HDC-SD1, the first AVCHD camcorder with an SD card... Interesting features:

1- 3CCD sensor
2- 1080i FULL HD (1920x1080) video recording capabilities (Sony only does 1440x1080)
3- Dolby 5.1 audio recording capabilities synchronized on the zoom (the more you zoom, the more the audio will be focused on the subject)
4- HDMI support
5- 3 different VBRs (6, 9 and 13Mbps).


Soon we will know how it compares with Sony's AVCHD camcorders. Here is the link:

http://www.akihabaranews.com/en/news-12758-Panasonic+HDC-SD1%2C+the+first+AVCHD+camcorder+with+an+SD+card.html

Regards,
LMCid

Nice. Any news on US availability and MSRP?

Nice. Any news on US availability and MSRP?

No news yet on US Aailability and MSRP...

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Panasonic-Announces-Two-AVCHD-Camcorders-–-HDC-SD1-and-HDC-DX1.htm

Check out this image:

http://www.newlaunches.com/entry_images/1106/08/pana1_26.php

Pros:
3CCD means better sharpness/color
Higher resolution
Panasonic's excellent manual controls
Optical stabilization (hopefully)

Cons:
Less low-light performance
Compression artifacts (13 Mbps? pffft)
40/50 min recording times (SD/DVD)
SD Media, affordable? not!
DVD Media reliable? not!
Software support (AVCHD)

I'll definately pass on this one. Nice idea, but not practical. Now if there was a Mini DV version... that'd be different. Looks like I'll still be buying the HC3, as I certainly won't be waiting just to take a step backwards - trade compression artifacts for 3CCD?

I am a new owner of the HDR-SR1, but the specs on the Panasonic appeal to me. While the recording capacity of the Panasonic HDC-SD1 is obviously way lower, the SD card seems to have the following advantages:

- smaller-lighter form factor
- lower power consumption, better battery life
- unlike the SR1’s 30GB HDD, you can have multiple SD cards
- they mention an external 40gb HDD. It’s unclear whether this can be seamlessly attached (snapped on) to dramatically extend the capacity or just as a download/store device. I hope for the former but suspect the latter.

Most of my video work is under 40 minutes at a time, though having to change SD cards (or transfer to HDD) would be a pain when it is not. I haven’t checked on memory futures, but history indicates that 8-16gb SD cards should exist within a year, which would eliminate this complaint (for me). From a spec point of view, I like the Panasonic HDC-SD1 better than the Sony HDR-SR1 I just purchased (such is life in the tech world), but it is unclear how these specs translate into real-world performance when it is actually released in a few months.

As for tape, I hate it never, ever want to own one again. I've owned many tape-based camcorders and they've all had media problems. These included an early Elura and a more recent GL2. Besides the reliability/durability issues with tape, there is the lack of speed and convenience. Everything I shoot gets onto a computer for some editing even if it's just simple trimming and reassembly. I've been burning DVD with the result, but ultimately would like to have them available in a Media Server (e.g., the upcoming Vista Windows Media Center). Even when tape works, it's just way too damned tedious.

In contrast, disk and solid-state memory are fast, random access, very convenient and "online." Hell, it's even getting really cheap (I just bought a 300GB external drive for $95). AVCHD with its better compression is important to the success of this new generation of camcorder. While AVCHD is brand new and still poorly supported by editing sofware, I have little doubt that this will dramatically change soon given the product commitment of heavyweights such as Sony and Panasonic. MiniDV and other tape systems will be anachronistic well within a decade.

Tom

I've owned many tape-based camcorders and they've all had media problems.

What kind of problems? If you're talking about drop-out rates, that's more to do with a problem camcorder than problem media (as long as it's not the .50 cents a tape stuff).

Besides the reliability/durability issues with tape, there is the lack of speed and convenience.

I can understand the convenience factor, but reliability and durability of tapes is much higher than hard drives. I'd hate to be on a 2 week vacation and have to use anything but tapes. Scary to think that you could loose all that footage from a lost/bad hard drive. If you want anything reliable, you need at LEAST double the hard drive space, not to mention access to a computer to do the backup (which means you still aren't approaching the cost of MiniDV, nor the portability).

What kind of problems? If you're talking about drop-out rates, that's more to do with a problem camcorder than problem media (as long as it's not the .50 cents a tape stuff).
I’ve only used top-quality tapes, but have had drop-outs, had a few tapes chewed, and had many more get into a pathological tight/stick situation after repeated forward/rewind cycles.

I can understand the convenience factor, but reliability and durability of tapes is much higher than hard drives. I'd hate to be on a 2 week vacation and have to use anything but tapes. Scary to think that you could loose all that footage from a lost/bad hard drive. If you want anything reliable, you need at LEAST double the hard drive space, not to mention access to a computer to do the backup (which means you still aren't approaching the cost of MiniDV, nor the portability).
I’m mystified by these statements. Hard drives typically run continuously for years, have astronomical MTBF stats, and read/(re)write the same areas thousands of times. Tape has nothing approaching this level of reliability.

Do hard drives occasionally crash? Of course – very rarely – but occasionally. However, that brings up another aspect of their functional reliability: data on disks is easy and fast to copy from one to another. Everything I have of value exists on at least two different drives and usually three. How many people duplicate their tapes for backup? Hell, those that really believe in MiniDV can even use it as a mechanism to backup their hard drives.

In terms of access to a laptop for backup on vacation, I never go anywhere for very long without a laptop, and its primary purpose is not to backup video; it is to stay connected (email), stay informed (web), do some work (productivity apps), be entertained, and entertain others (show pics/videos), etc. The marginal cost for a laptop for video and photo backup thus is zero. This is becoming not only common, but typical.

