New HD Cameras

February 21, 2004

I would like to summarize state of HD, past, present. and possible future.

Varicam camera is basically DVCPRO50 with double bit rate, 100 Mbps; CineAlta is basically Digital Beta with double bit rate, or 180 Mbps. CineAlta SR has transfer rate of 440 Mbps and it uses MPEG4 encoding. I may be wrong, but think that they are using the same 180 Mbps CineAlta tape transport but with more efficient processing. MPEG4 processing is a lot more efficient than HDCAM and Varicam codec, which is basically the Sony-developed DV codec.

Because of the advances of blue laser recording technology and hard drive array recording technology, I think that we will not see new tape based systems in the future. Plus Panasonic has been developing their SD card based recording system.

What I expect that we'll see from Sony in HD? I expect them to introduce two new camcorders. One will be CineAlta SR. It will be basically similar to f900, except it will have MPEG4 RGB processing.

What will be the other HD camcorder? Sony just announced (3) 1/2" HAD CCD POV camera, one of its modes is 1080/24p. So they have the main component available to produce HDCAM camera that will be closer in price to Varicam.

That gives Sony HD camcorder coverage from some $60K to some $160K

As HDTV broadcast is gaining momentum and as the Japanese need profitable products to sell, and content that is being created needs longevity well into the future HDTV era., we will see a whole range of camcorders below the $60K range. JVC HD10 is one such product, but has too many flaws. I will not count this product.

What is interesting is that it is Sony that is behind the HDV standard. They intagrated the JVC 720p DV into the HDV standard. Sony is the company that originally developed the HDV standard and has apparently been working on 1080i HDV camera for some time.

What will be the quality of HDV? The bit rate for 720/25p is 19 Mbps. Varicam records at 720/60p at 100 Mbps. When converted to 24p, 60% recorded information is discarded and we are left with 40 Mbps equivalent bit streem. DVCPRO100 is using DV compression, HDV is using a lot more efficient MPEG2 compression. So with a good MPEG2 processor the potential for near Varicam quality is there.

We will see HDV in a whole range of cameras, from consumer, to prosumer, to professional. The new Canon replacement for XL1s will be HDV and it will probably revolutionize low end independent filmmaking. This is the year when we will see appear first decent quality HDV cameras. This format will become the replacement for DV.

What will be the replacement for the 4:2:2 SD formats, like Digital Betacam, DVCPRO50, IMG-MPEG, XDCAM? I see Sony coming out with something like XHDCAM. XDCAM is blue laser based and it records at up to 50 Mbps, but judging from Sony's new blue-laser based storage recorder progress, it has a potential of 72 Mbps; with two additional heads - 144 Mbps . Now we are talking about CineAlta and CineAlta SR quality recording.

Will Sony hurry up with bringing to market XHDCAM if they are not shipping XDCAM yet? The answer is yes. I believe that at NAB 2005 we will see XHDCAM, or whatever the name may be. Why? Because the blu-laser based recording technology is availabkle to all companies, so is HDV, so are HD array based recorders. Up until recently only Sony and Panasonic had recording format for HD - their modified SD recording transports. That limited Ikegami, Hitachi, Thomson and other potential HD manufacturers to producing or planning to produce HD cameras only, not camcorders, and not recorders. Things have changed changed and Sony and Matsushita (Panasonic, JVC) know very well that the time when they were the only HD camcorder manufacturers is over. So they need to hurry to stay on top of things and not fall behind.

The new full 35 mm frame cameras from Dalsa, Arri? These are nice but Sony is still the world leader in the development of quality CCD devices. Plus i believe that the original CineAlta SR was to have larger chips but Sony was under pressure from Lucas, who was considering Thomson's Viper, so they introduced the new f950 camera with same chips as f900. So we may see a Sony CineAlta SR camera in the future that will have 35 mm format size chips. That would mean the following future pricing of HD camcorders:

- CineAlta SR $100-200K, future ones will be also blue laser based

- CineAlta $50-100K, future ones will be also blue laser based

- XDHCAM $25-50K, based on the current blue laser based XDCAM

- HDV pro camcorders $8-25K; this category will also include Sony-developed Blu-ray DVD format

- HDV prosumer camcorders $3-8K; this category will also include Blu-ray DVD format

- HDV consumer camcorders $1-3K; this category will also include Blu-ray DVD format

What is Panasonic planning to do? It apperas that they abandoned the route of building a better HD tape transport. They announced development of SD memory based camcorders. I believe that this is the way they will be moving. Plus they are advancing in the development of blu-laser systems. So they will concentrate on optical and flash memory recording.

