HDV vs. DVCProHD

[davbeisner]

Okay, so I'm new in the HD world, just getting into it, and I've spent the last six weeks at my job doing nothing but researching the different formats and cameras and learning about HD video. Right now I'm trying to convince my company that DVCProHD is better than HDV because it uses a higher bitrate, has better chroma subsampling, and the P2 workflow is just plain sweet. But they still want to try to find a cheaper camera--something along the lines of the Canon XH-A1 or equivalent (we have the budget for the 200A, but they like to pinch pennies...not necessarily a bad thing, but a pain sometimes). But those use the HDV codec which, I've learned from my research, is a pain to work with. Am I right about that? And if so, what's the best way to convince my superiors that we need to go with DVCProHD (specifically the HVX200A) over an HDV camcorder? And if I'm wrong, please explain to me how I'm wrong and why HDV is better. Storage space is not an issue.

[DChang]

This topic has been covered greatly, so I recommend a DVCPROHD vs search.

But I will try to find the strong points to help.

Obviously the tapeless workflow has tons of advantages over HDV on miniDV.

Also the variable frame rates which I am sure they will really like.

As far as codecs go, you are more likely to run into problems with HDV than DVCPRO. If they want to get technical you can have them read on how each works, GOP, etc.

You might also be interested in the 170 that comes out in September. Tons of useful features for any serious production company.

As for personal use, and for some pro use, for the price of a 200A you can get an A1 and a Letus Extreme...a penny pinchers dream!

Good luck, and try the articles section as well!

[DavidBeier]

Tell them that HDV uses inter-frame encoding and is so compressed that many professionals refuse to work with it. Tell them that by using it they are severly limiting who they could possibly sell the footage you shoot to. Also explain that it's going to be much harder on your computer if you're trying to edit HDV because of the amount of compression.

To be honest, it would be easier to give you a good argument if I knew what your business did.

[David Saraceno]

One word: conforming time.

errr, two words

[davbeisner]

Thanks guys... i've actually found a lot of info on this over at dvinfo.net as well.

I work for a college but rather than teach I produce promotional videos for the college

[Huy Vu]

Keep in mind also that it's not just the camera, but the support gears as well. If you can spend half the money and the rest on decent tripods, mics etc. then you'll get more out of it than blowing all your money on a single camera. HDV is an economical way to get into HD, and IMO most of its "weaknesses" are exaggerated.

[DavidBeier]

I work for a college but rather than teach I produce promotional videos for the college

I've done promotional videos for schools before but I used my own equipment which I own. If I was trying to convince a college I worked for to go with the DVCProHD over HDV; I'd tell them the following.

-HDV is going to require more system resources when we're editing the videos. Projects are going to take longer and there are going to be more technical hurdles when we're trying to encode stuff.

-The animation may end up looking odd and points and, when compressed for DVD, Blu-Ray, or net streaming, will look even worse.

-In layman's terms, just explain to them it's much lower quality footage. It's four times the compression and it's simply not going to look as professional which, in turn, is going to reflect poorly on the college and the image they're trying to portray in their promotional videos.

-You could also try to sell them on the true slow motion of the HVX200. I've used that in most promotional videos I've done and it's always gotten a great response. It seems silly but it really does make the whole video look more professional and more expensive.

[Huy Vu]

-In layman's terms, just explain to them it's much lower quality footage. It's four times the compression and it's simply not going to look as professional which, in turn, is going to reflect poorly on the college and the image they're trying to portray in their promotional videos.


Except that this would be a bald-face lie. Well shot HDV footage is indistinguishable from DVCPRO-HD and if you compress it correctly then there no difference. The advantage of DVCPRO-HD lies in the postproduction phase where if you need to stretch your footage to extreme then you have more headroom to do that. Most people do not do this and certainly not a college's promotional department. Once you've compressed the footage for the web or DVD, you're just throwing all that extra informations away anyway.

Give an honest report to the people who are funding you. It might make sense for them to want to save money on a cheaper camera and it might not be what one you want. But don't give them misleading informations to steer them to your point of view. That's just unethical.

