Looking to buy a HD Camcorder

[whenloverageswild]

Hi:

I was about to buy a new handycam, but -due to all of the issues all of you stated here - I 'm waiting for something that looks definitive in this camp.

That said, I still have my Digi 8 Sony 520 (bought in 2000), and believe me, I found quite similar to the DV quality machines and allows me to still reproduce the oldest Video 8 cassettes, and since I want to move for Hi Def recording I found out a lot of discussion about the Hi Def formats (H.264 or the older MPEG2).
My opinion (and I'm not an expert) is that MPEG2 was declining, since H.264 is growing So Hi Def will abandon MPEG2 sooner or later.
And, since you buy a Hi Def cam, it is supossed you want to achive a Hi Def recording in some Hi Def way (downgrade a Hi Def recording to DVD format looks wierd, to say the least).

So first point is:
Are we able to consider that H.264 is THE Hi Def format?. So we have to edit in this format, reproduce in this format and etc. (So then, go and get a TV and a player for that format....)

Second point is:
Which is the best way to preserve the original recording.
Well, as some of you stated, the tapes have passed the test of survival, at least for a 17 years since my first Video 8 tape. But tapes has it cons: it could deteriorate, crop, marked, etc, without considering that, no matter it archives in digital form, is still a magnetic support that will degrade with time.
Recordable DVDs? Some pressed Cds from the first era are showing a grade of deterioration unacceptable with the promised lifetime durability. Will the same ocurre with the DVD-R? Who knows....
Hard Disk inside Camera: Well, you can record and then past that to a HDDVD/Blue ray, or to a HDV, or whatever...you can save several masters, and you can do some regular back up to newer discs. And, very important point I think, you get rid of buying/carrying tapes or recordable discs, or whatever.
So, my humble opinion is waiting till Handycams will offer HUGE hard disks inside, so you can record a whole vacation (my last one to Disney consume 8 Digital 8 tapes) and then put all the stuff in your computer and save to other media, edit, or whatever. Maybe a 500 GB disk inside?
I thinks that will be the epithome of Freedome word in filming world...at least for now.

[edDV]

Hi:
...

So first point is:
Are we able to consider that H.264 is THE Hi Def format?. So we have to edit in this format, reproduce in this format and etc. (So then, go and get a TV and a player for that format....).

H.264 and VC-1 are the "current future" distribution formats for consumer HD/BD DVD. Distribution formats are those that compress the tightest and are most compatible with common hardware players. Distribution formats are not necessarily the same as acquisition or editing formats. Distribution formats are what you export so that they have the highest chance of working with current/future consumer hardware players. The current distribution format for SD is DVD MPeg2.

Serious digital acquisition formats are uncompressed or low compressed and preserve individual frames. DV formats (MiniDV, DVCAM, DVCPro and Digital8) all have the same 5x in frame DCT compression. High definition requires 4-6 times the data of DV for equivalent compression. That means a 62min (~14GB) MiniDV tape would only record 10-15 minutes for similar HD compression. Pro's are OK with that* but consumers demand more record time per GB, so MPeg2 or MPeg4 motion compression (over 12-15 frame GOPs) are employed to increase record time. Motion compression has quality problems especially for hand held camcorders. Quality drops proportionately with the number of pixels in motion. Shaky hand held video has all pixels in motion so you get the point.

So long GOPs cause quality issues before considering editing issues. Simple "cut editing" can be done by cutting on I frames (first frame of a GOP) without further quality loss but 12(PAL) or 15(NTSC) frame GOPs represent half a second and that is a long time in editland. Next best is to reconstruct individual editable frames from a GOP but that requires estimation for reconstruction so quality takes a further hit. This is why MPeg 2/4 is inferior to full frame recording for editing.