The SD card recorded material can be dumped quickly to a separate recorder and the card can be reused again. The camcorder becomes smaller, lighter, more reliable. It is basically just a camera and an MPEG4 encoder, and it can be fed to HD array recorder up until large capacity SD cards become available at reasonable prices. So nothing prevents Panasonic from building these cameras in HD and higher resolution. I am sure that Sony will be introducing Memory stick camcorders too, but Pansonic will be first with their SD types.

So future will be optical and flash card recording, in addition to tape and HR array recording. And we'll have more players in the HD camcorder arena and as a result the prices will be soon equivalent to SD prices, and eventually lower.

We are only one or two year to development of something like 8 megapixle CCD for still cameras that will be able to output 720/30p, or 720/24p, so MPEG4 HD flash memory recording will not be only new Panasonic Broadcast camcorders but also $1000 consumer digital still cameras with HD movie mode.

So the time has finally come when $1000 digital camera will record similar picture quality as less expensive Super 8 mm camera did decades ago. The whole digital era has taken us to two decades of dark ages and only now is catching up with 50 year older celluloid technology. HD is what is taking us from the dark ages, and it is taking us out now. VHS through DV and the death of Super 8: It was like cuouple of decades long nightmare that we are just waking up from. HD is taking us back to decent quality image that cen nicely project to a nice size screen.

Poor highlights handling and low dynamic range of HD camcorders? The highlights handling is being addressed now in new advances in sensor technology; the dynamic range? HD array technology can take care of that. More compact devices will be available soon. Large HD camera sizes? The flash memory card cameras can be smaller than film cameras.

CineAlta SR will probably start seriously digging into the celluloid production marketplace. But what will be next? Rodriguez' work shows that CineAlta does not have to look bad. CineAlta SR can look significantlybetter. The sharpness of 1080p is excellent. What will be next? Ultra definition that is being developed by Oympus, Sony, and other Japanese companies.

What else is new? 3D display technology that does not need glasses. Sharp is quite far in its development. The viewing angle is improving all the time. Meanwhile digital production will start advancing quickly and will start seriously displacing celluliod production. When consumer HDTV market becomes saturated and not profitable, we'll see 3D HDTV coming to reality. It will also give a boost to cinema production, which by that time will most likely become ultra definition, and probably also 3D. Ultra definition, combined with optical projection, will bring us superb quality movie theater experience; it will be similar to 70 mm/IMAX quality.

Sorry for the style; I was in a rush. Also these are only ideas and assumptions; correct me if I'm off.

Filip Plesha · February 21, 2004

Matching imax qualitty would require

image standard of more than 12 thousand pixels

in horisontal.

I doubt that any manufacturer will make this kind of

recording systems in the foreseeable future.

Even if someone decides to make a digital video camera

for imax productions they will make it with maybe 8K

imaging and sell it as "imax qualitty" when in fact

it is not even half of the real imax qualitty.

I think you are a little bit too enthousiastic about

digital imaging.

A bright future in digital imaging is comming,but not that bright.

Mitch Gross · February 21, 2004

You have many interesting observations and it would be nice to know who they are coming from and what your experience is. I'm not a fan of monikers that people can hide behind. Not that I think you are hiding anything, I just feel that it lends weight to someone's statements to know who they are and it also adds a sense of personality to the discussions as a whole.

That all said, you really did spit out a bit of a manifesto there, didn't you? :) There are a number of advancements from other companies of which you might not be aware. I forsee little developement for future tape formats. Already Sony is attempting to move into optical disc storage and Panasonic is quickly developing their data cards. But I know of one HD camera that should be debuting at this year's NAB (not 2005) that will record uncompressed to hard drives. Think of it as a Viper with a memory back, but it will also be using cine lenses instead of video and will have a 2/3" size sensor so it will use 16mm optics (or 35mm with the resulting smaller frame coverage). Best of all it will be an HD camera at SD prices, coming in somewhere around $30,000, which is about the same as the Panasonic SDX900. Look for the name Kinetta coming soon. And there will be a number of others enterring the fray soon, although I don't think they'll make it in time for April's NAB.

So HD for hard drives is coming soon to camera technology. It already exists in a limited way for DV cameras with devices such as the Firestore. Soon enough this will be the standard way information is recorded in the field and the bulky, expensive, power-hungry, and fragile tape mechanisms will become a thing of the past. They can be card cartriges or flash memory or hard drives, but tape media will go away, and frankly good riddance. But this will be a big, big deal to the manufacturers who make a significant business out of building decks and tape media. Such is business. Sony will likely be the one dragged kicking and screaming into the new frontier--has anyone ever enterred a facility that didn't have a bunch of Sony decks on the shelf?

