Hitachi's world's first Blu-ray camcorders coming this year
By Thomas Ricker 
posted Jul 20th 2007 5:13AM
posted Jul 20th 2007 5:13AM
[Via Impress]
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
So... is that 1080p and is it using a codec that's compatible with Final Cut? Otherwise it's a very sexy paperweight to me.
judging by what is in the post, duh, yes its 1080p
you should prolly read the posts completely before commenting
That's not what he asked at all.
He asked if the 1080p codec used was compatible with Final Cut Pro.
Why would a pro editor be using discs over DV tapes?
My guess is that if it's recording to the h.264 format mentioned above then it's certainly in a QT/Final Cut compatible format. But, you're better off using DV tapes and capturing them via Firewire.
i just re-read the MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 part. That "sounds" like it would work in FCP, but I'm not %100 sure.
MiniDV is better. Less lossy.
Yeah, 1080P is worse than 480P. Right. Sure.
And the Moon is brighter than the Sun.
HMMMM...Let's see, do I want 1080P that looks like shit? Or 480P that looks great?
WOW, THAT'S TOUGH!
Right now, SD consumer camcorders are so much better than HD camcorders, it's amazing.
Resolution isn't everything.
I have a Panasonic 3CCD MiniDV....I've been hoping it would shit the bed by now so that I can cash in my BB warranty and get a HD cam.
I don't have enough experience with the HD camcorders yet. But, you would think that the HD cams look better. Got personal experience that says otherwise, Jesse? Because if this is the case, I'll stay away from this generation of HD camcorders.
Yes. I would like to refrase my ealier statement though, as I don't know of the quality "level" of these blu-ray cams.
But think of it this way. With an HD cam, the camera has to fit the same runtime on a MiniDV tape as an SD cam, using the same amount of bandwidth. This means they have to compress the data more for HD cams than SD cams. DVD, HDD, and SD (the flash media format) cameras compress the video even more.
Right now, HD is bad for consumers. It is much more lossy than SD. You have to decide, what's more important to you, picture quality, or resolution?
Would you buy an HDTV that had a worse picture than your current SDTV? It's the same idea.
My original comment was badly thought out.
RE: "MiniDV is better. Less lossy."
Dude, Engadget is not a forum for video professionals, people will bash you here and rank you low for your post, because they do not know what DV is.
Of course, DV format (and related miniDV media) is better quality than highly compressed MPEG4 and H.264. And YES, you can record 1080p in DV (which is called HDV) on miniDV cassette!!!
This Hitachi camera, like DVD-recording cameras, is a consumer toy for recording vacation videos. DV format is used by professionals regardless of the recording media.
So take it easy, Jessy S ;)
RE: "MiniDV is better. Less lossy."
Dude, Engadget is not a forum for video professionals, people will bash you here and rank you low for your post, because they do not know what DV is.
Of course, DV format (and related miniDV media) is better quality than highly compressed MPEG4 and H.264. And YES, you can record 1080p in DV (which is called HDV) on miniDV cassette!!!
This Hitachi camera, like DVD-recording cameras, is a consumer toy for recording vacation videos. DV format is used by professionals regardless of the recording media.
So take it easy, Jessy S ;)
I think it's an oversimplification to say higher compression OR higher resolution necessarily makes a better for a better quality image, each has its benefits. As an example, for a calm nature shoot, I think any non-biased viewer would say the Canon HV20 HD camera blows away just about any consumer SD camera. But if there's a ton of motion and panning going on, the higher compression will become noticeable.
@ FrankTheCrank & Jesse S
Guys, if you want a good HD quality consumer camcorder in HDV format, go with Canon HV20 ($1000), it shoots in 1080 and has 24p (records on miniDV).
If you want pro quality, go with Sony HDR FX1 ($3000) or Canon XH A1 ($3500), both record in HDV on miniDV and do 1080.
:)
Yay!! Four page reply chains!
MiniDV is a media format, I'm sure it could be made to carry HD files (I'm not sure on the maximum write rates though), Disc recorders are cool, but remember a MiniDV tape can hold up to 20GB.
