Answer to why HVX vs. HDV

[HVXguy]

Here is just another tidbit to add.
Just completed a test DVD from a shoot on
Saturday. Shot 720p 24pN.
For an organization that helps the elderly/disabled
rehab their homes. All outside, natural light, run & gun.
Did three to four interviews at 3 different homes
in 4 hours. Also captured B-roll of volunteers working.
Everyone had on red T-shirts. Now all I can say is,
I know what this would have looked like in DV.
I have a fair idea of what would have happened in HDV.
The client was saying "DV is OK for this, no need to
slow down to off-load footage." I have learned to ignore the
client! I wanted more actual real-world examples with the HVX in HD
and it looks fantastic! The reds really pop without the bleeding and artifacting of DV. Once we get a finished product next month I will post it.

[TedRR]

Thanks HVXguy, I'm constantly correcting people that HDV isn't HD. (not that there's anything wrong with HDV).
Tomorrow when I get my HVX I'll be proving it to them!

[Ranger]

Thanks HVXguy, I'm constantly correcting people that HDV isn't HD. (not that there's anything wrong with HDV).
Sure it is. Why would it not be considered HD? It may be not be the format of choice for most on this forum, but it is still technically high definition. Inherent or perceived weaknesses in the GOP codec or 4-2-0 color space do not negate it from being termed HD.

[imgentertainment@mac]

Good to know

And your right about listening to the client when he tells you how to shoot

[Neopics]

\I'm constantly correcting people that HDV isn't HD.
That's a rather arrogant and irresponsible statement. Yes, HDV is HD.

[DC]

And French Toast is French. ;)

[DavidBeier]

Thanks HVXguy, I'm constantly correcting people that HDV isn't HD. (not that there's anything wrong with HDV).
Tomorrow when I get my HVX I'll be proving it to them!

*sigh* Nothing is HD these days according to some people.

Can we get past this whole silly "that's not HD stuff please?" Obviously we've seen that there are many levels of HD and great differences in quality between them. HDV may not look as good as 4:2:2 MXF files but it's still HD.

[Elton]

So HVXguy,

Would H1 stuff shot SDI straight to DVCproHD be HD? Gosh, I hope so. Does only P2 HVX stuff count?

[DC]

The whole idea of HDV has always seemed very chincy to me. High definition crammed onto a MiniDV tape via MPEG-2 compression?! Yeah, I know that HDV supports HD resolutions of 720/1080. It is seriously lacking many of the quality characteristics of what the other HD formats offer. I'm not saying you can't get some nice imagery from HDV, I just can't seriously put it on par with any of the other HD formats.

Imagine if Anheuser Busch approached you to shoot a commercial specifically in high definition. Now imagine you bring an HDV camera to shoot with. It's HD right? "Well, yes, um, no, um . . ." Granted, you probably wouldn't use an HVX200 either when a VariCam or CineAlta is available. Although if you hypothetically did use an HVX, you could probably get away with it. Hence all these big time names using the HVX on projects such as "Munich."

The HDV format differentiates itself from any of the other common HD formats.
HDV and ProHD
HDV stands for High Definition Video (although some refer to it as High-Def DV) and Sony's format uses standard MiniDV cassettes to record video sequences whose resolution is 1080-lines as opposed to the standard definition 625 lines (or 525 in the USA, Canada, Japan, etc). HDV is fast becoming the format of choice for those wishing to shoot professional-quality video footage, not least because it offers the choice of HDV or DV recording on a MiniDV tape. ProHD is the JVC equivalent format of HDV;
DVCAM and DVCPRO
These are two formats that are based upon DV but which use a higher-specification recording system to produce pictures that are acceptable to broadcast TV channels and professional video producers. DVCAM is Sony's format, whereas DVCPRO is a format that was pioneered by Panasonic.http://www.simplydv.co.uk/infobase/about_formats.html

Anyway, that's probably why I am so cynical toward HDV. It has its place, but it definitely has its places where it shouldn't be.


