I wouldn't buy it at that price tough... for the same reason p@... gives. I don't know how many years from now but I guess it'll go fast once people get hooked and prices continue to fall.

My PD100 (sony) is just good for the web now. But I'm happpy with it. Not ready yet to "take the big plunge" into HD since I'm very, very far from earning my life with video, so...
But one day... :)

>>I disagree. I think SD video only has maybe 2 or 3 years at most left as a staple. In that time a lot more conversions to HD TVs will have happened and once there is more HD content, I think the public will be quicker to leave SD behind<<

IMO, HD media (as opposed to broadcast) will not achieve real penetration until the cost of players drops below $99-150.

I agree the media player has to drop first. We are being forced into HD for promo
channels and our cost of a server and HD modulator card is $3500+ where
SD runs around $2000.

I do wish my personal camera was true 16.9 aspect.

The trouble is that after you look at a little HDV, even the best SD kind of looks like a webcam.

Everybody's experience is different, of course... and I respect all your opinions regarding HD... but in my circles (wedding, corporate, and consumer video production... it is SD all the way. True, my client's listen to what I recommend about not going with HD, so that DOES have an impact on me shooting SD exclusively, but what REALLY matters is the final deliverable.

Very few brides have HD-DVD or Blu-Ray to even watch an HD wedding (let alone pay for an HD wedding video), consumers who have me transfer their Betamax and film footage to DVD won't benefit from HD because the original footage is beyond low res, and my corporate clients want most of their videos on the web or CD-ROM. And those times where they need a video for a tradeshow and are using a HD monitor, they don't have an HD DVD to play it on! OR, OR... half of the footage is already shot on SD and I recommend not mixing the qualities.

So, there you have it. Yet another opinion. But, c'mon, you gotta admit the DVX100B for $2,600 is sweet.

4:3 has no life; SD has a life ahead of it, but not as 4:3. While DTV, HD, and widescreen are not truly related, only a person living on a deserted island would dismiss that the broadcasters, display manufactures, and consumers are tying the DTV changeover to widescreen and HD.
Nothing wrong with buying a DVX, but to to suggest 4:3 has a life ahead of it is somewhat shortsighted, IMO.

I'm out shooting today for a long standing client.

I have their Grazie-shot stock client 4:3 footage, which is to be use in this "new" project.

I really DO want to shoot 16:9. It looks better and I can design more for the client within 16:9. However, the headaches this is gonna give me and the client is making me "stay" with 4:3 today and for the rest of the project. It's a fact. I can't move this feast about. I'm having to recognise this is a transition period for me. For "others" it is a no-brainer. If you've got the clients that don't see the developmental join between 4:3 and 16:9 - then its as natural as the next step. For me it isn't so clear cut - I wish it was otherwise, but it aint.

Anyways, that's my story. Is there a life in 4:3? Only over a transition period. And that transition period for some can be longer than others.

Just my 2 pennies worth Douglas - wish I was at NAB too though! Enjoyed the 3 U-Tube postings - MORE PLEASE!!

Life=longevity. There is no longevity for 4:3 in the USA. 18-24 months at the outside. There is no future in 4:3 as archivable media overall, unless it's something unusually unique. If your transitional period is lasting 18-24 months, I'm not sure how to respond. No camcorders that shoot 4:3 are being produced any longer, no 4:3 displays being produced. Letterboxing exists for current owners of 4:3 displays/televisions, and stock media that is 4:3 will be worth less (not worthless) in 3-4 years overall, unless you're either tremendously upsampling, or PIP with the image. I realize the NAB is the US standard, but it is also the standard upon much of what the international community is moving towards/standardizing upon. The past five days have been packed with sessions on standards, timetables, technology, and future direction for not only broadcasters but distributors as well. 4:3 isn't at all part of that discourse, but rather various versions of widescreen, letterboxed widescreen, framerates, multi-point delivery, etc.
Yes, you probably do want to hit an NAB sooner than later.
More streams are coming/uploaded, but the show doesn't open til tomorrow, which is when we'll really be hitting the interviews.

Spot i must disagree. I shoot tons of stuff that i know will never be seen on TV channel -- that is it has broadcast capability but realistically very few of those music videos or indie features will ever be seen on TV. The internet on the other hand... And since almost all web players out there are designed to play 4:3. Not only that, artistically 4:3 offers more choices for unorthodox framing (i think 16:9 is like a bull with no testicles, 1.85:1 is great, but 16:9 is lame).

i think 16:9 is like a bull with no testicles


Excellent! Not that I agree at all, having not "looked" recently. I just loved the phrase.

But Patryk, isn't 16:9 the future? Surely? What is it about 4:3 that gives you the WOW-effect? Or conversely why 16:9 doesn't - for you that is. No seriously, I'm truly interested. And I AM a fan of your work too.

