SONY UNVEILS WORLD'S FIRST HDV 1080i CONSUMER CAMCORDER

Discussion in 'Amateur Video Production' started by Gary Bettan, Sep 7, 2004.

  1. Gary Bettan

    Mike Kujbida Guest

    One word comes to mind immediately.
    AAAGGGHHH!!!
    After reading all the "hype" about this camera, I spent time reading Adam
    WIlt's articles (Editing HDV, Mind the GOP & Size Isn't Everything: Aspects
    of Image Quality) on www.dv.com about the whole issue of editing with this
    stuff. End result, I'm more worried and confused than ever :)

    Consider me one of the "old" guys. I learned about video on Sony B&W 1/2"
    reel-to-reel VTRs (AV-3600). I then "graduated" to Sony EV-320 (the
    original 1" VTR). From there to 3/4", BetaCam & MII and finally mini-DV.
    Throughout most of these changes, the underlying technology stayed fairly
    consistent. Sure, things like gen-lock no longer meant timing switchers to
    the nanosecond using delay lines but the basics remained the same. The last
    few years have been a virtual explosion of new formats and the resulting
    things to be learned. When I went to college, we had no idea we would have
    to learn about things like codecs and their associated problems.


    An article I read just this past week was talking about similar issues and
    said that the shooter of today HAS to be aware of which medium his/her
    footage will end up on so that they can shoot accordingly to maximize the
    end result. Say what!! As a shooter, I care about getting the best image
    quality possible. I shouldn't have to worry about maximizing it for
    playback on a dial-up line, a DSL line, a satellite braodcast, etc. In
    theory, that's someone else's job. Doesn't sound like it's going to be
    though.

    My biggest fear is that the average consumer will buy (get pushed?) into
    another new format and will get evn more lost than thery are now. Just read
    some of the posts here about the simple questions people are asking, things
    that we take for granted but are completely new to them. And most folks are
    now aware of resources like this. Instead, they get their information from
    the sales clerk at Best Buy/Future Shop/Circuit City - and we all know how
    "knowledgeable" some of them are. Case in point - I was at the local Future
    Shop last week and came across Monster Cable sets for doing a component
    hook-up for a DVD player. It was $200 Canadian for a 1 metre (3 ft.)
    piece!!! The sales clerk attemted to justify the price by saying this was
    their "premium" grade. When I told him I could do it for less than $5 with
    3 lengths of good coax, he refused to believe me. This is the same kid who
    told me Monster Audio cable was worth the price too. Oh well :-(

    Mike
     
    Mike Kujbida, Sep 10, 2004
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. That DV article was terribly out of date (or he was just plain uninformed.) This
    particular HD format is in fact going to have a plug in that works with
    Premiere. I've read quite a few things that say editing HDTV is in fact much
    easier than the DV article stated. I thought that in the next issue Adam Wilt
    corrected his pessimistic vision of HDTV editing. What he failed to realize is
    that modern computer's have lots and lots of horsepower, which should be plenty
    to do the job.
     
    Big Brother is Watching You, Sep 10, 2004
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Gary Bettan

    Mike Kujbida Guest


    Uninformed? Adam Wilt? Hardly.
    I know what his background is. What's yours?

    For a start, which of the 3 articles I quoted are you referring to?
    If your referring to "Editing HDV", it could be considered out of date as it
    was in the August 2004 issue and, since magazines typically have a 3-month
    lead time, it was probably written sometime in May. Still, I saw nothing in
    the article even close to your comments about his "pessimistic vision". For
    example, in the 5th paragraph, he wrote:
    "Modern PCs are fast. They're so fast that they've got plenty of power to
    handle the user-interface aspects of nonlinear editing, and have enough left
    over to handle the hassle of fetching and decompressing long-GOP video in
    the background, with no perceptible impact on system responsiveness."
    Sounds to me like he does realize computers have lots and lots of
    horsepower, contrary to your statement.

    The other 2 articles were written for the April & May 2004 issues. The lead
    time required means that he wrote them before NAB happened which is when a
    lot of new hardware and software hits the market.

    Yes, Premiere has announced a plug-in for the HDV format - so did Ulead the
    very same day. But guess what? Using the Cineform plug-in, Vegas can do it
    now.

    Mike
     
    Mike Kujbida, Sep 10, 2004
    #23
  4. Gary Bettan

    nappy Guest

    That's kind of an amatuerish viewpoint. horsepower is largely irrelevant.
    Premiere is NOT an MPEG editor. MPEG is a format that depends on frame
    history so editing it is a pain in the ass, code wise. This is NOT HDTV ..
    is it MPEG2 at 1440x1080. Think of it like that. MPEG is a delivery format.
    Not really a good originating format. DV is a format which is compressed on
    a frame basis with no history needed. Each frame has its own compression. So
    editing is much easier.

    I have seen a few of your posts here and while you are more than welcome ,
    you can learn a lot by simply watching some of the discussions and asking
    questions.. ." listen more and talk less ". Adam Wilt is a highly
    respected DV author and while I don't know everything he has ever written I
    am respectful of him because of what I have read.


