HDV, is it that bad?

[collie]

Hello, I am new to HDV and it seems like most of the post here are negative in regards to the format .I ask your opinion please,
1. The compression is bad but when using aspectHd they claim the output is HD quality with no artifacts or loss of quality from the original mpeg2 input. Is this statment true?

2.It seems that every major player in the video format(except panasonic) is behind the format and pushing fast to improve it,
so question is . With cineform and aspectHd allowing HDV editing as easily as minidv ...doesnt this solve th editing problem?
3 Jvc is going to 24p with the hd100 ,why get a Hvx200?

4.I know the 4:2:0 color space is bad but a professional color grading for filmout would handle this wouldnt it? I dont have the answers to any of these questions maybe someone could answer them ,these questions are
geared toward filmout since this is the area I work in. Thanks

[thisiswells]

1. The compression is bad but when using aspectHd they claim the output is HD quality with no artifacts or loss of quality from the original mpeg2 input. Is this statment true?

More or less. I still fail to see the benefit of transcoding to another codec for editing.
Even if said codec is better suited to editing, it still "seems" there would be some loss
during the conversion/transcoding, but I honestly lack the critical eye to see it.

The real reason HDV is met with so much negativity compared to every other HD
format is the general notion that you could fit video with 4x the information onto
the same miniDV tape and with "better" results. Logically, it doesn't work that way.


2.It seems that every major player in the video format(except panasonic) is behind the format and pushing fast to improve it,
Well, they are making different/better cameras, but the format is limited since it's
recording onto a miniDV tape.. In the case of 720p, you're essentially swishing 4x
the information onto the same space... Well, technically a little less space, in fact.


so question is . With cineform and aspectHd allowing HDV editing as easily as minidv ...doesnt this solve th editing problem?

Well, Final Cut Pro 5 is allowing HDV editing as easily as miniDV, too. I don't get the
point of spending hundreds of bucks on simply a "codec" that maybe improves
performance maybe ten percent, if that. I applaud the enterprising folks at
CineForm for capitalizing on Wavelet, like several other industry players have over
the years. What they're doing never caught on real well before and it isn't today.



3 Jvc is going to 24p with the hd100 ,why get a Hvx200?
Are you serious? Well, speaking strictly in terms of announced features and not
actual footage, since that sort of comparison doesn't exist yet....
HVX200=Variable framerates between 4 and 60 Fps.
JVC=24P, 30P... nothing more.

HVX200=Proven CineGamma and NewsGamma software, that I believe has a more
pleasing aesthetic than other manufacturers offer. It looks better.
JVC="cine-like gamma curve" What track record does JVC bring to the table?


4.I know the 4:2:0 color space is bad but a professional color grading for filmout would handle this wouldnt it? I dont have the answers to any of these questions maybe someone could answer them ,these questions are geared toward filmout since this is the area I work in.
You work in "film out" huh? You can't possibly be serious.

[mezelf27]

Hey hey, ease up....

anyway, there's a first time for everything. JVC has some quite nice marks on its track record as well.

You gotta see it this way:
JVC: better lens/ lens options, but restricted to HDV (19 mbps)
HVX: more frame rates and possible to record on higher data-rates, but very limited lens options, no real manual contronl over lens, ....

I'd defenately go for the JVC, but tastes may differ.

Anyhow, for a budget of 10.000 euro's total, I think the JVC could be the best you can have. If money isn't an issue and you like to record on the higher data-rates, then you probably want to have some serious lenses as well. And - in all fairness - the HVX will be out then....

Moreover, what else will be the difference remains to be seen, but pictures seem to tell that the JVC is built like a professional camcorder, while the HVX still looks like a blown-up DVX, a blown up consumer-model....

We all have to be a little patient I guess, the next few days will tell a lot....

[Neil Rowe]

..HDV isnt horrible.. its a great innovation, but you cant get something for nothing. the compressed audio and mpg 2 compression dont go unnoticed in a professional workflow. transcoding to cineform should hold the footage together in post, but like they say.. it can only be as good as the original aquisition at best. ive seen some terrific stuff from HDV and im sure you could make a great film with it, but its just not on par with professional HD formats ala DVCPRO-Hd and HDCAM. its a consumer type method of getting HD. .. which (big suprise) is why we see so many announcments for consumer HDV cameras coming out now. as a consumer format its great.. persoanlly its not the type of rock i want to build my house on for my professional work. its a little "sandstonish" to me with all the areas for potential trouble. and its inherant drawbacks built into the compression scheme to begin with. but call me a snoot, or a realist.. whatever you feel is fitting.. if it works for you it works for you. i would reccommend that you go take an hdv cam for a test run and see what you think.. the HDV editing is available now free on pretty much any major NLE, and you could rent one for a day and develop your own hands on educated opinion. its great for what it is.. its only when people try to compare it to what it isnt that the issues arise.

[thisiswells]

Really without seeing images from both cameras in a relevant comparison, I don't believe it is
accurate to say one will look better than the other. That verdict is still out. It's all guesswork.
None of us have actually seen footage from HVX200.

Simply because a lens is exchangeable does not automatically indicate a better picture.
If lenses are identical quality, then the Panasonic, based on spec, is clearly a superior product.
If the standard HD100 lens makes the Panasonic look silly, then maybe the JVC is better.

Fact is, we just won't know until footage is available from both cameras from side by side tests.

Let's just say my chips are on Panasonic.
If I'm to give any company benefit-of-doubt, it will be Panasonic.

EDIT: Let me reverse the question... What does the HD100 have feature wise that the Panasonic does not? So far, exchangeable lenses. Records to tape. Cheaper.

What else is there?

[SergejIvanovits]

What abouth to take the signal directly from the camera head and use the component out via HD-SDI to something like a VelocityHD. It can't be so bad.

[thisiswells]

What abouth to take the signal directly from the camera head and use the component out via HD-SDI to something like a VelocityHD. It can't be so bad.
Respectfully, Mr. Ivanovits, this is an often misunderstood concept.

First, the HD100 does not have HD-SDI output. It has a hi-def analog
component output. Not HD-SDI. There's a big difference between the two.

Second, so does the FX1, Z1, and HVX200.. All the camers have the same output.
None of them have HD-SDI. They all have a hidef analog component output.

This is not a unique feature to the JVC HD100, friend. It just isn't so.

EDIT: Take it one step further. The world's very first HDV camera, the GR-HD1
even had hi-def analog component output and that was several years ago.

This is nothing new. Hope this helps.

[SergejIvanovits]

I've just got the Highway and was just reading this:

"The recording can then be fed in and out of an appropriate NLE and so to a film laser printer, without any requirement for cross-conversion, either from 25p by way of 4% speed change or from 30p by process of 3:2 pull-down."

It means clean 24fps directly to the tape or to the firewire out but not to the component out. It can do the same in SD.

" ... accessories allow the camcorder to be transformed into a digital film camera. C-mount adaptor allows prime film lenses to be deployed... "

Isn't it just fantastic? Hard disk recording with rented prime film lenses. You can record many hours at a time. And it is cheaper than the other camcorders. Looks good to me.

[SergejIvanovits]

This is not a unique feature to the JVC HD100, friend. It just isn't so. Hope this helps. No it doesn't. I know non of those camcorders has HD-SDI but we are using a hd-sdi encoder. I hope this helps. Did I hurt you or something?

[thisiswells]

I have around 70, maybe more C mount lenses. Trying to get rid of them. Wanna buy some?
Many of them are Angenieux or Cooke lenses made for older B&H or Bolex 16mm film cameras.

So far as recording D2D using a "HD-SDI" encoder, I'm unsure exactly what you mean.
AJA video makes a nifty converter for analog component to HD-SDI and it's $1500+PSU.