[davbeisner]

Thanks Huy Vu, I agree... don't want to be unethical in what I do. But my research has also shown that there are more difficulties with HDV than with DVCProHD and if HDV really did look just the same after post, then why does the BBC accept DVCProHD footage but not HDV footage? I completely agree that they'll look the same for web delivery... not arguing anything there (except the 4:2:2 color space of the DVCProHD will make it look better anyway) but the really important stuff is going out on Blu-Ray and that's where it's gonna make the difference for us.

[seunosewa]

- The XH-A1 is much cheaper than the HVX. 1 point for HDV
- The XH-A1 uses the inexpensive DV tape medium. 2 point for HDV
- You can edit HDV natively on the latest versions of most NLEs. 3 points for HDV.

Companies are in business to make a profit. You don't buy a $7000 cam when a $3000 cam would do the job just as well with lower running costs. The HVX has a couple advantages over the XH-A1, but is it really 2 times better? No. It is just slightly better overall - and that's just because resolution isn't everything.

[David Saraceno]

Once you've compressed the footage for the web or DVD, you're just throwing all that extra informations away anyway.

We shot with a Z1U compressed to DVD, and were not impressed. The 25 mbps footage with Long GOP didn't look good at all. Original footage was generally good and sharp.

However, using 100 mbps with a HVX200 created qualitatively better DVDs.

At capture, HDV has already thrown away alot more information than DVCProHD. Alot more. Not to mention color space.

[davbeisner]

Met with the director of our film program this morning and I presented the pro's and con's behind the HVX, the EX1, the XL-H1, and the HD200U. Actually printed off the full-color long form brochures on each one to take to him...I did my best to argue FOR every camera and just present the cons of each, rather than to argue against it. Also gave him an excel spreadsheet that lists out all the possible video formats and all the details on compression, bitrate, color space, etc. for each one.

He likes the HVX best of all of them (helps that its the only one of the above he's had a chance to actually put his hands on) and he's going to second my recommendation for that camera.

I'll keep y'all posted on what happens...

[Kevin Shaw]

... if HDV really did look just the same after post, then why does the BBC accept DVCProHD footage but not HDV footage?

If you read the BBC specs carefully you'll find the same restrictions for footage from the HVX200 as from HDV cams, which reflects the quality limitations of cameras with small (<1/2") sensors. Conversely, several network TV shows use HDV cameras including "Deadliest Catch," so the HDV format can work even in demanding broadcast environments. As discussed elsewhere DVCProHD is a good recording format, but it's not the only functional answer for situations like yours.

[josh townsend]

Changing P2 cards and backing them up on a Crab Boat is very unrealistic. You got that point right.

I love my HVX and agree that DVCPROHD is WAY better than HDV...... but If was on the Northwestern in Febuary even I'd use tapes not P2.

But unless your shooting the Deadliest Catch DVCPRO is always better. Especially if you want to do any greenscreen.


josh
www.gainesvilleripper.com (http://www.gainesvilleripper.com)

[Huy Vu]

And we're talking about HDV and DVCPROHD as if the codec is all that matters. The camera head plays an equally important role in determining resolution, low light performance, dynamic range and the likes. The A1 for example is way sharper than the HVX at 1080p, so you can't just make a blanket statement based on the codec specs.

David S., it's very possible that your compression was off on that DVD. I've downconverted A1 HDV footage into SD, render out uncompressed and burn to DVD with very satisfactory results.

[Conrad Radzik]

Haha, I was watching "Behind the Catch" and someone on the show mentioned that less than 1/3 of the cameras that go out actually end up making it back functional.

Just a little off topic, but I thought I should mention it. :)

[DavidBeier]

Except that this would be a bald-face lie.

No, it's an exaggeration; not all that different from the one you make here:


Well shot HDV footage is indistinguishable from DVCPRO-HD and if you compress it correctly then there no difference.Or perhaps a better example would be here:


Once you've compressed the footage for the web or DVD, you're just throwing all that extra informations away anyway.This one is particularly perplexing. The idea that the previous compression magically disappears because you're compressing again is just ludicrous. Layering on compression on top of compression doesn't produce great results. Make an MPEG2 file for DVD base of an uncompressed signal compared to a mini-DV signal and the uncompressed tends to look better. If you've got motion artifacts or some color blocking in your HDV footage, those aren't going to magically disappear when you then compress it further for a DVD. They may well be magnified.

