Originally Posted by kjbawc
Okay, Citibear, I understand your aversion to "conspiracy theories." But, please explain one thing to me - when JVC made their BD recorder for the US market, why didn't they just include an input that would allow us to record HD from a DVR? Would it have been that expensive, or difficult? I don't mean a tuner, or timer recording, just an input. Wouldn't that simple addition have increased US sales?
It wouldn't have been that expensive or difficult, kjbawc, but it also doesn't fit in with their mfring strategy or intended market. DVD/HDD recorders with analog component inputs have not been sold for quite a few years, and BluRay/HDD came out long after those so component input wasn't even given a passing thought. The only global market that actually has any use for analog component inputs is the North American consumer with a cable or satellite decoder box: but this consumer had long proved disinterested in buying an expensive recorder. So BD/HDD mfrs pre-emptively chose not to sell the machines here: they were all designed for Europe/Asia/Australia.
Those countries do no really require any external inputs, because they share common satellite and broadcast systems with built-in EPG. There is no external cable or satellite box to integrate: DVD and BD recorders for other countries tap their dual internal HDTV tuners for everything except camcorder input. The semi-pro niche JVC targeted with the SR-HD1250 does not use analog component, either: they long since migrated to digital. We must step outside of our normal consumer POV to put the JVC in context: it was not intended as a multi-purpose consumer device for TV recording. It is marketed specifically as an accessory for JVC (and some other) camcorders, kind of like a Sony VR-DMC6
on steroids. At the time of introduction, it was very affordable for a standalone BD/HDD, so the HD-by-FireWire-only limitation was not a serious drawback for a unit targeted at the burgeoning market of event videographers needing to provide immediate proof discs to clients.
Originally Posted by m. zillch
point, but I'm confident you are just wasting your time. He's made up his mind regarding "how things are" and any info from industry experts such as CNET which contradicts his way of thinking he simply dismisses and trashes:
I have not attacked you personally in any post, m. zilch, and have in fact taken pains to post apologies for one post that could be misconstrued as such when you called me out on it. Criticism of "industry websites" is another story: if you're gonna throw links at people, they're gonna respond with their opinion of the linked source, and I'm sorry but c/net is not the last word on anything. They give a handy overview on some points, and provide some specifics and external info links if you're lucky. But all such gigantic generic sites miss important points or are completely wrong on occasion: c/net is no better than Consumer Reports or Ken Rockwell in this regard.
I *did* answer your bolded quotes from c/net, your disagreement with my reply doesn't mean I didn't reply. They are flat-out wrong in their assessment that BD recorders were not marketed in North America solely because of draconian copy protection limitations: our consumer market is complex and the failure of advanced disc recorders is due to several tangled interlocking factors, the most important having nothing whatever to do with Hollywood restrictions. That is why my "rants" go on for many paragraphs: people can ask "why no BD recorders in USA?" as if its a simple question, but the answers aren't simple. North America is cable/sat dependent, cable/sat is the wild wild west with no uniform standards and an agenda to lock subscribers into proprietary rental hardware: thats the gist.
I will agree with you about "Hollywood influence" to the extent that convenient external HDTV line inputs for use with our diverse cable/sat system were indeed expressly not included in the blueprints for BD/HDD recorders, to cut down on potential for easy piracy. But that really only impacts North Americans, and really only because of our anarchic cable/sat systems: it did not prevent the rest of the world from completely exploiting and enjoying full HDTV recording. Their BD/HDD recorders incorporate all the piracy-prevention restrictions we would have had here, the difference is those restrictions do not prevent users in those countries from conveniently recording all of their TV sources
. Other countries don't need HDTV line inputs at all: the recorders contain uniform tuners with EPG for OTA and satellite and there's no cable lockout to deal with. The only "legit" external connection they need is for camcorders, so thats all they have.
This arrangement allowed full unrestricted normal TV and camcorder recording in Japan/Europe/Australia/NZ, despite not having vulnerable line inputs. Recorder mfrs were not going to go up against the Hollywood machine and try to sell what would be viewed as "America-only HDTV line input piracy workstations" in North America unless there was proven consumer demand and profits. There was not, as the mass exodus of $495 DVD/HDD models in 2006 attests. There is no getting around the fact the cheapest BD recorder sells for about $699 overseas, and that few North Americans are willing to pay that because it won't conveniently integrate with our cable/sat systems even if it had unrestricted HDMI inputs
. Now that Asian and European countries have begun turning away from disc recording, the remaining market base is shrinking and will eventually be limited to niche devices like the JVC SR-HD1250. You want "supporting links"? Go peruse the slim disc/hdd recorder pickings on Amazon UK compared to last year at this time, or visit the Australian AVS forum.
