HD cameras less than 10K
Posted 14 September 2006 - 05:18 PM
Recommendations? Should I wait a bit?
Many people may dispute the HVX200 as being full HD, but it does shoot 1080 DVCPRO HD. They are just over 8 grand with two 8 gig p2 cards. Not sure what your wanting to shoot, but I personally think the HVX is great for what it is. You could say its always better to wait when it comes to video, because of how fast the technology advances, but it depends on how soon you need it and if the specific camera will suit your needs for the job at hand.
Posted 14 September 2006 - 05:31 PM
Posted 14 September 2006 - 07:25 PM
That's not entirely true. The HVX200 has CCDs somewhat below the 1280x720 and uses pixel-shifting to approximate higher resolution; it's a good way to maximise the output of the chips it has, but I'm not that convinced by the camera. It's quite noisy, and the pictures can seem soft and mushy, especially in low light.
And of course it's not impossible to build a 1080-line camera that can shoot higher frame rates; it's done all the time for sports photography.
Posted 14 September 2006 - 09:52 PM
With todays technology a consumer 1500p high definition camera could easily be built and it could be advertised as the only camera that offers real high definition. However the framerate would be limited to 10 or 15 frames per second and then people would realize for the first time that big numbers don't always mean the best high definition.
Posted 15 September 2006 - 06:09 AM
Well, okay, if you say so - where do you get your information from?
There are plenty of cameras, particularly digital high speed cameras, that shoot very large frames, often more than 1500 lines high - although that seems to be a number you've picked out of thin air.
Posted 15 September 2006 - 09:41 AM
Posted 15 September 2006 - 12:37 PM
> And who says the 1080p60 format wasn't picked out of thin air?
Me, among other video engineers. Formats involving 405, 525, 625, 819, 1035, 1080, 1125 or even more lines have all been tried; 1080 has gained currency because of various factors involving both engineering expediency and market forces.
> And even if a camera does support 1080p60 capture it can just as easily support higher resolutions using the
> same bandwidth if a lower frame rate....
Do you know of any 1080-line HD cameras that are capable of doing that?
I think you're trying to make out that you end up with a lower effective compression ratio per frame at lower frame rates given the same bandwidth, which sort of makes sense.
I'm really losing sight of the point you're trying to make here.
Posted 17 September 2006 - 06:03 AM
The HVX200 does shoot 720p which by the way is full HD. Most people think 720p is medium definition but 720p gives you full progressive scanning at 60 frames per second something which is impossible for 1080i and 1080p.
Thomas where ther eis a will there is a way!
You can rent a 1920x1080 3 chip 60p camera and 10bit recorder tomorrow. (HDC1500 and SRW1 portable recorder)
You can rent a 1920x1080 3 chip 300fps camera tomorrow. (Arri NAC Hi Motion)
Also higher speed cameras from Phantom and Photron range.
Panasonic 200 records "720p" on P 2 cards, this is varicam 960x720 pixels format.
As Phil says the ccd is far less than 1280x 720 pixels, it is 3 x 960x540pixels in fact.
It is pixel shifted and up resed to 960x720 pixels.
Posted 18 September 2006 - 01:01 AM
Posted 18 September 2006 - 02:37 AM
Why? Who considers it that?
However the 1080p60 format would have to be considered ultra high definition so it would not be fair to use this format to prove that 720p is not real high definition.
Posted 19 September 2006 - 11:12 AM
Posted 19 September 2006 - 03:14 PM
Thomas has this thing for 720p and JVC. I think he/she is being paid to stir up the controversy to help sales of cameras that are strictly in the 720p format. He bounces around the more popular web forums standing on his soapbox trying to indoctrinate everyone with his 720p/jvc religion. When people come along and say "1080p60 is here today so what about that?", he then switches up and calls that Ultra Definition and says it doesn't qulify for HD. It's uterly ridiculous. He's a mole of some sort from somewhere.
He/She doesn't even own a camera or shoot or have any backstory or follow-through to who he/she is. Thomas James or Androbot2084 (as it goes by in other places) is just a screenname that popped up one day and began preaching...that's it.
He doesn't assist others in other questions, talk about sound or audio or even engage in any other meaningful discussion like lenses, post production workflows, recording formats, software, upcoming projects, personal experiences, or ANYTHNG else other then the 720p is better then 1080 & jvc is better then everyone else talk. Not to say that's illegal, but most 'discussion forum owners' consider that "trolling" and unwanted.
