Just die already: Standard-definition camcorders
It's great that the Nano now has a video camera, but it really should've been able to do HD.
In the course of testing standard-definition camcorders, more often than not, I stumble upon a user review where the person complains that their cell phone takes better video than--insert model name here. Sadly, that appraisal is probably not far from the truth.
For example, the recently reviewed Sony Handycam DCR-SX41 and Samsung SMX-F34 flash-based camcorders are no great shakes in the video department. I have used smaller, cheaper devices that take as good or better video than these camcorders. The only things they really offer are megazoom lenses, compact, lightweight bodies, and better controls and shooting options--all at sub-$300 prices. However, does any of that matter if the video isn't nice looking, is all soft and fuzzy, and loaded with blocky compression artifacts and noise?
Granted, there are a few advantages to SD digital video, though. The files are smaller than HD files, for one. They're also less taxing on computer resources, so editing and viewing them on even a basic laptop or desktop is possible. Plus, the quality is generally so mediocre that the movies are perfect for sharing online at small sizes where imperfections are less visible or cared about.
All of these things can be addressed by changing settings on any HD camcorder that's available, though, and buying an HD model gives you the headroom to take advantage of the higher-resolution capabilities should you eventually want to use them.
At this point, it's feeling like the only reason manufacturers still make SD camcorders are for up-selling consumers to HD models. This goes for YouTube-type minicamcorders, too. Case in point, the Flip family of pocket camcorders currently has four models: two HD, two SD. The price difference between SD and HD: $50.
The fifth-generation Nano with its built-in 640x480-pixel resolution video camera seems like an eventual up-sell opportunity, too. Apple's giving consumers VGA video now, letting them see how crappy it looks, and then next year it can get them to buy a Touch with an HD camera in it.
So yes, it's time for standard-definition camcorders--in all of their various form factors--to just die. The industry-standard minimum should be 720p at this point and just give consumers an easy, fast, one-button-press way to drop the resolution to VGA if need be. If companies such as Pure Digital, Kodak, and Creative can do it inexpensively, why can't the other companies?
Josh Goldman is a senior editor for CNET Reviews, covering digital cameras, camcorders, and related bits and pieces, along with writing the occasional laptop or software review. He doesn't have a podcast, newsletter, or CNET TV show, but you can follow him on Twitter if that's something you do. E-mail Josh. 
My only question is, is this what you mean by Standard defintion ?..
Must be..
Any why there should be 720p standard? Pardon my little knowledge but I still don't really see the need of high definition. We don't really need to bow to the industry czars who want to define what we should accept.
I have a giant Panny plasma that handles SD content just great, and yet the difference between SD and HD content is *at least* as great as night and day. Not just the clarity, but the width of the image just opens up whatever you're watching and makes it far more immersive. It didn't take an "industry czar" to make me see how much better HD is.
I could have stayed SD for my main TV; it was still going strong after almost 18 years. But after getting a taste of it via the HDTV card in my main computer, I couldn't take that small, mushy picture anymore. I'm immensely happier now that TV looks like the movies and movies at home are nearly as good as going to the theater. And sports (read: football)? Fuggeddaboutit! I don't need season tickets, I have an HDTV!
So is there need for HDTV? Not *really*, unless you've actually seen how good it is. Even then, it's more of a want than a need. But geez, if you have the means, why not? It's not about someone else defining what you should accept. It's about moving into a new era of quality and clarity. You don't want it? Okay, but I bet you haven't stayed with a dial-up modem because you think "industry czars" have defined that cable or DSL are what you should accept! ;)
@Mindstyle06--Again, this is a 2005 model when manufacturers like Panasonic were still trying to make good SD camcorders. But they aren't anymore. And that was an expensive 3-chip model you have there. They're not making 3-chip consumer SD cameras anymore because there's no point. Hence my suggestion companies stop making them all together.
@Rick and Grayboe--the prices are low, that's my point. You can buy a pocket HD camcorder for less than $200, just $50 more than a similarly featured SD camcorder. And that's MSRP. Street price differences can be as little as $20. I just don't see the point in buying an SD camcorder--even if you're still living in an entirely SD world.
What we need is a 3CCD, high-definition camera (1080p), that can do 24p mode, all for under $500. The company that can pull that off will rule the world. Well, for about 30 days before it goes bankrupt, BUT STILL! The camera would be AWESOME! I'd be in line, and I'd buy three.
Seriously though, 3CCD standard-def trumps half-CCD high-def.
But to claim that these cheap camcorders produce HD video is like saying a Hyundai provides the same comfort as a Rolls Royce. If you have a chip the size of your thumbnail, to imagine you're getting real 720p quality video is obvious stupidity. If you want a camcorder that gives real 1920x1080 60i HD video, plan on spending over $5000 for a 3 chip camcorder. So those little chip camcorders are creating bigger images using mathematics to expand the image. like cutting a sandwich in half and calling it two sandwiches.
And I'd also like to mention that if you've hooked up a DVD player to your HD TV, all you can get is SD video. DVD's can't hold (or move) the data required for HD presentation. So if you're happy shooting video that you can only watch via your camcorder, go ahead and get some crappy HD camcorder. And enjoy your editing, provided you have enough horsepower in your computer to actually let you edit.
HD is not a passing fancy. But it is currently the camcorder version of "New & Improved" on a product making cosmetic changes. They even market digital audio broadcasts as HD radio because stupid consumers think HD means superior. Don't be fooled by marketing.
What I'm saying is that manufacturers are purposely putting out camcorders that produce poor standard-definition CONSUMER camcorders. And while the small, single-chip CONSUMER HD camcorders might not be "real" HD, the quality is much better than what's being delivered by the SD models for barely more money. I'm suggesting that manufacturers stop selling cheap SD models and just move up to HD already.
Also, while most of the "crappy HD camcorders" are designed to be quickly and easily connected to an HDTV, there are other ways to view HD content on a TV besides a disc.
Lastly, if you read the post, you would have seen that I said SD is easier to edit and play. I also said that all of the "crappy HD camcorders" can record in VGA anyway, so why not just give people some room to grow for the same money instead of making them pay more now or a year or two from now for "HD". I'm fully aware that not everyone has an HDTV, but do you think the less-than-50-percent statistic you quoted is going to go up or down? My bet is up.
- btw 1920 x 1080 30/60p (uncompressed) is REAL HD and requires huge disk space to store and fast processors to manipulate (even lightly compressed), but it is the holy grail of video for the near term and looks terrific. 24p(rogressive) is used to convert/record to film stock, and ultimately to view in the movie theatre - or if you like that somewhat jerky film-look quality. 24p video once on film, has to be converted (back) to 30p or 60i to play on regular televisions. Try viewing a typical film on DVD on your television - step through the frames 1 by 1 with your remote and you will see that every fourth frame is played twice! [Foreign (50cycle) television does a better job of showing film]
There is no magical aesthetic of 24p (fps), it's just how cameras/projectors were designed to save film. 16fps was the silent standard and once audio was added in the late1920s, the fps rate had to increase to accommodate. They tried 30fps but went with 24 fps to save film. The cinematographers didn't choose 24fps . . . and after all these years, we're used to it now!
- by play7 September 19, 2009 11:37 PM PDT
- HD really? Have you seen whats going on n the real world? Monies is not growing on trees people?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(20 Comments)