I hope we get HDV soon :(

Discussion in 'Video Cameras' started by SjT, Sep 8, 2004.

  1. SjT

    SjT Guest

    Sony are bringing out the HDR-FX1 Handycam camcorder which
    records and plays back high definition video with 1080 interlaced
    lines of resolution (1440 pixels x 1080 lines) supposedly the first
    HDV 1080i consumer camcorder available. But i hear there's already a
    JVC out there?

    Thing that really bugs me is why haven't we got HDV/HDTV Over here
    yet?! 1440x1080 video resolution sounds awesome and i would love to
    see it in action!

    News story:
    http://news.sel.sony.com/pressrelease/5118
     
    SjT, Sep 8, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. SjT

    SjT Guest

    There's nothing i like more than finding a love letter from Tony
    Yeah i appreciate that, but i would really love to see what High def
    TV looks like, it must look soo much better.

    Also, i heard that even DVD's which have been originally recorded
    using HDV will look noticeably better, and surely the higher
    resolution during editing will improve the rendering process? Rather
    much like editing with 24 Bit 96k Audio, only to reduce it to 16 bit
    44.1k at the end for CD?
     
    SjT, Sep 8, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. SjT

    :::Jerry:::: Guest

    Frigging idiotic thing to say, how do you think it IS distributed in places
    like the USA !...

    The problem in this country is that those who make these sorts of decisions
    have decided what *we* want is LDTV but with some 999 low quality channels
    to chose from - probably because most of those channels have to pay for a
    licence to broadcast.

    Call me cynical if you like....
     
    :::Jerry::::, Sep 8, 2004
    #3
  4. SjT

    SjT Guest

    There's nothing i like more than finding a love letter from
    What i want to know is how the hell they split these channels into
    interactive channels, for example the football first on Sky sports you
    can watch highlights from about 8 different feeds within one channel.

    Does this mean their broadcast could be using 8x the bitrate (Or
    however it is measured) to give us some real nice looking tv?
     
    SjT, Sep 8, 2004
    #4
  5. SjT

    :::Jerry:::: Guest

    Well they seem to manage in the USA, and as for cost, well all new
    technology is expencive to start with, be that personal computers, colour
    television, even micro-wave ovens were expensive to start with...
    Stop showing your ignorance Morgan, how about HD TV's, like they have in the
    USA ?!
    Well take that attitude and we would still have 405 line BW TV !
    You really are showing your total ignorance today you great plank, broadcast
    quality has nothing to do with viewing on a TV as such, it has everything to
    do with the production and transmission process to the TV aerial so that
    there is a watchable picture at the end of the process - Why do you think
    VHS etc. (and even some DV) stuff shown on programmes like 'You've been
    framed' look so ruddy awful (considering that when watched via the camera
    onto a local TV set it looks OK) ?...
    I had a good mind to cross post this thread the broadcast group and then
    have a good laugh at Morgan's expense...
     
    :::Jerry::::, Sep 8, 2004
    #5
  6. In my case a Barco digital projector at BAFTA in Piccadilly. Looked pretty
    good even on a full size cinema screen.
    A good point Tony. Readily available display devices, plasma or otherwise,
    barely do justice to the resolution available to us now.
    Except that that does of course have a beneficial effect on the CD quality.
    But once again you may need very expensive gear to discern the improvement.
    Certainly a waste in a country interested only in flogging off spectrum to
    the highest bidder who then has to cram in as many channels as possible in
    order to get his money back. No one is very willing to provide high quality
    sources.

    With British broadcasters ploughing the quantity over quality furrow, if
    they don't buck their ideas up they won't be able to sell their technically
    poor output to more discerning audiences overseas. Fortunately if the number
    of seminars for HD and tapeless production that I am invited to is anything
    to go by they are beginning to realise that.
     
    Malcolm Knight, Sep 8, 2004
    #6
  7. Yes, they could, but Sky premium channels do use reasonable bitrates.
    Sky are currently broadcasting high definition tests in H.264 AVC, as
    have the BBC, and plan to broadcast it in 2006.

    Regarding HDV, there's a sample recorded from the JVC camcorder at
    <http://www.rdkleinpowerb.de/computertrend/video3/sandiegohafen1.m2t>,
    which can be viewed on a PC (with Video Lan Client), and can be
    displayed on a HDTV.