The other HD is high def., and in all it's variations it is taking over. SD will soon become for consumers only as a vestigial format, as everything slowly moves to HD in production, post and distribution and archiving. Unless I could make a profit in under a year or so I don't think I would ever invest in any professional SD equipment, and this is becoming a major issue for various companies out there who need to decide where to spend their money for the next few years. HD is still very expensive now, but will drop in pricee quickly as mor companies enter the market with complete systems. Non-tape-based formats will make this much faster and easier as they will be cheaper to implement and simpler to adapt in the future as standards change. If a tape format doesn't work out then the deck becomes a door stop (I remember seeing all those M-2 decks sitting unwanted on the loading dock at NBC), but a non-tape system might need new programming and some additional memory. The technology will eventually become somewhat disposable and upgradeable like computer technology. Hey, it IS computer technology.

So quickly High Def. is becoming the standard as people want to protect themselves with future-proofing. Networks are demanding HD mastering of programs, and even various cable channels and public television demands that a given high percentage programming be in HD. So very quickly the only material not shot in HD will be the disposable, time-oriented programming, such as local news gathering an short run commercials. Everything else will shift to HD for archival purposes.

I do look forward to some of the new HDV equipment that should be coming soon. A decent 3-chip camera would be nice, but those are some very expensive chip blocks and one hell of a DSP to handle the information. Sony could probably fairly quickly come out with an F900 that recorded down to HDV instead of HDcam but it would still need to sell for $40,000, so who would buy such a thing? We'll see how quickly a quality economic HDV camera can come to market. In the meantime I see HDV as a distribution format to all those consumers out there with HD home theater systems but nothing to watch in HD. DVHS is putting away okay for JVC for this purpose (it's basically HDV but recorded onto a VHS tape), but HDV will likely blow it out of the water as it becomes the more popular format for distribution of HD movie rentals and other media. HD-DVD will also compete for this market, but only if that technology ever arrives.

Whew, that's enough for now. Try not to cover so much in one post--I can't keep up!

February 21, 2004

RE: My post

I just looked over my post; the only serious problem I see is that I said ultra definition with optical projection and I meant digital projection.

As to myself, I've done directing, producing, writing, photography, and sound on both independent film and video productions. I must admit that I hate video and I see HD as something that will hopefully very soon replace video and and will move us fast close to film quality in digital production.

RE: Ultra Definition

http://www.studio-systems.com/broadfeature...tra/Ultra38.htm

RE: HD distribution

DVD Forum already approved the NEC - Toshiba HD DVD standard and Toshiba, I believe, showed a prototype of the player at CES. The Sony-originated consortium of a Blu-Ray DVD is meanwhile pushing their own standard. Sony released Blu-Ray DVD recorder in Japan nearly a year ago. Meanwhile Panasonic developed double layer recording for the Blu-Ray system so the Blu-Ray standard will not be finalized until sometimes this year and the first commercial products will be introduced at next year's CES. Blu-Ray is MPEG2 and the disc is in a cartrige; HD DVD is MPEG4 and is without cartrige. All major consumer electronics manufacturers are in the Blu-Ray consortium. The Hollywood studios are represented in the DVD forum and are pushing for the less expensive HD DVD. Both Blu-Ray and HD DVD have quality that is equal to or better than HDTV broadcast.

Tim Tyler · February 22, 2004

As the administrator, I received an unsigned request to remove a message in this thread, and to edit another. I assumed those requests came from the authors of the posts so I satisfied the requests.

After thinking about it, I now believe the requests came from the author of another post in the thread.

I apoligize for making those changes. Unfortunately I cannot undo them. I'll be more careful next time.

David Mullen ASC · February 22, 2004

You removed my post without me asking.

It's amazing what this guy will do to promote HD, and how many names and monikers he has used over the last few years.

Mitch Gross · February 22, 2004

Both Blu-Ray and HD DVD have quality that is equal to or better than HDTV broadcast.

Which isn't saying much. Tons of compression and poor color sampling.

Mitch Gross · February 22, 2004

Having made my last post, I looked back at a couple of the previous posts and was appalled. I think we are all pretty open to a lot of newcomers asking questions and making statements on this forum, and generally the regulars are polite and helpful. But understanding that someone has the nerve to get sneak about to get someone else's post removed pretty much removes any goodwill I might have. I don't like to ask anyone to be banned from an open forum, and I fully understand Tim's policy to keep this place pretty much untouched by the moderator. So I have an easy answer to the situation--I propose that we all completely ignore this person and any of his posts. Simple, clear message.