People always discuss the storage media in a monolithic manner, but there are several very separate purposes for it including:

1. Acquisition (storage on the camera).
- HDD and solid-state memory have enormous advantages on the camera. Both are far better than tape due to their random access, e.g., ability to review/delete previous clips and then instantly resume recording. HDD has far more capacity and SD card provides for smaller-lighter form factors.
2. Storage while editing.
- There is no controversy as all modern editing is non-linear and performed on computers where it is stored on HDDs.
3. Archiving and long-term storage.
- There are mixed advantages here. Tape is a bit less expensive and more portable (ignoring network transmission for the moment). However, I would argue that DVD (especially HD/Blu-ray) is better than tape because it is more durable and also more directly playable (#4). SD card does not work here because of expense and capacity issues. However, HDD works very well because of its ease given that it works well for the other applications also and thus does not need to be moved around.
4. Storage for playback.
- Tape sucks because it can only be played from the camera and only linearly. DVD is ubiquitous (and the HD types will be soon). However, Media Center computers will also quickly become more common, thus eliminating any necessity for going away from HDD. Finally, sharing/distribution heavily favors HDD because it is inherently connected to networks where it can be emailed (tiny clips), FTP, and uploaded to services such as YouTube.

Anyway, early digital camcorders needed tape because HDD and solid-state memory capacities and prices and processing power for high-compression codecs were not anywhere near where they are today. Just as tape is going (has gone) away for audio, so it will for video as well. The new non-tape AVCHD camcorders are the first of a new generation.

Tom

I’m mystified by these statements. [...] I’ve only used top-quality tapes, but have had drop-outs, had a few tapes chewed, and had many more get into a pathological tight/stick situation after repeated forward/rewind cycles.

I think you misunderstand how to use tape camcorders. The tape is the archive, not the playback media (more on this later).

I’m mystified by these statements. Hard drives typically run continuously for years, have astronomical MTBF stats, and read/(re)write the same areas thousands of times. Tape has nothing approaching this level of reliability.

That isn't the reliability I meant. Tape is more reliable as an archival media (perhaps I should have said durability).

How many people duplicate their tapes for backup? Hell, those that really believe in MiniDV can even use it as a mechanism to backup their hard drives.

The tape is your backup, not your playback media, and you don't need to back-up your backup.

In terms of access to a laptop for backup on vacation, I never go anywhere for very long without a laptop, and its primary purpose is not to backup video; it is to stay connected (email), stay informed (web), do some work (productivity apps), be entertained, and entertain others (show pics/videos), etc.

Our styles of vacation are different, I guess. I don't generally spend my vacations emailing, web surfing, or working. Tapes are perfectly reliable for playing back a few times in the evening if you want to relive an earlier moment. I'm not even bringing up the portability of the laptop, here. Camping? I don't think so.

HDD and solid-state memory have enormous advantages on the camera. Both are far better than tape due to their random access, e.g., ability to review/delete previous clips and then instantly resume recording.

That's editing, which is done on a hard drive for tapes too. You're right, for cameras, it makes sense since you are often taking several shots until you get it right. For (consumer) camcorders, you're shooting to capture a moment, for which you don't have a second shot. You don't want to stop and edit, nor do you have the opportunity to delete the clip and capture the moment again. This is almost, almost always done later on a computer, and even if it isn't, it's not critical that it be done in the field - you simply ignore/delete that footage later. Not much of an advantage, is it?

3. Archiving and long-term storage.
- There are mixed advantages here. Tape is a bit less expensive and more portable (ignoring network transmission for the moment). However, I would argue that DVD (especially HD/Blu-ray) is better than tape because it is more durable and also more directly playable (#4). SD card does not work here because of expense and capacity issues. However, HDD works very well because of its ease given that it works well for the other applications also and thus does not need to be moved around.

Except when a hard drive has problems you can loose everything on it. A part of the tape has a problem, you loose a few seconds of footage (or a file or two). Hard drives are a horrible media for archival, no reasonable data center uses hard drives for archival, they all use tape - every single one of them. Hard drives have neither the economic advantage, nor the durability advantage of tape (reliable archiving).

DVD is also a horrible media for archival. The dye used for consumer optical media does not last anywhere near what they are rated (~2 yrs before dropouts become unmanagable). Pressed DVDs may be a different story, but I don't even want to guess how much it costs. There's a reason why tape is the number one format for computer archival, it's cheap and its much more durable than a hard drive.

4. Storage for playback.

I'd never advocate using tape for playback. Transfer it to your HDD, edit it and burn it to a DVD for playback, or share it on the internet. Keep in on your HDD if you need it around for a while (very rare).

The large majority of your points have to do with a misunderstanding on how a tape camcorder is used. You shoot video, the tape becomes your archive and gets stored on a shelf. You transfer it from the tape onto a hard drive, edit it and deliver it. The tape stays on the shelf for when you need to restore lost footage. You don't use tape as an editing format (obviously), and you definately don't use it as a playback format. As you mention, that's what the DVD and internet is for. The hard drive is for editing.

Just as tape is going (has gone) away for audio, so it will for video as well.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Tape for audio went away because consumers do NOT capture unique audio moments that must be archived. Tape for computer archival has been around for many years and shows no signs of fading. There is no reason this would be any different for video tape, whose archival requirements in the consumer market are the same (tons of data, must survive time, rarely accessed). A hard drive's only advantage is convenience for that first time you access it. But consumers like that - convenience at the cost of all else. :rolleyes:

Here's a more reading if you want:
http://www.eventdv.net/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?CategoryID=108&ArticleID=11541

You're comparing apples to oranges. Tape for audio went away because consumers do NOT capture unique audio moments that must be archived. Tape for computer archival has been around for many years and shows no signs of fading. There is no reason this would be any different for video tape, whose archival requirements in the consumer market are the same (tons of data, must survive time, rarely accessed). A hard drive's only advantage is convenience for that first time you access it. But consumers like that - convenience at the cost of all else. :rolleyes:


I agree completely.

HDD cams are great for pros who shoot non personal moments and need to download and edit fast for a client.