The next issue is the amount of compression in the I frame. MPeg4 (AVCHD) is more compressed than MPeg2 (HDV) and suffers more loss if decompressed and re-compressed. So bottom line, MPeg4 has more quality issues for acquisition and editing but is good if no editing beyond GOP cuts (half second) is desired. Currently acquisition in MPeg2 (HDV) with editing in MPeg2 or digital intermediate and then encoding to H.264 or VC-1 for output produces much better results than acquisition and editing in MPeg4 (AVCHD).


* Pros use much less compressed MPeg2. Single frame GOP MPeg4 formats are in development but will use higher bit rates than 15Mb/s.
- XDCAM (25-35Mb/s)
- DVCProHD (100Mb/s)
- HDCAM (144Mb/s)
- HDCAM SR movie acquisition (440mb/s or 880Mb/s)

Second point is:
Which is the best way to preserve the original recording.
Well, as some of you stated, the tapes have passed the test of survival, at least for a 17 years since my first Video 8 tape. But tapes has it cons: it could deteriorate, crop, marked, etc, without considering that, no matter it archives in digital form, is still a magnetic support that will degrade with time.
Recordable DVDs? Some pressed Cds from the first era are showing a grade of deterioration unacceptable with the promised lifetime durability. Will the same ocurre with the DVD-R? Who knows....
Hard Disk inside Camera: Well, you can record and then past that to a HDDVD/Blue ray, or to a HDV, or whatever...you can save several masters, and you can do some regular back up to newer discs. And, very important point I think, you get rid of buying/carrying tapes or recordable discs, or whatever.
So, my humble opinion is waiting till Handycams will offer HUGE hard disks inside, so you can record a whole vacation (my last one to Disney consume 8 Digital 8 tapes) and then put all the stuff in your computer and save to other media, edit, or whatever. Maybe a 500 GB disk inside?
I thinks that will be the epithome of Freedome word in filming world...at least for now.

So far tape is best for long term storage. Optical storage is questionable (not known) and hard disk is risky and still needs backup.

The other issue is whether future editing is desired. If so, low compression acquisition formats should be archived.

[whenloverageswild]

I thought that H.264 was an improvement compared with MPEG2. not only in compression rates, but specially in quality.
As you put it down, EdDV, I must keep my Digital 8 Cam in good shape...
Won't be anything better than the dear old DV codec?.

[edDV]

I thought that H.264 was an improvement compared with MPEG2. not only in compression rates, but specially in quality.
As you put it down, EdDV, I must keep my Digital 8 Cam in good shape...
Won't be anything better than the dear old DV codec?.

H.264 compresses more than MPeg2 approx 2-3x at equal quality or has higher quality at similar bit rate. All MPeg compression suffers quality loss when recompressed. For this reason it is better to encode to MPeg2 or MPeg4 one time.

All I frame MPeg (no GOPs) is similar to DV format for SD or DVCProHD for HD. Pro HD formats tend to all I frame or minimal GOP size.

[whenloverageswild]

Ok. EdDV. The point is, as far as I understand, the following:
If you use the minimal compression H.264 codec allows (and considering the HiDef camera is not fixed to a certain rate only), you got a better quality with a new HiDef Handycam than the quality made with a Sony Digital 8 Handycam (wich is a DV codec)?
I've already known the issues about one is older and is not Hi Def, while the newer doubles the former lines of resolution, but the question is still not about how many lines you can get or if it had a better compression rate than MPEG2 (which I don't like much really I must admit), but how much better quality in terms of sharp, crispy, brilliant images the new format can produce?
I must be honest. I haven't seen yet any recording with that newer format or Hi Def camera.
That said, my only concern is about quality: I won`t jump from the older DV format to a newer one, if quality is not the big improvement. If it's only a matter of "I can compress more and better", but still DV get sharper-free-of-artifacts-quality pictures, I will remain with that old and reliable format.

[edDV]

Ok. EdDV. The point is, as far as I understand, the following:
If you use the minimal compression H.264 codec allows (and considering the HiDef camera is not fixed to a certain rate only), you got a better quality with a new HiDef Handycam than the quality made with a Sony Digital 8 Handycam (wich is a DV codec)?

