Yeah,
this conspiracy theory stuff bugs me too. I'm sure there's a small amount of truth to it but it's for more cost / engineering constraints.
Give you an example. Why doesn't the PD150 / 250s have interchangeable lenses?
Well it adds cost and weight but also when you take the lens off you expose the innards. Tiniest spec of dust in there and you've got all sort sof problems.

Look at the DVX-100A, all sorts of wonderful opportunities to take really great shots. Also a wealth of opportunity to screw things up.

Why don't prosummer cameras have decent focus rings? Because they also have autofocus and don't have mosnter batteries to power huge motors to drive the focus mechanism.

Before you start entertaining conspiracy theories please do a lot of homework. Firstly you'll learn somethig, secondly you'll sleep a lot better. I think I can safely say most cameras are built as best they can be given who the engineers think is likely to be using them.

I work for a business that hires cameras. The things Joe Everage manages to do to screw up video is pretty amazing. Every extra function they add to a consummer camera is one more thing they can use to get it horribly wrong. And some of the pros aren't much better either.

farss I have done lots of studying thats why I was able to make such an assertion...
By the time i buy the dvx100a and learn it thouroghly i will need to start looking at another purchase and upgrade with 16:9 as the wide screen is becoming moreso prevelant.. I think it is odd that one outfit has HD one outfit has 16:9 and the other 24p?? why cant these be engineered into one camera?? Why is it they are all 3 technologies that are growing but each co. has only one of those features.. Of course if Panasonic had 16:9, 24p, HD then JVC and them would soon be in a real struggle to ante up..

I thought you were kidding at first, but now I'm not so sure. You may have seen too many xfiles. I'm thinking the developments have more to do with what the individual companies develop over time rather than one company agreeing to add one feature and not another and so on.
I will absolutely agree with you that panasonic should have come out with a real 16x9 solution w/o resolution loss. But i hvae never used the sony cam that claims this, so i'm not sure how well their version works.
My understanding is the jvc does shoot 16x9 but at 30p. The recommendation I heard was wait and get the pal version that shoots at 25p as that will convert to 24p easily. Of course, why the hell jvc came out with a single chip camera as their flagship is beyond me.
In the end, I think the companies are developing things at different times and look at cost and profit when making their cameras more than anything in the way of a conspiracy. I agree with you all the wal though, it is really annoying.

My guess is each company has a different vision of where the greatest profit potential is for a targeted market.
It's pretty easy to say "For not much more money they could add X,Y or Z!"
A buddy of mine once told me how much better the Dodge Neon would be if they just added a little more soundproofing.
Then I reminded him of how Toyota stopped painting certain screw heads because they could save 5¢ per Corolla!!

This stuff is much more researched than you might think.

¢¢

There must be. I'm not permitted to tell you about the rice grain-sized bio-magnetically powered hard drive I've had implanted that records everything my eye sees, nor the finger tip implant that allows me to poke my finger into any IR port and download the media. Nor am I allowed to comment on the HD cam that shoots at 120 fps that's been embedded in my belly button. It's irritating though because the lens is constantly fogged with lint.
Finally, I'm not permitted to tell you about the Marc Snow mic's embedded in the back of my earlobes which permit me to record in 5.1, all conversations taking place within 2 miles of my ears. The normalizing circuits haven't been installed yet so it's a major inconvenience to download to the ricegrain hard drive, process with the belt buckle Pinktooth interface, normalize, and then reload to the RAM in my ears. I keep waiting for the TSA to discover that I've video-drived them several times as they steal candy bars and jewelry from passenger's luggage.
When the 1.5 upgrade to my memory is released, I'll be permitted to tell you about it so that you are always aware of at least one rev behind, and ready to purchase the next rev.
Look....electronics have a manufacturing cycle for a reason. It's not like the camera company builds each and every part, they come from a variety of vendors. The cycle is partially dependent on what's made available from each vendor, which in turn has his own vendors. It's basic manufacturing cycling. Whether it's calculators, cameras, lightbulbs, or tires...it's all the same issue. Do some research on manufacturing and take the conspiracy out of it. Maybe it will make sense.
MPEG, JPEG 2K, and many other technologies were available LONG before you heard of them, it's just that licensing and legal issues, plus existing cycles made it prohibitive to tell you about it all.
Heck, we had a guy post on the DMN on Saturday morning that Saddam was captured. Was it a conspiracy that the government didn't say anything? Maybe...(but more likely that they wanted to be sure of what was going on first, before jumping into politically dangerous waters, just like a manufacturer wants to know his base sales ability and margin before building a camera that was designed with the best parts available at the time)