But for your own personal moments tape is much better. I have a HDD cam and a tape cam and for personal shooting I use tape only because of the saving/archiving aspect. I download, edit, and burn to disk, then archive the tape because I KNOW that the disk will have a somewhat short life span.... And I can't ever recall having any record/playback problems with tapes!?

I am presently burning family DVDs from old 8mm video tapes that I shot over 20 years ago. They still look quite good for their age. I am also archiving these memories again on DV tape as I know that they will still look ok another 20 years from now and will be ready to be copied on any new media that will be around. BTW my 8mm shot on film over 45 years ago have also survived the passage of time. Time will tell if new media will last as long. In the meantime, I will stick with what has been tested and proofed.I will never take any chances with once in a lifetime moments.

First, if you believe that tape is the best archival mechanism (long-term storage), you can hook a tape drive to your computer. You certainly don’t need to carry a tape transport in your camcorder where it just adds weight, bulk, power-consumption, and slows everything down. However, tape increasingly even fails this purpose. Let's see if we spot a trend here.

Reel-to-reel tape was used for audio acquisition, playback and distribution. This migrated to other tape formats such as 8-track and cassette before ultimately going CD and then finally digital memory (solid-state and HDD). Cassette used to be the most common music distribution medium, but now is all but gone. It used to be the medium for personal recorders, but now is absent from that application also. Tape is now gone from everything audio.

Telephone answering machines used tape until they went solid state. Stenographic machines went from tape/wire to HDD (word processors).

Still photography went from film to solid-state memory. Tape never caught on there because digital photography did not emerge until the capacity and price of memory was already within consumer price points. The small form factor of solid-state memory were compelling.

After film, video distribution and personal acquisition went tape. However, VHS gave way to DVD for commercial distribution and HDD supplanted VHS in time-shifted viewing.

The raisson d’etre for tape has been its relative high capacity and its low expense. It is deficient in other respects, and often woefully so. However, random-access storage technologies are advancing in capacity and cost performance far faster than tape. As these technologies approach tape capacity/price, they replace it. I’ve given many areas where this has already happened. It will (and now is) happening with personal video.

Besides capacity/price, the compelling feature of random-access storage media is they can be online. This is increasingly important as people (will) want easy and instant access to their digital lives, including their digital histories. Tape stored/archived in a box in a closet is useless if you happen on an occasion where you want to access it right now. For example, a couple of weeks ago I happened to find myself on a plane next to the former coach of my son’s little league baseball team from six years ago and I had not seen him since then. During the flight I opened my laptop and showed him dozens of pictures and some video of him, his son, and his former team. It made his day. Other social situations also lend themselves to such random sharings and explorations of the digital life. Access to the internet dramatically expands this.

Our styles of vacation are different, I guess. I don't generally spend my vacations emailing, web surfing, or working. Tapes are perfectly reliable for playing back a few times in the evening if you want to relive an earlier moment. I'm not even bringing up the portability of the laptop, here. Camping? I don't think so.

This is purely historical. Twenty years ago you also didn’t carry your phone with you, but you do now. When I go on my very frequent trips, I use the web to find local attractions and to stay in touch with people. I typically send photos and sometimes video clips to friends and family. My laptop, while often not “on” me is almost never more than 18 hours away. My phone is a smart phone (PPC 6700) that has a 2GB miniSD card with my favorite music, pictures, and even some video. It is also always online. I always have a digital camera nearby.

I’m obviously ahead of the curve, but I am not on a different curve. What I was doing with digital photography five years ago is what most are doing now. Same with other aspects of the digital life. I can say with absolute confidence that random-access storage will replace tape in the video application just as tape (and analog) has been replaced in (every) other applications. Look at where iPod and Zune are going.

One final point about archiving. Just as people have been moving their digital histories from film (3mm and 8mm), audio tape, VHS, Hi-8, etc., you will ultimately find yourself needing to transfer your miniDV archives to random-access media. Not only is tape not durable over decades, but more importantly there will be no new miniDV players within 5-10 years and the old ones will ultimately no longer work. The beauty of random-access/online memory is that it really never becomes obsolescent (though the specific formats such as mpeg-2 and mp3 will) because it is continually copied to the then-current technology.

Returning to the original issue of the Panasonic HDC-SD1 and my original point, I find its SD-card memory to be overall superior to the HDD in my HDR-SR1 because it provides smaller-lighter form factors, lower power, removability, and even faster access. HDD will increasingly be relegated to applications requiring extra-high capacity and ultimately displaced by solid-state memory.

Tom

I’m obviously ahead of the curve... What I was doing with digital photography five years ago is what most are doing now.



Perhaps in five years I will agree with you as you seem to have more knowledge and insight into future trends...

That said I have to agree with Lindahl and Blackbill, based on what is available now, I will go with Mini-DV. By the way (and I swear I am not kidding) my backup hard disk just failed on me??? My 30 years old 8mm reels as well as my 20 years+ VHS tapes recorded on my long deceased video camera + shouldered carried VHS combo are still playable.

Regards to all

First, if you believe that tape is the best archival mechanism (long-term storage), you can hook a tape drive to your computer. You certainly don’t need to carry a tape transport in your camcorder where it just adds weight, bulk, power-consumption, and slows everything down. However, tape increasingly even fails this purpose. Let's see if we spot a trend here.

Do I really have to say "apples to oranges" again!? Tapes for computer archival aren't useful for consumers because consumers have different requirements for computer archival. They don't have large amounts of data to backup, and the data they do backup changes frequently. USB keys and backup hard drives are much more convenient in this respect - except for the tendency of USB keys to get lost :D.

Reel-to-reel tape was used for audio acquisition, playback and distribution. This migrated to other tape formats such as 8-track and cassette before ultimately going CD and then finally digital memory (solid-state and HDD). Cassette used to be the most common music distribution medium, but now is all but gone.

Do I really have to say "apples to oranges" again!? You're talking about distribution media again.