This is clearly a rather childish ad hominem attack
, but since he is incapable of contradicting the actual point being made by CNET
(highlighted in bold text
in my last post
), using third party references (he could have easily done by merely linking to, um, one of the more "trustworthy" industry tech sites than CNET), it's all he's got.
As for why JVC didn't include HD inputs (notice he completly trashes them too), of course we'll probably get some song and dance about "How they were too stupid
to realize it might increase sales", "Everything they make breaks anyway, so who cares", "Their target audience would only want SD inputs, which they did
include.", "The design they were stealing from didn't have HD inputs so neither did theirs"....etc. etc.
It's not worth pursuing, my friend. Frankly, I doubt I'll
even bother to read any more of his rants "explaining how things are" either, so if he asks any questions of me, don't be surprised if they go unanswered.
You didn't like it when you thought I was putting (intelligent) words in your mouth, but its OK to put words in mine? If you're going to harp on linked sources for everything, at least quote me directly. I never suggested JVC was too stupid to include analog component inputs, or that their target market wanted only SD inputs, so lets drop that nonsense. As I noted to kjbawc, the JVC was pitched specifically as a HiDef camcorder accessory, it was based off the standard global BD/HDD platform which never incorporated component analog inputs, and its intended demographic was JVC HD camcorder owners who used FireWire connections. Pro and semi-pro environments are not using analog component recorder connections anymore, they've gone digital because everything video has long since migrated to laptops in the field and rack PCs in the studio.
Regarding my "failure to post supporting links," we are not in a courtroom here. It is a forum for opinions, and if we're lucky helpful advice for connecting, using, and repairing our gear. This particular question of "why no BD recorders in USA/Canada" is not some arcane technical task that requires "documentation" to ensure someone does not erase their project: the answer is a summary of industry trends that occurred over several years at a different pace in North America than it did elsewhere. My sources for this info were dealer friends, trade journals like T.W.I.C.E., Video Business, their affiliated websites, and user forums around the world. I did not bookmark every single reference to what was going on with recorder mfrs over the course of the last eight years: you want to comb thru the old coverage, you'll find them. Posting direct links to some of these sources can also be difficult as they are industry subscription sites not keen on being accessed by non-subscribers. BS, yes, but they can get pretty nasty about it.
The bulk of my opinions come from personal experience, just like everyone else here. Some of us, like Super Eye and myself, have traced an odd career path that includes years of exposure to the video retail and video production fields. This gives us a different perspective that others understandably won't have. It doesn't make us any more "right" than any other member here, it just means we've seen and heard things that some of you haven't and that can make our opinions seem strange compared to the AVS consensus. Speaking only for myself, I have no agenda of insisting anyone take my word as gospel: just that they add my perspective to all the others expressed as they consider certain topics. Mfr statements and "documentation" are often self-serving if not outright inaccurate, esp the English translations: some members post quotes from these materials in the belief they will completely contradict the direct experience of other members. But it doesn't quite work that way: just because we have an internet that makes pulling up "quotes" and "documentation" relatively easy doesn't make those sources any more accurate or applicable.
The level of brand loyalty expressed on forums like this verges on religious fervor, which tends to make any positive remark into an unquestioned eternal absolute and any negative statement land like an incendiary bomb. I find this particularly annoying with JVC products, and I take an unpopular stand on these in the hope that some potential JVC owners will investigate the products beyond the surface and not just blindly buy into forum hype. When they are in perfect working condition, yes: many JVC video products offer unique features and performance. But they tend toward breakdown, esp second-hand, and those breakdowns tend to be more difficult than average to get repaired properly.
This is based not only on my personal home experience, but what I've seen in studios and postproduction environments over the past 30 years. It is also based on nearly twenty years taking all manner of electronics over my store counter for repair, and resulting feedback from the dozens of repair technicians I've worked with. As long as you're aware of the glitches, JVC makes some nifty video gear- just don't assume they'll be rock-solid just because they're expensive or "pro-line" models (or because experts on forums relentlessly promote a single unique JVC input filter while ignoring every other operating aspect of the units). None of us knows everything, and no brand is 100% perfect (I love my Pioneer recorders to pieces, but I'm the first to say Pioneer had its fair share of lemon models and faulty parts). You'll never
see me post a "rah rah only a Pioneer recorder is acceptable" manifesto, but there are many such polemics posted by JVC (and Magnavox) fans. Counterpoint to balance these should be welcomed as part of a larger overview, not chased off AVS because the fans don't like it.