That made me dig through an old American Cinematographer Manual and skim the section on zoom lenses. I was looking for the term that descibes a zoom lens that stays in focus throughout the zoom. I couldn't find it but I keep thinking "parfocal" that's probably wrong.

However I did find a term related to backfocus: "depth of focus". This is as opposed to depth of field and refers to the depth of space in which a lens focuses the image behind the lens (on the target CCDs or film plane).

If the lens is very sharp at it's widest angle but tends to go out of focus when you zoom in, that's not "backfocus". That's just a bad zoom lens design. Some lenses do this, sometimes because they are extremely long or otherwise exotic, but a zoom lens for general use shouldn't have this problem, IMO.

Rob Mack

What's gonna make this allow Average Joe to compete is Blu-Ray when it's here, and WMVHD right now.
TVCMike, the resolution and compression aren't a problem at all for me. At NAB earlier this year, I was incredibly skeptical. So was Chris Hurd over at DVInfo.net. Both of us were pleasantly surprised early this fall, when first handed the images.
I've got some test pages just waiting for copyright clearance so I can share several examples of controlled test footage. No bikes in downtown HongKong or anything like this, it's great footage shot with a lot of attention paid to color and light. Should hear back any day now regarding copyright. You'll see some titles in there too.
As far as a monitor, I'm using an HP at the moment, viewing at 1900 x 1200. I can't afford an HD card for my monitor right now, and don't know that I want a CRT HD monitor anyway. I was in an HD editing suite in LA a couple weeks ago, and they have a CRT, but they're mastering on a plasma, and cross checking on a CRT. I wouldn't have thought that was ideal, but seeing both, it works much better than intuition would suggest.

Regarding 25Mbit/sec MPEG-2 TS stream for HDV 1080i, I think it should be remembered that very high quality DVD is produced using bitrates on the order of 6Mbits/sec. Although the resolution of HDV 1080i is 4.5 times that of NTSC DV, the recording video bit rate is also over 4 times the normal DVD stream.

Instead of going to a higher resolution format, MPEG-2 TS compression could have been used with SD cameras, perhaps increasing the colorspace to 4:4:4 with the additional information gained from the more advanced temporal encoding over DV. But I think it's hard to argue that HDV MPEG-2 TS was the more efficient use of the available bandwidth. As Spot has mentioned many times, it's NOT HDCAM, but it is a great leap beyond DV.

In addition, although MPEG-2 editing is problematic, the MPEG-2 stream was designed with hardware encoding in mind, so very high quality encoding is possible using hardware solutions. And, manufacturers are scrambling to provide practical and affordable editing solutions.

I have seen footage of the Sony cameras and it is, to say the least, impressive. And more so when you consider the fact that these cameras are within reach of many consumers. There are going to be soe mighty impressive (at least from a technical standpoint) home movies going to be shown in the living rooms around the world in the near future.

If you have a look at the MS high def WMV samples, especially the Terminator 2 sample, the quality is astounding, and that is CBR 8Mbits/sec! And there's lots of action, flames, and other difficult to encode scenes in that sample. Sure, the wmv codec is more efficient than MPEG-2, but the point is that this is 8Mbit/sec vs. 25 Mbits/sec for 1080i HDV.

Finally, we all know the most important rule of audio AND video compression - Garbage in = Garbage out. High compression ratios AND high quality are more easily attained with high quality sources. After having a look at the Sony specs and using the cameras you'll realize that Sony put quite a lot of effort into feeding the encoder a high quality video stream.

Very high quality Zeiss lens to gather lots of light and focus it.
Peaking, 4X mag, b/w viewfinder added as additional focus aids.
Lots of easy to use tactile manual controls such as non-perpetual servo zoom, focus, iris, and shutter, NO menus required!
3 CCD design, no fooling around here, three big 1/3" HAD CCD's.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

It all adds up to feeding the video MPEG encoder a super high quality data stream.

We're always going to wish we could "skip" a generation or two of product releases. Hell, I wish we could have skipped DV and gone straight to HDV 5 years ago. I could rerender all of my old videos to HDV now. But things just don't work that way, you have to look at what manufacturers have decided is the next logical step and decide for yourself if it is a significant leap over previous technology.

Let's see, IMO, DV to HDV is a MUCH bigger leap than Hi-8 was to DV. DV reminds me of those postage size video clips we used to work with on Pentium 200's years ago in comparison to HDV.

I can't wait to get one of these cameras and shoot my first project.