Well picture quality depends on many factors. The main limitation of a Digital8 camcorder is not the DV format but the cheap camera section and lens. If you compare your D8 result to a VX-2100 or PD-170 you will see a huge difference in standard def PQ. High definition requires a better camera, sensor, lens and more bandwidth to handle 4.5x pixels (720x480 to 1440x1080). More bandwidth requires running the tape faster or compressing 4.5x more. The latter is what HDV does. Bit rate is the same as DV (25mb/s) so Mpeg2 compression must add more in frame and motion compression to maintain the bit rate. Consumer AVCHD can match HDV in theory at 12-15Mb/s but most notice added noise for current AVCHD codecs.

Pro HD camcorders use more bit rate to get higher quality. XDCAM-HD uses 18-35Mb/s IMX (MPeg2). DVCProHD captures all frames at 100Mb/s without motion compression and with 4:2:2 color sampling. HDCAM also grabs all frames at 144Mb/s with 3:1:1 color sampling. DVCPro-HD uses 4 DV codecs in parallel to handle ~4x the pixels at 1280x1080. XDCAM and HDCAM record 1440x1080 same as HDV.

I've already known the issues about one is older and is not Hi Def, while the newer doubles the former lines of resolution, but the question is still not about how many lines you can get or if it had a better compression rate than MPEG2 (which I don't like much really I must admit), but how much better quality in terms of sharp, crispy, brilliant images the new format can produce?
I must be honest. I haven't seen yet any recording with that newer format or Hi Def camera.
That said, my only concern is about quality: I won`t jump from the older DV format to a newer one, if quality is not the big improvement. If it's only a matter of "I can compress more and better", but still DV get sharper-free-of-artifacts-quality pictures, I will remain with that old and reliable format.

As said above, a higher end DV camcorder will produce a higher quality standard def image. If you are going to use a large HDTV screen (> 42"), the high def formats will be sharper for still images but HDV, AVCHD and XDCAM will show more motion artifacts. DVCProHD and HDCAM produce clear images with fewer motion artifacts.

[whenloverageswild]

First, thanx for keepin' in touch on this issue, EdDV.
Now, in case I move, I must move to the DVCProHD and HDCAM camp. And avoid any AVCHD (or H.264) codec based cams.
What a mess is all of this, don't you think so?

[dun4cheap]

I find all of this of interest, but I wanted to point out a few things.

While Ed is right with his information with compressed formats, this is no secret. We have known for years copying from an original, then copying from that copy you will always lose quality. The secret is starting with the best source possible and in my case the best AFFORDABLE device.

So while I prefer the HDV format over the DVD recorders, or the HDD recorders and over the AVCD format, it may not be the best final solution but it is the best AFFORDABLE solution right now. Along with the fact that I know I am using great optics (Canon CMOS 1920x1080) which is giving me one of the highest Pixel Rates available, along with an built in RGB filter I am confident that I am getting some of the best shots I can get at the moment.

I know that with the Canon HV10, 20 you have the option to shoot DV or HDV. So for those of you who are interested in moving to HD then keep this in mind. Furthermore, while mpeg2 is not the best transport method for video editing, remember that these new HD camcorders have either a 1440 or 1920x1080 CMOS censor which on them so your are capturing higher detail then any DV Consumer camcorder, and whether you are recording in DV or HDV you will have bar none a better picture. If you have not actually experienced editing any HD video then maybe you should consider looking for some. I know there are video samples for the Canon going around. If you wait for better technology then you will always be waiting.

Anyhow, capturing in HDV now may not be as good as what you can capture in tomorrow, but if you don't capture what you can today then it will be forever lost, not to mention there is nothing to debate. Because source is better than no source.

[edDV]

First, thanx for keepin' in touch on this issue, EdDV.
Now, in case I move, I must move to the DVCProHD and HDCAM camp. And avoid any AVCHD (or H.264) codec based cams.
What a mess is all of this, don't you think so?

