John_Cline wrote on 2/5/2005, 1:32 PM
DV was intended to be a consumer format and then all the pros jumped on it, thus making it a defacto pro format. Earlier, DAT (digital audio tape) was intended to be a consumer format until the pros jumped on it and it became an exclusively pro format. JVC has had plans for an HDV camcorder priced somewhere around $20,000 and no telling what Sony has in store. My point is that HDV shouldn't be looked at as a consumer format.

Regarding HD display technology, I'm interested in seeing what they do with DLP's using the "wobble" technology. This will allow relatively inexpensive projector TV's with full 1920x1080 resolution.


By the way, how is a resolution of 1600x1200 thirteen-times better than HD? That simply does not compute.)
p@mast3rs wrote on 2/5/2005, 2:04 PM
Personally, I dont even see why this is being debated. What does it matter? Its not like anyone is going to have their mind changed.

I was going to go with the DVX100a for my projects for the 24p rate but realized with the cost of the cam and an anamorphic adapter, it would be the same cost as a HDV cam that can do 16:9 natively.

Personally, I could give a crap what everyone thinks is HD or not HD. As long as it delivers outstanding quality for my viewers and customers, thats all that really matters. Everything else is nothing more than HYPE and marketing. Would anyone really consider JVC's HDV cam HD? I sure as hell wouldnt because the qaulity isnt there. I can blow up 352x240 mpeg-1 file to 1920x1080i but does that make the new file HD? Nope. Its all about quality.
BillyBoy wrote on 2/5/2005, 2:13 PM
"My point is that HDV shouldn't be looked at as a consumer format."

Well, that seems strange. Why would a "pro" want to output something at higher resolution than his typical audience of "consumers" could benefit from?

Where I jumped into the discussion I said the current state there is no such thing as a real HD television, because to my thinking any consumer going HD is likely first to get a TV for the family or living room. If they do, it isn't likely to get a little 24 inch or smaller set, (the only one presently that support real 1920 x 1080) that I've seen anyway, and as of right now because of costs and difficulity of manufacture of the panels no larger size TV has enough pixels to display 1920 x 1080 without line doubling or some scheme that only mimics a higher resolution.

Any projection system again avoids the real issue. You're not getting real pixel for pixel 1920 x 1080 resolution, you getting some image run through some complex optics that MIMIC that resolution.

So while there are now some HD cameras, and surely down the road they will be even higher resolution cameras and TV's, we're not there yet in a practical sense. So, hence my comments on why are some so hot to get a HD camera? My guess, the old saying applies. The difference between men and boys is the cost of their toys. That translates to getting something you think you need because the guy down the street has it as opposed to getting something because there is a practial reason to get it. Shorter answer: Some will get a HD camera now or in the near future because THEY WANT IT, not because of any real need.
JJKizak wrote on 2/5/2005, 2:32 PM
I have never seen anything anywhere showing HDV to compare to a CRT period.

VegasVidKid wrote on 2/5/2005, 2:32 PM
Sorry, but you folks are all sadly misinformed. There has been high definition broadcast since 1936.

" In England, the BBC operated a 405-line station located at the Alexandra Palace in northern London. Public programming started on November 2, 1936. The British claim this to be "the world's first regular public high definition television service."

Sources: Andrew Emmerson, Old Television (Buckinghamshire, UK: Shire Publications, 1998), 5
(For more info, see This great Website).

So, you can see that hi-def has been and will continue to be a moving target. There's no format you can shoot in today that will still look state-of-the-art in 50 years. But it can still look pretty darn good.

I see that the debate was very heated on the VideoUniversity site, and now it has become a barnyard brawl here, as well. Personally, I think that for weddings (mosty of the audience there), the technology is a little on the premature/overkill side, at the moment. There's almost no practical way to deliver it yet. You can do very flattering and tasteful work with the 3-chip cams that have been available for the past few years. The actual camera used is only one minor element. I'm sure that if George Benson and I swapped guitars, you'd still be able to tell which one of us were playing.

At the risk of making an off-color comparison, I think that even higher def images for most weddings would not make them more enjoyable to watch, but more like some of the cheap porn flicks that border on looking like gynecological examinations.

However, I bet that Steven Spielberg would probably have tried to get his hands on an HDV camcorder if he were a 17-year-old today.
Spot|DSE wrote on 2/5/2005, 2:47 PM
Oh hell, Billyboy, no one here NEEDS any of this "stuff." You didn't buy a new plasma because you NEEDED it, you wanted to try to join the men and separate yourself from the boys. No one here NEEDS a bigger, better, faster, meaner computer, and no one here NEEDS to be editing great vid. We do it because we all aspire. Even rocks aspire to be more than a rock.

