Sony's HDV 1080i Consumer Camcorder

An anonymous reader writes "Sony has just announced a high-definition video camcorder that records in 1080i. A site was just created with a lot of information about the camcorder. The camcorder uses the HDV spec which records to standard MiniDV tapes. It includes 3 CCDs and along with the announcement it appears Apple and Adobe are now supporting the HDV standard. The camcorder carries a steep price at $3,700 though. See the original press release as well, though it doesn't contain much information."

beware: sony is too proprietary

[Anonymous Coward]

sony has sold mini-dv recorders for years, and they don't release drivers for them. you can use their proprietary software to transfer video, but the device is not recognized and not standard, and they don't update the software so you are pretty much stuck with the crap they gave you when you bought, frozen crap frozen in time.

sony is the opposite of open source and illustrates why open source is so important.

Data transfer and storage

[Bog Standard]

I wonder how much storage space is on it, and how long it will take to transfer onto a PC/Editing system given 1080i's bandwidth requirements?

Re:Interesting

[Agent Green]

Actually, given the benefits of progressive scan, I'm surprised there isn't more equipment in 1080p...especially since the quality difference is apparent.

On the other hand...if you think about how much camcorders cost around 20 years ago...adjust for inflation...this really not all that expensive. I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers the separate cameras and recording decks of days long past.

I'd be particularly wary of buying any NTSC/PAL camcorders with the new HD standards that are going to be set in the next few years. I'm hoping that by the time I have kids, there'll be more choices on the market with this kind of recording quality.

I don't understand 1080i

[MobyDisk]

Why does anyone still make interlaced devices? I thought everyone agreed that progressive scan was better. Wouldn't they be better off with 540p than 1080i? It seems to me that it would be easier to make the device, and similar or better quality.

Am I missing something?

1080i = 540p

[augustz]

It is really surprising that we have interlaced standards in the HDTV specs.

Basically, 1080i = 540 lines / refresh.
720p has 720 lines per refresh.

The problem with interlacing is that it introduces or exacerbates certain visual artifacts. This is one of the reasons some of the networks are sticking with 720p for their HDTV broadcasts.

Whether this interlaced standard is a carryover from the consumer electronics folks or not, I would stick with 720p until something nicer comes out. Be interesting to know the history here. Computer LCD makers are well settled on progressive displays at this point.

Is 1080p in the standard? I didn't think it was....

Anyways, fun stuff.

HDV recording, saved as MPEG2???

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats the point of having a system that records HDV, but must use MPEG2 compresion to store it on miniDV tapes that it uses?

Am I not getting something here??

Phil.

Very nice

[Hypharse]

I for one welcome our new hi-def amateur porn overlords.

On a serious note. I have been thinking about things like this for a while. It's not exactly a highly original thought, but more and more of high end hardware/software/electronics/mechanics are becoming available to the normal joe. This has been widely known and considered with apache/linux/mysql/php/etc., but it is happening in many realms other than software.

I think that we are stepping into a creative boon as a result of this. When only large profit-intensive, single-minded corporations have access to these types of materials you don't see much creativity in how they are used. However, you stick that power with a vast majority of the public and you are going to have some incredibly original and creative ideas. I am looking forward to the creativity too....Doggy style is so 20th century.

Re:1080i = 540p

[AGTiny]

1080p is there but the bandwidth to broadcast this just isn't there. Some 1080p displays are starting to come out.

You can't really say 1080i = 540p. You are right that 1080i is 2 540 fields interlaced, but those are FIELDS, i.e. offset horizontal lines. Combined they do produce 1080 lines of resolution. Native 540p is basically just NTSC, and 1080i can easily said to be amazingly higher quality than NTSC. Most people can also spot the difference between 720p and 1080i too. I can tell when watching ABC/ESPN 720p football compared to CBS/HDNet 1080i football. I don't have a native 720p display though, to be fair, and 1080i does have more motion artifacts. It's generally agreed that 720p is best for fast-moving sports, and 1080i for slow shots, documentaries, 35mm film transfers, etc.

Re:1080i = 540p

[otis wildflower]

Some 1080p displays are starting to come out.

How much $$$? I'm sorry, Costco has spoiled me, I want >50" 1080p for less than $4000...

You can't really say 1080i = 540p.

Close enough for mouthbreathers ;)

Seriously, if you get your hands on a 1080p (like a 23-24" WUXGA screen) display and preprocess 1080i, it should be OK... A good line processor should be able to buffer enough to compensate for jitter, and that kind of thing is getting built into PC vidcards nowadays...

It's generally agreed that 720p is best for fast-moving sports, and 1080i for slow shots, documentaries, 35mm film transfers, etc.

EXACTLY. It really depends on what you watch. For DVD upconverters, 1080i is fine...

Re:Interesting

[LocalH]

I don't see that as a problem. 720p is the current top-end for "real" HD. 1080i is not "real" in my eyes because it is interlaced.

It's time we dropped interlacing completely (funnily enough, I was told that was one of the big benefits to digital, that you get 60 discrete full-resolution frames per second, and not 59.94 or 29.97 or some fucked up number). Had I been in charge of the FCC, when CBS threatened to pull their HD over the broadcast flag, I'd have told them, "hahaha, go ahead and pull it, 1080i sucks cock anyway, and so does the broadcast flag".

Plus, devices that are natively 1080i will have to upconvert 720p, which will cause an immediate resolution loss of 1/2 the full 1080i pixel array, since you're converting from 60 full frames per second, to 60 fields per second. And that's not even figuring in the resizing process from 1920x1080 to 1280x720.

I'd rather see 1080i downconverted to 720p, so that the 720p signal will run at native resolution . 720p is the current sweet spot for quality in HDTV, and people completely miss it because "1080 is bigger, durrrrr".

Interlacing should have NEVER BEEN ALLOWED INTO THE DIGITAL STANDARD AT ALL. Legacy interlaced material running at 59.94 fields/sec can be converted to 480p/29.97fps with absolutely NO loss, only problem is you get mice teeth (but they could just bob it in the receiver). For material shot and produced for HD, there should NEVER be any interlacing, EVER. Interlacing was only used as a cheap analog way of compressing the signal at a 1:2 ratio. Now that we have the bandwidth, there is no reason we can't have 60 discrete frames per second.

Oh, and don't even get me started on why we are already locked into MPEG-2 for DTT, despite the availability of better compression methods. Or why companies that broadcast on two separate NTSC licenses (commonly known as 'duopolies') are only being given one 19Mbps ATSC license? Due to this, such companies can NOT offer true HD for both stations. If the analog side of your station broadcasts on two 6MHz channels (discounting translators, etc - just the main transmitter), then you should get two 19Mbps ATSC licenses, point blank.

Digital TV sucks. It will be the end of television, as we know it. Mark my words.