Regards - g

Ah! Dutch tilts come to mind!

I think when everybodys got 16:9 TV sets the manufacturers will bring back 4:3 as the NEW fashionable style. You get a a !/3 more picture will be the new slogan. Thats the nature of business to get the public to invest in the next best latest thing/idea..

"1.85:1 is great, but 16:9 is lame"

Patryk, given that 16:9 is 1.78:1, do you really think that makes the difference between great and lame?

I think we should go back to circular. If that's too "mod" then perhaps a nice 6:5 elipse would be a sufficiently retro look.

I totally agree with Spot on 4:3 not lasting much longer. Even shooting my old school TRV950's, and given they aren't true 16:9 widescreen, I still shoot them in widescreen mode at the expense of slight resolution loss - It is a matter of getting use to shooting in that format, and I think 4:3 is just a horrid aspect ratio - when I shot 35mm still work I always composed for full frame since it was a natural extension of how we see horizontally - IMO anyways

Life=longevity. There is no longevity for 4:3 in the USA. 18-24 months at the outside

Spot,

I do forecasts for a living. You are WAY off on that prediction. Reminds of a venture capitalist that told me back in 1998 that dial up would be history in 18-24 months. Almost ten years later, broadband has indeed finally penetrated over 50% of all households, but it took MUCH longer than people close to the industry predicted.

4:3 and SD will take a LONG time to fade away. I still have yet to have any request for 16:9 from anyone here in upper-scale Carmel. True, those in the broadcast industry have certain requirements and mandates, so if that is what you are talking about, then fair enough. However, on the receiving side, I predict, with confidence, that it will take more than a decade from right now before the installed base of 16:9 sets in the U.S. exceeds the installed base of 4:3 sets. Note that it took from 1995 until 2001 before more DVD players were being SOLD per year than VCRs, and it wasn't until early last year that the installed base of DVD players equalled VCRs. The DVD launch was unencumbered by all the negative issues surrounding HD (constant slipping of changeover mandate, lousy point-of-sale demo quality; additional equipment (new sat dish or cable box) required, etc.

I will bet a steak dinner that 4:3 and SD will survive for a long, long time.

....Just the possibilities it has for composition the 16:9 really feels lame and 185:1 feels like there is a purpose and a sense of direction. Yes, that small difference changes something. WIth 4:3, 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 you can be very stylized or not. With 16:9 anything you do seems off... Hard to explain.

4:3 TVs will definitely be around for awhile. So will 4:3 content. I've switched to 16:9 though. The problem is that at this point 4:3 is the realm of really low budget video delivery. Anything you do in 4:3 is going to look really low budget to the average person. 4:3 is going to continue on VHS tape for instance. Bargain bin VHS tapes featuring reruns of old TV shows are going to be around for a while, but is that the catagory you want your new production to be grouped in?

Also, 16:9 DVDs look good on both 4:3 and 16:9 TVs. That is a key issue for me. 4:3 DVDs have issues on 16:9 TVs. Sometimes you get a stretched image. Sometimes you have to manually switch the TV playback modes. I've done enough AV work to know that the average viewer doesn't even bother to mess with these settings and usually views it wrong. A lot of that extra 4:3 area is eaten away by the safety zone anyway.

At this point, I wouldn't even use a 4:3 camera for home video footage. Plus, IMHO, the image from the cheapest consumer grade HDV camera makes the image from the best SD cameras look a little like something off of a webcam.

The DVX 100A was an amazing camera in it's day, but I would no more buy one of those than I would buy a super-VHS or 8mm camera. Their day has come and gone.

I think a lot of it depends on where you live/work. Some areas will have 4:3 for quite a while (years), some it may already be gone.

...........IMHO, the image from the cheapest consumer grade HDV camera makes the image from the best SD cameras look a little like something off of a webcam.........

Wow I respect your opinion,, but , my opinion is different. I think I'll get my eyes checked.

Patryk, that comment kind of reminds me of an anecdote i heard about the slow adoption of the metric system in one locale. A resident was heard to mutter that the litre was unnatural and unuseful. His justification was that a litre of ale was too much to drink and a half-litre was too little, but a pint just hit the spot perfectly.

Now, keep in mind that his country used the imperial system of measurement in which a pint is larger than a half litre instead of smaller, but either way, the difference is only about 6%. Hardly seems like anyone would notice the difference. In your case the difference between 16:9 and 1.85 is less than half that. I suspect that if someone randomly showed you a rectangle that was either 16:9 or 1.85 without any identification you wouldn't be able to tell which was which unless you measured.

After a pint of ale, 16:9 looks like 1.85 to me.

16 x 9 and 4 x 3 are for kids & games. I like 2.35 x 1 which is what they should have used in the first place. A little 3D would help too.
JJK