They don't come cheap. The $6000 Panasonic AG-HVX200 is the entry point but expect prices to drop somewhat in the future.
http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ModelDetail?displayTab=O&store...FRuNYAodw25jeg

At the consumer level the HD battle is HDV MPeg2 vs. AVCHD Mpege4. At the TV news acquisition level the format battle is DVCProHD vs. XDCAM-HD (a higher bitrate MPeg2). At the TV production level the battle is DVCProHD vs. HDCAM.

For high quality SD, the prosumer DV format camcorders (e.g. VX-2100 or DVX100) are dropping price nicely.

[pred02]

I know many people are skeptical of the tape format for the Canon HV10 and HV20, but why not use the Canon to record the tape, dump the video via fireware to computer, then encode to MPEG and burn to BR?

BR is going to be the HiDef medium format going forward. BR recorders are about $400 and are likely to drop. Price of BR media is going to drop over the next couple of years. Record with the Canon, dump to computer and storage to BR. Many people do similar with miniDV and Digital8, so I don't see the problem?

[edDV]

I know many people are skeptical of the tape format for the Canon HV10 and HV20, but why not use the Canon to record the tape, dump the video via fireware to computer, then encode to MPEG and burn to BR?

BR is going to be the HiDef medium format going forward. BR recorders are about $400 and are likely to drop. Price of BR media is going to drop over the next couple of years. Record with the Canon, dump to computer and storage to BR. Many people do similar with miniDV and Digital8, so I don't see the problem?

You are mixing issues. Standard Def vs. High Def and Acquisition format vs. Distribution format.

An acquisition format is for gathering elements that will be processed and combined into a finished product. Ideally acquisition formats are much higher quality than the final distribution format. That is why production companies use film or HDCAM-SR for production of a high definition master. A good acquisition format will suffer less loss through repeated encoding/decoding as the project moves through editing and processing.

Examples of HD acquisition formats at the high end are 35mm film, HDCAM-SR, DVCPro-HD, XDCAM, AVC-Intra and HDV. SD examples are Digital Betacam, DVCPro, IMX and DV.

Distribution formats are optimized for lowest cost to allow one decode to a TV with good quality. Distribution formats aren't intended or designed for robust editing or recoding (decoding and encoding again).

Examples of HD or SD distribution formats are MPeg2(TS), VC-1, WMV-HD, WMV, MPeg4 (h.264, xvid, divx, other).

An analogy is the morning newspaper as distribution format. It is cheap to distribute and resonable quality but it doesn't copy well. You can try to extract text with scanner and OCR but there will be quality loss.

At the consumer level video editing equipment separates into hardware solutions or computer solutions.

At SD resolution consumer aquisition options are DV, MPeg2 or MPeg4. In the case of MPeg2 or MPeg4 you are capturing to a distribution format and will have difficulty in post production. They can be cut without loss with appropriate software.

At the HD level none of the consumer formats qualify as ideal acquisition formats. HDV MPeg2 becomes usable with fast computers and optimized software. AVCHD has very limited consumer post production support. Other formats lack software support.

MPeg2, MPeg4, VC-1, WMV, WMV-HD, Xvid, Divx, are all potentially good distribution formats but aren't intended for repurposing. You can struggle with it as a hobby but don't fool yourself.

[whenloverageswild]

Hi EdDV;

Let me think out loud

As you pointed out, HD level is restricted to HDV MPeg2 (becomes usable with fast computers and optimized software) or AVCHD (that has very limited consumer post production support), plus other formats lack software support (which ones, EdDV?).

On the other hand, and if I'm not confused, Blu Ray is not longer using Hi Bitrate MPeg2 encoding and adopting AVCDH instead. Am I right so far?

That said, it looks pretty tempting to moves towards a HD acquisition format that needs no further conversion, and just hoping that home post production software (Nero, TEMPGenc, main Concept, etc.) get improved to handle original source properly.

Looks too good to be true?. Maybe is not as true as I think....

For not professional guys (like me), Pro HD cams looks far for my budget.

