DR. STRANGEDEF

D

Digigenic

Guest
DR. STRANGEDEF
Or how I learned to stop worrying and accept the HDV standard

Almost every major manufacturer adhered to the HDV mpeg-2 standard initiated by JVC nearly a year ago (as of writing the post). Is the new HDV standard preventing the other major manufacturers within the HDV agreement from developing another format of their own?

Perhaps Matsushita, the parent company of JVC and Panasonic used JVC as a decoy to lure the other manufacturers into a false sense of format security, while Panasonic slips through undetected to claim check mate and implement true HD on solid state media with the same blind-siding results as with the introduction of 24P on the DVX100/a?

If that were the case, then perhaps the HDV standard will be nothing more than a freak trend; only appearing in a few transitional period cameras until Panasonic rightfully reclaims its’ role as the digital messiah to the discontent masses.

Since the lifecycle is becoming a main concern; is it entirely impractical to think that prosumers may actually have a DV/HD camera in their hands that doesn’t go stale after the first couple of years? Kinetta has proven it’s possible to increase the life span with their HDV prototype camera, which allows for its internal organs, CMOS sensors and all to be removed and replaced when needed. So, shouldn’t Sony, Canon, Panasonic, JVC or any other digital video/imaging developer worthy of their stock piles of magnesium, glass, and silicon componentry be committed to creating groundbreaking standards without playing format cloak and dagger with the others? Guess not… :roll:
 
You know Jacob... you might just be onto something here.

Maybe JVC is the decoy while Panasonic moves ahead behind the scenes... it would make sense for a lot of reasons...
including that Sony has yet to release a competing camera... though... to be honest... I'll take a 3-chip DV cam from sony any day over that single chip JVC...

Should be interesting to see what happens next in the world of DV & HD though... and see if Sony or Panasonic hit the mark first.
 
Personally I can't see sony releasing a true HD camera at a consumer price: they stand to lose far too much money from their pro gear if they did so.
 
Sony will release one if they are losing business to another company's camera -- they'd rather lose their high-end HD business to THEMSELVES rather than another company!

But I don't think the consumer HDV market is the same one for pro HD camera equipment anyway. Sony makes an entire line of SD camera equipment, from small to large -- the PD170, the DSR570, the DVW700, etc. They didn't avoid releasing a low-end pro camera because they were afraid it would cut into the sales of their Digital Betacam cameras. At some level, there's a reason why a low-end pro camera or a prosumer camera is cheaper than a high-end pro camera.
 
It's all just another media/format war.

It's all just another media/format war.

I agree. Currently, Sony wouldn't implement such an advanced camera into the lower end of their expansive lineup. Though, it's a guarantee we'll see a prosumer HD model from them soon on Blu ray media. Same with Panasonic and Solid State, which might prove to be a dissapointment if solid state media costs don't drop significantly below the current price point.

It's all just another media/format war.

That must be what's preventing Canon. They know they can't stay on tape forever, but they don't know which media format to adapt. What else would be preventing them from making a legit HD camera for a prosumer?
 
I don't really buy the conspiracy theory that Sony could just release a cheap consumer version of the F900 if they really wanted to and they are simply afraid of losing sales on the high end business. There's a reason why more features and more quality costs more.

If someone said "Toyota won't release a $15,000 version of their $40,000 Model X car because they're afraid it will hurt the sales of their $40,000 car" I'd say that someone has a strange view of economics and marketing.

Sony did not refuse to release the original PD100 to market because they were afraid it would cut into the sales of their $60,000 Digital Betacam, even though some pro work has been done on the PD100, then PD150, and now PD170. Sony isn't trying to "protect" the F900 HDCAM by not releasing a consumer HDV camcorder, even if some pro HD work might be attempted with a consumer HDV camcorder.

The delays on consumer and prosumer HD have mainly been about coming up with a format to record the data and making the camera affordable to make and to buy. And I don't think anyone sees the demand as being THAT great right now. The JVC HDV camcorder didn't exactly set the world on fire and blow SD cameras like the DVX100 out of the water.

