Actually it is if you have a Blu-ray player. Shoot on 4GB cards, put card in reader, disk image card to standard 4 GB DVD, insert in Blu-ray player, watch in full hi-def glory.

 

How long does that process take?

But still too much to spend IMO. Of course my wife doesn't bring home a mill a year so.....

 

If its anything like dumping P2 cards or other flash media, only about a minute per gig.

Which is honestly nothing and WAY faster then digitizing tape of any format.

 

I think you may be a little spoiled dude. The DVCPRO (HD) stuff you mess around with is probably supported natively on your Mac from your installation of FCP. Not the case with AVCHD on the Mac. It has to be transcoded into something when "imported." For an out of the box Mac, this will of course be AIC. That transocding process is generally going to take 1.5x to 2.5x real time.

 

It gets put into a quicktime wrapper.

But its a similar process when importing straight into FCP since, the native P2 format has to be rewrapped. I dont remember that taking too much longer, but I never straight import. I just transfer footage and import later. Either way I'd be surprised if it was 2.5x longer...maybe 1.5x

 

CRAP!!!! So I can't take it on my Everest climb?!?!?!!?

 

My experience so far with the AVCHD material has more often than not been in the range of 1.5x or less. I have had some footage with lots of motion though that took about 2-2.5x. The behavior was the same for transcoding to both AIC and ProRes 422 so I'm guessing it's more to do with the variable bit rate nature of the source compression than the destination format.

 

interesting, and a bummer.

Either way...it is still WAY less time consuming then digitizing a tape.

 

And infinitely more convenient to archive.

 

 

why dont you go take some more pics where you over accentuate chicks huge noses, they will love you for it.

 

 

Thanks for the info....

 

I want something fairly small though and I'm more concerned over easy of use then picture quality.

 

Standard def Flash FTW. They are tiny.

I figured you're concerns were similar to mine. I'd buy a DVD cam if they weren't so big (relatively speaking) and fairly unrelaible.

 

The one I linked you to is tiny...helps if you actually click on it.

 

Yep, more then likely....

 

Its hard to pick up things on the Internet...

 

They state the dimensions.

You also have the model number now, you can always go to a store and find it, im sure they make a PAL version for europe.

Its like people become helpless on here.

 

People just aren't as egotistical as you are....

In any case, $1100 is not what I was looking to spend...Dom had my needs correctly identified, so I most likely will get a small flash based model around $400...

 

literacy and common sense have nothing to do with ego.

 

I don't know much about camcorders. But what is the benefit of HD based over flash based?

I can't think of one.

 

Assuming the flash and hard drive based camearas both use the same video format such as AVCHD, then the only differences are the obvious ones. Capacity, mechanical reliability, etc...

 

Capacity is higher on the flash and reliability should be better (less moving parts) so.....

I know both Canon HD Flash camcorders use AVCHD so I'd imagine so does everyone else.

I guess this explanation is as simple as knowing that Billiam bought a HD flash Cam.

 

I bought one of the first Sony AVCHD hard drive cameras. I've had nothing wrong with it, but to do it now, I go with the memory card version, less to break and easy to replace than the hard drive.

 

Ummmmm.... capacity is higher on the hard drive cameras. Is Mr. Dom's brain already living out the weekend?

 

Most hard drive based cameras can also record to flash memory. For reliability sake, flash is always preferred to hard drive.

 

Should have explained that one....

16 built in + 16 external + 16 external + 16.... you get my point.

The potential for more capacity is there.

 

Just picked up a FS100 and a 8 gig card. Hope it holds me over for a couple years.

 

I got this Panasonic - http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....=1201307507741

While nice and small, they pic quality is meh and battery sucks....Almost returned it, but 15% restocking fee stopped me...

 

That 8 gb will get you about two hours at best resolution.

 

For anyone that's still kicking these around, Sony recently announced their entry into the flash-based AVCHD market. I believe the model number is HDR-CX12. Essentially it's the flash-based take on the SR11/12. Or so I've read.

 

Yup. But ~95 minutes of battery life. Just waiting for SterlingTek to release an equivalent battery.

 

No, not a bad thing, for something smaller than a stick of gum. Carrying a couple around is no problem. Better than MDv and DVD, I think even better than hard drive cameras, which I have one of.

 

When I was researching my camera (HF100) I saw many complaints about the low battery capacity. When I actually got the camera in my hands though and felt how small and light the battery was, I thought it was actually pretty decent.

 

FS100 as in Firestore? My advice...return it. I hate those things and they have a decent failure rate. If I get on a job that wants them I refuse.

 

With camcorders its always a good idea to have 2-3 batteries depending on how much you plan on using throughout a day.

Whiskers...of the picture quality is meh...youre probably watching SD footage on a HD TV or high res monitor set to full screen.

 

? Firestore? Not sure what you mean.

 

Is the FS100 a hard disk based recorder that attaches to your camcorder?

There is something called the Firestore 100...that is just that.

 

No. Canon FS100 Flash Camcorder. You know I only buy Canon dude.