We're both guilty making statements that are exaggerating the truth to argue a point.


But don't give them misleading informations to steer them to your point of view. That's just unethical.Well, I come from a freelance perspective but you'll find that all my clients view me as very ethical because I do my best to save them money, produce better results than anyone in my area, and do it for a cheaper price.

That said, when you're dealing with someone who doesn't know a lot about the technical aspects, you have to dumb it down and yes often exaggerate because they simply don't have the background to make a valid judgement.

There are plenty of professionals on all levels who will not touch HDV because of the compression. I've met countless ones and you can see examples of this on shows such as the 4400 where they'd refused to use any the HDV cameras because of the compression but did go with the HVX200 upon release because of DVCProHD. And yes, I'm willing to exaggerate a point with a client if it's in service of the bigger goal. The bottom line is that he's the one who is going to be operating this camera. He's most likely the one who's going to be dealing with the footage and post-production. If he feels it's the best choice then I don't see an issue with him dumbing things down a bit when he explains why this would be the camera he wants to work with. The accounts aren't going to be in there with him when he has to figure out how to make that swish pan or high-motion shot look less odd because of inter-frame encoding. The administrator may ask him to "make this scene look warmer" or "add a blue tint" but he's not the one who is going to have to then deal with the 4:2:0 color space and the limitations it comes with. Trying to explain to these guys the intricacies of digital work is an exercise in futility. I've had to learn that the hard way. If this is equipment that he'll have to deal with in his job then I don't think there's any issue with him selling it to them in a way he deems appropriate. It's be his head-ache, not theirs.


And we're talking about HDV and DVCPROHD as if the codec is all that matters. The camera head plays an equally important role in determining resolution, low light performance, dynamic range and the likes. The A1 for example is way sharper than the HVX at 1080p, so you can't just make a blanket statement based on the codec specs.You're right, you can't just make a blanket statement based off anything. I'm guilty of that with my talk of codecs as are you for claiming the two are indistinguishable.

A big part of it comes down to preference. For many, HDV is a pain in the ass they never want to deal with and simply not worth it (and this includes people I know who shoot promotional and college videos). For others, HDV is "good enough." On the flip side, for some the Panasonic's 1080p performance is not worth the hassel and they want something sharper while, for me, it's "good enough" (especially since I always shoot 720p). A lot of this is preference and there are people I respect on all sides who have divergent opinions. This guy came on asking how he can sell the money men on DVCProHD and I gave him some ideas. I assume he's a pro himself so if, in his judgement, that's the codec/camera he wants to use, then go for it.



Companies are in business to make a profit. You don't buy a $7000 cam when a $3000 cam would do the job just as well with lower running costs. The HVX has a couple advantages over the XH-A1, but is it really 2 times better?

I gotta ask where you're getting your numbers from. At a quick glance, the HVX200 is $5200 (not $7000) with a 16 gig P2 card and the XH-A1 is $3300. The A1 is certainly a better bang for the buck (I'm still amazed at how cheap it is compared to all others in the range) but not to the extent you're making it out to be.

[Huy Vu]

You're right, you can't just make a blanket statement based off anything. I'm guilty of that with my talk of codecs as are you for claiming the two are indistinguishable.

Ok, how about this? I show you two DVDs, one compressed from A1 HDV footage and and the other from HVX DVCPROHD footage and you tell me which is which. It's not an exaggeration. Provided that you shot and encode it correctly, nobody will be able to tell what the originating format is once it goes into DVD.


That said, when you're dealing with someone who doesn't know a lot about the technical aspects, you have to dumb it down and yes often exaggerate because they simply don't have the background to make a valid judgement.

You go to buy a car and the salesman "dumb down" the specs for you and get you to purchase a more expensive vehicle than you need. Wouldn't you be pissed off?


If he feels it's the best choice then I don't see an issue with him dumbing things down a bit when he explains why this would be the camera he wants to work with.