I don't see how the JVC output is any different than any other HDV camera. No offense taken.

[Spiff_2]

I still fail to see the benefit of transcoding to another codec for editing.

The benefit is improved editing workflow in the form of real-time editing performance. Editing native HDV is extremely computer-intensive due to the GOP compression. While there are theoretical losses involved in the transcoding process to Cineform's codec (as it is not lossless), the codec is of such high quality, that these losses are essentially negligble.

Have you worked with the codec yourself? I found the benefits were immediately obvious.

-Spiff

[Rosestar]

Yeah this use of the analog componet HD output has been well discussed in other threards. I think that this feature really has limited uses. The high speed storage capacity required would be very expensive and would be far from portable. I've crunched some numbers on this possiblility and it makes more sense to rent a Varicam or even an F900 than to attempt to set up a jury rigged computer to record the analog HD output of any of these cameras.

As to HDV, is it that bad? HDV is an infant format. I think that some great work will be done with it. However, my bitch is with the current crop of cameras that have been offered in HDV. Sony will let you use any SD or HD format you want, as long as you only want DV25 or 1080/60i HDV. JVC will give you any HD or SD format you want as long as you only want DV25 or 720/24P HDV. Panasonic will give you any HD or SD format you want as long as you only want DV25, DVC-PRO 50, DVC-PRO HD 720/24p, DVC-PRO HD 720/30P and DVC-PRO HD720/60P, plus 720P variable frame rates from 4-60fps. Oh, yeah you also get DVC-PRO HD 1080/24P, DVC-PRO HD 1080/30P and DVC-PRO HD 1080/60i. Plus the convenience and advantages of an IT work flow.

So, really, what was the question again.?

[Barry_Green]

The compression is bad but when using aspectHd they claim the output is HD quality with no artifacts or loss of quality from the original mpeg2 input. Is this statment true?
The MPEG compression impacts your footage as soon as it's shot. Depending on the shot it could look very good, or it can look pretty bad -- and once the damage is done, the damage is done. What AspectHD is claiming is that it does no further damage. But they're not claiming that they can repair macro-blockiness or mosquito noise or 4:2:0 color shrinking; they're just saying that if you use AspectHD when editing, things won't get any worse.


2.It seems that every major player in the video format(except panasonic) is behind the format and pushing fast to improve it,
Well, "pushing fast" is an interesting way to look at it. We've seen exactly two cameras, from two companies, since the whole "HDV Revolution" began over two years ago. JVC has produced its HD1/HD10, and Sony has released its FX1/Z1. No other manufacturer has announced any plans for producing any gear that uses the format. Sharp and Canon were originally part of the HDV "coalition", but neither has even hinted about any HDV product, and recently Canon said something curious about them not even having access to the HDV technology... don't know what that means; I still expect them to produce their own HDV gear, but maybe it means that neither JVC nor Sony will license the hardware to them, so perhaps they'll have to engineer their own -- which could put Canon HDV quite a ways down the road? We'll see. I keep expecting a Canon HDV announcement within the next 8 weeks.

Sony and JVC have each announced another forthcoming camera: JVC's HD100, and Sony's HC1/A1U; however the JVC HD1/HD10 is pretty much dead in the water, they were even giving one away as a door prize in the JVC booth. So soon there will be effectively three general styles of HDV cameras to choose from: the FX1/Z1 3-CCD interlaced, the A1/HC1 one-CMOS-chip interlaced, or the HD100 3-CCD/24p/30p/interchangeable-lens model. Not bad, but hardly the "steamroller" it's portrayed to be on the web.


so question is . With cineform and aspectHd allowing HDV editing as easily as minidv ...doesnt this solve th editing problem?
Editing is much easier now, now that FCP, Vegas, and Avid all support native HDV editing. You can edit by transcoding, or you can edit the raw footage in its native codec. Editing the raw footage is much, much slower, and multigeneration editing will fall apart very quickly if you do it that way. However, for rendering your master from the source footage, going from the native footage and native codec should give a slight improvement in quality over using a transcoded version.

The intermediate codecs (Cineform, Lumiere, AIC, etc) all provide for much more responsive editing. And they're all pretty good and hold up much better to recompression than HDV's native codec does.


3 Jvc is going to 24p with the hd100 ,why get a Hvx200?
That's like saying "Suzuki is coming out with a 4wd SUV, so why get a Hummer?"

The HDV cameras are for those who want to shoot in HD on a $6,000 camera, and are willing to accept whatever compromises are necessary in order for their footage to fit on a $4 tape. Its overall design goal appears to be a mandate that it be the cheapest possible way to record some sort of high-def signal. The emphasis is not on the footage, it's on the tape -- they try to get the best footage they can, but the overriding concern is that it records that footage to a $4 tape.

The HVX is for those who want to shoot HD on a $6,000 camera, but who will not accept any compromises to their footage. And as such, they can't record that footage onto $4 tapes.

The JVC is 4:2:0 MPEG recording at 720/24p and 720/30p only; the HVX is 1080/24p, 1080/30p, 1080/60i, 720/24p, 720/30p, 720/60p, variable frame rates, DVCPRO50, DVCPRO-HD, and most importantly, it doesn't use MPEG and doesn't use a GOP and doesn't compromise the color down to 4:2:0, it uses 4:2:2. Huge, huge, huge differences.

[collie]

Let me clarify my statement about working in filmout . THISISWELLS said"and you work in filmout huh ,you can't be serious." as I stated when I joined this forum ,all my years of experience has be in 35mm film,video is new to me. I dont know if thisiswells as ever sat with a really colorist but I have ,with the best in New Yorks top labs and they can turn crappy color into an incredible change. If you saw what a alot of 35mm and 16mm looked like before the correction you would be surprised. So while you drool and wait for the hvx200 try to take out a film camera this summer and sit through a real color correction session. In the hands of a true colorist I wonder if anyone could see the difference between hdv and dvcpro50hd color, shot in the same setting ofcourse. I notice many comments are not from real experience only from speculation.

[thisiswells]

Worked with Xfer'd footage? Quite often. The freelance editorial work I do is shot SRIII or
Arri-3 and transferred by Steve Franko at VideoPostTransfer in Dallas on a Spirit/DaVinci suite.

I'm very much speculating to a degree that 4:2:0 is not salvagable to the extent we'd like to think.

Sure, it worked well on the myriad of PAL/XL1 movies but not many folks have access to that
caliber of equipment nor a seasoned, professional colorist who can alter the look to that degree.

So far as a visual difference between the hdv and dv50, I do notice the difference.
Just a little fooling around in After Effects or even FCP demonstrates this pretty well, I think.
The "range" isn't as great. You can't push or pull as well. "Extreme" looks are difficult to obtain
before the picture nearly vanishes due to the lower color sampling. I feel similarly passionate
about miniDV in this same way. Perhaps that's why I'm more than a little excited about having
a 4:2:2 handheld camera option available to me. I won't apologize for enthusiasm, but I will if I
came across a little "over the top" in earlier posts. Best, Brian

[thisiswells]

I could summarise my personal disappointment with HDV by stating that I wish there were
more information there to work with. Sigh. Time to let others do some of the talking. . .

[Barry_Green]

In the hands of a true colorist I wonder if anyone could see the difference between hdv and dvcpro50hd color, shot in the same setting ofcourse.
Of course they would. Presuming, of course, that you'd treat the DVCPRO50 or DVCPRO-HD footage to the same treatment, it will obviously turn out better. Having twice the information results in better results.

If you have more, you can do more with it.


