Prosumer HD cam?

[Dr Mordrid]

Looks like a Canon;

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20021001/ceatec39.jpg

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20021001/ceatec40.jpg

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20021001/ceatec41.jpg

Someone also needs to learn to spell "Definition"

Dr. Mordrid

[Greebe]

hehe... nice lookin cam otherwise

[JerryH]

What kind of signal is that Blue cable carrying, SDI?

[Jerry Jones]

Somebody on the Ulead e-mail list claimed it was a JVC model that will sell for $2500 - $3500.

We'll see.

Pretty interesting, however.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Dr Mordrid]

I totally agree. Dunno if that's an SDI cable or not, but we can hope

Terry

[funky-d-munky]

Wow this opens up a can-o-worms!
My thoughts, it clearly states mini-dv on the lcd flip-out. HD, SD, DV switchable, how? Same tape. How many minutes of HD would you get on a mini-dv tape 15,20?
No way 2500-3500$. Maybe 25,000 to 35,000. But hope to hell I'm wrong ;^)
With Cannon , JVC, and Pan all just releasing 1/3" 3ccd mini-dv's (which all look just like camera in question) this camera would destroy their own and everyones product lines.
One can hope.

[wkulecz]

I don't know, given that most of the recent DV cams seem to have megapixel sensors 1080i shouldn't be too hard to do

Recording time could be increased by more compression, or another slower tape speed, or combination.

VHS-C has hung on with a 20-30 minute recording time per tape.

Leapfrogging has big reward for the leaper. I don't think the 3CCD camcorders are much of a cash cow, certainly not Panasonic or JVC -- I've never even seen one of these around here. Canon and Sony yes, but the others appear web order only in all the stores I frequent.

--wally.

[mits]

Hi, according to October's issue of Greek magazine "Hxos & Eikona" (Sound and Vision) this photo demonstrates the new JVC DV camera which records on Blu-Ray disc with a resolution of 720p. The article is on the new products section and is about blu-ray disc products.

[Brian Ellis]

Yia sou, Mits

If this is Blu-Ray, then these photos are probably a concept dummy. This "technology" is just on paper: you cannot buy anything, yet, and it is unlikely you will be able to this side of 2005, at the earliest. OTOH, 720 pixels width is not HD, nor anything like it. This is a standard DV width.

As far as Blu-Ray is concerned, if it does get off the ground, it will initially be a playback-only system for HD cinema. The mechanical precision required to ensure correct tracking may very well rule it out for portable equipment, not to mention the enormous battery drain, assuming that it will be possible to make recordable discs at an affordable price.

I must admit that there is one thing puzzling me. Blue lasers are more or less synonymous with HDTV. Without HD, they have no real raison d'être. Yet we still do not have an international HDTV standard for broadcasting. So is not Blu-Ray just going to remain an academic novelty, as there will not be a mass market? If it is developed before HDTV becomes a world-wide reality (and remember that at least 90% of the world is still on analogue TV, not even digital), then anything using the technology will be very highly priced without economy of scale.

[mits]

Hi Brian, i have attached an image scanned from the magazine, which states that the products shown below were demonstrated at the CEATEC exhibition in Japan. I have put numbers on the 6 photos as an index to the translation i made.

1. Philips also comes to business.
2. Sony says to blue era
3. Camcorder from JVC records at 720p. For even better pics on your vacation.
4. Pioneer 949 ? No, it's Pioneer's first Blu-ray
5.The first blu-ray disc. Single layer 25GB, double layer 50GB*
6. Demo disc from Sony. Movies : "spiderman", "men in black II", "panic room" and more are on this disc.

*For the camcorder the article reads that it records at 720p(progrssive i assume) while tadays camcorders record at 576i(interlaced i assume again)

If this is wrong info, then it is the magazine that fooled me; but i want to believe that it is not.

[Pace]

<em>Tip of the day</em>

Hi Mits, click here: <a href="http://forums.murc.ws/editpost.php?s=&action=editpost&postid=305661"><im g src="http://forums.murc.ws/images/edit.gif" border="0" alt="How to delete a post :-)"></a>

Then check delete, and press "Delete Now"

[miya]

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/hd_recording_camcorder_jvc_ceatec_japan_10_02_02.htm

[Brian Ellis]

OK, Miya's info is much more credible. It is NOT Blu-Ray, nor is it real HDTV at 1280 x 720 (the vertical resolution is only 25% better than standard PAL and the horizontal is only 15% better than a theoretical 16:9 ratio 625 line system).

OK, I have a question: we record a special DV tape at 1280 x 720. What are we going to view it on? A TV set? This is a new non-standard and therefore doomed to failure, IMHO. An interesting essay, though.

[dZeus]

Originally posted by Brian Ellis
OK, Miya's info is much more credible. It is NOT Blu-Ray, nor is it real HDTV at 1280 x 720 (the vertical resolution is only 25% better than standard PAL and the horizontal is only 15% better than a theoretical 16:9 ratio 625 line system).

1280x720 is not 'real' HD ? Why not???
1280 is 15% higher definition than 'theoretical 16:9 ratio 625 system'???? I don't know what kind of theoretical system you are thinking of, but if you buy a widescreen (NTSC or PAL) DV cam, it still only has 720 pixels horizontal resolution. In my calculations 1280 is 78% more resolution than 720...

[Brian Ellis]

dZeus

I was not talking about PAL or NTSC standards as they exist but a theoretical 625 line 16:9 system with equal horizontal and vertical resolution (square pixels). The classical calculation is 625 x 16/9 = 1111 equivalent pixels. Divide this into 1280 and you get 1.152, i.e., 15.2% more. 720/576 = 1,25, 16/9 =1.78. The 16:9 ratio is therefore a total nonsense in PAL format, as it stretches each pixel horizontally by 42.4%. This is exacerbated by the fact that the luma resolution of commercial TV sets is not able even to resolve 360 equivalent lines (720 pixels) on interlaced scan but start to fall off at about 280-300 lines. This would be even worse on progressive scan at 50 fps.