That's why you be honest and upfront about the pros and cons of the format and let the client make that decision for themselves. If there's a problem down the line, then that's gonna be on their head. I know that if I'm asking somebody for advice then I'll want the most honest answer I can get; I don't like people presuming that I'm too dumb or too ignorant to understand something and make the decisions for me.

BTW, all that talks about "interframe compression artifacts" are a thing of the past. The HDV codec as implemented on the A1 is rock solid. I've shot action scenes with plenty of whip and and have encountered zero problem.

[David Saraceno]

Ok, how about this? I show you two DVDs, one compressed from A1 HDV footage and and the other from HVX DVCPROHD footage and you tell me which is which. It's not an exaggeration. Provided that you shot and encode it correctly, nobody will be able to tell what the originating format is once it goes into DVD.


That's exactly my point. I've been creating SD DVDs since DVDs arrived on the desktop more than eight years ago.

I can't count the number of replicated DVDs we've produced.

We shot HDV and used a number of excellent encoders to produce SD DVDs for replication.

They didn't look good. Our clients thought so as well.

The point being that the clients made the decision for us. We just agreed.

Then we compared identically shot SD DVDs created from a Z1U and a HVX200.

Our clients immediately saw the difference. We just agreed.

I haven't shot with your cam, so I can't compare, but I can see how titling and FX holds up with HDV footage

[Huy Vu]

Doesn't make sense. The DVD that I author from HDV looks great. Certainly HDV doesn't automatically equal bad DVD. If that's what your client wants then that's great.

[David Saraceno]

I don't know what you mean by "it doesn't make sense."

I'm just reporting what our clients observed.

And I didn't say the HDV footage made a bad DVD. What I did say is that our clients preferred DVCProHD based DVDs.

We struggled with our decision to move from HDV to DVCProHD.

It ran a bunch of money more because the HVX200 was selling at a premium.

But we're glad we made that decision.

[Huy Vu]

I don't know what you mean by "it doesn't make sense."


Sorry, what I mean is that based on my experience, you should not have gotten poor results encoding HDV. The FX1 was my previous camera and the DVD stuff from it looks very good to my eyes.

Obviously, starting with a better source gets you better looking DVD, but I've never found DVCPROHD to be night and day difference in term of image quality. Heavy post production is another matter, but for basic editing you're really not utilizing all that extra data, and they won't translate to DVD.

[DavidBeier]

Ok, how about this? I show you two DVDs, one compressed from A1 HDV footage and and the other from HVX DVCPROHD footage and you tell me which is which. It's not an exaggeration. Provided that you shot and encode it correctly, nobody will be able to tell what the originating format is once it goes into DVD.

Well, on the off chance were live in the same city and were conduct this test, we'd have the issue that I'd probably be able to pick out the A1 from the colors, gamma curve, and a few other issues. The only way for a proper test to work is if we had a camera that was shooting in both HDV and DVCProHD.


You go to buy a car and the salesman "dumb down" the specs for you and get you to purchase a more expensive vehicle than you need. Wouldn't you be pissed off?

If I didn't know better and think you were comparing me to a used care salesman and I might be a tad offended. If we're going to run with your metaphor though, the car salesman is just trying to sell you something. He's not using the car to provide a service for you. If my sound guy is trying to get me to rent a better mic; I don't want or need him to get super technical about the capabilities because it all goes over my head (I suck at sound). If he's going to make the case for a mic that works better for what he's going for, makes his job easier, makes him happier, and thus gets him to do a better job on my movie then I'm fine if he needs to dumb things down.



If there's a problem down the line, then that's gonna be on their head.

Are you kidding? It's always on your head (at least in my experience) because you're the "expert." Hell, I get clients who tell me to go ahead and shoot even though it's cloudy and ask if I can fix that in the computer.