Tape used to be the medium for personal recorders, but now is absent from that application also. Tape is now gone from everything audio.

Do I really have to say "apples to oranges" again!? Long-term archival isn't a requirement, but there is a requirement for rewritability.

Telephone answering machines used tape until they went solid state. Stenographic machines went from tape/wire to HDD (word processors).

Do I really have to say "apples to oranges" again!? Long-term archival isn't a requirement, but there is a requirement for rewritability.

Still photography went from film to solid-state memory. Tape never caught on there because digital photography did not emerge until the capacity and price of memory was already within consumer price points. The small form factor of solid-state memory were compelling.

Do I really have to say "apples to oranges" again!? Solid-state memory is used because there's a requirement to shoot lots, and keep little.

After film, video distribution and personal acquisition went tape. However, VHS gave way to DVD for commercial distribution

Do I really have to say "apples to oranges" again!? You're talking about distribution media again.

HDD supplanted VHS in time-shifted viewing.

Do I really have to say "apples to oranges" again!? Time-shifting has a playback requirement, as well as a requirement of keeping very little and recording lots.

The raisson d’etre for tape has been its relative high capacity and its low expense.

I would also add its long term reliability for archival purposes.

It is deficient in other respects, and often woefully so.

Since when are editing, fast rewrite cycles, distribution and playback requirements for archival? Tape excels in archival, but, yes, it is deficient in other tasks... but isn't used for other tasks!

As these technologies approach tape capacity/price, they replace it.

Tape is superior in durability and reliability for archival purposes, and HDD is not even improving in meeting this requirement (they are as unreliable as they always have been). Solid state memory has a LONG LONG ways to go before it has a good capacity/price ratio, and may never be, considering our storage requirements keep increasing (more resolution, more bit depth, higher audio sampling).

the compelling feature of random-access storage media is they can be online.

Online storage is, once-again, a distribution format, not an archival format. You don't keep your backups online, you can keep your main copies online.

This is increasingly important as people (will) want easy and instant access to their digital lives, including their digital histories.

Any they will have to deal with durability problems because of it. On the flip-side, I can store video on my hard drive for speedy access and not worry about having to back it up, because, in 20 years, the tapes will be as good as the day I shot them. That's the benefit of tape, you can completely ignore the archival aspect since the tape is the archive. I don't see you reaching for your backup hard drive when you want to show some video - you access your main hard drive.

During the flight I opened my laptop and showed him dozens of pictures and some video of him, his son, and his former team.

But you still have to back it up somewhere. My backups are the tape. I can certainly have copies on the hard drive of my laptop.

Twenty years ago you also didn’t carry your phone with you, but you do now. When I go on my very frequent trips, I use the web to find local attractions and to stay in touch with people. I typically send photos and sometimes video clips to friends and family. My laptop, while often not “on” me is almost never more than 18 hours away. My phone is a smart phone (PPC 6700) that has a 2GB miniSD card with my favorite music, pictures, and even some video. It is also always online. I always have a digital camera nearby.

I carry a digital camera and phone on every vacation. I send photos and videos when I return. I use travel books to other local resources to find local attractions. The web is a poor attraction resource for anything but mass-market vacations, for which I have planned before I even leave. None of these are good reasons why you bring a laptop on a vacation. You even said so yourself, earlier - you bring a laptop to spend time on it (work, email, entertainment). I would prefer to spend time doing things that I can't do at home, while on vacation. You are on a different curve.

I can say with absolute confidence that random-access storage will replace tape in the video application just as tape (and analog) has been replaced in (every) other applications.

It hasn't come close to replacing computer archival in the commercial industry, where large amounts of data is a requirement, and rewritability isn't - consumer video archival is identical in this respect.

Look at where iPod and Zune are going.

Here we go again: playback formats. The original pressed CD (or online repository) is the archival format, which has decent (or "perfect") durability - unlike consumer CD-R, which is good for a few years, at best.

One final point about archiving. Just as people have been moving their digital histories from film (3mm and 8mm), audio tape, VHS, Hi-8, etc., you will ultimately find yourself needing to transfer your miniDV archives to random-access media.

Why? It's an archive - random-access media is near-pointless for an archive. You access it once, the first time, and you access it when you need to restore lost data. You're trading excellent durability for a minor convenience - no thanks!

Not only is tape not durable over decades

Wrong, it's proven to be durable over decades. Hard drives have been proven to be durable for a few years, at most, and hasn't shown any improvement in a LONG time.

Returning to the original issue of the Panasonic HDC-SD1 and my original point, I find its SD-card memory to be overall superior to the HDD in my HDR-SR1 because it provides smaller-lighter form factors, lower power, removability, and even faster access.

Tape is just as removable. I'll give you the smaller form factor, lower power and faster access. Though the power difference isn't much in application, the smaller form factor is trumped by price, and faster access is a trivial improvement as it's only needed once, the first time you move it to a hard drive. All convenience factors which are sacrificed for poor archivability (unless you buy commercial computer archival systems - expensive). We aren't even talking about the poorer video quality yet (which should improve in a few years).

HDD will increasingly be relegated to applications requiring extra-high capacity and ultimately displaced by solid-state memory.

Tape already lasts decades, while HDDs still fail within a few years without any improvement. Solid-state memory has a long ways (see: decades) to go before it's even close to cost efficient for archival. It's more likely we'd see a new technology emerge to replace tape.

Before you make another argument, make sure the requirements for archival match up with your examples. I don't want to have to type "apples to oranges" again.

When video quality reaches or exceeds HDV at a similar price point, I'll move to SD (probably by the time I buy my next camcorder in a few years). Until that time, I'll stick with MiniDV camcorders. I won't ever trade video quality for a small amount of convenience.

