Sony launches compact HD camcorder

[thunderhawk]

Sony launches compact HD camcorder

High definition video recording takes another step towards mainstream with Sony's latest HD video camcorder. With a price of $1700, the HDR-HC3 is about $300 cheaper than its predecessor HC1 at launch and slowly gets into the reach of video enthusiasts.

The new HDR-HC3 is about 26% smaller than its predecessor and is equipped with a Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar lens and Sony's new ClearVid CMOS sensor. Users can shoot still images simultaneously with video recording. The resolution of the pictures is 2.3 megapixel in high definition mode (16:9 aspect ratio) and 1.7 megapixels in standard definition mode (4:3).

While high definition on the TV today offers a standard resolution of 720p (720 progressive lines) and is quickly heading towards 1080p, the HDR-HC3 records in 1080i - which has been the focus of an ongoing discussion, whether this standard can be considered "true" HD or not.

1080i stands for 1080 lines that are created through interlaced rendering. While in 1080p all 1080 lines are recorded and displayed in one batch, 1080i records first the 540 even-numbered lines of a frame, followed by a second step that captures the remaining 540 odd-numbered lines. The two sets are re-assembled when displayed on a high definition TV, which results in frames that can be fuzzier than a progressively rendered 1080p or even 720p sequence.

The HDR-HC3 will be hitting store shelves in April.


Source: http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/02/22/sony_hd_camcorder/

[Sony1]

It's Interesting that Sony classifies it's camcorder as HD, even though 1080i is not HD. Or is 1080i HD? I don't know about that one for sure because I had assumed it was. Never the less it still should improve image quality over todays typical camcorders.

[thunderhawk]

Yes it is. 720p/1080i and 1080p are HD

[phloyd]

That '1080i is not HD' comment makes this article a little on the uninformed side...

Most HD in the USA is 1080i.

Nice to see a new camcorder though... smaller is great - cheaper is great - if the quality is the same or better!

Cheers!

[zombie]

Let's see, $1700 for an HD camcorder or $1800 for the Pioneer BD deck... decisions, decisions.

[AV_Integrated]

Considering most people have no idea what the original definition of HD was and how warped it has become since the term was originally used (30+ years ago!) what does it matter?

According to the company that allows HDTV logos to be put on displays a device is truly HD if it has 720 or more vertical lines of resolution and is a 16:9 native format.

By that set of standards, 1080i is most definitely HD.

There are those in the film industry that work at greater than 1080p resolutions who would say that 1080p is hardly worth calling HD either.

Geez, to much whoop-dee-doo over a silly term. It's still a killer image!

[phloyd]

I have a picture of a plaque in London that says "The world's first regular high definition television service was inaugurated here by the BBC 2 November 1936".

I wonder what took the rest of the world so long...

[Alex Pallas]

what format will this use? MPEG1?

[cmykrgb]

Crap, I just bought my HC1 less than two months ago!

[AV_Integrated]

Originally Posted by phloyd

I have a picture of a plaque in London that says "The world's first regular high definition television service was inaugurated here by the BBC 2 November 1936".

I wonder what took the rest of the world so long...

Bingo! The term has been in existence for years.

The ACTUAL DEFINITION OF HDTV (not the current marketing term)

A television becomes 'HD' when you back further from it and it no longer improves the image quality. OR if you add one more line of resolution you get no more noticably quality from the display.

This means that any and all televisions fall into the 'HD' category as from the proper distance, they all can look phenomenal... just really small.

People argue this... but it is more that they don't understand it or don't want to understand it. Yet, the bottom line is that if you feed a high quality HD signal to a 1365x768 display and are 10 feet from that display, then you send the same signal to a 853x480 display that is smaller in size and you are a bit further away - to the human eye, the quality of both images is indistinguishable! Once you accept that as reality, then you understand that HD is achievable on any display.

Under old NTSC, image transmission quality was fixed. So, displays of smaller size and viewed from further distances were considered normal and were much higher quality than people expect today.

HDTV!

Yep... totally a marketing term now. When you view it in the original definition, and apply it to whatever display you buy and consider the resolution of what you send, the resolution of the display, AND your viewing distance, then you can actually buy the right display for your room... and not get suckered into overpaying for unused resolution... which is a very common upselling tool.

[Knight-Errant]

The point is that in HD there is more visible detail and sharpness than on the best SD screen.

Of course I know that in SD the farther away you stand improves the picture stability, but you also lose detail, especially if like me, you're short sighted.