So just ignore him, or rather should I say... "it".
Edited by Mr. Shannon W. Rawls, 19 September 2006 - 03:18 PM.
Posted 19 September 2006 - 03:42 PM
The fact is that 720p cannot be considered "medium definition". When the 720p format was invented it was not designed as a medium definition format but rather as a full high definition rival to the 1080i format. Although the frame size was reduced for the 720p format the fact is that 720p boasts its superior quality by the fact that it uses superior progressive scanning technology rather than interlace. Therefore the picture quality of a 720p broadcast will always be better than 1080i despite what the naysayers tell us. 1080i is just a marketing gimmick designed to sell more cameras because consumers think they are getting higher resolution when in reality they are getting lower resolution than 720p. Unfortunately even camera companies that are the champions of the 720p format now are selling 1080i cameras in an attempt to boost market share.
There is no such thing as 'Medium Definition'. 720p falls into the (admittedly broad) area of High Definition, as opposed to Standard Definition which is either PAL or NTSC. The fact that you continually chant this mantra leads me to think that either:
1. You don't know what you're talking about.
2. Shannon is right, and you're a corporate shill.
3. both of the above.
Posted 19 September 2006 - 06:34 PM
720P is 1 MP
1080 is 2 MP
cinemas dont support 60p. 24p in the usa, 24 and 25p in europe.
so if you intend to have a cinematic release, avoid 720p, use 1080p.
it will cut your resolution in half. that would be NTSC at 320.240 instead of 640.480.
720p is challenging 16mm, 1080p 35mm.
collateral, starwars II and III, sin city, spy kids, manderlay, dogville, bowling for columbine, two brothers, ghosts of the abyss, maimi vice, apocalypto, fly boys, sky captain, superman, once upon a time in mexico, zodiac.... and so many more...
are all 1080p a-budgets.
what would be the namedrops for 720p?
if someone wants to be informed about >100 p 1080 cameras i will gladly help.
Posted 20 September 2006 - 10:47 AM
Edited by Thomas James, 20 September 2006 - 10:49 AM.
Posted 20 September 2006 - 11:09 AM
Unless you dont need a TV or theatrical release, it is not a good idea to shoot movies in 720 60p just because there is a dvd distribution format to support it.
Most 720p subjects are shot 24p becasuse the production team like the flicker, shooting and screening 60p a la showscan needs the audience to accept less flicker. This will happen over time not overnight.
You are wrong about the 200 being the only multiformat camera (or camcorder for that matter)
Sony dont have to "hold out" they have one or two pro models already.
You are shooting yourself in both feet when you you conclude your argument that producers can choose the resolution that best suites their needs by using multiformat cameras, because the cameras you mention only have 720p or less sensors and upconvert to 1080i!
Quick stop the bleeding:)
Posted 20 September 2006 - 02:39 PM
> 60p is called the Showscan format
Drivel. A 60 frame format using 65mm film was called Showscan. You can't take the name simply because some format happens to run at 60fps. To claim that your point of view is supported by the makers of a respected film because they happen to share a frame rate is completely disingenuous.
You're spouting gibberish upon gibberish, arguing a point nobody had even mentioned, much less cares about, and making factually incorrect statements. Please stop.
Posted 20 September 2006 - 03:12 PM
As far as pixel shifting technology is concerned one first has to realize that with pixel shifting technology infinite resolutions can be obtained with the only limitation being the resolvability of the glass. Pixel shifting does not use interpolation to increase the resolution but rather to scale the picture. For example if a 1280x720 sensor is pixel shifted diagonally a 2560x1440 3.6 megapixel pixel raster is created. However since there is not yet a 1440 format the picture has to be further uprezzed to 3840x2160. After this process the picture is scaled to the 1920x1080 format. So interpolation is used not to increase the resolution but rather to scale the picture to 1080. Also some argue that pixel shifting results in the pixels being overlapped which result in a loss of resolution. JVC has proposed that its HDV cameras will soon have the capability to output the full 2560x1440 pixel raster as a continous output JPEG still images which could be converted to video if the framerate is high enough. One advantage of using 1280x720 chips is that low light sensitivity is increased over an equal sized 1920x1080 chip