I notice many comments are not from real experience only from speculation.
My "real experience" comes from shooting and working with both formats, shooting the same footage on HDV and DV, running codec tests on HDV and DVCPRO-HD, working with 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 and 4:1:1. Examining the footage in every circumstance I can think of. Getting my hands on every piece of gear I can find, and putting it through its paces to determine what is actually what -- I have little patience for Internet "hearsay" when it's really so simple to just get the gear and put it to the test. I like to know how the tools actually work, and what they actually do, and not just what the fans like to praise about them. What the tool is, and what people want the tool to be, are rarely the same thing. I don't care what people want it to be, I just want to know what it is, what it can actually do, and what it can't do.

[Batutta]

To anyone thinking about getting an FX1 or GR-HD1, don't let the tech heads dissuade you. The footage from it looks awesome. Sure, I'd rather be shooting on 70mm IMAX, but finally there's an affordable option for film and videomakers that's good enough to compete with the big boys. Good enough color and good enough resolution to be blown up 40 feet and not make you think you need glasses. That's been a dream of mine for many years and it's finally here. Rejoice people!

[collie]

Barry ,I was not refering to your experience but a different poster in this forum. Actually there is a blowup from the fx-1 that amazed many people in a test done in Europe.(it should be published in Amercan Cinematographer Magazine next month(maybe a different cinema magazine I think but i will post it when it is published).It was tested next to a varicam and was viewed as a tie for resolution and overall image(varicam had a better gamma curve,was the general view but still neck and neck).Not bad from a 3k camera of hdv vs a 30k camera hd,so Batutta you are correct

[mezelf27]

That's like saying "Suzuki is coming out with a 4wd SUV, so why get a Hummer?"

The HDV cameras are for those who want to shoot in HD on a $6,000 camera, and are willing to accept whatever compromises are necessary in order for their footage to fit on a $4 tape. Its overall design goal appears to be a mandate that it be the cheapest possible way to record some sort of high-def signal. The emphasis is not on the footage, it's on the tape -- they try to get the best footage they can, but the overriding concern is that it records that footage to a $4 tape.

The HVX is for those who want to shoot HD on a $6,000 camera, but who will not accept any compromises to their footage. And as such, they can't record that footage onto $4 tapes.

The JVC is 4:2:0 MPEG recording at 720/24p and 720/30p only; the HVX is 1080/24p, 1080/30p, 1080/60i, 720/24p, 720/30p, 720/60p, variable frame rates, DVCPRO50, DVCPRO-HD, and most importantly, it doesn't use MPEG and doesn't use a GOP and doesn't compromise the color down to 4:2:0, it uses 4:2:2. Huge, huge, huge differences.

Well, you have to admit: since you can gear up the JVC with the best glass available: it SHOULD be ment for those who take no prisoners (although shooting on a 8000 dollar cam (here in europe it's 8000, I'm afraid :-( ). Whereas the HVX has a fixed lens and therefor is limited to a certain standard of quality (that would be relected in the price, somewhat the same), a compromise in itself.

Obviously, the JVC with the 13x wide lens is a 20K$ cam, the HVX stays a 6K$ cam. Some quality must be reflected in this...

JVC seems to think that HDV isn't all that bad, otherwise it'd be quite useless to bring out a cam that's 6K$ in its cheapest config an can be 50K$ plus in the more expensive configs.

I'm sorry, I just can't see someone going for the best possible quality using a cam (the HVX) that's stuck with a lens that comes in a package of a 6K$ cam. Those unwilling to make compromises, can gear up their JVC to let's say 30K$ (and who the hell would do that is HDV sucks so big time?)

I haven't seen too much proof myself I must admit (specifically on HDV, that is), but I'm actually a university expert on image-compression and if JVC decides to bring out a cam ranging from 6k$ to 50k$, that can solely record on HDV, well... my educated guess would be it isn't all that bad.

(okay, I admit - I'd like to see for myself, but this fact is certainly saying something, isn't it? there are still plenty of DV-hater and DV-disbelievers out there too... Still makes me wonder sometimes: are thos the people that believe Elvis lives as well?)

Those (empty cans) that rattled the most that DVCAM and DVCPRO is better then DV/MiniDV/ProfessionalDV obviously are shameless (it all exactly the SAME DV25 codec!). This time it's different with a difference in datarate of 19-25 to 50 or 100, but well, lots of things shot on a geared up XL1 over the years, instead of DigiBeta/DVCPRO50/DigitalS (sometimes XL1's geared up beyond the price of DigiBeta/DVCPRO50/DigitalS), can tell us something....

[collie]

At the Panasonic Open House the problem many of us had with the Hvx200 besides the expensive p2 cards and the fixed lens, is the feel of it. Why the plastic look and feel(like the Dvx). Why must it look like something the family would have out at the beach? It may be a great camera(nobody knows yet ).But I wish it would have looked like a pro camera.I held the hdv200 and was so disappointed by the little toy size(its a liitle thicker than the dvx but not much thicker)Like the Great filmmaker Jean luc Goddard said"You can feel a great camera in your hands in 2 minutes

[Zim]

does the DVX look cheap?

[Spiff]

does the DVX look cheap?

That's a question of taste to be sure - but when I saw a DVX100, I was surprised by how tiny and boxy it was. It sure didn't leave an impression for its appearance or feel.

-Spiff

[collie]

I was in B&H PHoto when 3 guys walked over to the DVX and one was telling the other about how great it was..the third guy said"thats the little toy everybodies talking about?"
The Dvx is the reason I now shoot digital,it is a fantastic minidv camera,probably the best minidv camera ever for feature filmmakers "only " in my opinion. YES it does look like a toy and Panasonic should really lose the plastic look. The side off the dvx without the lcd screen looks very cheap and plastic gray ,ofcourse its not though,Panasonis has a great product line ,I was at Able Cine and they walked my through it but panasonics design team doesnt give a crap about the look of their cameras. my opinion only ofcourse but pro cameras should'nt look like consumer cameras. I have been on sets where small cameras were questioned by producers,actors and directors. I feel the Hvx200 could have used a better design instead of a dvx copy

[Zim]

They should care what it looks like. Looks are not everything but it does matter.

[Rosestar]

At the Panasonic Open House the problem many of us had with the Hvx200 besides the expensive p2 cards and the fixed lens, is the feel of it. Why the plastic look and feel(like the Dvx). Why must it look like something the family would have out at the beach? It may be a great camera(nobody knows yet ).But I wish it would have looked like a pro camera.I held the hdv200 and was so disappointed by the little toy size(its a liitle thicker than the dvx but not much thicker)Like the Great filmmaker Jean luc Goddard said"You can feel a great camera in your hands in 2 minutes

I'm sorry, nothing personal, but I am gonna be an asshole and just say that is the stupidest sh*t I have heard in a long time.

When we are talking about cameras with such vast differences in specified capabilities as these two cameras (the HD100 and the HVX) which one looks better is not even a factor that I would consider.

People that matter are gonna know what the HVX is and those that don't know what the HVX is don't matter. I have shot projects with a Kodak K-100, a Bell&Howell Filmo 70 and a Bolex Rex-5, some of the ugliest cameras ever made. I never got any flak about the looks of these cameras. I acted like a professional, delivered like a professional and was, therefore, treated like a professional.

Of course, to those individuals that want to look cool at their monthly "filmmakers club" meeting at the local public library, I guess the looks of a camera might make a difference.

To me the versatility of the camera is paramount. Lets see, DV25, DVC-PRO 50, DVC-PRO HD 720/24P, DVC-PRO HD 720/30P, DVC-PRO HD 720/60P, DVC-PRO HD 720P variable frame rates 4-60fps, DVC-PRO HD 1080/60i, DVC-PRO HD 1080/30P and for God sakes, DVC-PRO HD 1080/24P for the HVX versus DV 25, 720/24p HDV or720/30P HDV for the JVC.