    As for distribution, the result could be written to a DVD recordable,
    or (I assume, as I don't have one) D-VHS.
     
    Christopher Quigley, Sep 8, 2004
    #7
  8. SjT

    Guest Guest

    We have NTSC HDTV content at work, both movies and mfr demos.
    To be frank, it is disappointing - not a patch on the original Sony analogue
    HDTV demos in the late 1980s - it was jaw-droppingly good, but even then,
    the monitors cost £30k, and the demo loops were very short because of the
    storage requirements.
    It certainly doesn't hold a candle to _good_ PAL content - but it is encoded
    for cable TV at about 19Mbit/sec.

    If you want to see good HDTV content in the UK, the Crown Jewels exhibit at
    the Tower of London has some really good (==cinema quality) content
    presented on Barco projectors.

    PeterS
    Remove my PANTS to reply.
     
    Guest, Sep 8, 2004
    #8
  9. SjT

    :::Jerry:::: Guest

    Funny that, people said the same about television, colour television,
    computers, personal computers, the internet, personal home access to the
    internet etc. etc. etc. ...

    Morgan, you really should get a clue !
     
    :::Jerry::::, Sep 8, 2004
    #9
  10. SjT

    SjT Guest

    There's nothing i like more than finding a love letter from Tony
    Just how the yanks view it, on an nice big HDTV capable device :D
    Ahhh but you can notice the difference, i wasn't being sarcastic! :D
     
    SjT, Sep 9, 2004
    #10
  11. SjT

    :::Jerry:::: Guest

    No, just two people, who have never even e-mailed each other off group
    (before someone asks), that both have at least some knowledge of the
    broadcast world.
    Exactly, but that is not a problem if broadcasters go for quality rather
    than quantity, the USA IS slowly going over to both digital broadcast and
    HDTV.
    I'm starting to wonder if TM has the wrong end of the stick on HDTV ?...
     
    :::Jerry::::, Sep 9, 2004
    #11
  12. SjT

    SjT Guest

    There's nothing i like more than finding a love letter from Tony
    Surely if the quality is better during the editing stage, no matter
    how crap the final output - be it VCD SVCD or DVD, it will benefit in
    some way?!
     
    SjT, Sep 9, 2004
    #12
  13. SjT

    SjT Guest

    There's nothing i like more than finding a love letter from "Spam
    'Good' PAL content = ?

    You are referring to DVD content? or better? Or you saying HDTV
    appears no better than our current PAL TV broadcasts?
     
    SjT, Sep 9, 2004
    #13
  14. SjT

    :::Jerry:::: Guest

    Well that is obvious ! But as there was no colour television in peoples
    homes back in the early 1960's one has to wonder why the BBC (and others)
    bothered to develop it - other then the fact that they know it was the next
    step forward....
    It will be noted that Tony (two planks) Morgan has edited out the remark by
    'sjt' about people in the USA actually owning HDTV sets and that some
    broadcasters are broadcasting in HD on a regular bases. I suspect 'sjt' is
    one of the few people on this group who has actually watched HDTV in a 'real
    world' situation.

    The 1990 Olympics television coverage was HD capable, the 2004 Olympics had
    some HD coverage, the 2008 AIUI will be HD. On another tack, DV Magazine
    regularly has pages on HD 'broadcasting' (from acquisition to broadcast),
    Adam Wilt recently used his column to write about the practicality of
    editing HD video, Pinnacle are rumoured to be HD enabling Liquid Edition in
    the next version (even Vegas are rumoured to be following, when they do
    perhaps TM will then accept that HDTV is happening).
     
    :::Jerry::::, Sep 9, 2004
    #14
  15. SjT

    SjT Guest

    There's nothing i like more than finding a love letter from Tony
    But surely the improved resolution of HDV will result in fare better
    editing prior to being rendered into whatever the final format is
    going to be?

    Or are you saying that a VCD produced from editing in MPEG DVD Format
    is going to be better than one edited using AVI MiniDV Clips?

    For starters you would be able to crop and zoom in on sections of HDV
    to a far greater quality than you could with MiniDV footage?
     
    SjT, Sep 9, 2004
    #15
  16. SjT

    Jukka Aho Guest

    On a related note,

    <http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/archive/ovrsamp.mspx>

    (See esp. the paragraph beginning with the words "The reason
    oversampling works...")
     