The bigger question, BB, is why you saw fit to significantly edit your initial post after you blustered on about standards, only one standards org, etc, etc.
There isn't a "standard" for what constitutes HD, other than the issues of pixel count and colorspace. That's it. And no one has issued a set "standard" around the format/delivery/packaging, other than the industry at large, and that's not a standard. In fact, in the industry as an editing side, it's rare to talk about resolution, framerate, etc, it's referred to in other means.
The television side of the question bears little resemblance or relationship to the authoring side. What might start out as 4:4:4 1920x1080p sure isn't that when it hits the consumer's television. And likely isn't that when it hits the editing timeline in many conditions. And for sure won't be that when it hits a DVD, Blu-ray, DVHS, or HD-DVD. But they all are high-def delivery mechanisms.

Your posts simply go to the side of why this question needed to be asked for purposes of ascertaining where the people in the community are in terms of understanding HDV and it's relationship to HD. You're one of those that doesn't.
John_Cline wrote on 2/5/2005, 2:48 PM

How can you possibly be so misinformed?

BB: "Well, that seems strange. Why would a "pro" want to output something at higher resolution than his typical audience of "consumers" could benefit from?"

Because, eventually, most consumers WILL be able to view it at that resolution and WILL benefit from it. (See, even stupid questions have answers.)

Whenever possible, I have always acquired material in the highest quality format. Just because there are relatively few people that can currently view HD, that doesn't mean this will always be the case. I'd rather be ahead of the curve than behind it.

BB: "a little 24 inch or smaller set, (the only one presently that support real 1920 x 1080)"

My 34" CRT-based Sony XBR-960 will display real 1920x1080.

BB: "The difference between men and boys is the cost of their toys. That translates to getting something you think you need because the guy down the street has it as opposed to getting something because there is a practial reason to get it."

I can make use of an HD camera RIGHT NOW for paying clients with a NEED for HD programming and I'm certain that there are a LOT of other people here on the forum that can also make that justification. Since we're in the video production business, making money with it is about the most practical reason there can possibly be. I don't want to do today's jobs with yesterday's tools.


(I still like Cheno's comment from earlier in the thread, "If it looks like HD and smells like HD and tastes like HD.... it must be HD.)
farss wrote on 2/5/2005, 3:15 PM
you are so right. BBs comments are absurd. Yeah, one of my last clients wanted it on VHS, following BBs logic I should have shot it on VHS. But then a few weeks later he comes back and wants it on DVD. And he really didn't like the idea of me using 24/48K audio kit and studio mics until he finds out he needs a CD of his performance and hey hang on he can even sell the things. That why he paid good money for someone who has a vague idea of what they're doing.
And now my next client is a corporate gig, well obviously BB hasn't walked around trade shows for a few years, giant plasma, projection and LCD screens everwhere and all capable of more than SD. Now the client mighn't know anything about technical standards but he sure wants his stand to look as good as it can, he doesn't care a rats if he's got to play his vid off a DVD or a PC, the things hidden in a box anyway. And whats more it's costing BIG time to shoot the footage so he expects it to be usable for at least a decade.
This is just at the low end of the market, step up to something you're selling to a large network and I can tell you for a fact it at the very least has to be very good 16:9 SD, once it's 'higher' definition you've got a much better chance of making a sale.

BillyBoy wrote on 2/5/2005, 3:35 PM
How can you and Spot always be so full of yourselves?

There is no such thing as a stupid question, only stupid answers or more accurately over the top, arrogant, I'm important you're not type of answers common from Spot and John Cline if their OPINIONS get challenged. It SO bugs both of you everytime I disagree with you, regardless how trivial, I know a personal attack will shortly follow. You both are as predictable as any six year old having a temper tantrum.

To paraphase Cheno, if its someone is bragging, boasting or playing the "I'm a professional card" it must be Spot or Cline.

You two guys ARE SO INSECURE.

"Just because there are relatively few people that can currently view HD, that doesn't mean this will always be the case. I'd rather be ahead of the curve than behind it."

Its nice to see you agree with me. You do what you do to feed your ego. You just admitted few customers actually benefit. So you charge more for HD knowing full well few if any customers will see its true potential.