    I think Adam WAS talking about 'modern computers' as opposed to antique
    computers. That's a given. He's definately computer savvy and up to date.
    Count on that.
     
    nappy, Sep 10, 2004
    #24
  5. Premiere can edit HDV now with a new Main Concept MPEG II TS codec. Premiere
    pro forums show lots of problems for people using this setup. Some or all of
    the issues might be from the JVC camera, as that's the only HDV unit in use at
    this time. Future Adobe in-house solution could be better or worse.
    Vegas 5 can handle the HDV mpeg II TS (transport steam) files captured with
    the KDDI Studio Pro LE software that ships with the JVC cameras. Vegas is
    considered a "native mpeg" editor when used this way. Vegas 5 can print back to
    HDV tape all on its own just fine. It does require everything be rendered from
    a 6 frame GOP to a 15 frame GOP mpeg ts file. That means a render hit for cuts
    only projects. Steve Mullen has a Vegas 5 review in the aug. video systems
    magazine. With a 3.2ghz P4 it took him 10 mins. to render a 4.5 min project
    that had a few simple transitions. Adding a filter to every clip slipped the
    render to 16 minutes. First project on the KDDI Edit Studio Pro LE showed 3
    minutes. It renders to a 6 frame GOP file.
    Steve didn't offer any info on how the end results LOOKED. That's the info we
    are all waiting to hear. Will the new Sony handle high contrast areas better
    than the JVC? As a reference, the 19Mb stream from the JVC is the same data
    rate broadcasters use to transmit HDTV. The Sony is using 25Mb, might be that
    much better.
    In the end, all these HDV cams also do DV so I guess it's a no brainer where
    the market is heading. Kinda safe investment.
    Pinnacle might be THE HDV NLE. They have GOP MPEG in their blood and the
    new Pinnacle Liquid Edition 6 has a new interface. Who knows at this point?
    All I do know is that these are really heady times for video geeks. Get to go
    play with a friends XL2 tomorrow. Whoohoo

    Craig Holtorf
     
    HighPeaksVideo, Sep 10, 2004
    #25
  6. Gary Bettan

    david.mccall Guest

    Oh, I'm sure it makes a "measurable difference", but I'll bet very few
    people
    could tell the difference in a double blind test. Have you seen the "monster
    cables"
    they want you to use to get good bass in your car? It looks like the welding
    cable we used for a 400 amp tie-in. Yeah, that ought to carry the bass the
    6'
    it has to go to get from the amp to the woofers :)

    I just did a theatrical production that called for a lot of bass to simulate
    explosions.
    I used a pair of 40 year old stereo bookshelf speakers (12" woofer) driven
    by
    a 30 year old Crown DC-300A by way of ~50' runs of thin lamp cord, with a
    consumer JBL subwoofer. It worked surprisingly well. I suspect the welding
    cable
    wasn't even needed, even for the long runs. I also suspect you could tell
    the
    difference between decent wire, and lamp cord, but I haven't tested it.
    I think some of the fancy cables are a bit of overkill.

    David
     
    david.mccall, Sep 10, 2004
    #26
  7. Gary Bettan

    nappy Guest

    good info all.
     
    nappy, Sep 10, 2004
    #27
  8. Gary Bettan

    Mike Kujbida Guest


    I'm reminded of a CBC study done years ago when Monster cable first came
    out. They were considering it as their primary audio cable so they ran very
    extensive tests comparng it to several other brands. Their conclusion -
    lamp cord was just as good :)

    Mike
     
    Mike Kujbida, Sep 10, 2004
    #28
  9. Gary Bettan

    Five Guest

    Back in the 80's we did testing with multiple wire
    types, and sizes. We were quite surprised that the
    larger sized wire did not always sound the best.
    In fact, we obtained the best sound consistently with
    standard thin phone cable. Even with bass response.
    Sound quality was also quite different with high end
    speakers, and it sounded better on the speakers that
    had multiple drivers. It was so pronounced, that we
    could actually do a "blind" test, using blind people
    to tell the differences 99% of the time.

    Ok, so I am kidding about using blind people, but we
    did obtain the results stated with seeing eyed
    persons.

    When it comes to sound quality, bigger is not always
    better, I have found it is more the summ of all parts.
     
    Five, Sep 10, 2004
    #29
  10. Gary Bettan

    david.mccall Guest

    Very interesting.

    I'll bet you can "see" the difference on a scope,
    but I never look at scopes when listening to audio.
    Nor do most people.

    David
     
    david.mccall, Sep 10, 2004
    #30
  11. Gary Bettan

    nappy Guest

    It is supposedly all about the 'skin' effect regarding high frequencies. Add
    to that super low capacitance and resistance. Trouble is.. no one can tell
    the difference. Except Monster Cable salesman, of course.

    ..
     
    nappy, Sep 10, 2004
    #31
  12. Gary Bettan

    david.mccall Guest

    Well that was my first chuckle today. Thanks
    David
     
    david.mccall, Sep 10, 2004
    #32
    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.