I'm sorry, I am just sick of this bantering back and forth about cameras. I know that we won't know for sure what the HVX offers until December, but just based on specs, and what we have seen so far, there has never been a camera produced that offers the flexibility of format that the HVX promises to offer. I'm talking NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD has there been a camera like this. The only cameras that even compare are the Eclair Camflex camera with interchangeable 35mm and 16mm movements (which BTW was used by Orson Welles to shoot "Touch of Evil") and the Oxberry Mitchell cameras with interchangeable 35mm and 16mm movements. The Oxberry cams were animation stand or optical printer mounted.

Ok, the HVX won't have interchangeable lenses. Oh f*cking well. Do you really think that this is the last camera that Panasonic will ever make? This is the only the start. As I have said in other posts, what I can't wait for is the P2 Varicam. If Panasonic can offer this much flexibility in a $6k camera (ok, $10K with 2 8 gig P2s) do you think that they can ever make another camera that doesn't offer at least this much capability? No way! Go ahead, buy the $6K JVC cam, add the $12K wide angle zoom and, with $18K in gear try to compete with the $24K 2/3", interchangeable lens HVX 400 when it comes out in 18 months. Am I speculating? Maybe. However, I've been making moving images for along time, shooting Super8mm, 16mm and 35mm film and Sony Propack, Umatic, Umatic SP, VHS, SVHS, BetaSP, 8mm, Hi8MM, DV, DVCAM, DVC-PRO 50 and DVC-PRO HD video. From my personal experience, I can honestly say, I have never seen anything that approaches the HVX for it's ability to change the way we will make moving visual content. I honestly believe that Panasonic is ushering in a revolution, and the HVX is only the start.

For those of you that don't get it, well then, don't get it. Just stay out of the way of those of us that do get it!

I am sorry if I am ranting, but, I am! Go ahead, buy the HDV camera of your choice, if that is what you want. Do not blame us if, in December, you are sorry for your purchase. If you think I am talking out my ass, then make a movie with your HDV cam and prove me wrong. That really is the bottom line, no matter what my asshole rant says, what ever lets you make the movie you want to make, is what is good!

Good luck to everybody,

Let's make some movies.

[Editor321]

Everything ok in your personal life Rosestar? Just checking bud.

[xray]

No way! Go ahead, buy the $6K JVC cam, add the $12K wide angle zoom and, with $18K in gear try to compete with the $24K 2/3", interchangeable lens HVX 400 when it comes out in 18 months. Am I speculating? Maybe.

I can understand you are hopeful, you are enthusiastic, you like Panasonic. I can even understand people who compare the JVCHD100 with a 'Suzuki' and the plastic HVX200 with a 'Hummer'. I can understand people who say Panasonic =good all other brands=bad. I disagree, but understand.

I can understand you want to wait 1,5 year! to hold your first HVX200 (yes the buzz started early...) but, Please don't start talking about a HVX400 in 18 months.

[collie]

RoseStar called World Famous French Director Jean Luc Goddard statement about camera size and feel "the stupidest thing he has ever heard" and Rosestar Said" the HVX200 is the "GREATEST CAMERA IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD"(could be silliest comment ever in any forum since.....)
There is no HDX200 yet!!!!
second : He questions the man who introduced most of shooting styles and editing styles that we use today,except Goddard did it 40 Years ahead of our time.
Anyway,i'm mentioning Goddard and Rosestar in the same sentence..somethings wrong here

[Zim]

The feel and look of a camera is important. People would walk up to me with the XL1 and say "what a cool camera" etc etc. But it was killing my arms carrying that thing around. The image it takes is most important. But how it feels is a big factor and there isn't anything wrong with a "cool" looking camera. For the $$$$ you spend they can give them a better look.

[Spiff]

To be honest the look of the camera really should come down to the ergonomics of the damn thing.

For example, of all the palm corders I've held, the Sony FX1/Z1U body design is brilliant... The LCD position is excellent, the handle design, grip etc. are all very good. I even think the button positions are very accessible and intuitive - there's nothing "hidden" behind and LCD panel save the VCR controls, and in general it feels solid. My only complaint is that used as a palm-corder for a long time, it becomes rather heavy .... but mounting it on the shoulder and using the LCD as a viewfinder eliminates this problem almost entirely.

Some aspects of the HVX construction appear marvellous as well - in particular the 4:3 implementation of the view-finder with underscan. Just as I think the position of the LCD on the FX1/Z1U should become standard, so should a 4:3 underscanning LCD.

But you've got to say this - while image should "win out" in any camera shoot-out, the camera has to be user-friendly enough for you to have it with you to take that image. If the camera weighs to much, isn't portable, has too much cabling, or is just plain the wrong shape - there are some shots you'll never get. For example, I can toss my FX1 in a backpack and go cycling out to the middle of no-where to get some nice nature footage. I doubt I could do that as easily with the larger shoulder mount cameras... and if the HVX needed accessories such as hard drives and laptops to stream to, that could pretty rapidly prevent such uses as well.

-Spiff

[thisiswells]

Hey, Spiff!!

I totally agree with you about the Z1 handling and response.
I tried it briefly (NAB, Abel CineTech booth) and I must say that camera feels really, really good.

Panasonic could learn much about product mojo/design from Sony based on that camera alone.

[Rosestar]

RoseStar called World Famous French Director Jean Luc Goddard statement about camera size and feel "the stupidest thing he has ever heard" and Rosestar Said" the HVX200 is the "GREATEST CAMERA IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD"(could be silliest comment ever in any forum since.....)
There is no HDX200 yet!!!!
second : He questions the man who introduced most of shooting styles and editing styles that we use today,except Goddard did it 40 Years ahead of our time.
Anyway,i'm mentioning Goddard and Rosestar in the same sentence..somethings wrong here

You can read quotes from Goddard, so you should be able to read my post. I did not say that the HVX is the greatest camera in the history of the world. I think that honor should go to the Mitchell BNCR, no other camera has photographed so many great films as the BNCR. I said that the HVX has the most flexibility of format of any camera ever offered. I stand by that.

I love Goodard and am especially fond of "A Band of Outsiders" ( the dance scene cracks me up!) and "Alphaville". However, I disagree with him that you can tell a good camera, like a watermelon, when you hold it in your hand. If you want to buy a camera like a watermelon, have at it. BTW, my favorite quote from Goodard is, "All you need to make a movie is a girl and a gun".

My attitude about the subject is one part admiration for Panasonic and two parts disappoinment with the current crop of HDV products. I think that for the money that is being asked for the HDV cameras, they could be more flexible. Why can't we get an HDV camera that does 24P, 30P, 60P and 60i at both 720 and 1080? Panasonic will do it, at a higher data rate, with the HVX, and they did not have the luxuary of the combined resources of the HDV consortium.

Back to the original post, "HDV, is it that bad?". No, some great stuff can and will be made with it, but, for the money, it could be better.

[thisiswells]

Taken out of context, one could derive nearly anything from that statement.
For example:


. . . the HVX is [not] the greatest camera in the history of the world. . . like a watermelon . . . for the money, it could be better . . . they did not have the luxury of the combined resources . . . of some little fat girl in Ohio.

"I don't know why Rosestar thinks the HVX looks like an overpriced watermelon..."

:thumbsup:

[Rosestar]

Yeah, but which one would everyone like to have at a picnic?

[Zim]

It's been said before,,but the HVX200 and the HD100 are not out yet. It's kind of tough to say how good or bad they will be till we see something.

[thisiswells]

which one would everyone like to have at a picnic?
lol. i'd like to record my family eating watermelon with a fixed-lens camera. http://www.209radio.co.uk/209forum/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[Rosestar]

Well, if I was eating watermelon with a fat girl from Ohio.....

