Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Are there any camcorder formats that allow real HD resolutions?

This is topic Are there any camcorder formats that allow real HD resolutions? in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000595

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-26-2007, 06:24 AM:

Most camcorder formats I see such as DVCPROHD, HDV and others only record a maximum of 1440x1080 (displayed as a 16:9 picture) and 960x720. This causes my bowels to quiver. I demand the full 1920x1080 at multiple framerates. 1440 horizontal pixels? And interframe codecs? I would expect that from a camera made by Fisher Price which records its video onto audio cassette tapes, but cameras costing $5000 and up?

There is no reason why this can't be done technically and for a reasonable price. The only "reasoning" I can see is because movie studios would cry and whine that the consumer has access to nearly as much quality as they do hardware wise since movies shot digitally aren't any better than HDTV in the slightest bit at all.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-26-2007, 03:20 PM:

I thought Panasonic's HVX-200 camera was capable of shooting in variable frame rates and at varying resolutions all the way up to 1080p/30fps in DVCPRO format. At least that's what their product specifications suggest. They claim the 3-chip sensor array scans at up to 60p in 1080 resolution.

What's the real story with that camera?

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 08-26-2007, 04:27 PM:

I think jvc have a hard disk style, single cmos pickup camera that they say is full 1920 x 1080. Is 3 ccd important anymore? I notice that the RED only has a single cmos.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-26-2007, 05:33 PM:

DVCPROHD doesn't allow for 1920x1080 resolution.

JVC invented HDV. Any links to their hard disk camera?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-26-2007, 07:41 PM:

Geez... I woulda thought your playstation 3 woulda had an add on for this..... [Roll Eyes]

I think you have to get into Broadcast Grade gear to get what you're looking for.

Mark

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-26-2007, 09:36 PM:

Huh? I don't have a Playstation 3.

Consumers get shafted again just so the pros can pretend that they're better.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-27-2007, 02:12 PM:

I wonder if Panasonic's HVX-200 camera will record in native 1080p resolution using those P2 solid state cards.

quote: Joe Redifer
JVC invented HDV. Any links to their hard disk camera?

Couldn't find any. The only "HD" cameras I see JVC currently offering are those that record in standard 720p format or the weird HDV 1440 X 1080 format.

If DVCPRO cannot accommodate true 1080p recording, what about the DVCAM or HDCAM formats?

My feeling is direct to disk recording will be the real break-through to make true 1080p capable video cameras more affordable. I'm not sure how well a standard Firewire 800 connection could sustain that kind of bandwidth. Perhaps an interface between HD-SDI and the new eSATA standard for external/removable hard discs might the key for new product development.

This is really a difficult time for anyone buying video cameras because of the transition between NTSC to HD and the state of flux happening in various videotape recording formats. It's not so bad if you're only renting the equipment and you're working on a professional (and funded) project.

Ultimately, I think the tape-based formats are going to disappear and everything will go to hard disc. That strange HDV format isn't going to stay around for too many more years either. The ever growing strength in computing power will eventually make it easy for lots of devices, even very affordable ones, to record in 1080p resolutions. The only things that will remain expensive are the lenses and larger, professional sized CCDs that capture better color and clarity.

I've been wanting to buy a serious "pro-sumer" video camera for a long time, but with all the issues going on in this state of transition I feel I have to spend my serious "fun money" on other things like new graphics software or D-SLR still camera lenses. At least I know I'm going to be able to get a lot of mileage out of those items -and not have to spend quite so much money either.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 08-27-2007, 02:17 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
what about the DVCAM

DVCAM is standard definition.

Joe, $5000 is pretty cheap as cameras go, I think you're going to have to pay more than that for full HD.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-27-2007, 05:45 PM:

You're right... at least for the immediate time being. But like I was saying, there isn't a technical reason why they couldn't offer true 1080p and have it look fine and dandy for $5000 or even less. Hell, MiniDV camcorders costing under $1000 when the format was first introduced recorded a full 720x480 in interlaced format which was better than broadcast NTSC (don't even try to bring up those extra 6 pixels). Later on progressive abilities were included in the higher end MiniDV cameras, and that's still ancient technology these days. So I guess I'll have to wait a few weeks for someone to come out with a camera that will accommodate me. And it had better have a firewire800 port for fast(er) transfer of the data.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-27-2007, 06:34 PM:

I think the only reason why affordable or even "pro-sumer" priced native 1080p video cameras aren't available is simply a question of demand in the current marketplace.