Would H1 stuff shot SDI straight to DVCproHD be HD?
Yes!

[R Gale]

It's obvious that HDV is HD, if you've ever seen HDV footage. It's frickin sharp.
Just don't shoot any fast action, or explosions on pirate ships... :nads:

[Elton]

You know darn well that HDV is not going to hold up in the HD world of broadcast.

Well, DiscoveryHD would disagree with you. The H1 is accepted for broadcast even if entirely acquired on mere HDV.

Can we stop the FUD that goes both ways? IMHO, DVCproHD from the HVX is rather "chincy" with 960x540 chips to begin with. It's a 1080p camera right? Hmmm. Now, I've seen beautfiul stuff from the camera, but if you think HDV is bit starved, it could equally be argued that the HVX is pixel starved.

So what's the point? One format is legitimate and the other isn't? Please. Both can be awesome if handled properly. And believe it or not, fast action is fine with the H1. HDV or SDI.

Going to NAB this year. I'll work on that pirate explosion too.

[R Gale]

Going to NAB this year. I'll work on that pirate explosion too.
Great! I'd love to see great results from HDV, that just means more options for all of us. I just haven't been sold on it for my own uses.

You know someone's asking for a fight when a thread has in its title "HVX vs. HDV"
sounds like a poster for a boxing match.

[Barry_Green]

Of course HDV is HD. To argue otherwise is to not understand the difference between a recording format and the standard itself.

HD is not a format. HDV is a format, and so is DVCPRO-HD and so is HDCAM and so is D5.

HD is a standard, and HDV is a format that records that standard.

SD isn't a format either, but I don't hear anyone going around saying "VHS isn't SD". Of course it is. VHS is the lowest-quality way to record SD, but it is an SD recording format.

HDV is the lowest-quality way to record HD (in common use) but it is an HD recording format.

[DC]

Well, DiscoveryHD would disagree with you. The H1 is accepted for broadcast even if entirely acquired on mere HDV.

I see your point, but there's still a lot of debate on the specifics of this. And Discovery is only one potential client.

For instance, http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=50198


IMHO, DVCproHD from the HVX is rather "chincy" with 960x540 chips to begin with. It's a 1080p camera right? Hmmm. Now, I've seen beautfiul stuff from the camera, but if you think HDV is bit starved, it could equally be argued that the HVX is pixel starved.

And you're certainly entitled to that opinion. How the HVX compensates for this is through "spatial offset" which offsets the lines of pixels to accomplish a higher resolution. 960x540 is plenty of pixels to derive an HD image from.



So what's the point? One format is legitimate and the other isn't?

My opinion is that HDV recorded onto MiniDV tape is far too compromised to really compare it with other flavors of HD. That's why I personally don't think of HDV as HD.


And believe it or not, fast action is fine with the H1. HDV or SDI.

That's not necessarily the case with what is recorded to MiniDV tape. Fast action could be fine or it might not be. Anything shot with HDV could be fine or it might not be. It has to do with the percentage of the screen that's changing frame-to-frame. So in this regard, what you see on your monitor or in your viewfinder isn't necessarily what you get on tape. That is my biggest complaint with HDV - its inherent unreliability.

[TwistedLincoln]

Personally, I don't like HDV for a variety of reasons. But let's be honest here. Regardless of if it is considered "acceptable for broadcast," in reality it is pretty close to broadcast quality. I watch Fox's 24 each week in its High Definition broadcast, and it exhibits many of HDV's comression artifcats. Is this because they use HDV cameras to film it? No. It's because the over-the-air compression used in broadcast degrades the quality. Pop in the DVD release of the show, and the quality actually seems better (in regard to motion artifacts), even though it is SD. So clearly there is much lost in the stage of actually getting the product to the public...

And of course HDV is HD, at least as much as DVCPROHD is HD. Technically, I suppose you could say that you would need 1920x1080 to be 1080i, yet none of the cameras here record that natively -- pixel shifting or otherwise. Does that make them not true HD? Maybe, maybe not. Does it matter in real world usage? NO!