[Barry_Green]

The feel and look of a camera is important. People would walk up to me with the XL1 and say "what a cool camera" etc etc.
The "looks" of the camera certainly aren't irrelevant. For some clients and some purposes, the look of the camera can be very important -- as long as the footage is "good enough", the looks of the camera can be what tips the scale.

I've run into jobs where the DVX was rejected as a choice simply because of how it looks. No problem, I rented a DSR250 and shot the project anyway, and even though I knew I was getting lesser picture quality, it was still plenty good enough and the client was happier. For that reason alone I'll be the one of the first guys in the country with an HD100 (already pre-ordered from Rush). I hate HDV as a format, although in my testing I found that the 720p version holds up to 720p DVCPRO-HD a whole lot better than 1080i HDV holds up to 1080i DVCPRO-HD.

I predict JVC will sell a *lot* of HD100's, regardless of whether the picture is better, simply because of the look -- and that will help scores of wedding/event videographers to land jobs. No doubt about it, the HD100 looks more like a professional camera than either the HVX or the FX1/Z1. And that will play a role in some clients' decision-making process.

Contrary to what some people seem to think, I'm not biased against the JVC HD100 -- I've already ordered one. But anyone who thinks HDV is a superior format, or even a comparable format, to DVCPRO-HD is kidding themselves. It isn't. It's not in the same ballpark. Not in the same class. Not in the same league. It *is* a way to record a high-def signal, but it's not DVCPRO-HD, any more than DV is Digital Betacam. The HD100 is what it is -- and it is not what it is not.

Regarding the idea of kitting out a $6,000 JVC with $44,000 worth of lenses and accessories (i.e., making it a $50,000 camera) -- um, no. Not a good idea. The recording format just doesn't justify doing that. Here's an example: I have a set of lenses that I can use on my 35mm still camera, 35mm movie camera, and with adapters I can use them on my S16 and 16mm cameras, and when I had a Beaulieu 6008 Super 8mm movie camera, I could use them on that too. Same lens on every type of camera from 35mm down to Super 8. Did the image look the same? Not by a country mile. Super 8 was low-res, flickery, grainy, and contrasty. 35mm was rich and lush. The recording format plays an important role in the overall image chain.

The lens that the HVX will ship with will likely be optimized to deliver the maximum optically possible to the 1/3" HD chip. The lens and chip are being designed together to work as a team. You likely won't get much better than that -- you'll be battling the laws of optics. More expensive lenses on an HD100 won't likely help much, because the chip (and the ability to resolve the light wavelengths) won't allow it. You could get a variety of focal lengths by interchanging lenses, but it's pretty doubtful that you'll get significantly better optical performance, considering the limiting factors of the chip, and the incredibly difficult task of making a lens resolve the kind of line-pairs-per-millimeter that you need for these tiny 1/3" high-def chipsets. And even if you somehow could get tremendously better optical performance, the recording format is still going to be the limiting factor.

At least, so the theory goes. I look forward to testing it under practical circumstances, and I hope some rental house gets the wide-angle lens so I can test that theory too.

[Spiff_2]

I'm not biased against the JVC HD100 -- I've already ordered one

This gives me new respect for Barry. I'll be very interested to see your HD100 vs. HVX200 comparisons when the Panny is finally released.


1080i HDV holds up to 1080i DVCPRO-HD

Was this the test I was following in the technical forum? Did you ever test both codecs with a 1080 signal that had interlaced motion? As I recall, they were both done on a progressive frame, and the 4:2:0 wreaked havoc with the interlace. What about with HDV flagged as progressive? The 720p HDV tests certainly did look decent.

-Spiff

[Constantine]

The question was "Is HDV really that bad". The camera certainly makes a difference, but if we are talking about the HDV format, isn't the obvious answer, yes? Yes, it really is that bad? It's all about perspective though. I suppose that if there was another format called "CrapHD" and it compressed the HD signal down to 4mbps with 3:1:0 chroma sampling, then we could all cry out, "Go with HDV! It has 5 times the data rate and better color sampling"! And then someone could respond that CrapHD is great, and that their Grandma was buying them a new lense for their CrapHD Camera as a Boxing Day present, and that we suck because our ZU1's can't interchange the lense. And then someone somewhere would blow up their CrapHD film to 35mm, and everyone would gasp at how amazing it looked even though the camera never moved, and the actors had to hold perfectly still, and no one would complain that every so often the movie would turn black for half a second. The audience would smile because the sound was similar to their high quality mp3s, which wouldn't quite hold up on the surround system of a large theater, but was good enough anyway. And everyone who bought into the CrapHD marketing hype would tell us all how dumb we are to use HDV instead of CrapHD, because we have to wait a few months to shoot HDV, when they are already shooting in CrapHD.

Then again, I'm sure there's a private message board some where where George Lucas decided to go with HDCam SR because of it's superiority, and some guy somewhere would harrass George because he could shoot on DVCPro HD instead. And the same argument over those formats would ensue.

So let's bring it full circle. Compared to the "CrapHD" format, "HDV" is obviously superior. Sure, it is possible to capture HD resolution images with CrapHD, but HDV is nearly in the same price market and is superior as a format. So wouldn't I be better off shooting in HDV than in CrapHD? Of course I would!

In real life, there is no "CrapHD", or better yet, HDV IS CrapHD... the LOWEST end of the HD spectrum. All I'm saying is that if I can wait a few months and have the opportunity to capture on a superior format, while staying in a similar price range...wouldn't I be wise to shoot in the superior format? Of course I would.

People will find ways to make HDV work, and probably work smoothly. This doesn't mean that HDV won't still be a horribly compressed format with crappy color sampling. So wisdom still dictates that no matter how useful HDV ends up being, if I can shoot DVCPro HD(an obviously superior format) at nearly the same cost...I would be an effing idiot not to shoot in that format.

Peace.

[Rosestar]

Buying a camera for looks reminds me of an incident that happened to me. A guy that shoots event videos here wanted to show me his "Pro" camera and pulled out a Panasonic AG-DVC-7!!. He pointed a the camera I had with me at the time a Sony PD-150 and said he thought about getting one of those, but, "...Had to get a professional camera". I didn't have the heart to point out the difference between single chip vs 3 chip, ect, ect, ect. I ended up helping him edit some footage from this camera and had nothing but trouble with dropped frames and horrible audio, but hey, he could put his "Pro" camera on his shoulder...

I just have never run into a situation where what a camera I was using looks like was an issue. I show examples of what I've shot and that has gotten me the jobs. However, I can see where that might affect some people. That sucks, but clients can be strange.

Barry, it is very cool that you are getting the JVC HDV cam. From your posts it is obvious that we will get the straight dope on the camera.

[thisiswells]

Me too. I hope the JVC offers a reasonable picture for the compromises of the format.
If so, it will be less money to aquire and operate on a regular basis.. Everyone likes that.

Cheers.

[collie]

Question to Barry, doesnt Hdv in 720p have a higher raw sampling resolution than 720p DVCPROHD? I am speakiing of the Luma information. Thanks,can you verify this is true?

[Editor321]

I tell ya, when the hvx200 comes out, the footage had better wipe the jvc's camera out. I mean freaking wipe it out or alot of you guys are just talking a bunch of crap.

I mean, i better see mosquito noise, fuzz, hair balls, shit stains, dirt, and sand on the footage from the jvc. I better have a migraine headache after watching hdv. Likewise, when I look at the hvx200, I better see a crystal clear, brilliant, spectacular, climatic picture, possibly even get a glimpse of Jesus himself.

The way you guys are talking about the panny, it better have wonderful footage in comparison. If the footage is even remotely close, then some of you guys are brand or format freaks just so you can say you are.

[Zim]

Brand or format freaks,,Here?

I haven't seen footage from either camera yet. I still haven't seen HDV footage from the Z1. I saw a trailer made with the other HDV sony. It was pretty good.