Filip Plesha · February 22, 2004

I hope that doesn't affect your policy towards other

non-problem-causing "newcomers" asking questions,like me.

Mitch Gross · February 22, 2004

I hope that doesn't affect your policy towards other
non-problem-causing "newcomers" asking questions,like me.

Not at all. You've done nothing but ask questions and provided responses to others' posts--that's the point of an open forum. When the guy first posted I posted my own lengthy response. Then even when David posted as to his nature I still responded to one of his statements. But when I read of how he had gone so far as to trick Tim into deleting David's posts then that was it for me. Personally, I would choose to delete the entire thread to remove the dark spot from this forum.

February 22, 2004

I would like to comment on this nonsense.

1. David Millen owes me an appology for making untrue staements about me. I think that operators of this board are by now well aware of it.

2. I did not want to start a fight with this guy so I asked politely for his offensive post to be deleted. I thought that the intention was clear. If the system does not identify me, how am I to know.

3. Thanks for the warm welcome.

David Mullen ASC · February 22, 2004

Let's say you're not the guy who has been posting for the last three years on all the forums under names like "Joseph George", "xxx", "Steven Video", plus several Japanese names, etc.

They all have the same pattern: (1) poster who has never appeared before in that forum; and (2) their posts are not questions but announcements of upcoming HD products with promises of improvements in various areas of recording. Sony's Blu-Ray technology is almost always mentioned. Often press releases are cut and pasted into the posts.

Invariably arguments erupt and the forum administrator ends up deletings posts. Some forums have banned him altogether, which is why the endless parade of monikers.

"Joseph George" admitted after NAB one year that he was actually paid off to generate interest in HDTV technology on the forum. Also said he was an independent writer-producer.

But let's say that you're not that guy even though you write in an identical manner.

I'll apologize to a real person who tells us his name and what he does for a living and promises he has no connection with an HDTV manufacturer other than as a consumer of the equipment. And hereonafter SIGNS his posts with his real name. Then we can procede to talk about HDTV all you want. Deal?

Tim Tyler · February 22, 2004

I asked politely for his offensive post to be deleted. I thought that the intention was clear. If the system does not identify me, how am I to know.

It's true that the board does not identify the sender when a "Report" request is submitted. I'll be updating the submission form to improve upon that.

I second the motion that Ultra Definition reveal his/her identity, experience, and qualifications. Currently I only know that Ultra Definition is using a Czech ISP.

February 22, 2004

I have no problem telling who I am, but the system does not require it, or does it? I can't recall. I just put in Ultra Definition. My name is Joe Tallen. I am currently in Europe, right now in the Czech Republic, on a preproduction stage of an independent film project. It's a second project I'm involved with in this part of the world. Great beer, best looking girls, real pleasant too, super rates for film craftsmen, excellent worksmanship and artistry.

I had to buy Eurotell phone for about $150. It's real nice and compact, Siemens brand, probably made by Fujitsu. A lot of Siemens Fujitsu computers here. My Eurotell wireless Internet works here everywhere. It costs something like $30/mo for unlimited Internet access and includes free minutes, like 1 or 2 hours a month, extra minutes are like 25 cents. T-Mobile works here and is less expensive. So if you come down here and have T-Mobile, bring it with you. Internet speed is a little slower than AOL dial up in the US.

The only name from the ones David Millen mentioned that I used was xXx, on a site that does not require to register real name. I included this info in my previous post: "I've done directing, producing, writing, photography, and sound on both independent film and video productions. I must admit that I hate video and I see HD as something that will hopefully very soon replace video and and will move us fast close to film quality in digital production."

As to why I don't ask questions? Are forums just to ask questions? How about discussing an interesting subject. How about not all clinging to the good ol' film and instead try to look into the future to see what may be coming.

HD will replace SD, and will seriously bite into the film domain. UD will replace film. It's just a matter of when, no matter how everyone loves film grain and 24 fps motion artifacts. Why did they try 30 fps in the past and abandoned it, mainly for economic reasons associtaed with that format; why is IMAX-HD 48 fps? Because it would be too expensive to make it 60 fps. Personally i would like it to be 100 fps. But on some projects 24 fps may look better. So what if it looks too much like 60i video? Maybe this is one thing that video is more advanced than film; it gives you the choice.