[Nightmare]

I guess I'll bump my 8 month old posting.

I still don't have a new camcorder, but I think it is about to happen. I've been reading reviews on www.camcorderinfo.com and I think I have it narrowed down to two models:

Canon Vixia HF100
-3rd Generation AVCHD
-Records to SD and HCSD (1 HR per 8 GB max quality)
-Up to 17 Mbps
-Rated #4 on the web site
-About $600 + memory cards

Sony HDR-SR12
-3rd Generation AVCHD
-Records to 120 GB HDD (890 Minutes at max quality)
-Up to 16 Mbps
-Rated #6 on the web site
-About $1050

I'm leaning toward the Canon. SD memory is always dropping in price. I save about $300-$400 right out of the box. SD should have a much longer battery life.

I found a site with very cool videos. If you search the site you can find video clips from many different cameras.

Canon HF10 (same as the HF100 with 16GB internal memory)
http://www.vimeo.com/910518

Canon HV30 (you can see that even the top dog isn't perfect)
http://www.vimeo.com/1211711 - Check out the Zebra at 54 sec

[edDV]

Hi EdDV;

Let me think out loud

As you pointed out, HD level is restricted to HDV MPeg2 (becomes usable with fast computers and optimized software) or AVCHD (that has very limited consumer post production support), plus other formats lack software support (which ones, EdDV?).

On the other hand, and if I'm not confused, Blu Ray is not longer using Hi Bitrate MPeg2 encoding and adopting AVCDH instead. Am I right so far?
...

BluRay format supports MPeg2, H.264 and VC-1. HDV m2t and AVCHD m2ts file formats can be directly played by some players. Research individual players for direct playback or author a BluRay DVD.

[edDV]

I guess I'll bump my 8 month old posting.

I still don't have a new camcorder, but I think it is about to happen. I've been reading reviews on www.camcorderinfo.com and I think I have it narrowed down to two models:

Canon Vixia HF100
-3rd Generation AVCHD
-Records to SD and HCSD (1 HR per 8 GB max quality)
-Up to 17 Mbps
-Rated #4 on the web site
-About $600 + memory cards

Sony HDR-SR12
-3rd Generation AVCHD
-Records to 120 GB HDD (890 Minutes at max quality)
-Up to 16 Mbps
-Rated #6 on the web site
-About $1050

I'm leaning toward the Canon. SD memory is always dropping in price. I save about $300-$400 right out of the box. SD should have a much longer battery life.

I found a site with very cool videos. If you search the site you can find video clips from many different cameras.

Canon HF10 (same as the HF100 with 16GB internal memory)
http://www.vimeo.com/910518

Canon HV30 (you can see that even the top dog isn't perfect)
http://www.vimeo.com/1211711 - Check out the Zebra at 54 sec

No $1000 consumer camcorder is going to be perfect and neither is a $25k XDCAM model (still MPeg2).

Camcorderinfo.com and other camcorder review sites have many users directly using these camcorders. What are you asking?

My question to you is how are you going to edit/process the resulting video?

[Soopafresh]

One thing to consider - You'll probably have to upgrade your PC to play back and process AVCHD.

[Nightmare]

I don't think I have any specific questions, just thinking out loud.

I know that I might need to upgrade my PC. My game rig is about 4 years old and I usually get a new one every 4-5 years.

[turk690]

to edDV, I understand that for the best quality I could, say, capture in HDV and edit in that (acquisition) then author a BD-R with the results in H.264 (distribution). But if I capture in AVCHD (with the highest possible bitrates & resolutions afforded by a specific camcorder), then (because Premiere won't handle it) encode the AVCHD clips to *.WMV or *.AVI (which will naturally bloat the final clip size about 4x its original), edit that (a few cuts, fades, gamma correction, simple titles), then re-encode finally to H.264 with a view to putting it out on BD-R, did I lose more quality compared with the HDV capture or not?
I'd like to get a second HD camcorder and I'm still confused about AVCHD editing issues, especially that Premiere is my main NLE.

