Well, "high definition" is currently considered the highest quality format for digital video acquisition, and it's beginning to trickle down into the prosumer/consumer market at a fraction of the cost. Just a couple of years ago, a 3CCD (3 charged coupled device imaging sensors devoted to capturing individual primary color channels, red, green, and blue) high def camera with progressive scanning (capable of shooting an image in framed increments within a second, such as 24 frames per second) would have cost anywhere between 50 and 120 grand. This particular HDV Camcorder is just the second (1st being JVC’s 1 CHIP HDCAM) among many more expected to come from other manufacturers that will attempt to revolutionize the industry by putting high def cameras in the hands of anyone willing to spend 5 grand on a cam.
Of course, these prosumer HDV Camcorders won't offer the same bells and whistles that the premium high def cameras have, but there will still be ways of achieving some pretty phenomenal results if the right people are applying the right knowledge in the right situations. However, in another year, all of those premium high def cams will have evolved into "super high def" cams, and the HDV camcorders will look mediocre.
If your interests remain at peaked levels, I suggest you closely follow The 2004 NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) Convention; it starts on the 17th with official proceedings beginning on the 19th. There will be quite a few announcements made with regard to HDV technology. Keep a close eye on Canon and Panasonic.
Well, 'Hollywood Cams' will have better CCDs and lenses and probably lower compression so they handle contrast better and have less artifacts, but in terms of resolution they're limited by 35mm film and current HD cams aren't far behind 35mm resolution as it is. Unless Hollywood starts releasing on IMAX or for digital projection at much higher resolutions it's going to be hard to make 1080 line HDV look mediocre (720 is already kind of iffy, though better than DV)... cheap and limited, sure, but not mediocre.
Everybody has a different eye for quality; I prefer to use my third eye.
Manufacturers among DALSA, Thomson Grass Valley, Sony Professional, Panasonic Professional, and even ARRI are exploring the possibilities of utilizing advanced proprietary imaging sensors like CMOS over CCD. They're also using wavelets; a much more advanced compression format than the little HDVCamcorders' MPEG2. They’re also shifting to pure digital media, such as solid state, and it's also a possibility for these professional cameras to make the first shift to fluid lens systems. ALSO, as the quality of these cameras advances beyond HD, and require greater storage capacities because of capturing higher quality images, memory-storing devices won’t be analogue or digital, it will go molecular, leaving endless possibilities for them to make the image as dynamic as they would like.
So, when you compare those advancements with the current status of HDVCamcorders, it's obvious that the standards remain disproportionate, and by scale, the HDVCamcorders used by consumers/prosumers will be mediocre.
So how do you think these HD cameras are going to allow Hollywood to release better movies than can be displayed from the 35mm release prints? You can't do better than 35mm film, because that's what you'll finally be projecting on the screen for many years to come... and 35mm certainly shouldn't make HDV look 'mediocre'. They can shoot IMAX-3D if they want, but it will still look little better than 1080 line HD video when they have to blow it down to be projected from a 35mm print.
“Yeah, I like the organic feel of shooting in 35MP UDD on ¼ mercury …”
-Jacob Mason- in the year 2010 8)
Film projection is nearing the end of its' life, it’s incapable of transcending its’ tangible source, unless it relies on digital technology to facilitate the projection process. Today, many of the movies originally captured on film are converted to digital for all sorts of reasons, for the DI process, for transfer to DVD, for transfers to the web, etc. The only time it’s necessary to be viewed in its’ original format is for the theaters, where it becomes so ridiculously prone to error that it makes you wonder why projectionists haven’t been getting paid more. Probably because they know they’ll soon be replaced by automated digital projectors.
Digital projectors that are capable of receiving full quality digital streams directly through cable and/or satellite will leave room for unlimited development in camera and media manufacturing. An entirely new process for presentation will be born, along with an entirely new arena for viewing this ultra dynamic content. It won’t matter if it was originally captured on DV, HD, 35mm, or 70mm; it will all be adjusted and presented accordingly from one projector.
Everything will be seen through digital signals, because digital signals can operate in an infinite range, and know no boundaries.
Yes, but it will probably be the standard for at least the next decade, and longer than that in the poorer parts of the world. Most cinemas don't make a lot of money, digital projectors are expensive and will need to be regularly upgraded with new technology (unlike 35mm where the new technology is in the film, not the projector), and most people don't care enough about image quality to pay extra to watch a digital projection rather than 35mm. The only way I can see digital projection becoming widespread before then is if the movie studios give the projectors away in order to reduce their print costs.