Sony Blu-Ray, DVHS, HDV, and HDTV are all MPEG2 at bit rate around 20 Mbps. Of course it is too low. Of course we see compression artifacts. But it still looks graet compared to SD. Compared to film? No comparison! We all know that. But these new coming up low cost HD formats will allow small to medium size theater screen projection, almost as big as Varicam does, only they the new formats will be of lower quality. But they will work for low end independent filmmakers. With all the new and coming up digital projection screens in major US and world's markets, the low end filmmaker will even be able to shoot and project straigt in 25p. No optical prints will have to be made, not until the film proves to be commercial success. This is what is great about low cost HD. It is not meant to replace film; it is to allow the student filmmaker to shoot something that he'll be able to show an a significantly larger larger screen than he could with current prosumer camera. So HD is good. And UD is good because it will improve quality and throughput on large productions.

Am I promoting Sony's products? Do I work for Sony or any other electronics manufacturer, pushing their products? Definitely not! Do I work in marketing or sales? No. I hate those guys! Let someone else do that kind of work.

Why am I posting this knowing that it is a contraversial subject?

1. I have the time right now.

2. I always look into the future.

3. There is too much manufacturer's hype everywhere and I'm trying to see through it.

Correct me, if I'm wrong. I love discussion. But why these attacks?

It's almost time to go to sleep here.

Have a great day where you are.

David Mullen ASC · February 22, 2004

Thanks Joe for identifying yourself. What do you do on these independent productions? Are you directing? What format are you shooting in?

I apologize for any rudeness on my part. Feel free to talk away about HD all you want, although I'm not sure what sort of response you are trying to generate.

Considering that indie filmmakers have been shooting in SD, not waiting for HD to come down in prices, I'm not sure how liberating a cheap HD system will be -- people seem pretty liberated as is. The only thing HD will give them is better picture quality -- not that they don't want that, of course. But I don't think people who are desparate to make movies are going to wait for a technology to be invented to do it.

The bottleneck is not production, it's distribution. And while the dream of digital theatrical distribution worldwide is appealing to those who don't want to pay for a film-out, it's still a dream. The trouble is unless every theater chain invests in the technology, you end up limiting yourself to the theaters that can accomodate you.

For example, if you make an indie film and sell it to Lion's Gate for distribution, they aren't going to limit themselves to trying to sell the film the theater chains that have digital projection; they want to make money and will go to the theater chains that have rented their prints in the past. So it always ends up that a print is needed. Of course, this may change -- it probably WILL change but it's not as organized as that. Really, it's the art house cinemas that tend to show indie films that should be the ones to invest the most in digital projection technology. But those chains are the ones that can afford it the least.

As for mainstream big-budget films using 35mm, the problem is that we're just getting digital camera systems that BEGIN to equal 35mm quality -- but at generally higher costs, more shooting hassles (like recording to hard drives, etc.), archival issues, lack of the broad range of equipment (like cameras that go faster than 60 fps) etc. So it seems to me that cameras like the Dalsa and the Arri D-cam are merely the prototypes for a future technology. In other words, practically speaking, we're not even to a point where it's practical to be shooting many features with the Viper and the F950 other than those special ones that seem well-suited for that style of production. In other words, 35mm is too easy to use in comparison to those systems for mainstream production. At least for now.

A camcorder system like the F900 is relatively easy to use, if somewhat limiting in what it can do. Someone has to create a system for these super-HD cameras that is easy to use every day as loading a mag and sending it to a lab. And I don't count filling CineRams and downloading them into hard drives as being as simple, although the problem there is more cost-related than complexity-related. Some system will work out to handle all that data cheaply and efficiently though.

Even a low-cost HD system is just going to be put into the economic bracket of the medium-budget DV and low-budget Super-16 productions, so it just becomes another format to deal with and choose from. I'm all for more options though.

I'm about to leave town to shoot a feature and for now, I can see no real advantages to shooting it digitally -- and I would suggest it if I thought there would be. But the money is there to shoot in 35mm and that's the way it should look and there's no effects work to be incorporated and we don't need to shoot hours and hours of footage. I can't really say anything would be gained by shooting it in HD and something might be lost.

Luke Prendergast · February 22, 2004

Now if you build me something to make the actors act better, the script and story flow, organise the crew and make a decent coffee (very black, negative two sugars)...

But the technology isn't going to make the film. I still watch VHS, I still listen to vinyl.

February 26, 2004

Hey David, I'm just scounting some locations right now and I'm trying to work out some deals here and to line up a local crew; just helping out, not directing.

John, I agree with you 100%