Back to older camcorders???

[Laszloimage 0]

Every year a a bunch of new cameras, file formats, compressions and etc. come to the market. It's hard to keep up with as we know...
Tape is pretty much dead. But there were cameras made with still up to date capabilities or beyond, except their recording medium.
For example the Sony V1U, a kick-ass camcorder which couldn't utilize its true capabilty because of the lack of high data rate recording devices.
I just realized that now days we can buy SSD HDMI recording systems for an affordable price. For example a Balck Magic2 enclosure and a 128-160Gb SSD drive can be purchased for about $500.
This means a "good old" Sony V1U (and many other camcorders) can record true progressive 1080x1920 uncompressed 4:2:2 video vs. HDV onto tape which is MPEG2 1080x1440 in interlaced stream.
Most of those external systems also allow compressed recording, but the file format is still lot better than HDV or today's AVCHD. Further more these recorders allow editing directly from their drive on most NLE systems.
So it all seems to me recording externally through HDMI makes those cameras "better" than they were in their own time.
DSE and the other few experts please corret me ifmail] I'm wrong here!

[DSE 3]

Quote

Every year a a bunch of new cameras, file formats, compressions and etc. come to the market. It's hard to keep up with as we know...
Tape is pretty much dead. But there were cameras made with still up to date capabilities or beyond, except their recording medium.
For example the Sony V1U, a kick-ass camcorder which couldn't utilize its true capabilty because of the lack of high data rate recording devices.
I just realized that now days we can buy SSD HDMI recording systems for an affordable price. For example a Balck Magic2 enclosure and a 128-160Gb SSD drive can be purchased for about $500.
This means a "good old" Sony V1U (and many other camcorders) can record true progressive 1080x1920 uncompressed 4:2:2 video vs. HDV onto tape which is MPEG2 1080x1440 in interlaced stream.
Most of those external systems also allow compressed recording, but the file format is still lot better than HDV or today's AVCHD. Further more these recorders allow editing directly from their drive on most NLE systems.
So it all seems to me recording externally through HDMI makes those cameras "better" than they were in their own time.
DSE and the other few experts please corret me ifmail] I'm wrong here!

There is a lot of truth to what you're saying.
If you take the uncompressed 4:2:2 8 bit from the HDMI or SDI port on those cameras and run it into a Ninja or other portable recorder that can manage the stream, there is a massive difference between the HDV, AVC, AVCHD images, no doubt.

However, it's still interlaced (since you brought it up, assuming you have an issue with it), and depending on the camera, you'd perhaps still have some imager issues. All that said, many broadcasters have been using Z7 out the uncompressed port and converting with Convergent Design Micro or similar. Now with the AJA Ki, CD Nano, or Atmos Ninja...there are options for around 2500.00 that provide monitoring as well.

The glass makes a major difference, as does the offset, imager size, and DP, so it is a way to get a fixed lens camera cheap, and have it provide 4:2:2, 8bit uncompressed. Don't buy into the "10 bit off HDMI marketing hype; the last two bits are set to null, so it's still 8 bit (which is plenty fine for almost everything but the most intense grades)

[Laszloimage 0]

Spot,
Thank you very much for the info!
I wish if the new Canon Mark-III could output uncomprresed video too through its HDMI, but it doesn't The new Nikon D800 does though...

[Laszloimage 0]

Spot,
These two cost about $500:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/841023-REG/Blackmagic_Design_HYPERD_PT2_HyperDeck_Shuttle_2_SSD.html

http://www.ebay.com/itm/OCZ-Agility-3-120GB-Internal-Solid-State-Drive-AGT3-25SAT3-120G-SSD-NEW-SEALED-/320853717015?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4ab45f3017

They can do the job right?

[DSE 3]

The BMD certainly can. I'm not familiar with the other model. It claims the data rate, but I'm not sure that it'll sustain it.
I have a BMD box, used on an NX5

[Laszloimage 0]

Thank you for the valuable info!

[LouDiamond 1]

Saw THIS camera and thought of this thread. Talk about a throw back in form factor but the file format it saves in might be appealing to you and it seems you are not the only one that has noted the "older" cameras features are more desirable in some ways.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[Laszloimage 0]

Back to using older cameras again... :)
Does the good old HC3 output uncompressed 4:2:2? Even if it's interlaced... How about CX100?
The HC3 still seems to me better from the sensor aspect right?
It would be great to use these older cameras in some low budget aerial projects with higher quality unitizing the BMD or the Ninja...

[DSE 3]

Yes, they output 4:2:2 uncompressed 8 bit over the HDMI output. I cannot tell you if it's a clocked/stable output, however. I believe it probably is. I still have an HC5, but no ninja with me in Utah.

[Laszloimage 0]

Thank you so much for the valuable info as always! You saved me some time from reading through a bunch of usless google results... :)
I'm exited to use the HC3 with one of these external recorders.
I'll decide at B&H wheter I get BMD or Ninja. I like the LCD monitor on the Ninja, the BMD seems to have few more options for less money...

[DSE 3]

FWIW, the guys that make the Ninja have amazing customer service. The BMD crew are great too, but I kinda like the CS of Convergent.
BMD are finally getting a great USA crew together. Their Australian crew/reps can't be beaten, IMO. They're the L&B of I/O.

[Laszloimage 0]

Thanks again Spot!