It looks like I was wrong about the video quality. The video quality problems with the AVCHD camcorders so far (SR1/UX1) have to do with using an inferior CMOS sensor, instead of a CCD sensor, not the compression format (the reviews I read were misleading). I was recently informed AVCHD uses MPEG4, which is about twice as efficient as MPEG2 used for HDV. 25 Mbps for HDV ~= 13 Mbps for MPEG4, so about the same amount of compression.

Looks like I'll be waiting for the Panasonic SD camera, unless I need a camcorder before it arrives in the US market. My arguments for tape as an archival media still stand, but it looks like video quality isn't a definitive win for HDV (as I thought it was).

Sorry for providing misinformation on the quality of HDV vs. lower-bitrate AVCHD. I still wouldn't get a SR1 or UX1 over the HC3, but the SD1 looks to be a winner (yet to be seen, but probable with 3CCD and OIS).

While you guys are bickering for nirvana, I'm enjoying my HC3 and recording all the great moments left in my life. I will upgrade to better technology when the dust settles. Meantime, au revoir!

It looks like I was wrong about the video quality....

Looks like I'll be waiting for the Panasonic SD camera, unless I need a camcorder before it arrives in the US market. My arguments for tape as an archival media still stand, but it looks like video quality isn't a definitive win for HDV (as I thought it was).

Sorry for providing misinformation on the quality of HDV vs. lower-bitrate AVCHD. I still wouldn't get a SR1 or UX1 over the HC3, but the SD1 looks to be a winner (yet to be seen, but probable with 3CCD and OIS).


While you guys are bickering for nirvana, I'm enjoying my HC3 and recording all the great moments left in my life. I will upgrade to better technology when the dust settles. Meantime, au revoir!


Lindahl, thank you for the information. I was left wondering why in the world Sony and Panasonic would commit themselves to a lower standard... Maybe Sony jumped the gun too early? We will soon find out... The 5.1 features of the new Panasonic also sound interesting.

Meriadec, agree 100%. I also own and greatly enjoy my HC3. My only complaint is that I went the cheap route and had my brother bring me a Japanese menu unit on his recent trip to Tokyo... now I have to deal with the difficulties associated with memorizing japanese characters. On the bright side, not before long and when the dust settles, I would be able to pick up an AVCHD model and have two Hi-Def camcorders (for a total combined priced of less than the cost of owning a first generation HVHD model today!!!).

hasta luego!, au revoir!, sayonara!, adios!, arrivederci!, adieu!, auf wiedersehen!, bye!, bye-bye!, cheerio!, good-by!, goodby!, good-bye!, goodbye!, good day!, so long!

It looks like I was wrong about the video quality...

I was wrong again! :eek:

AVCHD is inferior to HDV still. Someone had corrected me over at camcorderinfo.com, so I assumed he was right. He was wrong and just corrected himself last night. Doh!

While, technically, the compression level should be similar, Sony's implementation of the MPEG4 compression chip isn't anywhere near supposed performance (2:1 over MPEG2). Furthermore, the HC3 also has a CMOS chip (not a CCD). Here's a quote review of the UX1:

the AVCHD compression is likely responsible for the noise issues, blockiness and some issues with gradients and color shifts. We did mention the noise issues, right? Let us repeat: this is a noisy camcorder. All this being said, we feel it'd be unfair to say that AVCHD is inferior to HDV at this point. MPEG4 is a more effective compression standard theoretically. And with the right chips the compression should be impressive. If we go back to the first MPEG2 DVD camcorders by Panasonic and Hitachi about six years ago, the video produced by those models had huge compressions issues.

So it looks like we just need to let time pass until AVCHD catches up (as evident by the lack of editing software out there). I feel like a ping pong ball, HC3, here I come! :D

I was wrong again! :eek:... While, technically, the compression level should be similar, Sony's implementation of the MPEG4 compression chip isn't anywhere near supposed performance (2:1 over MPEG2). Furthermore, the HC3 also has a CMOS chip (not a CCD). ..


Yes, the HC3 does have a CMOS chip. According to Sony, their refined CMOS chip have several advantages over CCD and they also use it on their professional $4,800.00 HVR-V1U HDV Camcorder. Here is an interview with Bob Ott, VP of Optical and Network Systems at Sony Electronics explaining the benefits:

http://acquisition.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=67635

Also, according to the online Gizmondo review and I quote:

"The 24p footage coming out of this camera is at a higher rez than other cameras deliver in this price range, where the vertical resolution is a full 1080 lines. In a somewhat convoluted process, the horizontal resolution is captured by the CMOS chips at 920, though, not the full-raster 1920, and interpolated in the camera to 1920/60p, and ends up being recorded at 1440 to comply with the HDV format.


But don't let all the trickery scare you. After playing with this camera for a few hours and looking at lots of its footage, I must say the 24p look of this camera is remarkable. It's the closest to full HDTV I've seen this 25mbit/s HDV format get. That's helped along tremendously by its CMOS sensors, instead of the CCDs of previous HDV camcorders from Sony and others. These refined CMOS sensors give the camera better interpolation, higher dynamic range and increased perceived resolution, too. It's all good."

Here is the link:

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/feature/sony-intros-hvrv1u-hdv-pro-camcorder-filmmakers-ogle-its-24pness-201756.php

Another excelent article on the benefits of CMOS for HDTV can be seen in this article:

http://hdtv.videotechnology.com/HDTV-CMOSvsCCD.htm

It is a technical paper which basically supports the impending obsolescence of CCDs in high-quality HD broadcast applications.

Here are the conclussions:

"CONCLUSION
CMOS sensor technology has already enabled the development of visible focal plane arrays with ultra-low read noise and high sensitivity for the HDTV market. The successful integration of silicon photodetectors with low-noise pixel-based amplifiers in fine pixel pitch via state-of-the-art CMOS fabrication technology now not only suggests, but is demonstrating the imminent obsolescence of CCDs in high-quality HD broadcast applications.