I know that if I'm asking somebody for advice then I'll want the most honest answer I can get; I don't like people presuming that I'm too dumb or too ignorant to understand something and make the decisions for me.[/quote[

Perhaps you've worked with far more well-informed clients then I have. I've gone to clients, tried to explain the shots I'm going for, and had them say, "don't worry. We trust you. Just shoot it how you think best." And then later, they look at the edit and ask, "why didn't you get this shot" or "can we change these 50 things?" The vast majority of the clients I've worked with have a very vague idea of what they want at the start and only get difficult after everything is shot and they see the first edit. I've been told by many that I'm "too nice" in my business dealings but I'm learning and a big part of what I'm learning is to cover my own butt and foresee problems before they happen. So if that means "dumbing down" something to avoid an issue later that is going to be on my head, you can be damn sure that's what I'm going to do.

[quote]BTW, all that talks about "interframe compression artifacts" are a thing of the past. The HDV codec as implemented on the A1 is rock solid. I've shot action scenes with plenty of whip and and have encountered zero problem.

I've only shot once with the A1 and I like the little sucker. I like it far more than all the other HDV cameras and I can't speak to it's quality when transfered to DVD because I haven't put it through the paces. I'm speaking of my general experience with HDV.


The FX1 was my previous camera and the DVD stuff from it looks very good to my eyes.

And this is why I have trouble taking your word for it. If the FX1 looked good to your eyes then I'm at a loss. I have shot numerous times with that sucker and I can certainly attest to numerous compression artifacts, color issues, and other problems. If that's acceptable to you then so be it but it's so far below acceptable to me and most of the people I work with that it's not even funny.

[wgzn]

when hdv and dvcprohd hit the streets about 2 years ago i did tests with the z1, hd100, xl1h and the hvx.

on an overall basis of raw footage to SD dvd (using the fcp suite) . the hvx and dvcprohd format beat them all.

[Huy Vu]

Well, on the off chance were live in the same city and were conduct this test, we'd have the issue that I'd probably be able to pick out the A1 from the colors, gamma curve, and a few other issues. The only way for a proper test to work is if we had a camera that was shooting in both HDV and DVCProHD.

Well, I can CC the footage or do other kinds of post processing, which is what most people do anyway and then how will you tell the difference? We're not comparing the "raw" output of the camera here, but what happens when you wrap up post production and it goes to DVD or the web. Heck, I can probably mix A1 and HVX footage and throw you for a loop. In a complicated project involving many generations of rendering, the DVCPROHD will probably come out ahead, but in your typical project where it's simple Shoot--Edit--Burn to DVD I doubt you'll find a significant difference. My point all along is that a lot of people never utilize the full potential of the codec because not everyone is doing crazy CG or greenscreen.



If he's going to make the case for a mic that works better for what he's going for, makes his job easier, makes him happier, and thus gets him to do a better job on my movie then I'm fine if he needs to dumb things down.

Fair enough, if I don't know something I'd defer to an expert's judgment anyway. But I wouldn't be happy for example to have him tell me that a microphone has better "reach" (which is the layman's term) and then found out later that there's no such thing as "reach" when it comes to microphone. Makes him looks like an patronizing idiot later on doesn't it?



Perhaps you've worked with far more well-informed clients then I have.

Maybe I'm just lucky:engel017:




And this is why I have trouble taking your word for it. If the FX1 looked good to your eyes then I'm at a loss. I have shot numerous times with that sucker and I can certainly attest to numerous compression artifacts, color issues, and other problems. If that's acceptable to you then so be it but it's so far below acceptable to me and most of the people I work with that it's not even funny.

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

[seunosewa]

The HVX has more saturated, film-like colors. This results in better looking DVDs, because people find saturated videos attractive, but this has nothing to do with the DVCProHD codec! You can simulate the saturation of the HVX on any HDV cam through simple color curves adjustment in your NLE.

[Barry_Green]

Okay, first of all, the first post was asking two different questions: one about the format, and the other about a specific camera that uses the format. Some people in this thread seem to be assuming that DVCPRO-HD = HVX, and HVX = DVCPRO-HD. That's not the right way to view it.

As a FORMAT, DVCPRO-HD is unquestionably a better format than HDV. Which is why every major network that I can think of accepts DVCPRO-HD unrestricted as an acquisition, editing, and delivery format. No network like the BBC or Discovery will accept unrestricted HDV for any of those purposes, regardless of manufacturer.