[reservoir]

JVC sucks!!

Oh sh*t......what have I started?

EDIT: JVC does not suck. They are great. HDV is great and is far superior to anything on the market including: DVCPRO25, PRO50, PROHD, Digi Beta, XDCAM, HDCAM, anything else I missed. HDV owns and will take no prisoners. Panny better go ahead and get the K-Y out. I'm a sarcastic bastard. Um....what else..?? I guess that's it. JVC and 720p 4:2:0 rules.

~reservoir~

[Spiff]

lol! You tell 'em Editor321.

-Spiff

[wabbit]

Coming at this whole theoretical camera stuff, I can tell you the reason I personally complain about HDV is that it is such a disappointment when they tried to offer it as a professional format. If it was just put out there as the consumer format that it was meant to be, then all would be peaceful in the world.

Without HDV how were we gonna get HD into the hands of everyday people. At some point we needed a cheap HD solution to get average people shooting home movies in HD and then having to buy an HDTV to watch it on. In that market, HDV is great. All the compremises needed to get HD onto a 25mb stream is pretty harmless in the hands of little Johnny filming the family cat.

What is disappointing is how Sony, et al, are now pushing it onto the professional level. Why not welcome a new cheap format? Because as long as they are pushing HDV onto the professional market they are not going to create other lower cost HD solutions for professionals. So in the world without Panasonic, we would have HDCAM SR at $100,000 or HDV level at $10,000, with nothing inbetween.

So along comes Panasonic who says we will offer you something in the middle. Will it be perfect? No. Is HDCAM SR perfect? No. But what it does do, if nothing else, is force everyone to keep competing for our professional dollar. Eventually Sony will have to break down and offer some low-compression HD solution in the sub-$20,000 range. Without Panasonic, I would doubt we would ever see that day.

[Barry_Green]

Was this the test I was following in the technical forum?
Same one, yes.

Did you ever test both codecs with a 1080 signal that had interlaced motion?
No, because I haven't figured out a good way to go about doing that. I need to get 100% uncompressed material, and the only ways I can think of to do that are to get ahold of some HDCAM SR footage or uncompressed Viper footage, or to render out some computer graphics (which wouldn't be an actual "real world" test), or to get a film transfer to HD (which still wouldn't originate as interlaced).

I thought about just shooting some CineAlta footage and importing that uncompressed, but the HDCAM codec will shear off the high-frequency detail and introduce its own (very mild) compression, so it wouldn't be a fair comparison of what the footage would really, truly look like.

I was thinking that one way to test the codecs would be to cable a Z1 to a DVCPRO-HD deck -- that way you'd be feeding the same picture to both the internal HDV deck, and an external DVCPRO-HD deck. But even then it wouldn't truly be a fair test, as the DVCPRO-HD deck would be receiving an analog feed that may or may not have been chroma-decimated already... so then I thought I could feed the same signal to an external HDV deck, so at least it's the *same* signal, but that doesn't work because there are no HDV decks with analog or HD-SDI input. Only firewire. And even so, you're still introducing other elements into the imaging chain (the in-camera-to-analog conversion hardware, the external analog-to-HDSDI converter, etc).

I want to find a way to test just the codec, and nothing else.

So testing progressive is easy -- finding an easy, repeatable, and fair way to test interlaced is proving to be more difficult.

Any suggestions?

[xray]

I haven't seen footage from either camera yet. I still haven't seen HDV footage from the Z1. I saw a trailer made with the other HDV sony. It was pretty good.

I have seen a Z1 shoot and finished material. It looks good. You may or may not believe that. HDV is not bad at all. It can be pretty nice. Sure.

I can remember Barry saing he preordered a Z1, but later canceled his order. He has al the right to do so. We will see if he is holding his order this time.
I am going to buy a JVC HD100, why? It gives me a trusted real lens, long recording on a cheap tape, progressive shoot, good formfactor and intuitive use. I will rent a HQ wide lens for some work.

I have to live with compression in sound and image. The purist told me not to use .jpeg for pictures, not to use .mp3 for music but the hole world is using it and they are happy. OK they are end-consumers, I am a creator, and I want quality as high as possible. I still shoot positive film (dia) with my little Leica (I heard they are in trouble...) but I have seen beautiful images coming out of the digital cameras today. They are creating intelligent compression systems.

But I just see work and possibilities for me with the HD100 (btw JVC is doing fine in Europe). If I can live with P2 in the future, and they are long format and cost less, I am happy to buy the HVX too. We know Panasonic is going P2 with the next Olympics.

[Barry_Green]

Question to Barry, doesnt Hdv in 720p have a higher raw sampling resolution than 720p DVCPROHD? I am speakiing of the Luma information. Thanks,can you verify this is true?
Well, in some terms, yes. HDV in 720p mode encodes a luma grid of 1280x720. However, unless you're encoding only a still frame (or a sequence of still frames, all identical), that doesn't tell the actual story -- every frame is dependent on every other frame (within a group of six) so if there are significant amounts of detail in some frames, those frames will eat up a large percentage of the compression bandwidth available, meaning that there may not be enough to "go around". So while you could have a 1280x720 canvas to work with, you may not have nearly enough bits to encode the picture, so there can be whole sections of the picture that don't adequately represent the source material.

Contrast that with the alternative, DVCPRO-HD, which has frame-discrete compression. No frame influences what any other frame can handle; no frame eats up bandwidth from any other frame. So every frame will encode at exactly the same quality level, regardless of whether there's fast motion or no motion, etc. However, DVCPRO-HD does encode luma at a smaller resolution, 960 pixels instead of 1280. It offsets that by recording twice as much color information as HDV.

What I found was that HDV encoding works at its best when nothing in the picture moves. On a static still-shot, it can be very, very effective compression. Encoding a sequence of still frames, I found that HDV 720p could actually show less mosquito noise than DVCPRO-HD. However, that's a pie-in-the-sky best-case scenario, one that you would likely never encounter in the real world. And the worst case scenario is utterly horrifying and totally ghastly on HDV, whereas with DVCPRO-HD the "best case" and the "worst case" are actually the same -- you'll never have a "best case" or "worst case" because every frame is compressed the same way. And DVCPRO-HD always, always has twice the color information of HDV.

So yes, technically the luma grid of 720p HDV is 1/3 higher -- but the value of that, the effectiveness of that, is only really found in very limited circumstances.

Download the picture at http://www.icexpo.com/dvx100/720vs720.png for some test results I got when trying to compare HDV 720p vs. DVCPRO-HD 720p. The "best case" of HDV actually has cleaner mosquito noise, but you'll see the much better color resolution of DVCPRO-HD in the transition between the color bands (from blue to red, and from purple to green, etc). The "worst case" picture speaks for itself. However, it's just as unlikely that you'd encounter the "worst case" as it is that you'd encounter the "best case" -- neither is realistic to expect to see, both represent extremes to demonstrate the codec at its very best and its very worst. Most likely you'd probably see results in-between the best and worst cases.

[SergejIvanovits]

The purist told me not to use .jpeg for pictures, not to use .mp3 for music but the hole world is using it and they are happy. OK they are end-consumers, I am a creator, and I want quality as high as possible. I just would like to know what the purist would tell me about .jpg today. The Desktop Publishing world are using jpg and pdf today. How are they compressed compared to uncompressed cmyk tiff. And how good the final print out is. We are not sending dtp documents with uncompressed cmyk tiff files attached to the document anymore. We send pdf file to the print house and the result is the same as before.

I don't see any problem in compressions. I mean error correction is the most important thing now. JVC prohd has an error correction going thru several tracks and they can guaranty dropout free footage. Time will show it.