The charge-couple device (CCD) has been the preferred visible image-capture sensor technology in a variety of applications from consumer digital cameras to expensive scientific instruments primarily due to its relative low-noise operation. However, the CMOS-based paradigm today offers fundamental performance advantages including optimum bandwidth and higher sensitivity. CMOS image sensors available today offer the lowest noise, lowest power consumption, 12-bit ADC performance of any HD sensor on the market. These sensors contain photodetectors optimized for low dark current, high quantum efficiency and high uniformity that operate at high HDTV data rates with lower noise than any CCD alternative.

The advantages of CMOS sensor technology have arrived and offer the HDTV broadcast and Professional Video markets the most advanced performance available."

:eek: Talk about coincidences... Check out what just posted on Camcorderinfo:

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/The-ClearVID-CMOS-Sonys-Chip-of-Choice.htm

Although interesting you may skip the last two posts and go directly to this one which is the most relevant on the subject of CMOS vs CCD chips in the consumer camcorders we are talking about.

Regards

While you guys are bickering for nirvana, I'm enjoying my HC3 and recording all the great moments left in my life. I will upgrade to better technology when the dust settles. Meantime, au revoir!

Exactly! And I'll be doing the same with my UX1. The recordable dvd's of which I am loading onto my PC hard drive and then backing up to tape.


Just Kidding!


But I am enjoying the UX1's beautiful picture and 5.1 sound via HDMI on my new 55" plasma!

While you guys are bickering for nirvana, I'm enjoying my HC3 and recording all the great moments left in my life. I will upgrade to better technology when the dust settles. Meantime, au revoir!

I would agree completely!

Interesting... If you read most other posts on other HD cams it usually starts off with "i love my cam.... BUT....

The HC3 cam is one of the few that rarely includes the word BUT in the follow-up posts

I looked at a lot of cams before I bought the HC3 as well as a lot of cams since I bought the HC3, and I still have yet to see a cam that will provide the complete level of satisfaction that the HC3 brings. There always seems to be some sort of controversy attached to other cams.

IMO, the HC3 is simply a great all round little package that can't be beat.

I would agree completely!

Interesting... If you read most other posts on other HD cams it usually starts off with "i love my cam.... BUT....

The HC3 cam is one of the few that rarely includes the word BUT in the follow-up posts

I looked at a lot of cams before I bought the HC3 as well as a lot of cams since I bought the HC3, and I still have yet to see a cam that will provide the complete level of satisfaction that the HC3 brings. There always seems to be some sort of controversy attached to other cams.

IMO, the HC3 is simply a great all round little package that can't be beat.

Well, I love my HC3 AND (not BUT) I love the accessories I've purchased. The 10w light is great, and the additional arm it comes with allows me to use the external stereo mic at the same time. The results are excellent! I'm not regretting my purchase one bit.

Just a heads up, Panasonic to release the HDC-SD1-and-HDC-DX1 in the US market next March.

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Panasonic-Enters-the-Consumer-HD-Market-with-HDC-SD1-and-HDC-DX1.htm

HDC-SD1, the first AVCHD camcorder with an SD card... Interesting features:

1- 3CCD sensor
2- 1080i FULL HD (1920x1080) video recording capabilities (Sony only does 1440x1080)
3- Dolby 5.1 audio recording capabilities synchronized on the zoom (the more you zoom, the more the audio will be focused on the subject)
4- HDMI support
5- 3 different VBRs (6, 9 and 13Mbps).


Soon we will know how it compares with Sony's AVCHD camcorders. Here is the link:

http://www.akihabaranews.com/en/news-12758-Panasonic+HDC-SD1%2C+the+first+AVCHD+camcorder+with+an+SD+card.html

Regards,
LMCid

coments on your points

1. a good thing
2. the sensor is 1920 x 1080, the data captured is 1440 x 1080. It's AVCHD (and HDV specs)
3. I don't know how that's going to positively affect the soundspace
4. the Sony have HDMI output too
5. Sony's max bitrate, IIRC is 15 Mbps, which is obviously better than 13 Mbps.

coments on your points

1. a good thing
2. the sensor is 1920 x 1080, the data captured is 1440 x 1080. It's AVCHD (and HDV specs)
3. I don't know how that's going to positively affect the soundspace
4. the Sony have HDMI output too
5. Sony's max bitrate, IIRC is 15 Mbps, which is obviously better than 13 Mbps.


Agree in all your points. Will like to comment on 2 and 3.

2. Since Panasonic was emphasizing the resolution of it's sensor as well as claiming full HD, I was led to believe (not knowing AVHD specs) it would capture the data at the same rate.

3. I don't know either, however, based on the only review out there and I quote:

Quote:

"The SD1 will record sound in full 5.1-channel Dolby Digital surround, but that’s not the really clever part. The SD1 also has a nifty “zoom mic” feature, which means that if you’re zooming in on a subject, the SD1 will record the sound emanating from that subject in the distance, not the ambient sound from the physical location of the camcorder. This could be pretty useful if you want to record those boring speeches at weddings, or those boring presentations at seminars etc. Of course I wouldn’t ever suggest that you could use such technology to unobtrusively listen in on other peoples’ conversations, but I can imagine a fair number of private investigators saving up for one of these camcorders – it will be interesting to see if the divorce rate increases when the SD1 is released!"

Here is the link to the full review:

http://www.trustedreviews.com/digital-cameras/review/2006/12/07/Panasonic-HD-Camcorder-Preview/p1

Regards to all,
LMCid

WRT item 2. Canon is also advertising their 1920 x 1080 sensor but sneakily not mentioning anything about the HDV format being only 1440 x 1080. These companies are evil geniuses.

I honestly don't see the point in offering 1920 x 1080 sensor when in the end the codec only picks up 1440 x 1080. ???

From what I understand is Sony has discontinued the HC3 model and is replacing it with the AVCHD models. Looks like MiniHDV is getting the boot. I have heard that tape is the best quality medium . I have also read that the AVCHD compression isn't that great either . SO....I guess if one is looking for the best HD camcorder , one should look at current models rather than wait for the next generation?