Thanks for entertaining us again.


epirb wrote on 2/5/2005, 3:49 PM
WOW this train went off the tracks, but at least it went 50 some odd posts before derailing! No Flame here meant by that just an observation.
Besides even when it does I still get good stuff from the posts.
>Even rocks aspire to be more than a rock.<
I love that,statement, Its says a whole lot.
I'm might have to borrow that Spot.

a mere pebble in video,

Spot|DSE wrote on 2/5/2005, 4:02 PM
I just spend 2.5 hours in a variety of stores talking to consumers and store salespeople at every level of the market.

T.V. Specialists-A VERY high end store that doesn't really cater to the general consumer, they only sell high end display and editing gear, plus high end cams. But they hold seminars on technology most every Saturday.

Circuit City--Need I say more?

Best Buy--See Circuit City

R.C. Willey--High end consumer store, but claims to have well trained, knowledeable sales staff. (They even have 'certificates' of education from various manufactures. :-) )

I talked to 27 potential buyers, asking the same questions of each. (several were couples, so in reality, I talked to 15 people)
I talked to and listened to 9 different sales people.
I also had a DVD of HD downsampled to SD, same images that are on our FTP site. I had similar images that were all SD-originated.

1. Consumers don't know exactly what HDTV is, except that they think they "need it." They didn't know the meanings of "native resolution."

2. Consumers CAN absolutely see the difference between HD and SD, even when it's just SD on an HDTV or SD media that was derived from HDV on an SD television .

3. (side note) Women were more apt to spot the tiny details than men were, and appreciate the differences.

4. Only 4 salespersons I talked with knew the difference between DTV and HDTV.

5. Only 1 salesperson had ever heard of HDV, and excepting the TV Specialists store, all stores carry the JVC HDV cams, and all three had the JVC's in stock. None of the stores had the FX 1 in stock, and only the TV Specialist staff knew of the FX1 or Z1 cameras. And they felt the JVC was a better cam than the FX1 or Z1. (huh?)

6. Men knew what Progressive vs Interlaced was, but only knew about progressive only because of ESPN or otherwise sports programming. Otherwise, they didn't know what it meant, they just knew that it existed. Two of the women knew of Progressive vs Interlaced. One knew progressive was better for slo motion in sports.

7. Every person, and five of the sales people, didn't know the difference between HDTV and DTV. Only two salespeople knew the diff between EDTV and HDTV. Both of them understood that not all HDTV's supported/displayed 1080 resolutions. (most HDTV's only accept a 1080 signal, but don't display as such)

8. All people talked to are buying new televisions for one of three main reasons:
a: They want to take advantage of the better image that Direct TV and Dish are advertising.
b: They want a slimmer/thinner television so they can have part of their living space back.
c: They are getting tax money back and a television seems like a good thing to spend the $$ on. (keep in mind this is the day before Superbowl Sunday. I'm SURE that has something to do w/it.)

It's pretty evident there is a lot of misinformation and missed information out there. But, this thread is more about HDV and creatives....but the total understanding of the format isn't much different than the consumer side understanding the television displays.

I've not tabulated all of the posts as of yet, but between the many forums I've posted this question on, rougly 40% of the audience thinks that HDV isn't "true" HDV, which means that either they don't know what the HD standard is, they don't know what HDV is and they're parroting what they've read, or they just simply have progress angst.

Of course HDV is "true" HD. The ATSC spec for HD is listed below. Note for the record, that while 1080p is the grail at the moment, it's not part of the standards spec. But HD delivery for now, is not a moving target that some have suggested it is. HD acquisition will continue to be a moving target, but it will never be "standardized," IMO.

ATSC definition
High Definition Television (HDTV) – High definition television has a resolution of approximately twice that of conventional television in both the horizontal (H) and vertical(V) dimensions and a picture aspect ratio (H × V) of 16:9. ITU-R 14 further defines “HDTV quality” as the delivery of a television picture which is subjectively identical with the interlaced HDTV studio standard.
High-definition television provides significantly improved picture quality relative to conventional (analog NTSC) television and a wide screen format (16:9 aspect ratio). The ATSC Standard enables transmission of HDTV pictures at several frame rates and one of two picture formats; these are listed in the top two lines of Table 5.1. The ATSC Standard also enables the delivery digital sound in various formats.