I really think it has to do with so many companies all trying to do the same thing their own way. Sort of like the Beta/VHS thing but times 10. Look at the whole DVD +R, DVD -R, DVD +RW, DVD -RW issues. "We don't need no stinking blue laser!!" Standards are supposed to get everyone on the same page but when it comes to newer technologies it is up for grabs anymore. "As long as we can get an NTSC or PAL output we can do anything before it gets to that point!!" How many people here use(d) the Mini-DV tapes with the "chip" in it? Any filmmakers here remember mixing in Ultra Stereo because they couldn't afford dolby? Going way back how many people know about Todd-AO vs CinemaScope? Todd-AO was 65mm (70mm) and was concieved to be shot at 30fps even though the 'standard' was 24fps and 35mm. The first feature to use the Todd-AO format was "Oklahoma!". However it was also shot in CinemaScope. I have seen both versions of "Oklahoma!" and it is a trip to think that films, very few I might add, were actually shot 2 times just to be 'compatable' with emerging technology. (For a litte peek at use of both cameras at once look at this still: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/zinneman&cameras.jpg) (Subnote - supposedly the Todd-AO version of "Oklahoma!" is the only version out there now because in the early 90's a Todd-AO negative was found and restored and it was decided this verison was far superior than the more common CinemaScope version that had been widely seen for almost 40 years) (Subnote to the subnote - "Around the World in 80 Days" was also shot in Todd-AO but not shot in 35mm - instead it was shot one time at 30fps and one time at 24fps. The 24fps 65mm Todd-AO negative was used to downsize to 35mm for the cinemascope prints.) (Personal note - doesn't this sort of sound like the whole 'shoot in HD but downsize to DV [Mini-DV, DV-Cam]' thing that is starting to happen now?)

It's all good because people are out there doing things that lead to newer, hopefully usable, technologies. The only 'conspiracy' I see is when people leave one company and start their own to do the same type of thing. Eventually someone always 'wins' but many times we are all the real winners. Michael Todd left his involment with Cinerama to work on his format (The Todd in Todd-AO). Ultra Stero was created by someone who left Dolby. Todd-AO isn't around any more and Ultra Stereo isn't a name you see films being mixed in too much anymore. But they both created something lasting. Todd-AO led to 65mm film stock and printers print that size as well as projectors that could not only project 70 mm but also run at 30fps or 24 and had an adaptor to also use 35mm cinemascope prints. Todd-AO also led to a film printer that could downsize 70 mm to 35 mm. Would Imax exist without Todd-AO? How about showscan? I don;t know. Ultra Stereo helped to pave the way for 6:1 sound and, to the best oy my knowledge, makes the only full digital decoding system for theatres.

Marquat - That's a great movie!

I've another example; Look at the pharmacutical companies. Very often the same company makes two brands of the same pill. The content is exactly the same but one is cheaper than the other. This way they'll widen the market by appealing to both the "I'll get the cheapest one"-people and the "this is more expensive so it must be better"-people. Is this a conspiracy? I don't think so. It's just the same ol' greed.
/Tommy

Well, technicaly, most big drug companies give their stuff away free to people who can't afford them (seriously! me being w/o insurence knows this!) But they do this "same product different label" with batteries.

But scotty, these things are tested for at least a few YEARS before they hit the market. Look at the copyright date on your CPU. It's dated about 2-3 years before the chip was sold. Not because they wanted to screw you, but because if it totally sucked (remember intel, 2+4=4.111111 :) ), they would have hell to pay. And who knows, maybe there was a problem when the develiped their 24p camera that prevented them from getting a 16*9 picture (NTSC 29.97 came about because they couldn't do 30fps like in B/W). Instead of waiting another year to release their product, they release one now. When they fix it they release another. If Panasonic waited until they got their camera "perfect" to release it, it would never get released!

But, of those things you mentioned, you've gotta ask "why?" do you really want them?

24p: an old, relatively low quality format. They did it this way because way back when (before digital) you had to develope each frame. 30p meant an extra 6fps per second. In 90 minutes that adds up to 32,400 frames. At a penny a frame to develope, that still adds up to $32,400. But with digital there is NO developing. So, we could do 60fps.