From what I understand is Sony has discontinued the HC3 model and is replacing it with the AVCHD models. Looks like MiniHDV is getting the boot. I have heard that tape is the best quality medium . I have also read that the AVCHD compression isn't that great either . SO....I guess if one is looking for the best HD camcorder , one should look at current models rather than wait for the next generation?


If they are replacing HDV with AVCHD, then yes, get them now while you can. Doesn't it sound so typical of Sony? "let's make our good product worse!"

From what I understand is Sony has discontinued the HC3 model and is replacing it with the AVCHD models. Looks like MiniHDV is getting the boot. I have heard that tape is the best quality medium . I have also read that the AVCHD compression isn't that great either . SO....I guess if one is looking for the best HD camcorder , one should look at current models rather than wait for the next generation?

I was the one that started this thread and researching around quickly discovered that Tape is the way to go, as such I own the HC3. One more reason besides quality that you didn't mention is that tapes are dirt cheap and widely available. If you are in the market today it sounds like a no brainer. What makes this even more of a paradox is that one of the main resons for the change from MiniDV tapes to the other formats is that the costs of making the tape mechanisms are higher than HD or DVD.

Regards,
LMCid

Well I got scared about not being to get a minidv format HD camera next year so I decided to go to the store to check out the available models, HV10 and HC3. After playing with both for a long time, I just couldn't get used to the feel of the HV10 in my hands. It seemed overly complicated to me. The Sony not only felt more comforable in my hands, it just seemed like an very consumer friendly camera to use. I loved the extra conrols on the LCD panel as well as the touch screen menu options. I didn't have to fumble around searching for the right things to press and scroll. They were all there on the LCD ..easy to select and change things if needed.

I went home to purchase the HC3 online as the best pricing was available with no tax or shipping, but was going to spend extra$$ to expedite so I could use for xmas. I was about to pull the trigger but decided to check B&M web sites and to my amazement found the HC3 in store only deal at BB for under $1050. I went to the store but all they had left were open box. I went to CC and they agreed to price match the BB price. Now ..just two days later I see on the BB site that the same camera is listed $200 higher !!! I dont know why, but it must have been a 1 day deal. BUT, the "in store only" designation confirms my suspicion that this model will not be available as soon as store stock is gone. The store still showed the item as "active" in their computer system but none were on order. I'm glad I pulled the trigger when I did.

I noticed best buy had the HC3 on sale in there after xmas ad (200 off).

After using it extensively over the xmas holiday I am very happy I got it when I did. I love the cam, obviously the best I've ever owned. Even downconverted HD looks better than any other SD cam I've had.

A new review just came out, no mention of mini-dv but seems to blow away the tape-less Sony Camcorders:

http://www.simplydv.co.uk/Reviews/panasonic_hdc-sd1.html

Conclusion
The HDC-SD1 is an excellent solid-state 3CCD device that currently sets the benchmark for tapeless high definition video camera technology in the consumer market. When tested alongside the Sony HDR-SR1 (and pointing at exactly the same subject whilst viewing on identical HD monitor screens), the pictures were markedly better than the Sony's - especially in the more lowly lit sectors of the screen. The Sony's images featured quite high levels of rectangular blockiness whereas the SD1's (and DX1's) equivalent images were beautifully clear and well rendered. The differences weren't just mildly worthy of note, they were immediately apparent - even to the untrained eye.

Sorry for the possible silly questions as I have never owned a digital camcorder before. First off, I've been reading that the only way to play back in HD is on your computer unless one has a bluray dvd burner to burn discs for a bluray player or to play directly off the camcorder? Can the current software downconvert HD to standard def for use w/ regular dvd players?

To stay more on topic, since the Panny records to SD Cards I could technically take the SD card and play it on any computer w/ software that understands the AVCHD format, correct? Are there any software players that currently decode avchd? The new PowerDVD supposedly plays HDDVDs and Blurady so could it play right off the SD card? Lastly does anyone know if the Playstation 3 w/ the SD card reader play this format?

Again sorry for the simple questions. I'm gathering bits and pieces of info from other threads but wanted to make sure I got some sort of summary.

Thanks,
Andy

Anyone see one of these in action yet. I was planning on waiting for the Canon HV20 but baby decided to arrive a little early. From the review below it sounds ok. Any major downsides to this camera? Perhaps something in the specs not look good?

http://reviews.digitaltrends.com/review4333.html

dont know about its performance. but Circuitcity had this model in their Sunday ad flyer today.

I just shot with one for 5 weeks in Africa and it's a joy to use. I haven't done much with the resulting footage yet other than watch some on my projector and watch a lot on my computer, but the noise and compression artifacts are extremely low even in the most complicated of scenes. The low light capabilities also seem to be much better than most of the other examples I managed to find when shopping for this camera.

I was dumping to portable 2.5" harddrives in the field. That's the main reason I went with the SD card camera. Another major advantage is there are FAR fewer moving parts which comes in handy on the serengeti when you are covered in dust 24hrs a day.

whats the best High-Definition Hard Disk Drive AVCHD camcorder?

JVC GZHD7 vs. Sony HDR-SR7. both 60gb.

Sony sr8 has 100gb but too expensive.

JVC GCHD3 coming soon with same 60gb and 3ccd will prob be best of all but not out until Oct. 1st

Canon HG10 is canons first hdd hd camcorder but not out till end of oct. and only 40gb

Which has better low light level indoor pq the JVC GZHD7 or Sony hdr-sr7? i think the jvc but it doestn' record in avchd which i wan tto be able to play on PS3

I would maybe try and wait for the JVC GZHD3 if i knew it would be best. Why is Canon HG10 only going to be 40gb?

why doesn't panasonic make and hdd avchd camcorders? only flash memory or dvd ones.

