DVCPRO HD not vs HDV!

[OliverM]

I'm getting a bit annoyed with people on this forum still trying to compare DVCPRO HD to HDV. They're not in the same league so don't.
DVCPRO HD is at least one step up from HDV. It's even got less compression then XDCAM HD (wich I learned myself on this forum :) )
This is a forum on a camera that comes out end 2005 and does miniDV to tape, DVCPRO 25, 50 and HD to solid state or hard drive. It's no HDV camera so stop comparing it to HDV cameras. It's higher in both price and quality range and never claimed to be in the same range either. If you don't want to spend the extra money, don't. If you do then do.
And can we please stop this meaningless dicussion?
Thank you.

[Barry_S]

It's only natural that people are going to explore the benefits and drawbacks of each format in anticipation of the release of the Panny and JVC cameras. Despite the fact that DVCPRO HD isn't new, it still is new to most of the users on this forum. Likewise, most users haven't had much experience with the new HDV format. So professional level discussion is encouraged. As long as people are respectful of other's opinions and don't engage in repetitive sniping back and forth, I don't see a problem.

[OliverM]

It's just that I see the same dicussions regarding HDV-DVCPRO HD going on in several threads on the forum. And that kinda bugs me as I am trying to follow the actual thread.
Nevermind, I've blown off my steam. I'll be calm again now :engel017:

[braw]

I agree with you in the sense that the two formats are not really comparable. However it's almost natural for people to compare the JVC, Sony, and Panasonic HD cameras. The HD100U is comparable to the Z1, but the HVX is all by itself with it's own set of pros and cons.

I don't know that the comparison will stop until some major publication or possibly Jarred or Barry lay it all out in a feature here. They have in random threads several times explained in detail, but apparently people aren't reading them.

[PappasArts]

I think it's a very good subject to discuss. The truth and not wrong info about the DVCpro HD codec and HDV, 6 gop vs 15 gop and how it handles color and resolution as opposed to the DVCPROHD codec. This is important info to know, because it's going to be facts that we are going to face when ready to purchase.

Here is a link to an article I wrote about the JVC GY-HD100u and AG-HVX200 and what JVC needs to do to stay in the game to a certain degree. Enjoy!

http://www.pbase.com/aghvx200/pappasarts_entertainment_




Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/ARRFILMS
http://www.PappasArts.com




Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/ARRFILMS
http://www.PappasArts.com




I agree with you in the sense that the two formats are not really comparable. However it's almost natural for people to compare the JVC, Sony, and Panasonic HD cameras. The HD100U is comparable to the Z1, but the HVX is all by itself with it's own set of pros and cons.

I don't know that the comparison will stop until some major publication or possibly Jarred or Barry lay it all out in a feature here. They have in random threads several times explained in detail, but apparently people aren't reading them.

[Barry_Green]

People will continue to compare them because, frankly, the prices are the same. Therefore, the customer who can put together $6,000 for a camera has three choices: Z1 at $5,000, HVX at $6,000, or HD100 at $6300. Knowing that they could get either, they will naturally question which one they should get.


I don't know that the comparison will stop until some major publication or possibly Jarred or Barry lay it all out in a feature here. They have in random threads several times explained in detail, but apparently people aren't reading them.
The problem is, while we can argue specs all day long, and while on paper I am certain that DVCPRO-HD will spank HDV/ProHD, ... we should be judging the cameras based on the FOOTAGE. Format specs are meaningless when it gets down to actually looking at what the camera can deliver.

I mean, some specs are not meaningless: the ability to shoot real 24p, or real varicam-style variable frame rates, is huge. But all that will pale in comparison to actually seeing the footage. If the HD100 is mindblowingly awesome, and the HVX isn't, well, all due respect to Panasonic but I think we'd all buy the HD100, whether DVCPRO-HD is "technically" superior to HDV or not.

And vice versa -- if the Panasonic delivers the goods, and its footage really is better, and on top of that all the "paper" advantages of the specifications still hold true, well, then it's pretty much game over for the JVC & Sony (excepting those that need to record to tape and who find the HDV footage "good enough", or those who prefer the form factor of the JVC).

Until we see footage, it's all irrelevant, and the debate will continue to rage.

[David Jimerson]

I think it will continue to rage after that, too . . .

[Luis Caffesse]

I think it will continue to rage after that, too

Yes, but then it will be relevant, and there will be something concrete to debate.
:)

[Zim]

I think it is just easier to type HDV than DVCPRO HD,,,,To make things more simple lets just say HDP. High def panasonic. HDV will be everyone else.

[Barry_Green]

Well, if you want to start arguments, you could just shorten it to its last two letters... and argue "HD" or "HDV"...

[Green Hornet]

Well, if you want to start arguments, you could just shorten it to its last two letters... and argue "HD" or "HDV"...


I think that sums it up the best....HDV is something "other than" HD.
Sony simply has it backwards.

I have seen their TV sets that blend the fields, and it looks ok because it is interlaced on the display medium. What Sony fails to realize is that by doing this with HDV on the capture medium, it only goes down hill from there.

In just the same way DVD camcorders never will catch on, the same reasons/problems cary over to HDV.
You don't throw with a catchers mit.

[Zim]

Well, if you want to start arguments, you could just shorten it to its last two letters... and argue "HD" or "HDV"...
That's even better.