SD sensor. One example is the millimeters-sized CCD of the Hitachi HD camcorder. If you've compared a really good 5 megapxel compact camera image to a 12 megapixel compact camera, you'll see that in many cases, the 5 megapixels look better overall, especially in lower light conditions, due to pixel size. Less noise in image. And noise plays havoc with motion codecs. Less need for detail-losing de-noising filters. Etc. So, I assume you're familiar with this. The same general problem actually afflicts HD versus SD camcorders -- to a somewhat lesser extent -- but the point is that you know as well as I do that extra pixels can actually hurt if the sensor pixels are too small -- try shooting all of them in low light situations, you'll notice the best MiniDV camcorders often do a better job of night shooting (especially in motion), although many HD camcorders are quickly getting better. Although there's a lot of overlap (good HD sensors and worse SD sensors), the worst low-light HD camcorder is total garbage compared to the best low-light SD camcorder (even of similiar camcorder size). When you're not allowed to use a video light, this can be a big concern. On average, the trend is that historcically, full-resolution HD camcorders are more sensitive to noise than full-resolution SD camcorders of the same sensor size, due to the 6:1 pixel size difference. Consumer optics aren't becoming 6 times better of a sudden for HD, so what results is a drop in low light quality when going from SD to HD of similiar sensor size (which is still noticeable even at just 3:1 pixel size difference)

Again, yes, the best HD always beats out the best SD. That's definitely guaranteed and that's what everyone can agree on.