    Jukka Aho, Sep 9, 2004
    #16
  17. Availability has to vary from country to country in the sense that some have
    already used suitable spectrum for other things. That's why digital radio is
    on very different frequencies in France to those in the UK and the US is
    having such difficulty in finding a system suitable for the situation they
    find themselves in. Look across the Irish Sea for more differences in
    frequency use.

    What I was saying is that not all countries take the mercenary view we do
    and some may even (Hallelujah!) allow technical quality to enter the
    equation. Ofcom is a very differrent beast to the old IBA. They controlled
    technical standards but under Ofcom's 'self regulation' regime broadcasters
    can do pretty well what they like.
    If I did I apologise but if you think gratuitious insults from you are going
    to persuade me to look back over old posts to help you out then you can
    forget it. What I do remember is that I agreed with much of your post and
    wondered as I sent it whether Jerry might have a go at me for doing so.
    Which is the bit I agreed with although I rather wish I hadn't because there
    are too many unstated caveats. I was confining myself to the view that few
    TVs allow you to see the benefits of Y/C over good composite so what hope
    higher resolution without serious money being lavished.
    Is that saying that the only situation that can benefit from improved
    standards is news gathering by satellite? Surely not. I've read some silly
    statements from you in my time but that must rank amongst the gems.
     
    Malcolm Knight, Sep 10, 2004
    #17
  18. Is that why Hollywood now produces some movies with HD video and Sony and
    others have gear available to allow them to do so and when I've seen the
    results on a cinema screen it's been indistinguishable from good film (but
    without the scratches) - or is it all a myth?
     
    Malcolm Knight, Sep 10, 2004
    #18
  19. SjT

    :::Jerry:::: Guest

    <snip>

    I doubt you have ever seen a live satellite news feed in your life Tony,
    what you will have seen is a satellite feed after it has gone through the
    broadcast chain - unless you are in the habit of satellite 'DX' ing.
     
    :::Jerry::::, Sep 10, 2004
    #19
  20. I think I'm beginning to understand your convoluted and somewhat Luddite
    thinking. You are saying that only a satellite phone link is bad enough to
    be seen as poor on the average TV and therefore it's the only signal path
    that needs to be improved. I do wonder why high value productions use 10 bit
    4:2:2 systems rather than 8 bit 4:2:0 and it's not hard to see the
    difference but I'll let that pass..
    My total statements before you started your habitual ill informed arguements
    were...

    1) A good point Tony. Readily available display devices, plasma or
    otherwise, barely do justice to the resolution available to us now.

    2) Except that that does of course have a beneficial effect on the CD
    quality. But once again you may need very expensive gear to discern the
    improvement.

    3) With British broadcasters ploughing the quantity over quality furrow, if
    they don't buck their ideas up they won't be able to sell their technically
    poor output to more discerning audiences overseas. Fortunately if the number
    of seminars for HD and tapeless production that I am invited to is anything
    to go by they are beginning to realise that.

    4) The BBC have already announced their intention to go tapeless within
    IIRC, 6 years. With HD being a reality in the US already the commercial
    opportunities are already there. Have you not seen the domestic sized HD
    camcorders from Sony, JVC etc?

    Which of those was so inaccurate that you decided to come out fighting Tony?
    Which of them did you see as an attack on your boundless knowledge of every
    facet of video known to man?
    Why are you not still using Hi8 are similar?
    If you had passed your comprehension test at school you would understand
    point 1) above.
    PAL and NTSC exist only at the very end of the viewing chain and are already
    being supplanted. Ever looked around the backside of even a relatively cheap
    DVD player?
    Don't forget to look skywards too, although some countries have bandwidth
    free on terrestrial channels. You stated earlier that every country is in
    the same boat with available bandwidth. Not true, geography has a bearing on
    it. The US and Australia are already leaving us behind in part because of
    their advantages in that department.
    Taking out of context is almost ineveitable with newsnet postings after
    innumerable snips. I suppose you will claim next that you are never guilty.
    If so please explain to us which of my four statements you can disprove and
    which caused you to go on the war path once again. And while you are about
    it please let us know how it is that whenever there is a disagreement here
    you are at the centre of it.
     
    Malcolm Knight, Sep 10, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.