Heck, lots of people like to point out Canon as having the "best" implementation of HDV. Which begs the question of why, when Canon set out to make the best-looking demo footage they possibly could for the XLH1, why did they record through HD-SDI out to a DVCPRO-HD deck rather than just use the built-in HDV deck? Because the DVCPRO-HD format is better. And it's much better for working with in post. Those are just obvious advantages. Sony will tell you that HDCAM is better than HDV; heck, Sony says that HDCAM is better than XDCAM-HD, and XDCAM-HD is better than HDV. HDCAM and DVCPRO-HD are direct competitors, which should imply that not only is HDV not the equal to DVCPRO-HD, but it's at least two classes lower.

Now, you can't just arbitrarily extend that argument to HVX vs. XHA1. There is so much more that goes into the final image than the recording format! While DVCPRO-HD is accepted for unrestricted image acquisition at Discovery, that doesn't mean you can use an HVX for unrestricted acquisition. Discovery limits all 1/3" cameras to no more than 15% content creation, regardless of what format they use. Heck, the BBC doesn't even consider XDCAM-HD or XDCAM-EX as high-def footage, even though those are being shot in 1/2" chips.

So evaluate the cameras on all the factors that are relevant to you: features, workflow, price, and image.

[Kevin Shaw]

Regarding camera price, you can't do much with an HVX200 with one 16GB card so the cost of additional memory becomes a factor in the overall price. Many HVX owners buy at least Firestore drive for long-form recording, which at $2k brings the effctive cost of the camera to over $7k - enough to buy two XH-A1s. One might also consider whether a school would want to invest in a stack of expensive p2 cards (or Firestore) which can get lost or broken, as opposed to buying miniDV tapes at $3-5 each.

DVCProHD is a fine codec, but the cost of memory for the HVX200 is a deal-breaker for many. For a school it might be better to suggest the new HMC150, if they can wait until that's shipping. Or consider the Sony EX1, but then you're back to the cost of memory as an issue. Or let them go with HDV and learn to get the most out of it.

[davbeisner]

well, I wasn't expecting this much of a firestorm over this issue! Funny thing is, i actually made a typo in my original post... I meant to say XL-H1, not XH-A1. The XH-A1 wasn't even a contender for me! And the XL-H1 is actually significantly more expensive than the HVX. (I assume you're paying for the HD-SDI and the bayonet mount).

It's been interesting reading through your posts and I thank you for your contributions.

Kevin, they never really gave me a budget to work with, but my first iteration ran close to $20k for everything and they didn't blink an eye. Since then I've refined it and changed cameras several times, changed editing platforms several times (originally I was requesting the XL-H1S with AVID's Media Composer Mojo DX). Long and short of it is, I've been able to put together a complete HD package (sans lighting) for $14,046.57. I'm pretty pleased with that and I know my bosses are as well. I've got the HVX200A with an extra long-life battery and an additional 16GB card (I'll want more, but I'm going to wait till Fujifilm gets theirs out in hopes prices drop some), a very fast quad-core PC running the Adobe Masterworks Collection (I'll be doing more than just video work--flash and web development is also part of my job description) and 3TB of RAID5 dedicated storage, dual 24" HD-LCD monitors, Blackmagic's Decklink HD Extreme, a Libec 38S tripod, AT lav mic and XLR adapter w/ dual channel camera mount receiver, K6 shotgun and boom kit, active studio reference monitors for sound, Pelican field case big enough to hold the camera and all the mics... so yeah, I'm pretty happy to have put together something that cheaply. I know I still need lighting, but for now I'm going to make do with 3000 watts of heavy-duty construction lighting I own from my previous job. I can get filters and diffusors from our theater department here and I'm going to manufacture some barn doors to custom fit the light heads. Already built my own steadycam for $20 and I'm working on plans for a jib and dolly w/ track, both of which I can build for under $100 each.

[David Jimerson]

You can't do much with an HVX200 with one 16GB card

Dude. Bro. Seriously.

Ask the thousands upon thousands of users what they did with 4 GB and 8 GB cards.

[David Saraceno]

We used a HVX200 with 8 GB for 18 months.