I think Sony took your advice long before you thought of it, XDCAM is SD @ 4:2:2, OK not 4:4:4 but still a big step up from 4:1:1.
One thing that you didn't mention, the silicon in a camera has to run off batteries along with motors and servos. The hardware encoders used for DVDs can have as much juice as it takes, the software ones can pretty well take as long as they like. Neither of these luxuries are available in a camera.
Also of course most of the high quality DVDs are originated from film and mostly the guys who shoot it know a lot about their craft so your comment about garbage in = garbage out is very apt. Same thing applies though to any medium and thats the thing.
There's been some pretty impressive stuff shot on Hi8 and no doubt there's still guys doing it.
Probably the one thing that's sent a lot of the old technology to its final resting place isn't HD, it's 16:9. If it isn't 16:9 then you just cannot sell it down here. So long as it's 16:9, even SD then the networks will broadcast it on HD, they just run it through their upscalers. I'm certain in the near future as more consummers get 1080 capable sets they'll be forced by the market to broadcast more true HD, at the moment all they are focussed on is meeting regulatory requirments. They only mandate HD broadcasting, it doesn't have to be HD originated.
Bob.

>>>If you have a look at the MS high def WMV samples, especially the Terminator 2 sample, the quality is astounding, and that is CBR 8Mbits/sec! And there's lots of action, flames, and other difficult to encode scenes in that sample. Sure, the wmv codec is more efficient than MPEG-2, but the point is that this is 8Mbit/sec vs. 25 Mbits/sec for 1080i HDV. <<<

i'm not aware of any terminator 2 footage that was shot on hdv... it was shot and handled with the best hollywood source material that money can buy... you could never duplicate the quality you are referring to with hdv-sourced material.

secondly, the wmp9 codec isn't just "more efficient" than mpeg2, rather, it totally blows mpeg2 out of the water... i don't know the editing ramifications with wmp9, but if it was the hdv source codec instead of mpeg2, we'd all be a lot further ahead in picture quality.

i'm new to this hdv stuff, so i get confused when people call true hd material 1080i, and then somebody else calls hdv 1080i... wrt the sony camera, the resolution specs are markedly inferior to that of a real hd camera.

i can't wait to see those hi-action shots that spot is sitting on!

1080i is just the resolution, that's ALL it means. Of course lots of confusion sets in when most of the industry assumes it means a certain thing, same with DV, all that means is Digital Video, well pretty well every video camera made today records DV, duh!
Now even I fall into the trap, I think I'me being specific when I say DV25, meaning Digital Video at 25MB/sec but well guess what HDV @ 1080i is also DV25, ergo it's Digital Video and the recording bitrate is 25MB/sec.
Bob.

It IS about time we had a graphic for this . . . . In the past 14 days I suggested this for "formats" . .. Yes it might be a complex table/graphic but well worth it for clarity . . .

But those of you with FAR more experience than I will most likely say I'm being naive and really not with the programme regarding just how difficult it would be . . .

How about people? Oh yeah how about the same for the 4:4:4:4 and 4:2:2 thing too? Guess I'm being naive here too?

Grazie

>>>>secondly, the wmp9 codec isn't just "more efficient" than mpeg2, rather, it totally blows mpeg2 out of the water... i don't know the editing ramifications with wmp9, but if it was the hdv source codec instead of mpeg2, we'd all be a lot further ahead in picture quality.<<<<

No, we wouldn't. We'd be in approximately the same place as we are now, because the two compression formats aren't horrendously different in concept. But Microsoft isn't governed by a board of individuals that can't move very fast.

<<<at the moment all they are focussed on is meeting regulatory requirments. They only mandate HD broadcasting, it doesn't have to be HD originated.>>>

Actually that's a common misconception. There is NO mandate for HD broadcasting. The mandate is for DIGITAL broadcasting, but not high-def. Broadcasters can broadcast standard-def signals digitally and be in complete compliance with FCC regulations.

There is no US-government-sponsored move to high-def. Only to digital broadcasting.

I think Farss is referring to Australia.

we might not be further ahead in terms of hdv time to market with wmp9 as the aquisition codec, but what i was referring to was further ahead in terms of quality.

it's not clear to me why, in the year 2004, the hdv standard had to be based on a totally inferior codec like mpeg2... there are numerous codecs on the market today that are far better than mpeg2.

i'd be willing to pay several hundred $$$ more for an hdv camera that recorded in wmp9, divx, etc... hdv should be based on modern codecs, not ancient standards like mpeg2.

Well then, I guess it's good that you're not an engineer at Sony. Sony tying itself to proprietary standards rather than open standards would be a potentially disastrous mistake. When there is no hardware available to encode to these formats, and nothing that they could reasonably control, imagine their exposure. If you have a gripe about the quality of MPEG and how various encoders spit out quality, take it up with the MPEG-LA group, not Sony. On the other hand, MPEG has LONG been used as a professional editing format in short GOP. Pinnacle and FAST have staked their business on it for years. Using the Cineform, you've effectively got short GOP.