Eventually all digital video camcorders will record in 1080p or even higher resolution formats (with something like direct to hard disc recording, why even stay at 1920 X 1080?). Technology improvement is relentless.

For now, HDTV is still a relatively high end item. Worse, most casual computer and video camera users are limited to NTSC. Capture cards that can effectively deal with HDV or higher resolution content are still expensive. We're not quite at the point where an average off-the-shelf retail store computer can hook up to a HD-quality video camera and capture video to disc without dropping at least a few frames. But we will get there pretty soon.

On the "pro-sumer" end of things, I'm kind of surprised certain camera models like the Panasonic HVX-200 apparently don't live up to their product claims (like shooting in formats up to 1080p/30fps). I would be even more surprised if the next generation of $3000-$5000 video cameras from Canon, Panasonic, Sony & JVC lack the ability to shoot true 1080p -at least to solid state cartridges or direct to hard disc. If they're not already working on such designs at this point someone in R&D should be fired.

quote: Joe Redifer
And it had better have a firewire800 port for fast(er) transfer of the data.

I think any 1080p camera, regardless of product class (consumer up to broadcast professional) should have HD-SDI, Firewire 800 or even eSATA connection.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 08-29-2007, 09:26 AM:

Sorry no links, Jvc evero ? says it will capture at full 1080i, HDV is already been replaced by a new joint sony / panasonic codec, which I saw a split screen demo of at SMPTE recently. Sorry I didnt ask if it was a p (progressive scan) or an i (interlace)

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-29-2007, 11:48 AM:

HDCAM SR could do it, but I don't think that there is a one-piece camera that can shoot it. If not, you would have to have a separate camera and deck. At this point, it's probably cheaper and easier to shoot 35mm film for most applications.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-29-2007, 05:44 PM:

Sony has a couple of one piece HDCAM models that shoot true 1080p content. Trouble is one model costs $30,000 and other runs over $60,000. Ouch.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-30-2007, 11:35 AM:

This one might work for Joe.... at least its not 60 grand. If this doesn't suit him then he'll have to end up spending 60 to 100 grand... Now thats just pocket change for Joe anyway [Eek!]

.

Mark

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-30-2007, 05:36 PM:

I like it, except it can't do full 1080p or even full 1080i. Plus the Panasonic camcorders have a tendency to blow out highlghts to the extreme. The DVX100 is either almost completely dark or over half the screen is pure white with no detail.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-30-2007, 06:29 PM:

Joe,
Some digital still cameras do that same thing, my old Canon DV camcorder also does this and a slight ND filter takes care of it. Try using a .2 or .4 ND filter over the lens. This should bring the incomming light within the range that the CCD sensor is able to cope with. Many don't have a very wide cmpensation range as they come.

Mark

Posted by Mike Carro (Member # 232) on 08-31-2007, 12:36 PM:

The reason for the HDV format is because there's too much info that needs to be recorded on such a small tape. Tape width and speed determine data capabilities. Only so much you can get a miniDV tape. But the great thing about the Canon Xl-H1 and the JVC GY-HD250U is that while you can record HDV onto tape you can also record via HD-SDI out to a Deck or Mass Storage. Which will give you full HD resolution at 4:2:2 colorspace. But for this convenience you're going to pay upwards of $9000. I've had the pleasure of working with most of the prosumer HD cameras and the Sony F900 which is a full 1920x1080P to tape camera. The tapes are about $35 each so, not for everyday use needless to say.

I would have to say that if you're willing to shell out that kind of money, go with the canon. It has the best picture because of it's native 1440 X 1080 chips which they up-rez to 1920 X 1080. Canon uses their "frame mode" to simulate 24P but I can tell you you really can't tell the difference. From what I can gather it is a progressive scan image but in order to put it on tape they interlace it. So, if you were going to film you be able to capture that frame in its entirety. That said, I wouldn't use the canon for production. It's just not made for that purpose. You can't really guarantee focus because it's all done by a servo motor.

For a more pro application I would go with the JVC. It has more professional functionality. Again mainly because of the lens. You can attach a follow focus and matte boxes which you can't really with the Canon. But alas it's only 1280 x 720. But has really nice 60P recording in SD for slow motion.

The Panasonic HVX-200 is a nice camera and takes great pictures but it doesn't do HDV to tape. It uses the P2 cards which are tricky to use at best. And, it isn't a true HD camera. Meaning the CCD's are only 800x600 uprezed to 1280 X 720. Still it has a great picture. And the 1080P is pseudo.