[seunosewa]

How many seconds did you shoot between reloads? :)

[Barry_Green]

Regarding camera price, you can't do much with an HVX200 with one 16GB card
This is a profoundly ignorant statement. Please, do stop.

[shapeco]

Regarding camera price, you can't do much with an HVX200 with one 16GB card .


I shoot every day and a 16GB card does the job great. You really can't say this without knowing what your going to shoot. Yes if you are shooting a wedding or something on those lines you will need more space.... But not everyone who takes their hvx out of their bag has it in REC mode for over and hour.

I have yet to run out of space while shooting, I make sure to dump all clips as soon as im done shooting, works great for me and im sure many others.

[Jason Adams]

Our first HVX had 2 - 4 gig cards. That was plenty. We still use the 4gigs.

I would have only Dreamed of having 1 16g card a few years ago.

You can get more then enough done on 1 16 gig card.

[DavidBeier]

Regarding camera price, you can't do much with an HVX200 with one 16GB card so the cost of additional memory becomes a factor in the overall price.

I've had my HVX200 for over two years and have shot a huge variety of projects with just two 4 gig cards.

[David Saraceno]

How many seconds did you shoot between reloads? :)

We shot 22 minutes of 24pNative footage.

You do the math

[davbeisner]

Hey Barry, please go ahead and lock this thread if you'd like... I think the answers have stopped becoming helpful to me and it's becoming kinda pointless... :-)

[seunosewa]

We shot 22 minutes of 24pNative footage.

You do the math
So every 22 minutes you'll have to stop shooting for several minutes to download the clips. Hmm, I can see how that won't be a serious problem on a movie set, but for most other kinds of pro work it would be unacceptable (event coverage, primarily). I wouldn't go that route unless I had no choice (e.g. network requirements)

[thekreative]

but then there is always the fact that most have a laptop to dump to. Just firewire to the laptop and record for hours if you need to. I've even had my laptop in a bag doing hand held. man it got hot but kept on capturing. plus you get a big monitor screen to boot. I went for 3 months doing docs with this setup before I got my P2 cards.

[seunosewa]

I've even had my laptop in a bag doing hand held
Wow! Innovative, I must say. How long did your laptop battery power last with that setup?

[Ted Spencer]

How many seconds did you shoot between reloads? :)

Let's see...how about a 9 hour day operating an HVX at 720p on a film shoot without coming close to using up one 16 GB card...

[thekreative]

ah...I have 3 batteries. But I've got over and hour of recording on one battery. Never really checked. I use the laptop method now only when its a set shooting area all day (fashion shoots, interviews, etc.) still easier than importing P2's or tape.

[D10S]

So, DVCProHD is better than HDV. I've got that. But if I want a camera that I can shoot and archive HD footage on tape as well as to memory which HD camcorder would you recommend?

I love the thought of getting the HVX200a, but I can only archive to MiniDV at SD, not HD correct? So which camera will do what I'm looking for best? I want to be able to archive my footage to tape as I shoot at HD.

[ChipG]

So, DVCProHD is better than HDV. I've got that. But if I want a camera that I can shoot and archive HD footage on tape as well as to memory which HD camcorder would you recommend?

I love the thought of getting the HVX200a, but I can only archive to MiniDV at SD, not HD correct? So which camera will do what I'm looking for best? I want to be able to archive my footage to tape as I shoot at HD.

The Sony Z7U might be what you need....

[dantewaters]

but then there is always the fact that most have a laptop to dump to. Just firewire to the laptop and record for hours if you need to. I've even had my laptop in a bag doing hand held. man it got hot but kept on capturing. plus you get a big monitor screen to boot. I went for 3 months doing docs with this setup before I got my P2 cards.

Where there is a will there's a way I honestly feel p2 workflow is for those who are determine come what may they will shoot and gather their footage.

[mrbrycel]

Buy an HVX200a or HPX170, archive the files on a 1TB external hard drive. Tape is on it's way, in less than 10 years it'll probably be as archaic as VHS.

[Noel Evans]

Dude. Bro. Seriously.