[edDV]

to edDV, I understand that for the best quality I could, say, capture in HDV and edit in that (acquisition) then author a BD-R with the results in H.264 (distribution). But if I capture in AVCHD (with the highest possible bitrates & resolutions afforded by a specific camcorder), then (because Premiere won't handle it) encode the AVCHD clips to *.WMV or *.AVI (which will naturally bloat the final clip size about 4x its original), edit that (a few cuts, fades, gamma correction, simple titles), then re-encode finally to H.264 with a view to putting it out on BD-R, did I lose more quality compared with the HDV capture or not?
I'd like to get a second HD camcorder and I'm still confused about AVCHD editing issues, especially that Premiere is my main NLE.

It would make a good experiment. HDV workflow is easily done in 1080i* through the current process with final deinterlace handled by the HDTV in hardware. It is handled much the same as uncompressed SDI, HDCAM, XDCAM-HD or DVCProHD with interlace encoding to the BD-R (MPeg2, VC-1 or H.264).

AVCHD is also 1080i/29.97 fps unfortunately. It can be decompressed and edited conventionally as 1080i but HDV has the edge for recompress quality. Or it must be bobbed to 1080p/59.94 before current AVC codecs can be used or suffer deinterlace motion artifacts at progressive 29.97. If the camera could produce true 1080p/59.94, one could work with it with less conversion loss. While 720p/59.94 is supported in theory, nobody has made a 720p AVCHD camcorder yet. Some AVCHD camcorders are supporting telecined 24f but the editing software is not yet optimized.

As it sits, AVCHD can be cut edited and directly played as a 1080i file on many BD players (not Samsung) with minimal quality loss. More serious editing or filtering requires lossy recode. Quality can be improved in the future with faster computers but IMO MPeg2 HDV is a better match for today's dual and quad core CPUs.

[edDV]

...But if I capture in AVCHD (with the highest possible bitrates & resolutions afforded by a specific camcorder), then (because Premiere won't handle it) encode the AVCHD clips to *.WMV or *.AVI (which will naturally bloat the final clip size about 4x its original), edit that (a few cuts, fades, gamma correction, simple titles), then re-encode finally to H.264 with a view to putting it out on BD-R, did I lose more quality compared with the HDV capture or not?

If by "*AVI" you mean uncompressed, then you would require an AVC decode and a RAID for preview. For practicality, better to use a digital intermediate format like Cineform or Apple intermediate format which will process well and preview from one disk. WMV isn't appropriate as an intermediate format and would require deinterlace.

[Nightmare]

I ordered the Canon HF100. It will be here Monday.

[zoobie]

Another huge advantage of tape is the fact you can send your HDV back to it after editing (NTSC cams only) for nice safe storage.
I just had another HDD fail on me yesterday after only 1 year of use...

[edDV]

I ordered the Canon HF100. It will be here Monday.

The HF100 is an interesting camera but storage is only to expensive flash media.

This is OK for short clips but extremely expensive for long takes.

[turk690]

I'm examining specs of JVC Everio HD HDD camcorders, which all record to MPEG-2 TS in a variety of bitrates and resolutions. One of these is 1440x1080 CBR 26mb/s, which is touted as "nearly identical" to HDV, and can immediately be used in an HDV workflow without conversion to any (intermediate) format. If it has the same resolution (1440x1080), format (MPEG-2 CBR), and bitrate (~25mb/s) as HDV, why is it then NOT HDV? Is it because it's recorded to HDD rather than to mini DV tape? For that matter, why couldn't HDV be recorded on HDD or SD directly? Why is it always AVCHD acquisition for HDD & SD? Is HDV exclusively for mini DV tape? Is there something about the HDV format that prevents it from being recorded directly to HDD/SD, or is restricting it to mini DV tape (in acquisition) intentional? When I have finished transferring the HDV contents of a mini DV tape to my PC HDD by way of FireWire, is the file on my HDD still HDV or strictly, is it now a different format? No matter how good AVCHD gets, unless it's formally recognized by Premiere, I'm firmly on the side of the kvetch.