So, even though video production is my business I don't own an HD camera. I'm still using SD cameras. There just isn't enough of a demand for HD yet. If I have a HD shoot I rent. I hope Canon makes the leap and offers a more professional model for it's prosumers because it really has nice pictures.
\
My 2 cents on HDV and HD

Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 09-15-2007, 08:00 AM:

The HVX200 is DVCPRO HD not the very compressed HDV format that records onto Minidv tapes. Its native 920 x 720 progressive and can do 24 frames. It is in fact a true HD format with a 4:2:2 color space. The P2 cards are great because you no longer have moving parts, so camera noise is next to nothing. The camera can so do frame rates from 2 frames a second to 60. This camera is your best bet for a low cost "film look" overwise shoot some super 8 film and get it transfered to a HD res file.

Posted by Mike Carro (Member # 232) on 09-15-2007, 02:07 PM:

Hey Paul, I agree that the HVX200 is a true HD format and doesn't even record HDV but I beg to differ on the actual area of their CCDs They are 960x540 pixels and use spatial offset to resolve 1280 x 720.( I was mistaken on the previous post about the CCD resolution) I do think it is a very good camera but not true HD resolution.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-15-2007, 06:18 PM:

920x720 is 100% unacceptable for high definition. Who the hell shoots in 4:3 anymore, anyway?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-16-2007, 02:46 AM:

The videotape part of the equation is going to be eliminated pretty soon. Some applications, such as Adobe OnLocationCS3, are already geared for direct video recording onto hard disc. That's just a temporary interim solution. Before too long, just about any camcorder is going to have its own built in hard drive, a hard drive without any stupid limits imposed by crude videotape formats. You'll be shooting true 1080p video and be able offload that footage via some kind of wide data pipe whether it's Firewire 800, eSATA or something else.

Still, the "broadcast quality" cameras will still stand above all the consumer stuff by virtue of larger and more effectively sensitive CCDs or CMOS chips. I don't see any possibility of companies like Sony, Panasonic, Canon or JVC selling 2/3" sized CCDs in mainstream consumer cameras at a price regular people can afford. That also goes double for the lens packs.

But 1080p, however compromised, will be a common thing for consumers before too long.

Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 09-16-2007, 10:45 AM:

720p is a 16 by 9 format and a lot of HD TV channels use that format including FOX. Your other option is 1080i. No channels currently broadcast at 1080P. And there is no cheap (under $100,000) camera that shoots a true 1080P. I truly don't know hat all the HD fuss is about, it really comes all down to story. People will watch Hi8 blown up to 35mm as long as the story pulls them along and the sound is good. Digital HD cable is so compressed anyway...

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-16-2007, 04:59 PM:

"and the sound is good"? Screw the sound, it's all about the story. This is why I never bothered to give a good presentation even once at my theaters.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-17-2007, 09:43 AM:

quote: Paul Gordon
720p is a 16 by 9 format and a lot of HD TV channels use that format including FOX. Your other option is 1080i. No channels currently broadcast at 1080P.

Over the air broadcast is far from being the only application for HD.

Just about every movie released on both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray formats is native 1080p. I have never seen any disc in either of those formats that was mere 720p or 1080i.

quote: Paul Gordon
And there is no cheap (under $100,000) camera that shoots a true 1080P

Sony has a couple HDCAM models that shoot true 1080p that cost well under $100,000. They're still not cheap, certainly not priced in the easily affordable area for broadcast people (under $10,000) or in the "prosumer" category (under $5000).

All of this will change very radically over the next few years. Computing technology is improving at an incredible pace. A few years ago it was a pretty big hurdle for a reasonably well equipped computer to capture MiniDV footage without dropping frames. A decent computer today is more than fast enough to have no problem whatsoever in dealing with 1080p video content. CCDs and CMOS devices are growing ever faster and getting packed in with more and more pixel sensors. The pace of improvement is relentless.

Eventually the only place where one will find compromised HD formats like 720p and 1080i is in over the air broadcasts that have to fit within 6MHz of broadcast spectrum. Anything delivered by a digital wire will be 1080p.

quote: Paul Gordon
I truly don't know hat all the HD fuss is about, it really comes all down to story. People will watch Hi8 blown up to 35mm as long as the story pulls them along and the sound is good. Digital HD cable is so compressed anyway...

That sounds like the rationale from someone with lower tech HD gear, such as a 720p TV set with analog only connections. People will say "you need that newer stuff," and then just watch with jealousy as all their friends get the newer stuff. Then they quietly adopt that sort of thing later on without telling anybody.

As far as that compression goes, there's more to HD than than just receiving severely compressed broadcast signals.