Ask the thousands upon thousands of users what they did with 4 GB and 8 GB cards.

Last year I had a last minute booking for a job in Hiroshima. So I packed the equipment - only camera available to me was a HVX and the only p2 cards on hand were 2x4gb cards. I had to go and shoot an event with massive crowds all day on my own.

So with camera, tripod over my shoulder, macbook pro in a back pack and duel adapter out I went into 38 degree Celsius day with humidity around 90%.

I started at 7am. There were media tables everywhere, so as Id fill up Id plop down and offload. The offload process really wasnt hard to manage TBH. I did do some planning on shots, times etc so I made approx times for offloads which helped.

Now to OP, I know its a done deal already but still want to say some things. Canons iteration is better than any Sony iteration of HDV. END. Someone mentioned colors blocking on HDV - check out the reds on an original HVX, the A1 is better.

But, I saw one tiny post mentioning one of the most important issues to business. And this is the one I would have put from a business perspective.

There are some other $ factors that need consideration of course - I just chose this one.

Regardless of how good any iteration of Long GOP recording is, it simply does take longer to work with in post. Now if I am paying someone to shoot / edit / output and then start again. And the guy is spending an extra hour a day to work with HDV. One hour per day x 5(assumed worked days) x 52 = 260 hours. So lets take 260 hours and x by a made up payrate of say (incl incidentals to employ someone) $80 per hour = 20,800$. At that amount I would have been better off paying $30k to ensure timely workflow than to pinch pennies. Place that over a (assumed) 4 year camera life and by spending $30k upfront I will save myself $50k over 4 years.

You can argue camera specs all day, but at the end of the day $ in the pocket matter far more. But you need to look at total cost, not just your upfront spend.

[wgzn]

I can shoot and archive HD footage on tape as well as to memory why would you want to do that? some will argue that tape is more reliable over time than hard drives. but ive been using drives as archive medium for over a decade and not had a single issue...

you can always rent a DVCPROHD deck and dump your tapes to that...

[coryokeefe]

I have a DVX and been wanting to upgrade to a XH-A1. After research and really reading this post. Im gonna wait and get the HPX170 or get a HVX200a. Tapless workflow is the way of the future. Im starting a business for weddings. With a 16gb Card ill be able to get everything i need, do a quick load off in my laptop and be back in business with two batteries.

I think its the way to go for sure. Go big or go home if your serious.

[wgzn]

With a 16gb Card ill be able to get everything i needNOPE - i would HIGHLY suggest 2, 8 gig cards as opposed to 1, 16 gig card.

or basically 2 of any size card as opposed to a single larger one - here's why:

if you fill up a 16 gig card. pull it out and while it transfers (even on a pcmcia laptop) youre looking at 8 to 11 min to transfer. all the while youre out of commission. if you have 2, 8 gig cards you can fill one, pull it. start it transferring (or better yet, have an assistant transfer it) and while you shoot to the second one, the other will be transferred and ready when you are

[Jan_Crittenden]

Ah, but you get a 16GB card in the camera box, at least here in the USA.

Best,

Jan

[wabbit]

Came across this thread on a search for info on the 170.

My 2 cents,

As far as formats are considered DVCProHD beats HDV everyday and twice on Sunday. At the moment P2 does have a few weakness regarding workflow that will vary depending on what you are trying to do with it.

The Canon line of HDV is VERY impressive and in side by side stuff with HVX can create modestly better images (under the right conditions).

But if you ask me (and you didn't) what you are going to do in a year or three matters. HDV was a dying professional format at it's birth and compatibility is critical. All of the HDV manufacturers are already moving on to better things on the professional side of cameras. Where will you be in 3 years when you want to send your HDV tape to an editor who doesn't have a deck?

Ironically that is one of the slight downsides of P2 right now as, for some people, it is tricky getting them the P2 footage but, unlike HDV, the acceptability of the P2 workflow is growing.

Cheers

[reem12]

I just stumbled across the apple pro res codec for hdv in which I have used with my a1 footage and am completely astounded by the quality it retains when exporting out to quictime. can someone explain how apple is able to convert hdv to this codec while keeping it at such a high quality.