Sorry for the possible silly questions as I have never owned a digital camcorder before. First off, I've been reading that the only way to play back in HD is on your computer unless one has a bluray dvd burner to burn discs for a bluray player or to play directly off the camcorder? Can the current software downconvert HD to standard def for use w/ regular dvd players?

To stay more on topic, since the Panny records to SD Cards I could technically take the SD card and play it on any computer w/ software that understands the AVCHD format, correct? Are there any software players that currently decode avchd? The new PowerDVD supposedly plays HDDVDs and Blurady so could it play right off the SD card? Lastly does anyone know if the Playstation 3 w/ the SD card reader play this format?

Again sorry for the simple questions. I'm gathering bits and pieces of info from other threads but wanted to make sure I got some sort of summary.

Thanks,
Andy


ps3 definately plays avchd. some say a sony hdd based avchd camcorder will be the most compatible.

Canon AVCHD will have the highest bitrate of any AVCHD camcorder on the market. This may get rid of most artifacts I've been seeing on all AVCHD camcorders.

too bad the canon hg10 is only 40gb. got to hve at least 60gb like the sony sr7 & jvc gzhd7 & hdu models though sony hdr-sr8 100gb is even better but was too expensive & not enough mrchant choices on amazon including aazon didnt hve and i had amazon rewads to use.

shame the canon hg10 or jvc gzhd3 werent out yet in time for baby but i waited till lst minute & with amazons slow super saver shipping ill be lucky the sony hdr-sr7 makes it in time. our friends baby came early & they didnt have cam yet.

glad i didnt get vid cam for honeymoon just over 3 yr ago cus i can get so much more for less now.

i just wish panansonic made a hdd avchd cam. i dont want to have to buy so much memory cards for pannys flash mem cams. i like a hdd with mem card slot as an extra option. dont think you can record video to the mem stick in sony sr7 but im hoping you can transfer some to it from the hdd & then pop mem stick in ps3.

i am worried about indoor low light pq with he sr7 & souns like thepanny avchd were better for this but why didnt they make an hdd vrsion?

that sounds great to the person that said the canon hg10 cam will be the best hdd avchd cam & eliminate artifacting usually seen on avchd but shame its only 40gb & not out till oct.

if i dont like the sony sr7 or low light indoor ecording (majority of baby fooage would be) i guess i can return within 30 days & by then be closer to the release of the jvc gzhd3 & canon hg10 but having not had camcorder in yeas i think ill be satisfied & happy if not completely amazed by the sony sr7. its for sure 100% compatability with ps3 is good too.

i really lookd for a panasonic hdd avchd ca but none to be found. now ha canon made will panny follow suit? i know mem cads re cheap now but couldnt bring myself to get acam o dea ith a ton of mem cads floting around like we have with digi still cam.

think ill be ok with the sony sr7 or should i cancel it & wait for the jvc gzhd3 or canon hg10?

shame though that canon hv20 is till the best even over its own hg10 & that is because minidv still produces better pq then avchd.

i just couldnt bringmyself to deal with minidv tapes. the convenience & ease of use of hdd plus money saved on minidv tapes is worth to me sacrificing some pq & even losing some editing ability though more progs for avchd all the time.

again to me having not had a vid cam in yeas im sure he sony sr7 will be fine & i ont know wha im missing on he other possibly slight better cams like whichevr panny even avchd flash mem cams or the coming hdd avchd canon hg10 or especially the seemingly still best cam ,in the minidv based canon hv20.

but i heard you wont be able to go back to mini dv after having hdd. and good i never tried the pq of the canon hv20 so the sony sr7 will seem great to me.

shame though that canon hv20 is till the best even over its own hg10 & that is because minidv still produces better pq then avchd.

i just couldnt bringmyself to deal with minidv tapes. the convenience & ease of use of hdd plus money saved on minidv tapes is worth to me sacrificing some pq & even losing some editing ability though more progs for avchd all the time.

again to me having not had a vid cam in yeas im sure he sony sr7 will be fine & i ont know wha im missing on he other possibly slight better cams like whichevr panny even avchd flash mem cams or the coming hdd avchd canon hg10 or especially the seemingly still best cam ,in the minidv based canon hv20.

but i heard you wont be able to go back to mini dv after having hdd. and good i never tried the pq of the canon hv20 so the sony sr7 will seem great to me.
I am leaning toward the Panny SD1 w/Flash memory but the $50 (onsale) per 4 gig card is a bit steep. I could get some cards and download it to a pocket HD in the field so I might get the SD1. But the HV20 with its MiniDV is still the best (and cheapest at 2-3 dollars a tape - $1 when onsale) and archiving via MiniDV is still the best way. (IMO) (I would need to buy a wide angle adapter for the HV20 but not with the Panny SD1 which is very wideangle AS-IS. I don't want the extra size, weight and cost of the Wide Angle lens fitted HV20. The SD1 is also 12 to 1 zoom over the rest of the field's 10 to 1.)

I need the results to be editable now. For those who don't think editing is important consider that your mind may change in future years.

I prefer the silent camera mechanism of Flash over HDD but I can see why people want HDD.

I have a copy of Ulead's VideoStudio 11+ shipping to me and when it arrives I'll testfilm a bit of video at a BB on an SD1 and see how well it works for editing.

fingers crossed :)

Cyrano, you need this website:

http://www.mydigitaldiscount.com/s.nl;jsessionid=ac112b801f43eb3d3c4c4e2a4f8d9771c72fc3079f80 .e3eTaxiPc3mTe34Pa38Ta38Nbxf0?sc=2&category=3

Portable storage units and cheap SD cards up to 8GB at $79.

Nexto Multi transfers at 20MB/s sustained. I bought one to go with the Sony HDR-CX7 that I didn't end up buying. :(

Thanks rhubarbe!

If you have any experience or info relating to transferring Flash (SD) memory to a portable HDD (w/o laptop readout capability, just HDD.) I'd be happy to hear it. Anyone?