16*9: Sure, we THINK it's great, but really, is it? Chop 1/3 off the top/bottom of your windows at home. There's that much less viewing area. So, for more viewing area, you need a wider screen. I have a feeling that 16*9 is a trend that will die out in about 15 years. I mean, do you SEE the world in wide screen, or in more of a square/rounded square shape?

"16*9: Sure, we THINK it's great, but really, is it? Chop 1/3 off the top/bottom of your windows at home. There's that much less viewing area. So, for more viewing area, you need a wider screen. I have a feeling that 16*9 is a trend that will die out in about 15 years. I mean, do you SEE the world in wide screen, or in more of a square/rounded square shape?"

Actually, I see 4:3 as cutting off the sides...

My field of vision is nearly 180 degrees left to right yet maybe 120 degrees in the vertical, thus, I see the world in widescreen and I think most people do as well. I think this is further evidenced by the term "peripheral vision" commonly referring to what we see on either side of us rather than above or below.

Plus, being primarily terrestrial creatures, most of the action in our lives happens on a narrow vertical plain yet a broad horizontal plain, thus, wider is a better representation of what we see.

Filmy, hilarious you pointed to that same link. I use this in one of my presentations.
I think your post is dead-on. So many emerging technologies, so many avenues for delivery, and so many questions without having good answers. And then there are so many good answers that are before the questions, and it leads to more questions. when you consider what's happened in this industry in just the past 5 years, it's considerable. So, how can a manufacturer make long term decisions? They can't. What was once a 3 year plan is now an 18 month plan, or even a 12 month plan.
Ultra Stereo....now there is a name you rarely hear at all, but for a while there, the name dominated all the mix and sound for film mags. Scary to think we're doing this stuff in our small rooms these days.

. . . my 2 quids [3 bucks?] worth . . . .

Hmmm . . . "Imagine now is the 70's and there is a visitor from the future here at the forum, telling us what a bunch of idiots we are, wasting so much time oo-ing and aw-ing at an antedated, primitive technology. " - er . where was the internet in the '70s? This isn't just nitpicking . . I'll get back to this in a minute. .

. . and again Spot, "Scary to think we're doing this stuff in our small rooms these days. " . . . I'll have a go at this later on too . .

My concern isn't about the proliferation of the newest widget thingy - no! My concern is how we work closer as a Global Humanity - with OR without the assistance of companies producing product that is reflected in their own "bottom-line". Has/do new technologies produce this? Does the ethic of the NEW produce this? Does 24:7 news broadcasts cement humanity and allow us to express ourselves to people in all parts of the Globe? Do these exciting means of communication actually provide for a better=peaceful planet? . . . Widgets don't do it . . It is individuals and groups of individuals who use these means of delivery that can do it.

Yes we need to salute the past. Yes we need to take stock of where we have got ourselves to . . and yes - those that know me here - humour is very very important. But we need to view the whole picture. Those that visit this Forum do, or should, stand back from their NLE work and truly take note that their work hits the mark. This is the Videography of all relevant and effective movie work. We should do the same, taking note where we are at, in this changing technology-drenched 1st World.

Okay, my point is this. There has always been an opportunity for that moment when the better mousetrap could be invented. We shouldn't confuse this with how we make things better for our planet. Without this improvement for Humanity, scrabbling around chasing technical improvements is in itself fruitless. Anything - dear friends - that confuses this with more humnaity, IMHO, is the real conspiracy.

Sorry to sound sententious on these points, but sometimes it needs to be said.

Do I think Analogue sounds "better" than digital . . . not sure . . I appear to be losing my analogue ear . . I didn't think THAT would happen. Do I think a live classical piece played by a real-time orchestra with living violinists and woodwinds beats the pants off a mixed cd of the same event? - I did. Nowadays I'm not so sure . . now this is scary . . .

Finally, implanting somebody from the future back into the '70s is not real. Oh yes, it is very funny . . I'm all for that. But it isn't real. There again, these same comments would mostly have been made in the '70s about earlier times too. How we adopt to, and have the ability to adapt to new stuff in our lives, really concerns me. It can be force for Good. Pick up a copy of Alvin Toffler's, "Future Shock" - funnily enough written in 1970. I got a real chill when I read Spot's comment about us sitting in our small rooms doing our work, try Huxley's "When the Machine Stopped". Is this a wave/nod to the alienation that could possibly be proliferating, as technologies in themselves demand more and more of our time sitting one-on-one with that pc screen? Many a truth is spoken in jest - yeah?

