Alex Leith
Forum Replies Created
-
According to Boris, the answer to the second part of my question is – “no they’re not yet intel compatible, but they’re working on it!”.
-
Toke, you’re right that broadcasters do NTSC – PAL conversions, but these cost money (equipment, consumables, time, etc) and only constitute a relatively small proportion of the broadcast hours. No broadcaster is voluntarily going to adopt a system that is going to cost them more money (because ALL their programming needs to be converted) just for the sake of conforming to a US standard… Not least because Australia has already demonstrated that 50Hz HDTV is perfectly workable.
Switching framerates would not work. For starters at home your TV would loose sync briefly while the switch was made. At the broadcasters end it would be a nightmare! TV stations and broadcast centers have masses of frame rate specific equipment that is timed together – VTRs, video servers, monitors, mixers, DVEs, encoders, clocks, distribution amps, etc. etc. would all go haywire (and likely fall over) every time you made a switch.
I worked for a TV news studio for 7 years. When our blackburst generator went on the blink it cause no end of problems. I can’t imagine that any engineer would relish the idea of switching framerates every hour or so.
-
High definition is pretty likely to be 50Hz in Europe…
As already mentioned, it needs to be compatible with PAL legacy so that SD programmes can easily be upconverted for HD broadcasts and vice-versa… and more critically for HD and SD simulcasting.
It would be almost impossible to carry a 25p or 50i frame rate inside a 60Hz stream… so logic suggests than most broadcasters would choose 50Hz HDTV.
On the other hand, I wouldn’t be surprised if one or two channels adoped 60Hz because of the number of American… ahem… “documentaries” shown over here (“When Buildings Fall Down” and “Conspiracy Theories from Hell” etc.). International broadcasters like Discovery, for example.
-
Hey it could be worse… you could edit on HDV! ;-p
Seriously though, aren’t there a number of other HD codecs appearing specifically for editing and post?
-
I think that HD downconverted to miniDV is going to look *slightly* worse than stuff shot straight to miniDV…
You’re compressing the footage twice (first to DVCProHD then to DV).
And also HD has a potential to slightly soft when converted to DV because the edge enhancement is less intense.
On the up side I cannot emphasise how excited I am that I’m going to have the opportunity to actually own my own DVCProHD camcorder. Plus this will make an excellent second camera on our Varicam shoots.
And tape drive or no tape drive… HURRY UP AND FINISH THE CAMERA! 🙂
Alex
-
I’ll second the “drop the tape” sentiment. You’ve got a camcorder with amazing potential for HD and high quality SD… with a miniDV tape drive bolted on… It seems a little incongruous and not really suitable for those who are most going to buy this camcorder – those who want DVCProHD or DVCPro50…
It feels a bit like a half-assed marketing attempt to make the move to P2 a little more paletable.
Or perhaps panasonic are planning to drop the DVX100?
Dump the tape, save the weight, save the $$$
Alex
-
so just mini-DV tape…
Why the hell did they bother?
Dump the tape and give us a drop in hard drive!
Alex
-
It’s worse…
I think the UK price is
-
So I guess this means that when shooting DVCProHD you have to have at least three cards?