Sorry, but I gotta ask again (and probably again) how many times have you shot footage with this camera? I just am struggling with folks grumbling on a format that they've yet to really see. I guess cutting edge makes it easy to do that. I remember so well, the same sort of griping that went on with the VX 1000, which is STILL being used to create broadcast footage, and still selling pretty well on Ebay, even though it's based on "ancient" technology.

The problem with more advanced codecs like WM9 and MPEG-4 is that they need a lot of CPU power. This means high power consumption, which means the camera batteries are sucked dry very quickly.

When you consider that a P4 CPU nowadays oozes about 100 Watts (without the necessary support chips even), you're looking at carrying around something like a small car battery with a camera mounted on top.

The next generation codecs will be in cameras when the chips use less power, not before.

Even miracle batteries wouldn't help, because nobody would appreciate the tremendous power dissipation. "Dear User: Please put on the enclosed asbestos gloves before turning on your camera....".

"FWIW....backfocus is also an issue, which is why I was using autofocus."

If your backfocus can't be adjusted to work for all focal lengths on a particular lens, you have a focus breathing problem. This is a problem with the optics of the lens, not with the backfocus adjustment.

Note that even the most expensive lenses have focus breathing, but lenses that cost $20,000 - $150,000 have much less of it.

If it is really noticeable you should get your lens serviced.

i'm speaking from a background of over 15 years of hands-on video compression experience... i can understand that some people won't be able to relate to what i'm saying from the standpoint of picture quality, but they need to be thinking about it.

the fact that the footage was encoded in a camera instead of on a computer isn't the issue.

the encoding hardware is a function of chip design, if the market is there, it's not a problem... and the last time i looked, mpeg2 commercial useage required a licensing fee, so how is that any different than using wmv9?

right now wmp9 is an established standard for both blue-ray hd dvd formats, it's the biggest web video format there is, and i believe that it's also directly editable in premiere pro without transcoding(?)... you can't say any of that about hdv.

right now it's impossible to edit native hdv on your typical computer, because today's cpu/video cards simply don't have the horsepower... but a battery-powered sony camera is still able to encode it.

how come hdv cameras don't require asbestos gloves :-)

I do understand where you're coming from. There's certainly plenty of more advanced codecs available, if the proprietry nature of WMV9 was an issue then there's H264. I could see an issue with WMV9 and the Macolites but Apple will be supporting H264.
All that said however Sony are one of only two signatories to the HDV format that so far are building cameras. I'm certain a big question in their mind would have been "is the prosummer market ready fro another acquisition format?". Bear in mind much of the work on HDV was already done so I think they made a wise choice, maybe not the best but that's the nature of business, many times right wins out over best. I think the history of this game is full of products and ideas that were better but died because they weren't right for the market.

However, if you're unhappy with the HDV encoding you don't have to use it! We've run some tests just using the camera head into a different encoder to record 4:2:2 SD and so far it looks VERY promising. I'm certain there's guys in various skunkworks working on an even better solution than we've tried, right now.

So turn the camera on its head, think of it as a very good, low cost HD head that can also record in HDV. The cheapest I've seen a HD head for is around 3 times the price plus glass. Now you can take the video from the camera into your own box and encode it to whatever you so desire. I think Firestore may already be working on a HDD recorder to do just that.
Bob.

"...the fact that the footage was encoded in a camera instead of on a computer isn't the issue. the encoding hardware is a function of chip design, if the market is there, it's not a problem..."

The issue is that you have a lot more CPU horsepower in your dektop PC than you have in a portable camera today.

Even custom chips would need lots of power to do WM9 or MPEG-4/H.264 encoding, it just can't be helped at this time.

"...right now it's impossible to edit native hdv on your typical computer, because today's cpu/video cards simply don't have the horsepower... but a battery-powered sony camera is still able to encode it."

Encoding HDV is actually easier than editing it. When you get into transitions and effects, it's messy. Easier to transcode to a short-GOP format or a traditional AVI format.

"how come hdv cameras don't require asbestos gloves :-)"

Because they process a video signal with 75% of the color information removed (4:2:0 sampling) and use an easy-on-the-CPU MPEG-2 codec. The custom chips to do this can be quite power efficient.

In-camera H.264 or WM9 is probably 2 years away for this level of camera (perhaps earlier for more expensive equipment).

HI scdragracing.

The point of referencing the wmv samples was to demonstrate that with as little as 8000kpbs astounding quality CAN be achieved, and I bet that with the perfectly setup lighting, great lenses, and other assets that come with major motion picture budgets HDV would look quite good. Not as good as that footage, but quite good, maybe even great.

I define efficiency when speaking about encoding as quality to bit rate ratio, and I think that wmv is better than MPEG-2 in this regard. Yes, wmv is A LOT better.

Since HDV 1080i is anamorphic 1440x1080 and not HD 1080i which is 1920x1080 it is useful to denote which 1080i format one is talking about since they both have different resolutions.