Apologies for these ramblings. Trying my best to keeping it real too,

Grazie

ps: Just read the Russian link/post here . . . great stuff!

This seems an appropriate time and place to tell my story.
Have you never wondered why Sony paid such a huge price for an obscure software company that was on the brink of chapter 11?
The truth is quite remarkable. When the Sony executive visited Maddison they were shown the results of an amazing breakthrough in image processing developed by Sonic Foundry. For the purpose of the demonstration video was recorded on a TRV18, captured into a test version of Vegas Video and then rendered to 12 bit 1080i HD and displayed on a HD monitor. The audio that originated from the two tiny microphones in the camera were processed through Sound Forge using an as yet unrelease DirectX plugin to produce pristine Dolby 6.1 surround sound.
Comparative testing revealed higher quality images were obtained from the TRV18 after processing that those taken directly from a Sony HDCAM.

Sony executives were understandably terrorfied of the implications if this technology ever left the meeting, much less reached the marketplace. They immediately agreed to purchase the company subject to all parties who had any knowledge of this technology signing a twenty year non disclosure agreement. Each one of those persons received a gratuity of $10,000,000.

Now you are wondering how did I come to learn of this. Well in the general excitement of the meeting they forgot to switch the camera off, it sat there for the entire meeting recording everything. Not realising what the tape now contained it was thoughtlessly discarded. A close friend of mine worked at the time for the Maddison Sanitation Department. He found the tape and not having a MiniDV camera gave it to me. I went to use it to back up a clients project but just happened to glance at the monitor while it was rewinding a few night ago. The rest will soon be history, of course unless I get my $10,000,000!

hi miserman,

interesting, the perception question - whether 4:3 is cutting off the sides, or 16:9 is cutting off the top.

If your vision is nearly 180 degrees by 120, lets call that 170 x 120,
which is 4.25:3, or about 13:9

So maybe 4:3 isn't too far off!

I've heard from a few old hands in this country you cannot sell anything that isn't 16:9. It's not so much HD that's pushing it but SD DVB.
It does seem to be a bit of a problem as there's no camera at a decent price that will shoot 16:9 without an adaptor.
They've struggled on for years shooting on SP and now they've suddenly found they'll either have to get out of the game or buy a whole new kit.

Hmm! Well, what about MPEG7, which was adopted last year, but no one talks about, and all the other MPEGS, all the way up to MPEG21, which they are obviously sneeking in on us. Hmm!

You guys forget previous post discussions. Camcorders don't have higher-end features because the company that builds both consumer and pro products doesn't want to compete with itself, as was mentioned on this forum before.

As to conspiracy theories, I don't look at the "engine room" where engineers develop new products as where the action is. It's on a far bigger scale, with multinational corporations elbowing third-world governments aside and "privatizing" their utilities, e.g. charging Bolivian peasants for their water supply and the like. (If that sounds too remote, remember the California "energy crisis" which profited U.S. companies in Texas and Georgia, in the billions--at California taxpayers' expense.)

That's why I celebrate things like Vegas and the DVX100 in an imperfect world. It makes it possible for The Common Man to create a watchable and revealing documentary, put it on DVD or the Net, and get it out to the public without having to pay tributes to Eastman Kodak or the International Monetary Fund....

You guys .. Geeez your now making me out a kook .. lol I thought I had all your love.. Ok so It does sound far fetched in the light that others here have cast..

This is what I know.. I go to Bestbuy and look at all the new technology on these TV's. The plasma widescreen comes to mind.. ok so if I want to make a movie to put on there I need 16:9 and a 24 p camera..To get good cinema like quality.. To me this TV is the new technology and what I will soon own when I can afford one some day... I just find it strange that all these different technologies are conveniently spread across the board.. I dont know who the stockholders are on the JVC board, nor Panasonic or Sony, rather they are tight knit and part of the same cabal I am unsure.. I can assume(i know what folly will follow now..lol).... Someone else here may have that info..

But what I do know is that each of these technologies keep them unique and independent. If panasonic had a 24p, 16:9 camera then where would that leave sony?? Are these guys part of a good ol' boy network.. ???

As we well know this is how business is done here all the time in the US.. Im sure some of you would dispute that or the replies would not have been so plentiful; without anyone fathoming for a minute that things arent what they seem.. My purpose was only to defend myself somewhat with rebuttle...

