New HD Camera Rumors???

Spot|DSE wrote on 7/23/2006, 8:47 PM

Anyone who would "know" can't comment, and outside of that, there are *always* rumors of new cams.
As far as the Canon not offering true 24p, set up two cams side by side, one "true" 24p and the Canon. Use your eyes on the footage, and then decide if it's not useful to you. It's being used on all sorts of film projects. The 'expensive' part...I don't have an answer for that.

farss wrote on 7/24/2006, 2:09 AM

There's also the new camera from SI, not exactly 'cheap' but pretty awesome performance for the money.
Thing is the first generation HD prosummer camera are outstanding value for the money, that such a great image can be pulled out of such small packages with such low running costs is what amazes me.
Will the next generation get significantly better?
Somehow I doubt we'll see such a leap in image quality again. I think the XL-H1 is at the edge of the envelope for 1/3" chips. The optics are already the limiting factor and to push them any further with 1/3" sensors seems impossible. Hopefully if enough of us embrace larger sensors (which means bigger cameras) the cost will come down. Good glass though I think is always going to be relatively expensive.

Just my 2 bobs worth.

vicmilt wrote on 7/24/2006, 5:42 AM

Awright... I certainly don't KNOW anything about new cameras, but I believe it that the newer technology of CMOS camera chips for acquistion (as predicted in the Red Camera ) will replace the smaller chipped and more expensive to produce CCD's which are currently in use.

Canon may very well become a leader in this change, as they are way ahead of the curve in CMOS chip development, with these chips being the mainstay of their Hi-End still camera line (Mark II, 5D).

Those still cameras utilize CMOS chips the exact same size as a normal 35mm still camera frame, giving you the advantage of limited depth of field, wider angles of coverage and they are coupled with magnificent imagery - equal in most ways to "real" 35mm film.

There are very few professional photographers using film anymore.

I predict a jump into this technology will totally revamp professional videography. In six months?? I doubt it. For under $6k? I doubt that as well. I agree with Farss... you've pretty much hit the "image line" for a while. What you will see is "feature creep".

My Sony VX1000 is almost nine years old. While the features of my PD170 far surpass the VX1000, when we use both cameras (frequently), in most cases you cannot see a difference on the screen - in low light - definitely - in normal well lit situations - no discernable difference.

I think that is the way it will remain in the HDV scene for a while.
Of course, this is all a matter of opinion. You did ask for rumours, didn't you?

best,
v

apit34356 wrote on 7/24/2006, 7:43 AM

If I remember correctly, the Canon CMOS chip is producted by Sony IC manufacturing Division. Most current medium and high-end imaging ICs(volume) are from Sony (CMOS and CCD). Tho, many other IC manufacturerd have done a lot of research(good) in CMOS, but Sony has been able to mass produce CMOS in volume where many have not been able to obtain good yields. There is some great CMOS and CCDs designs that would put 35 film in the history books, but capturing the data requires new approaches in transmission and mass storage. The question of sales volume, will it paid for the producing a new camera line and storage media? Each camera market has its own special needs, movie, tv production, tv news, docus..... proconsumers...

Coursedesign wrote on 7/24/2006, 7:49 AM

[Canon CMOS still cameras are] equal in most ways to "real" 35mm film

In most ways they are quite a bit better. They about match medium format still cameras (such as 6x6cm).

I can't wait to see Canon apply some of their CMOS magic to video cameras....

Actually, the problem isn't so much the CMOS imager as the electronics to pick up the signal. They gotta pickup a LOT of data real fast...

Canon's DIGIC chips do an astonishing job, now they just have to crank them up without requiring the camera operator to wear asbestos gloves (and a car battery on his belt...).

filmy wrote on 7/24/2006, 8:52 AM

>>>has anyone heard if there are any new HD cameras that are currently underway for realease in the next 6 months to a year from sony, jvc, or panasonic in the $5000-$10000 range?<<<

Yeah- JVC has announced two (or three depending on how you look at it) of them.

The GY-HD110U and the GY-HD200 (And the 'studio' version - GY-HD250U.)

Musician wrote on 7/24/2006, 9:02 AM

A lot of the 1/3" cameras still suffer from low-light noise problems, do you expect that we are soon going to see larger chips in prosumer cameras, or do you think that is still way off into the future?

Coursedesign wrote on 7/24/2006, 9:20 AM

The problem with CCDs is that when you go from 1/3" to 1/2", the yield drops in half because the area is about doubled.

That is one of the reasons Sony's new HD 1/2" cameras are so expensive.