Table 5.1
Vertical Lines- 1080/720
Pixels- 1920/1280
Aspect Ratio- 16:9
Picture Rate-60I, 50i, 30P, 25P (amended), 24P

HDV isn't the same formatting as HDCam, HDCam SR, Viper, or DVCPro HD, but neither is DV the same format as Beta, DigiBeta, BetaSX, or IMX. All are broadcast equally often.
Does 4:2:2 at various compressions or no compression equal a "true" quality? No. It equals what many professionals use. Eventually, consistent professional use of a format may determine a standard, but at the end of the day, the standard of display and method of transport; not acquisition and authoring, determine the standard. A compression scheme does not determine the level of broadcastability or not. And 4:2:0 has been being broadcast for years, in terms of color sampling, and in a variety of compression formats.
One thing that was funny, was when I showed the DVD to the sales guy at TV Specialists, he was absolutely sure that there was no way the footage came from an HDV cam, and then he refused to believe it was unedited/color corrected, because "he can always spot MPEG noise."
We've always been trained to believe that compression is a bad thing. Guess what? It's not. Compression technology has advanced tremendously in the past few years. 4:2:0 is a brilliant compression format, and while 20:1 is a huge compression, it's also a very efficient encode/decode, which is what really matters at the end of the day.

What does "broadcast quality" mean, anyway? Just because it's got 1080 lines of resolution doesn't mean it's "quality" because it could be uprezzed crap. But if the originating source has 1080 lines (or 720) of resolution, in the hands of a reasonably talented person, you'll have a great picture to the end.
The Sony camera certainly is broadcast quality; anyone who disputes that is either uninformed, or a fool. DV is certainly broadcast quality too. It's the hands of the master that makes the format work. And in that same vein, all I can say to the HDV detractors is "Look at the picture. Tell me what's wrong with it." Does it carry the depth of color straight off as a very high end HDCam? Nope. Is it a great picture? Yup. Is there $45,000.00 to $145,000.00 in difference? Only you can answer that one. On a television set, you won't know the difference. On a blown up theatrical release, you'll definitely know the difference. But, we'll see in another 48 hours what the film out from the HDV format looks like, and I for one, am very excited to see that film.

HDV, like DV, and like other formats such as 35mm,16mm, Beta, Beta SP, HDCam, has it's issues and limitations. Those issues and limitations are greater issues and limitations than a CineAlta or a Viper might have. You pay the extra $$ to reduce those issues and limitations when you buy a 150K camera. By spending less, you get to spend more time learning the formats caveats. Doesn't matter if we're talking about camcorders or a passenger plane. You spend less, you get less. Both will do the job, and HDV does the job very well. To do much better, you need to add an extra "0" to the cost of the camera. Oddly enough, the cost of supporting an HDV camera is about the same as supporting a much more expensive camera.

Can consumers see the difference between HDV and DV acquired media? You bet your a$$ they can. I just spent over 2 hours proving it to myself. Is the average Joe and Jane excited about better pictures? You bet he/she is. People are spending more and more time in front of their computer and television screen, and they want realism. In my little "experiment" of showing this footage, I had quite a few people asking me where they could get a cam that would shoot that quality of picture.

The only detriment we have holding the format, and HD in general back at the moment, is delivery. For broadcast, delivery is no sweat. It's HDCam, no questions asked. For mom-pop/corporate client, we have fewer choices at the moment. Windows Media HD-computer only unless they've got a newer system that will accept DVI, DVI-D that the computer can stream to, or have a specialized card.
There is also the h.264-based AVC codec that can be played on a few settop boxes, and more are coming online every day. NeroDigital has a great jump start on this, as Microsoft is dragging their heels on their newly named VC1 codec.
DVHS is another option, although the bitrate must be kept down for clean playback.

Anyway, although I knew this little experiment would likely go awry here (and in one or two other forums) I'm glad to get the feedback from so many people, because it helps me in my growth and understanding of what's really being seen out there at both the consumer and professional end. We're in an exciting time for being creatives, eh?

But one thing I've learned in this little 24 hour experiment is that not a lot of people understand the paradigm shift that is taking place at both the authoring/creative side and the consumer/client side of HD.
Sometimes I'm not sure I do either.