So take it easy on me.. I mean no harm

Special thanks to Vital Forces for at least not making me out as silly... ; )

I can assure you that the decision-makers at any of the big companies are not golfing buddies with the others, and that they don't discuss how to square off their corner of the market while leaving other corners for other manufacturers. It's silly to even begin to assume so.
That said, vitalforces brings up a fabulous point.
Sony has long been on the path of what they call "Digital Democratization" where the masses now have access to the same quality tools as the pros do. 4 years ago, this stuff was 20 times the price.
I submit it's more than that. It's that due to the equipment, we'll hear more about the human rights, animal rights, water rights, and abuses of power, people, and property in documentary and news form, because everyone can now document those acts with great clarity due to the technology.
Vegas has always been the ultimate tool of video democracy, allowing most anything on the timeline regardless of it's source, framerate, or size.
The true conspiracy now lies in determining which pieces of that media to air, and which delivery method is used to deliver, and why you chose those forms of media over others.

CONSPIRACY to take you for a ride (Money) in partnership with someone else with the same aim.

Well just ave a look at all the recent surround formats that have come out. As soon as you have bought the latest TITANIC amp with all the sound formats.

"It sinks".....

in favour of a new model. And guess who is behind all this. Dolby prologic... Dolby ex ..Dolby prologic 2... on and on and in partnership with all of them. Yamaha Sony Panny..... sound improvement ? ....Well thats a can of worms..

So what are the new CAMERA gimmicks 24p.. Hi Def.. Progressive...

So why are they adding so much to the cost... 24p is not a lot of extra hardware is it???? Nor is progressive. Only Hidef might justify higher costs the rest could be incorporated on newer models *FREE* I know development costs but the scale of sale of these camcorders should absorb most surely..

Encouraging people to upgrade as well as new customers. But heres the deal. First sell for the first wave of buyers who will want the latest and will shell out. Wait a couple a months.Lower the price. Second wave of buyers. "More cautious" but will now part with there lolly. Third wave of buyers a combo of skinflints hard ups and lottery winners (Normally me or where I want to be) Then end of line specials ect being replaced with THE new model with new gadgets.

Of course if manufacturers can conspire and its a money spinner of course they will. same as if you work for them and your dismissed its business. loyalty is OLD HAT

If I sound a bit down then Hey welcome to the real world where money is above the common man and getting your cash (Marketing strategy) is the name of the game.

(nic) Personel experience based on observation of large companies.

Does not apply to Sony. Sonic Foundry who are actually very good companies and treat there employers well. Just talking in broad general terms..

If conspiracies are not rife. Then its down to one thing there all afraid what the other will do as they stab each other in the back COULD ultimately be a money loser

Great post, Grazie!

I understand a bit of what scotty_dvc80 is saying. It's really frustrating to see manufacturers focusing on frivolous extras rather than fundamental basics. (How many DV cameras are there with Bluetooth, megapixel stills, MPEG-1 capture capability, but have only one CCD, no external microphone inputs, no native 16:9 and no progressive scan?) I don't think the limitations are a deliberate conspiracy so much as companies not wanting to either price themselves out of the mass consumer market, or cut in to their lucrative high-end broadcast market.

Sony's been losing a ton of money lately, and while I'm sure they're perfectly capable of coming up with a new PD-150 with true progressive scan, 16:9 native chips, HD capability and interchangeable lenses, they don't want to hurt sales of their DXC-35's.

The lesson here is, get over our obsession with the highest possible image quality, stay off the bleeding edge and make do with the best quality equipment and techniques you can afford NOW. If you're willing to stay slightly behind the curve, you get the benefit of good quality, gear that uses tested technologies, and is widely compatible. (For example, this is the best time ever to buy 35mm SLR still cameras.)

Be patient, and eventually the technology you're drooling over now will become affordable, and you'll know whether or not it's a keeper or a passing fad like Video Laser Discs.

My first DV doc was shot on an old VX-1000. Even today, when I screen it on a battered 6-year old 3-beam video projector, I still get film professors in the audience asking me if I shot it on 16mm film.

Never attribute to conspiracy that which is adequately explained by random acts of stupidity.

I'll stop here, except to pull together the thoughts of SPOT and Bstanding to say, I'm working on a full-length feature which I keep calling a WWII love story--but it's a thought-provoking story between a German soldier and a Jewish woman. Would have been a major uphill battle to submit this to a major studio (or to maintain creative control if they had heard and bought the story), or even to try to make a feature film for under $30K five years ago. But it will be in the festivals by the end of 2004. Thanks to you guys, and even Sony (Vegas) and Panasonic (the DVX).