CMOS imagers have much better yields, but are more difficult to manufacture and the signal readout has some additional challenges.

I quite like what SI came up with, reading only in RAW format and doing the "camera processing" in post instead. That avoids the need for superfast A/Ds and DSPs in the camera.

And they have footage to show... (that won a Best Cinematography award at the 48h film festival even :O)

Real is good.

Spot|DSE wrote on 7/24/2006, 10:26 AM

As suggested earlier, CMOS is absolutely the future. CCD technology has all but reached the end of it's development potential and CMOS has but barely scratched the surface. Don't be surprised if you see 3-CMOS chip cams out in the new future, and the biggest benefit to the general population is that CMOS costs less, multiple surface area can be combinant unlike CCD, and as the technology improves, more of the surface area can be used for sensor and not data. Witness the difference in the HC1 and the HC3 for example. Tremendous difference in the same size chip. Some of it is DSP of course, but a huge part of it is in the chip technology.

jwcarney wrote on 7/24/2006, 11:18 AM

I wish JVC hadn't cancelled their 3 chip 2/3" cmos camera. Would have been interesting.

I think the new Ikegami is cmos and very expensive (50K).

GlennChan wrote on 7/24/2006, 5:29 PM

That avoids the need for superfast A/Ds and DSPs in the camera.
The CIneform RAW format records with wavelet compression... it does need A-->D convertors and DSPs in the camera. The DSP is some sort of computer "notebook" running a dual-core processor. Specialised hardware might offer better performance (i.e. ~20X), less heat, and/or better battery life. But it takes R&D costs.

Coursedesign wrote on 7/24/2006, 7:21 PM

I guess my statement left room for the alternative interpretation that RAW didn't require ANY A/D conversion.

Of course it does, you can't store an analog signal in today's memory chips (although there are other technologies that can).

The nice thing about RAW is that the A/D-DSP circuitry has much LESS processing to do than when a final image has to be developed for each frame in the camera.

What's left for the DSP to do? Perhaps still some knee compression. Anything else besides the wavelet compression?

birdcat wrote on 7/25/2006, 5:49 AM

I may be wrong here (wouldn't be the first time) but I used to have an old RCA (was made by Hitachi in those days) video camera (not camcorder) during the days of tube based imaging (Saticon, Newvicon??) that used a CMOS imaging device - Not a CCD - This was back around 1983 or so - Cost me a bundle (about $700 in 1980's dollars and it was used at that ). Hooked up to my "portable" RCA 900 VCR (weighed a TON plus the two ton batteries).

I'm pretty sure that it was not a CCD (in fact I think it was just MOS, not CMOS) so just how new is this really?

farss wrote on 7/25/2006, 5:58 AM

As old as the hills however those sensors had terrible problems with smear,

Spot|DSE wrote on 7/25/2006, 7:24 AM

On the tech side, it used to be that CMOS chips would be manufactured in a specified size, but greater than 50% of the surface was used for electronic flow and not for imaging. As a result of Moore's law, nearly 80% of the surface area is used for imaging and the remainder for flow. Additionally, in the case of the Sony chips, they have reduced the "bubble" of the sensor, allowing more light to pass between the pixels, and therefore improve the light sensitivity, and enhance detail. There are still yet some additional improvements that I imagine we'll be hearing a lot more about soon enough.

mjroddy wrote on 7/25/2006, 10:05 AM

"There are still yet some additional improvements that I imagine we'll be hearing a lot more about soon enough."

I'm guessing that's a statement, not speculation. :-)

Is there EVER going to be a good time to buy a camera, or will there always be something cooler JUST over the horizon?

I'm in the market now, and know there are good choices available. But I'm looking for the second generation Sony or Cannon. The new JVCs look mighty cool, but they have such a bad rep, I'm hesitant to go that route. And this whole CMOS discussion means, "Wait another year and there will be another leap in quality."

I've allotted myself less than $10K for a new camera, and am waiting - more or less - patiently (i have about 1-2 months before I NEED a camera).

filmy wrote on 7/25/2006, 11:14 PM

>>>Is there EVER going to be a good time to buy a camera, or will there always be something cooler JUST over the horizon?<<<

No. :) In my many years of being in this business there has always been somehting new over the horizon. I remeber going to the SMPTE show in, um...81 i think and they were demoing "real time" effects - using a clip of Oliva Newton John and the effects were things like pixelation and "paint". Kodak had a set up so you could go in and see a short film that was shot in existing light - at night. Than I remember the Amiga show in maybe 96 where they were demoing "real time" video capture and playback taking input from a laser disk of Firefox, ingesting it, and playing it back real time on a huge array of screens. And B&H was set up with the latest "pro" Hi-8 cameras as well as "pro" S-VHS cameras.