[Jonathan Smiles]

The "worst case" picture speaks for itself. However, it's just as unlikely that you'd encounter the "worst case" as it is that you'd encounter the "best case"

The worst case example is misleading if you don't know how MPEG-2 works.

It says 100percent change every frame, this does not allow MPEG-2's motion vectors to work, which is why it's so bad.

With material shot with a camera you will have to be moving very fast to get a 100 percent change every frame.

Shots that look good with progressive scan (smooth movement) will work well with MPEG-2.

If we say worst case is 0percent Quality and best case is 100percent quailty, for progressive friendly shots you will be in the 80-95 percent quality range.

[collie]

This is a shoot that wanted to test fast motion with the sony fx-1. (hdv )

http://www.subgunvideos.com/videos/Rob%20Silvers%20Videos/Shrike%20Videos/

cut and paste to watch . I am trying to figure out if the fast motion comments about hdv is legit

[Graeme_Nattress]

Both dissolves and strobe lights can cause MPEG2 encoders to think that there's a total change in a frame. Fast motion is bad, but actually, a zoom is worse in many ways, as then there's a scaling factor which MPEG2 is not really set up to deal with as it cannot be expressed by a 2D vector.

The motion vectors in MPEG2 are not designed to be able to decode the picture completely. They are merely to get the image in the ball park, and then the error signal takes over, which is also DCT encoded to add in the finesse to the image. Indeed, the motion vectors are not necessarily the same ones that you'd use in an optical flow simulation, but vectors that produce the least difference for the error signal to correct. I'd also doubt that in such a real time MPEG2 encode situation that the search parameters for the motion vectors would be allowed to go more than a certain distance from the search point, making it not that you have to completely change the picture to confuse the codec, but just just move it beyond it's search path's reach.

Barry, fancy doing some more tests with a crash zoom??

Graeme

[Jonathan Smiles]

The only meaningful test is to have HDV and DVCPRO-HD cameras shoot the same thing.

[Jonathan Smiles]

This is a shoot that wanted to test fast motion with the sony fx-1. (hdv ) I am trying to figure out if the fast motion comments about hdv is legit

The FX-1 footage looks in places like CF24 mode, look for the split frames.

[Zim]

Coming at this whole theoretical camera stuff, I can tell you the reason I personally complain about HDV is that it is such a disappointment when they tried to offer it as a professional format. If it was just put out there as the consumer format that it was meant to be, then all would be peaceful in the world.

Without HDV how were we gonna get HD into the hands of everyday people. At some point we needed a cheap HD solution to get average people shooting home movies in HD and then having to buy an HDTV to watch it on. In that market, HDV is great. All the compremises needed to get HD onto a 25mb stream is pretty harmless in the hands of little Johnny filming the family cat.

What is disappointing is how Sony, et al, are now pushing it onto the professional level. Why not welcome a new cheap format? Because as long as they are pushing HDV onto the professional market they are not going to create other lower cost HD solutions for professionals. So in the world without Panasonic, we would have HDCAM SR at $100,000 or HDV level at $10,000, with nothing inbetween.

So along comes Panasonic who says we will offer you something in the middle. Will it be perfect? No. Is HDCAM SR perfect? No. But what it does do, if nothing else, is force everyone to keep competing for our professional dollar. Eventually Sony will have to break down and offer some low-compression HD solution in the sub-$20,000 range. Without Panasonic, I would doubt we would ever see that day.

I was in Best Buy and mini-DV's camcorders's were selling for under $500, under $400. Doesn't that make mini DV a consumer product? Doesn't the DVX100 record on to mini DV tape? So is it a consumer camera? No and I wouldn't call the new JVC a consumer camera using mini-DV tape one either.

From what I've read HDV is really a step up from DV tape. Is that a bad thing? Is it as good as DVCPRO HD? Probably not but there is room for both and we are going to see alot of HDV in the future.

[Spiff_2]

Any suggestions

Well Barry, it looks like you've got the options covered. Really the only fair test that wouldn't be particularly expensive to execute is a pure CG test... But I haven't the faintest clue as to how to get CG to render to interlaced video other than to do render to 1080p60 and convert it to 1080i60... which would take 2x as long to render as would actually be necessary. Obviously a video test would be more practical.

As for HDV with zoom action:
http://s94963366.onlinehome.us/Eclipse/SvJpics/shot02.jpg
This is the worst artifacting I've managed. It's a CF24 shot - with pull-down removed, some rather severe post-colour correction, and some obvious compositing. The JPEG compression is probably neglible here. The background is white due to fog - not a lattitude restriction.

One thing I've thought about on the HDV in "fast motion" shots is the following: in fast motion (with longish shutter speeds), motion blur lowers the high-frequency content of the image significantly. This in turn lowers the bandwidth of the image, and hence makes a blurry image more "compression friendly". In short, while you don't have as much bandwidth for fast moving stuff - you don't actually NEED as much bandwidth either.

This argument falls apart when you use high shutter speeds with fast moving objects to preserve edges as much as possible in each field/frame though.

-Spiff

[Rosestar]

I was in Best Buy and mini-DV's camcorders's were selling for under $500, under $400. Doesn't that make mini DV a consumer product? Doesn't the DVX100 record on to mini DV tape? So is it a consumer camera? No and I wouldn't call the new JVC a consumer camera using mini-DV tape one either.

From what I've read HDV is really a step up from DV tape. Is that a bad thing? Is it as good as DVCPRO HD? Probably not but there is room for both and we are going to see alot of HDV in the future.

Well, as a matter of fact, DV was designed to be a consumer format, as a replacement for VHS. Starting with a blank piece of paper the designers came up with a format with an amazing cost to qualty ratio and in the process, created a revolution in video content creation. However, creating a digital format for a 50 year old TV standard (NTSC) is one thing, creating a low cost HD solution is something else. This is especially true considering that the HDV consortium did not start with a blank piece of paper. They started with a $4 tape and created an HD format to fit on it.

[xray]

Well, as a matter of fact, DV was designed to be a consumer format, as a replacement for VHS. Starting with a blank piece of paper the designers came up with a format with an amazing cost to qualty ratio and in the process, created a revolution in video content creation. However, creating a digital format for a 50 year old TV standard (NTSC) is one thing, creating a low cost HD solution is something else. This is especially true considering that the HDV consortium did not start with a blank piece of paper. They started with a $4 tape and created an HD format to fit on it.

This is no real argument, therefore no fact too. They didn't started with a piece of blank paper designing the DV format. You can say that P2 is a new way of thinking, or any other disksystem slow or fast. But tape is all its forms is the same. You can store uncompressed, component PAL video on tape. Tape is tape, it is a linear system, it works with particles on a layer, and with a head reading/writing system in the recorder. You can speed up tape, you can write more sections, helical scan but DV tape is in the same principle as digital Betacam tape and even as VHS .

[Barry_Green]

The only meaningful test is to have HDV and DVCPRO-HD cameras shoot the same thing.
Not really, because then that brings many additional variables into the equation (meaning, of course, camera quality, DSP quality, lens quality, etc). It masks the basic question, which is: how do the formats compare?

The most meaningful test would be to get two decks, one HDV and one DVCPRO-HD, both with native HD-SDI input, and then hook them up to the best camera (same camera) and let them shoot. That way we could evaluate the format and only the format, since each deck would be being fed an identical signal.

However, I do agree with your take that "meaningful" could be meant to read "the only test anyone will actually care about", and that will be side-by-side comparisons. Once there are equivalent-priced cameras on the market, I will be doing those tests.