Are CMOS sensors really good enough for good quality HD yet?
In my experience they are grainy, noisy and lack detail compared to their CCD counterparts, has this changed or are these a waste of time?
They're better than good enough.
Try www.red.com for 4K CMOS in action (and rave reviews from hugely prominent cinematographers all over the world).
w00t, not cheaply. Look at how much RED is. I'd call red prosumer, rather than consumer.
HD for consumers is a shitty waste.
Jesse, I would never in a million years call the RED camera consumer or prosumer. It's pro gear. Even though RED camera is at a new lower price-point ($17,500) than other pro gear (that doesn't include the cost of lenses, recording media, or 20 other items you need to really utilize this camera), everything about this camera says "pro."
@ w00t
CMOS has lower light sensitivity than CCD, therefore CMOS has more noise in the low light.
Otherwise they are about the same, except than CMOS is slightly cheaper, so theoretically that allows manufacturers producing larger chips.
I would go with 3CCD until 3CMOS, 1 lux cameras become widespread.
This is an all new CMOS sensor which is highly improved over the older 1080i sensors used in other cameras.Check out this link for more details
http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?&u=http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20070720/hitachi.htm
Great... Now, not only can I see every pore and blemish of attractive celebrities by viewing them in HD, but now there is the potential for the same level of detail when watching my friends and relations in home movies. Its what i've always wanted...
Hitachi is putting a chip in the cameras that only lets them be used for porn, and you totally want 1080p for porn home movies.
I, for one, welcome our full HD 1080p homemade pr0n camcorders.
hey guys.. next time u make an article on things such as video camera's, can u actually put the total recording time for the media on there instead of the stupid gigabytes? i have absolutely no clue what the hell 7gb is supposed to equate to in minutes or hours. i know many of u are obsessed with giga-this and giga-that for the discs... but i am, after all... buying a video camera not a computer. in the old days.. u know tapes.. they used to disclose that info first. it used to say something like 120 minutes and not 230 feet of tape. just an fyi for the layman like me .. thanks.
rj,
Would have if we had that information. They only provided disk capacity, however. Agree, pointless. Remember, you can always click-through to the Via or Read links for more information.
Thomas
My guess is, without knowing the exact compression settings (or without direct info from the manufacturer), there's know way Engadget would know exactly how long of a video you could get on the 7GB disc. I think a more serious camera would use full-size discs to get maximum time and data-rate. Now we just wate for Blu-ray media to become affordable.
While I can't tell you how much time that particular camera will record for, particularly since the post doesn't tell us for certain whether it's 1080i or 1080p, or what the frame-rate is, I can tell you how much space an hour of broadcast mpeg2 HD video (broadcast in 60i, but usually shot in 24p) takes on my DVR: one hour is about 8-9 gigs, so my guess is that this camcorder would be good for around 45 minutes of broadcast-quality HD (at 1920x1080 24p) per 7 GB disk. Or, considering that h.264 gives better compression with the same quality, probably a little more.
That is, broadcast-quality as in the frame-rate and level of compression used, expect a bit more noise in a consumer model (or even a pro-sumer model, to a lesser extent) due to the $20,000-or-so less you're spending on the camera than a pro would.
These things are starting to look like real Arri movie cameras. Wonder if that was intentional.
Maybe I'm missing something, but why can you only fit 7 GB of video on a Blu-Ray disc? I thought they were 25GB single layer and 50 GB dual layer? Why not use that space for a longer recording time? Hmm.
Sorry, just noticed what I was missing. They are 8cm discs... not full size discs. *sigh*
Does anyone know if these 8cm BD disks can be played back on a PS3?
yes
By the way, E-Gear reported on this last month (http://www.e-gear.com/story/story.bsp?sid=67125&var=story) and in fact last year at the CEATEC show in japan (http://www.e-gear.com/story/story.bsp?sid=38010&var=story&publication=E-Gear&publicationDate=10/4/06&slug=eggb104ceatec1&category=None§ion=Unknown&swd=ceatec)
All you girlies, SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!