Sometimes you just gotta do it and not wait, because when you wait something else will be around the corner.

>>>The new JVCs look mighty cool, but they have such a bad rep, I'm hesitant to go that route. <<<

Not sure where you heard that they have a bad rep - I did long and hard searches and comparisons on cameras and at the end the JVC just looked the best. (as far as 'prosumer' HDV goes) To be fair it seems the first cameras out last year had some issues but those issues have been fixed, and the new "A" versions are out. JVC also has/has free firmware updates for those who got the camera before. The newly announced camera just adds on to what people have been asking for - in other words JVC listens really well.

Being fair I would say that if you actually go out and read a lot of comments from people you see complaints about almost every camera out there. For me though I come from a film background and the HD100 fits that workflow. It is kind of funny but I called a DP friend of mine and he just got one as well - and this is a guy who is an award winning DP and been shooting for the last 30 years or so, not some newbie. Had I not really liked what I saw I never would have gone the JVC route at all. And the fact that the camera is being used on TV shows and features right now is saying things as well and that isn't a bad rep to me anyway.

Spot|DSE wrote on 7/26/2006, 6:45 AM

The split screen issue still plagues the HD100 at gain, and the battery life would have continued to cause it grief if it wasn't a discontinued model already.
Additionally, JVC have never had a background in HD until the HD100. IMO, JVC is the only "big" brand to avoid in HD. The new models look good, but then again, look at all the problems that chased the 500 as well. Some people like the cam, others hate it. I like it for it's form, I like it for the image when compared to the other 1280 x 720 HD camcorder available. The lens is pretty weak, and virtually every review out there mentions this, as far as I know. C/A is terrible, but it's also a broadcast-type lens with real glass all the way thru, and 5K just doesn't buy good removeable glass that can resolve HD.
The features on the JVC are simply very well thought out, and it's a broadcast styling all the way.

apit34356 wrote on 7/26/2006, 7:33 AM

DSE, ??? Are saying the JVC HD100 is discontinued? How would you rate it compared to other fixed lens HD/HDV cameras? ( not to put you on the spot.... no pun.... well, maybe).

Spot|DSE wrote on 7/26/2006, 7:46 AM

IMO, the JVC has some significant benefits.
ONLY HDV cam to have full-raster imager
Only HDV cam to have actual, technically correct 24p (but this is somewhat less of an issue than most make it to be
Terrific form, although it's a little short for my shoulder/arm combination
Sweet features, particularly if you're comfortable with a broadcast lens setup/cam body layout
Great images if you have a well-lit scene, are shooting for cinematography, etc.
I think JVC was thinking about two markets with this cam, and met both markets well past half-way. Broadcast guys like the layout, indie film guys like the film-like looks.
My understanding is that the cam is done as far as manufacturing cycle. What's out there is what's out there. They did announce new cams at NAB in the same price range. No announcement of "it's discontinued" has been made, but no announcement is more common than not. Sony hasn't ever announced the discontinuation of the HC1, either. :-)
We have the JVC, and if it was a 1080 cam, I'd be happier about it, but use it on occasion. Without the Anton Bauer kit, and without the Fuji lens, it's not nearly as impressive as it could be, but it does the job. 22 mins of battery life out of the box is disappointing, but if you don't use the LCD screen, you can get triple that time. The LCD screen is pretty poor overall on the cam too. But you know...it's easy to find fault with any of them. My feeling is that Sony did it best overall. The Z1 has been on the market for 2 years, first out, and the followers still haven't come up with an OVERALL better camera. There are little things you can pick out that are superior or existing in new cams, like the HVX having under/over crank, Canon and JVC having flavors of 24p, superior glass and SDI output on the Canon, but for overall features, the Z1 is by far and wide the leader, and has sold by far and wide more units as a result.
If I were to be blindfolded, buying on features only, and image quality coupled with features only, the Z1 is still my choice, but the XL-H1 is really, really close behind. It's only price that separates the two for me. I can get two Z1's for the cost of one XLH1.

apit34356 wrote on 7/26/2006, 7:59 AM

Thanks for the info. Hands-on expierence is critical when "looking" at cameras, I'm trying to avoid buying, "Just to buy it", so it can collect dust.

Coursedesign wrote on 7/26/2006, 8:32 AM

The HD110 due for release about now, completely replaces the DH100.