[edDV]

I'm examining specs of JVC Everio HD HDD camcorders, which all record to MPEG-2 TS in a variety of bitrates and resolutions. One of these is 1440x1080 CBR 26mb/s, which is touted as "nearly identical" to HDV, and can immediately be used in an HDV workflow without conversion to any (intermediate) format. If it has the same resolution (1440x1080), format (MPEG-2 CBR), and bitrate (~25mb/s) as HDV, why is it then NOT HDV? Is it because it's recorded to HDD rather than to mini DV tape? For that matter, why couldn't HDV be recorded on HDD or SD directly? Why is it always AVCHD acquisition for HDD & SD? Is HDV exclusively for mini DV tape? Is there something about the HDV format that prevents it from being recorded directly to HDD/SD, or is restricting it to mini DV tape (in acquisition) intentional? When I have finished transferring the HDV contents of a mini DV tape to my PC HDD by way of FireWire, is the file on my HDD still HDV or strictly, is it now a different format? No matter how good AVCHD gets, unless it's formally recognized by Premiere, I'm firmly on the side of the kvetch.

Excellent questions. I've been calling for an internal hard disk HDV camcorder for months. Today you need a Firestore external drive. Why can't it be internal to the camcorder?

The "industry" seems set to a different direction. Sony has brought XDCAM-HD down from $25k to ~$8k but where is the $1K version? Why is this "rocket science"? Sony needs to protect their XDCAM line so why isn't Canon eating their lunch with an internal drive HDV model? Does Sony secretly control Canon?

[SCDVD]

I've been calling for an internal hard disk HDV camcorder for months.

The thing that is so irritating is that Sony already has the ability to do it. The HVRV1U has an external hard disc accessory, the HVR-DR60. This camera is a bit under $5,000. The HVR-DR60 will set you back another $1,500 or so.

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-broadcastcameras/cat-hdv/product-HVRV1U/

http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/ext/hdv/hvrv1u/HVR-V1U/hvr_dr60.html

I suspect that Sony is so obsessed with "product positioning" as well as their own internal politics that their product planning is a real zoo. Each business unit within Sony has to be careful to not step on another business unit's turf. This has to be a real mess sometimes. I imagine the best way to get shot in Sony is to have the wrong kind of good idea that is inconsistent with the grand product road map.

[edDV]

Sony wants AVCHD for the consumer and is bringing down XDCAM-EX for the HDD/flash prosumer. XDCAM is very similar to HDV but with variable bitrate (18-35Mb/s).

What I don't understand is why Canon or JVC don't make an internal HDD HDV camcorder. Canon has made almost every other variation. JVC went their own way with 720p HDV for pro and non-standard MPeg2 for Everio HDD camcorders.

[Nightmare]

Prices on SD media are dropping like a rock. Last night I purchased

8GB SDHC - $18.99 after rebate
16 GB SDHC - $39.99 after rebate

8GB = 1 HR at max quality

I can burn M2T files to DVDs for storage (4.7 GB / 30 minutes at a time). Single Layer DVDs are almost free after rebates. Once Blu-Ray burners come down in price I can store over 1 hr at a time.

[Nightmare]

The review at www.camcorderinfo.com for the JVC Everio GZ-HD40

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/JVC-Everio-GZ-HD40-Camcorder-Review-35331.htm

Rated #10 which is not too bad.

No Optical Image Stabilization

"JVC opted to regress to the same digital image stabilization (DIS)"

[SCDVD]

The review at www.camcorderinfo.com for the JVC Everio GZ-HD40

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/JVC-Everio-GZ-HD40-Camcorder-Review-35331.htm

Rated #10 which is not too bad.

No Optical Image Stabilization

"JVC opted to regress to the same digital image stabilization (DIS)"

There are quite a few Hard Disc based camcorders. The point was there aren't any hard disc HDV camcorders. HDV is still the best choice for editing.