[Barry_Green]

Both dissolves and strobe lights can cause MPEG2 encoders to think that there's a total change in a frame.
I tried a strobelight, just to see what happened -- actually, what I tried was simulating a strobelight, interleaving pure black frames with res-chart frames. The results were that the res-chart looked almost identical to a raw still shot. The black frames were all compressed identically and linked together through bi-directional & predicted frames, and really didn't impact the compression much at all. MPEG-2 doesn't base frame-to-frame changes, instead it examines the whole group and works within that group, so the strobelight "off" frames were all compressed extremely efficiently.


Fast motion is bad, but actually, a zoom is worse in many ways, as then there's a scaling factor which MPEG2 is not really set up to deal with as it cannot be expressed by a 2D vector.
Yeah, that would probably be the worst-case scenario one could get in-camera: a 1/1000 shutter-speed crash zoom, especially if you rotated the camera during the zoom.


Barry, fancy doing some more tests with a crash zoom??
Love to, but I can't devote much time until after the 15th. Anyone want to take it up and play with it in the meantime?

[Graeme_Nattress]

That's interesting Barry - I've seen strobe lighting really freek out DVDs....

Graeme

[Barry_Green]

Well Barry, it looks like you've got the options covered. Really the only fair test that wouldn't be particularly expensive to execute is a pure CG test... But I haven't the faintest clue as to how to get CG to render to interlaced video other than to do render to 1080p60 and convert it to 1080i60...

That's what I was planning - get some 1080 footage at 60fps, and render from Vegas to uncompressed 60i. Then use that as the source footage for the codecs.


One thing I've thought about on the HDV in "fast motion" shots is the following: in fast motion (with longish shutter speeds), motion blur lowers the high-frequency content of the image significantly. This in turn lowers the bandwidth of the image, and hence makes a blurry image more "compression friendly". In short, while you don't have as much bandwidth for fast moving stuff - you don't actually NEED as much bandwidth either.
Absolutely true. One of the first examples of HDV compression which really raised my concerns was some golf course footage a friend shot while testing his HD1. He shot a lovely composition of a golf course, grass in the foreground, trees in the background, and a huge sprinkler spraying water. At 1/30th shutter speed it looked magnificent -- rich, lush, detailed, and even a little filmic. Then he switched it to 1/60th and the image completely fell apart. Turned to crap. It was horrible. Apparently the blur of 1/30th lowered the detail level enough that the MPEG compressor could handle it, but at 1/60th the water droplets created so much detail that the MPEG compression just choked.

Using a longer shutter speed may be an option for the progressive cameras, but it's really not an option in the interlaced cameras, is it? With interlaced, if you use a longer shutter speed you enter the world of field-dropping -- use a shutter speed slower than 1/60th on 60i video, and you instantly cut your resolution in half (which may be worse for your picture than the mpeg artifacts would have been -- that needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis).

And yes, for those wondering, this golf-course-falling-apart footage was from the JVC 6-GOP system, not the Sony 15-GOP, so even though the JVC progressive-scan system should be a little more resistant to overloading-codec errors, it definitely happens.

[Barry_Green]

That's interesting Barry - I've seen strobe lighting really freek out DVDs....

Graeme
Well, again, my test wasnot an actual strobelight, it was a simulated strobelight, and the GOP consisted of two frames interleaved (i.e., res-chart, black, res-chart, black, res-chart, black). If you were doing an actual strobelight that only showed a black frame once per GOP, it would obviously impact the codec in the worst way because there would be no predictable frame reference from that. Also, what's the duration of the strobelight -- how quickly does it strobe on and off? If it takes a couple of frames to come up to full brightness, and a couple of frames to dim, then that could definitely cause much havoc with a DVD or HDV GOP-based compression system.

[collie]

Posted by Barry_Green
Absolutely true. One of the first examples of HDV compression which really raised my concerns was some golf course footage a friend shot while testing his HD1. He shot a lovely composition of a golf course, grass in the foreground, trees in the background, and a huge sprinkler spraying water. At 1/30th shutter speed it looked magnificent -- rich, lush, detailed, and even a little filmic. Then he switched it to 1/60th and the image completely fell apart. Turned to crap. It was horrible. Apparently the blur of 1/30th lowered the detail level enough that the MPEG compressor could handle it, but at 1/60th the water droplets created so much detail that the MPEG compression just choked.

Reply: Then Barry this should work Fantastically with the hd100 shot in 24p
mode. The people buying the hd100 will want it mainly for the 24p shooting aspect ,in other words this camera is for the independent filmmaker

[Spiff_2]

Hm. I have a whole bunch of FX1 Cineframe30 footage with 1/30s shutter in a dance club with strobes and the works. Super-low light, strobes, saturated colours, gain at 18 dB. I'll have to see how it looks at some point.

-Spiff

[Rosestar]

This is no real argument, therefore no fact too. They didn't started with a piece of blank paper designing the DV format. You can say that P2 is a new way of thinking, or any other disksystem slow or fast. But tape is all its forms is the same. You can store uncompressed, component PAL video on tape. Tape is tape, it is a linear system, it works with particles on a layer, and with a head reading/writing system in the recorder. You can speed up tape, you can write more sections, helical scan but DV tape is in the same principle as digital Betacam tape and even as VHS .

Well, yes, I wasn't offering a argument. I was commenting on the previous post.

You are right, tape is tape is tape. But remember, the original design for DV begain in 1991 and it was introduced in 1994. When it was introduced, it was vastly superior to VHS, the design standard it was to replace. Considering the options available in 1991, they did start with a blank sheet of paper and went to the trouble of a redesigned tape and tape drives to higher tolerances as well as a new codec for componet digital video at 25mbs, 4:1:1 sampling.

Well it is 2005, and we have HDV. That't it? This is the new Prosumer HD standard we have to live with? If the original DV designers had done what the HDV consortium has done, we would be shooting DV on VHS tapes. Well, at least the folks wanting a shoulder mount camera would be happy and we could have had forum after forum spouting about when DV-c would come out (and of course, a**holes like me that would rant about how DV-c sucks!) I just think that in the intervening 14 years, they could have done better.

I know that I am off topic somewhat and I appologize. Just wanted to add a little different perspective to the debate.

HDV. is it really that bad? I don't know, nobody knows yet. It is too soon. Let it settle in the real world for a while and we will know. Of course, in December (hopefully sooner) the HVX will be here and we can see the actual difference.

[Rosestar]

Here is a usefull article from the Birns & Sawyer website about HDV. Just another opinion, however, quite a credentialed opinion.

http://www.birnsandsawyer.com/cgibin/BIRstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=rose1

[thisiswells]

While I agree with his sentiments and general mood on the ever evolving video formats,
I'd only like to submit a little "fact checking" to the group here.

not even the 50 mega of Digibeta, the 135 megas of DVCPRO,
Even though no official bitrate has been offered by Sony, DigiBeta is purported to be 90Mbps.
DVCPRO generally refers to DVCPRO-50, which is 50Mbps.

I'm not a high caliber figure like our esteemed reviewer here and won't pretend to be. I have
memorized a couple of numbers a little more accurately, though. Not that numbers matter...

[Rosestar]

While I agree with his sentiments and general mood on the ever evolving video formats,
I'd only like to submit a little "fact checking" to the group here.

Even though no official bitrate has been offered by Sony, DigiBeta is purported to be 90Mbps.
DVCPRO generally refers to DVCPRO-50, which is 50Mbps.

I'm not a high caliber figure like our esteemed reviewer here and won't pretend to be. I have
memorized a couple of numbers a little more accurately, though. Not that numbers matter...

Yeah, saw those numbers... "Hey, he's on a roll" ("Was it over when the Nazis bombed Pearl Harbor?!!!)

[Spiff_2]

Wow. There's so much "factual" information in that article, I'm blown away. Has he even used one? Done tests? Looked at footage? Not only are all the bitrates he quoted wrong, but he's sees fit to base his article off of a quote from an Irish pop-rock band. Sad.

-Spiff