More menu functions, simultaneous eyepiece and LCD, electronic b/w viewfinder option, mirror mode on the LCD, better audio monitoring, no huge differences but important for some filmmakers.

filmy wrote on 7/26/2006, 3:42 PM

From what I am picking up on the new model isn't enough for a lot of existing owners to pop out the money for a new one. However, as I mentioned before, the model seems to just add things that people have been requesting. So it is sort of a toss up really - I mean for myself the add ons are sort of nice but not worth a whole new camera. But if I was in a studio setting for sure the HD250U would be worth it.

As Spot pointed out the HD100 is more aimed at the indy film crowd and as such it fits the bill nicely. Look at some of the issues people mention - People complain about the lens and battery but on any shoot I ever worked on (Shooting film) we always went out and rented lenses and rented batterys. Other people have talked about not getting the camera because it did not have autofocus. I have to say that for me I have not bought some cameras because all it had was autofocus - I have always used manual focus. And same with film - I don't think i ever heard anyone refuse to use an Arri 35BL because the 'stock" lens was crap or it did not have autofocus.

I guess really, as I am typing this, I sort of feel this way - as with editing if a person can edit they can use tape and a razor blade and create art. Sure a tool like Vegas makes it easier but the core idea is that you need to edit in order to really edit. With film sure anyone could buy some raw stock, stick it in an camera and run film through it. How the DP and camera operator worked was another issue and, cameras aside, this is a huge part of what makes or breaks the image you see. So now we have film vs. video and they were totally different beasts. But things have been changing - the DVX100 sure helped in that department. Now people could light and shoot "like film" instead of doing the whole "TV Lighting" thing. But also you have the simple fact that video cameras are "smarter" and people love to do things like simply pick it up, point and hit record. They expect autofocus, they expect auto gain, they expect auto f-stops and so on. Now have someone sort of try and combine film and video at a "prosumer" price point and you get backlash such as the JVC got/gets. But the HD100 is sort of like a film camera - you set it up, get the lenses you want, go full manual and shoot like you would a film. Yes it is still not film but neither are any of the other HDV cameras.

The "slpit screen" issue was an issue at first but frankly JVC got on that and fixed it and later models did not have it and now with the "a" firmware I have not really heard mass's of people talking about it. JVC has fixed anyone's camera with the "split screen" issue as well. In some reguards that is a non issue so we are left with the "add on" type issues - lens, battery life and things that are more cosmetic really. At least IMO and remember I come from film, not video so my perspective is a lot different at times than video only people.

I seriously looked at the Canon and have seen some amazing footage shot with it and came close to buying it. But the things that changed my mind were seeing footage shot with the JVC. Beyond that it was features - lack of autofocus and ability to back focus were major points for me. Also with the upcoming HD110U the body is the same which means any sort of add on will fit. This includes the upcoming HZ-CA13U lens adapter that JVC is putting out.

And just some FYI stuff - first "consumer" HDV camera was the JVC GR-HD1 and that was sort of a bomb for various reasons. I know people who did use it and they also knew all of it's ins and outs and could get great footage from it. But most pople didn't think it was worth the hassle plus HD was not out there as much as it is now...and we are only talking 3 years ago. Also JVC was pushing D-VHS for a while as well and came out with a few models. But these were even before the HD1 and it was sort of like laser disk in that only true geeks went out and got them. Somewhere in these forums I had posted questions about workflow with the HM-DH30000 or 40000 model and Vegas for outputting HD material. I ended up having a talk with the head guy at JVC about workflow and he sort of said to me "Well sure you *can* do that but we don't advertise/support that." They were pushing it for HD digital dailies more than actual HD / NLE worklfow.

Also JVC is saying the HD100u is "discontinued". Look at this page and go to the bottom. "Model discontinued. Last available price shown"

And FWIW here is the list of changes from the HD100Ua to the HD110U

========================
# Black & white viewfinder display mode
# Simultaneous use of both eyepiece viewfinder and tri-mode LCD display when powered by Anton Bauer or IDX battery system
# Selectable mirror mode on vertically flipped LCD display
# Adjustable setting of FOCUS ASSIST function
# Choice of 3 image formats on composite out (letterbox, squeeze, side cut)
# User-selectable ON/OFF DNR level menu setting
# 13 segments audio level indicator
# Manual audio control within FAS (Full auto shooting) mode
# Audio limiter available in manual mode
# Parallel power off management of DR-HD100 recorder

All other features, performance specifications, and accessories are the same as the GY-HD100U. Physical appearance is identical.
=============