And considering that a pro HD camera may have a $25,000 zoom lens on it, anyone who thinks that a $5000 prosumer HDV camera is going to deliver comparable quality to a $100,000 HD camera (with a $25,000 lens on it) is somewhat overly optimistic... A prosumer HDV camcorder is going to have cheaper optics, smaller CCD's, and a more compressed recording format.
 
Sony did not refuse to release the original PD100 to market because they were afraid it would cut into the sales of their $60,000 Digital Betacam

Because they're not the same format. DV, for example, is deliberately crippled with 4:1:1/4:2:0 color sampling vs 4:2:2 in Digibeta. Similarly, Sony will happily release HDV cameras with crippled compression and color sampling, but won't be releasing a full-quality HD camera for $5000 any time soon.

I'd say that someone has a strange view of economics and marketing.

If you don't think that companies go out of their way to protect their high-end, high-margin products from their low-end, low-margin products, then to be honest I think you have a strange view of economics and marketing. I routinely work with products that have been deliberately crippled so they can sell me one version for $500 while selling the same thing with a few extra features to others for $5,000. It's not because the $5,000 version costs ten times as much to make, it's because there's a market that will pay ten times as much for those extra features.
 
No, I don't think the price of a camera is directly proportional to the cost of manufacturing. I just get annoyed with people who think there is a conspiracy out there to keep them from getting a pro HD camera for the cost of a consumer DV camera. It's like asking for a Lexus to be sold for $5,000 and then getting mad when the company refuses to do it. OF COURSE a $5000 Lexus would hurt the sales of their other cars. OF COURSE a $5000 pro Sony HD camera that did everything the F900 did would hurt the sales of their F900. You seem to want the manufacturers to sell their best technology, whatever that is, for the prices of their worst technology.

Whether or not the processors for a DV camera are cheaper than those for a DVCPRO50 camera or Digital Betacam (and I suspect there is a price difference for processing and recording more data at less compression), there are other differences between pro and consumer cameras that make the price points different. AND the market aspects as you mention.

More resolution is more data and also requires better optics to take advantage of that increased resolution -- and all of this comes at a price. But you seem to be implying that there are no cost differences related to product quality and simply that more quality is assigned a higher price tag arbitrarily. Don't you think that it costs Sony more to design and then produce the F900 than it does the PD170? (No, I don't think the higher cost is proportional.)

You seem to be asking that Panasonic and Sony release under $10,000 cameras using their current HDCAM and DVCPROHD VTR technology rather than using the lower-quality HDV format. Assuming that their current HD cameras are profitable for them, I don't see their motivation to do that. And I actually don't think it makes sense from a cost of manufacturing angle -- these VTR's are more expensive for them to make. Maybe they COULD reasonably make a stripped-down version of the F900 with 1/2" CCD's, cheaper SD lenses, and an HDCAM VTR for less than $30,000 -- but I'm not sure if that's what you had in mind.

Anyway, you seem to be agreeing with me that there is no reason why Sony or Panasonic should ever make a high-quality, pro HD cameras at a very low price. It doesn't make much sense from any number of angles. It would be like asking Arriflex to start making a quiet 35mm Arricam version that could be sold for $10,000. It would be NICE but...

I expect the HD camera market to be similar to the SD camera market in how it behaves, except for the wild card items like the Kinetta. Maybe there will be an extreme leap in technology where suddenly everyone can make cheap HD cameras with incredibly high performances at low costs and the whole traditional video market is turned upside-down. It could happen, I admit. Although the optics issue doesn't go away.

Anyway, the truth is probably half-in-half. I don't think it's as simplistic as "Sony could make and sell a camera with the same quality as the F900 but for $5000 if they really wanted to" but I agree that the high cost of the F900 has more to do with what Sony thinks the market can bear than the actual costs of manufacturing.
 
Anyone have an idea of what the per-unit costs of manufacturing the Sony F900 might be? I'm sure such data is secret but I was wondering what a typical mark-up a video company might employ for pro gear.
 
Not sure about the "cost per unit" or the mark-up... but I know that they also factor into the equation all the costs of development... which tend to add up.
 

Network Sponsors

Back
Top