If you got this far in the post, thanks for the read.
epirb wrote on 2/5/2005, 4:20 PM
And like I said, and I think a few others, if you showed those people you talked to,HDV,Varicam etc. via the only real mass STANDARD delivery method ie: Cable HDTV ,Direct TV they would be hard pressed to even see the difference, but amazed at the Picture quality and resolution of all 3.
I just got done watching the tape output of a flag waving in a 10-15 knot brezze shot on my FX1. Manual settings, slow it down, freeze the frames, STILL looks stunning on a 55" screen. I'll try and post some screen grabs in the next day or so full res. so anybody wants to download them and see what I mean. Is it 100% perfect, No, heck I'm sure my skill level cant even pull the FX's full potential.
But is it HD? you bet your sweet ass it is Cupcake!
Hulk wrote on 2/5/2005, 4:26 PM
Can someone list some monitors found in electronics stores such as Best Buy and the like that actually support a resolution of 1440x1080 or higher?

I'm not seeing them.
winrockpost wrote on 2/5/2005, 4:32 PM
OK so its HD, big deal. The format is confusing as hell and the networks still cant figure it out, so I dont feel so bad being confused. Still dont get the point,,, but must admit it was amusing to read Billy Boy ,Cline and Spot go at it again,
boys will be boys.
John_Cline wrote on 2/5/2005, 4:37 PM

Currently, the best looking 1920x1080 images are produced by CRT monitors. The Sony 34" XBR-960 is about the finest looking TV I have ever seen for any price and it can be had for under $2,000. It will display 1440x1080, in fact, it will natively display all 18 ATSC DTV formats without any of the interpolation required by LCD, DLP or plasma displays that have a single, fixed, native resolution.

BillyBoy wrote on 2/5/2005, 4:45 PM
My dear Spot.... you can't expect consumers or sales people to define HD, because the industry itself hasn't. Its that simple. You, me, Cline or anyone else can throw out a "standard" and somebody else can point to another and none of it proves a thing.

If you're talking about cameras HD can mean one thing. If you're talking what present "HD TV's" mean that can be something else. If you refer to what's "allowed" or supported for broadcasters that too is something else as is what broadcasters are actually using, what if anything the FCC will change/fix/allow and that's only for this country and when that's all said and done the MANIFACTURERS decide on a broader, general set of "standards". Go somewhere else in the world and it starts all over again.

Since a new HD camera came on the scene many have decided they got to have one. Of course like usually happens my words get twisted where some try to paint me as saying I'm against HD everything. All I'm saying is the wisdom of almost six decades on this spinning globe, I don't jump on every merrygoround simply because the next guy does.

While some may beneift from HD, at this point in time that's the exception. Its very similar to the faster CPU cycle. So many can't wait till the next version comes out, they just got to have it, then three months later there's a faster one.

Spot|DSE wrote on 2/5/2005, 4:50 PM
Billyboy, when you wink at me in your cowboy suit and tell me you're cute, or when you refer to me as "your dear" I gotta tell you, it really scares me.
That said, I guess you didn't read my post clearly, as all you've done here is supported my position.
BillyBoy wrote on 2/5/2005, 5:01 PM
How something "looks" on a TV/monitor isn't limited to the type of display or resolution.

There are other things to consider. Like the light output the device is capable of, the level of contrast (meaning how black are blacks), the size of pixels, what if any reflecting coating is on the screen, if you'll view it at the proper distance (most agree you should be at least 2.5 times the screen size from it) and several other things as well including if or not you bother to properly calibrate it.

As far as "best" type, that of course is open to opinion. Who should know more than the manufacturers? They have stopped selling CRT types in the East and Far Eastern countries like Japan years ago. Its just recently that LCD and plasma are more common to the states.

Why? The technology. A CRT tube, especially the big ones are very heavy, they take a lot of high voltage, they must by design deflect the electron beam to fill the picture on screen. Simple science will tell you that a deflected beam can not be adjusted perfectly edge to edge. Somehwere however slight it may be they will be distortion somewhere.

As far as finding higher resolution monitors/TV is stores, they're there if you look hard enough. In fact today I was at MicroCenter and that had the HP model that's got a lot of talk here and a couple other makes all having 1980 x 1080 native resolution, but they were small, 22 and 26 inch in size. I wouldn't want anything that tiny in my oversized family room.
BillyBoy wrote on 2/5/2005, 5:07 PM
[Deleted by moderator]
John_Cline wrote on 2/5/2005, 5:23 PM
[Edited by moderator]
BillyBoy wrote on 2/5/2005, 6:48 PM
The only reason you and Spot keep getting mad at me is because I clean your clock in every argument.

wcoxe1 wrote on 2/5/2005, 7:40 PM
As can be clearly seen, even here, the MESS that the "Authorities" made when they allowed, neigh, encouraged multiple "standards" had taken its toll.

The minimum becomes the maximum. Keep that in mind. (See my full post, above.)
filmy wrote on 2/5/2005, 7:57 PM
First - Spot - gosh you are a brave soul. I just read responses to you made by a "man", who seems to like the "law", and now this thread has just grown massivly. So cheers to you for not going balistic on every fourm around.

Somewhere, at some point, I posted in this vegas forum about "standards" and this is sort of the same thing. How many times has someone come in here and asked "Why is Avid the standard?". Right now HDV is a buzz word - and so is HD. The question is if HDV is HD - oh, no, the question is if HDV is "True" HD. Well to me, at least right now, it is like asking if 16mm is "True" film, or if shooting with anything other than a Panivision camera is really a "true" production. You have a base set of specs - what makes a VHS tape a VHS tape? What makes 35mm film stock 35mm film stock? What makes HD HD?

To me the basic spec out there right now would put HDV into the "true" HD field. However that would also put my $40.00 DVD player into it because it can output 720p...but I really would not consider it an HD DVD player, and just because I watch DVD's played with it on an large screen HD TV does not mean I am watching "true" HD. I agree with some of BB says when he says what it out there is just confusing - and it is even more confusing for the average person...and saddly even for the average salesman at stores like Wal-Mart, Circut City, Best Buy and so on...all of which do carry some form of "HD" product. Oft times it is the blind leading the blind.

I have no doubt that most people could "see" a differance between the basic "turn the rabbit ears more to the left" reception and a true HD signal. Like wise most people could tell that a DVD is better than a 10th copy VHS dub. But most people did not care, and could not tell, that Beta was better than VHS - so you know, maybe we are all of base here. Will it matter if HDV is better than DV? Or if it is, or isn't, "true" HD?

Think about this - we have Mini-DV camcorders all over the place. You can get one for 200 bucks now. But look in almost any 'consumer' store - VHS vcrs are all over the place (even though video tapes are now non-existant in many stores). And I see more and more DVD burners - set tops that is, all over the place, along with dual DVD/VHS decks. But I have yet to see any Mini-DV decks out there...and I am talking at a pure consumer level. Matter of fact I can't say as I even now of one. (Again, talking consumer here folks - despite the whole JVC SR/HR decks I don't consider the HR really a consumer deck - I am talking walk into a store and picking up a mini-dv deck for 70 bucks like you can a VCR) Now we have this HDV debate - and it is no where as saturated as Mini-DV is. Let me ask this - is DVHS "true" HD? That format certianly has not caught on and, just like Beta, most consumers don't notice/care that the image is better than VHS (And for that matter S-VHS, which never really caught on in the consumer market even though most VHS decks now will play 'quasi-SVHS') So again - will consumers even care? I feel that they will only care what is being fed to them. It was always so exciting to see when a show was "broadcast in Stereo...where available" and even more so if it had the little ((●?)) sign as well. Than it becaome "Available in 5:1...where available". Now - "Broadcast in High Definition...where available" (Or some network variation of it). And really - most of the HD thing I feel has to do with the FCC "forcing" television to 'upgrade'.

Look, there will always be the "high-end" geek stores and the "high-end" geeks who go out and get their THX sound systems and their "lucasfilm certified" line doublers and still cling to their criterion laser disk collections but they will never be the "norm". When HD does become a "norm" there will be something else just over the horizon that we will all be talking about.

8mm, 16mm,35mm and 70mm are all film to me. I have seen really creative films shot on Super 8 and 16. I have seen really crappy, out of focus, bad color timed films shot on 35. I have been seen some really amazing 3-D IMAX films and some really bad 3-D 16mm films. But it is all *really* film. is all DV mini-DV? No - but it is all digital video - and that would include HDV. Maybe if it was called Mini-DV HD would it make more sense? Or would that just put the "it isn't true HD' crowd more on the defensive? I don't know. But I know that the superbowl is being pushed as being broadcast in HD and W's big day was marked with commintators telling their viewers that is you weren't watching in HD you really weren't getting the full glory of it all. If a network can broadcast in 720p and call it "true" HD why can't JVC and Sony push a camera that shoots 720p and call it "true" HD? And if the next step up is 1080 - well, seems the Sony HDV 'family' does that as well. So why can't it be called "true" HD? Is there a spec that says otherwise? Just asking.

DavidMcKnight wrote on 2/5/2005, 8:16 PM
BB, I would venture to say that you are the only one in this community who thinks so. Probably the only one of the three keeping score.