[DC]

Of course HDV is HD. To argue otherwise is to not understand the difference between a recording format and the standard itself.

HD is not a format. HDV is a format, and so is DVCPRO-HD and so is HDCAM and so is D5.

HD is a standard, and HDV is a format that records that standard.

SD isn't a format either, but I don't hear anyone going around saying "VHS isn't SD". Of course it is. VHS is the lowest-quality way to record SD, but it is an SD recording format.

HDV is the lowest-quality way to record HD (in common use) but it is an HD recording format.
Yes, I know technically HDV is HD. I guess I'm just not so hot on the HDV format as compared to the other formats in the HD standard. It is just hard to reconcile, in my own mind, that HDV can be lumped right up there with the other HD formats. :)

[PappasArts]

Wow Ted! Thats funny! NOT!

Here's a sample of the "Not" HD I filmed with my XLH1 and HD100!

All the sub 10K cameras are HD..............!

LOL!

Now for some "Not" HD clips...

Here are basic no thrills tests done in Laguna Beach,CA and NewportBeach/Corona Del Mar,CA.

Link: http://homepage.mac.com/PappasArts

If that link does not work, try this.

Link: http://homepage.mac.com/WebObjects/FileSharing.woa/wa/default?user=pappasarts&templatefn=FileSharing1.html&xmlfn=TKDocument.1.xml&sitefn=RootSite.xml&aff=consumer&cty=US&lang=en

Here are HD Still frames too in a gallery!

http://homepage.mac.com/pappasarts/PhotoAlbum4.html

You will need the VLC player to view .m2t clips

Link: http://www.videolan.org/





Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site
CONTACT VIA AOL INSTANT MESSENGER
AT { PAPPASARTS2 }
XLH1 and HVX200 frame grabs and news here:
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
http://www.PappasArts.com





Thanks HVXguy, I'm constantly correcting people that HDV isn't HD. (not that there's anything wrong with HDV).
Tomorrow when I get my HVX I'll be proving it to them!

[tco]

Ok, I shot a commercial for a company that aired on the superbowl in the San Diego and Denver markets. We shot with the SDX 900. It was uprezzed by ABC here in San Diego and it looked beautiful. So IS THAT hi def? The point here is that as long as you can capture a beautiful image and deliver it in hi def who cares? I mean the DP's at 24 say they would rather use the JVC HD100 for drama episodics than the HVX, so what does that tell you? This whole argument is just silly because in the end it's about good quality production, period. those are my two pennies, but I am still going to purchase the HVX.

[Barry_Green]

Yes, I know technically HDV is HD. I guess I'm just not so hot on the HDV format as compared to the other formats in the HD standard. It is just hard to reconcile, in my own mind, that HDV can be lumped right up there with the other HD formats. :)
Nobody's harder on HDV than I am; I just don't like the format at all. But, I have always said that it is of course an HD recording format.

Remember, DigiBeta and VHS are both SD recording formats, even though there's a world of difference between them. HDV and HDCAM-SR are both HD recording formats, even though there's a world of difference between them.

And actually, lesser formats are on the way -- I haven't spent any time with Sanyo's 9mbps MPEG-4 HD recording format, but I would expect HDV should look better than that. And then there's Sony's XDCAM HD in its low-quality 18-megabit rate; I don't know if the variable-bitrate recording lets it match HDV's 25-megabit rate or not. So it's possible that while HDV is currently the entry-level recording format for HD, there may be new entries that actually fit in below it.

[Elton]

And Discovery is only one potential client.

...and potentially the toughest! Do you ever watch Discovery HD or HDNET? Their HD broadcasts are far better than most, in terms of technical quality of the image.


And you're certainly entitled to that opinion. How the HVX compensates for this is through "spatial offset" which offsets the lines of pixels to accomplish a higher resolution.

Yes, I'm well aware. But guess what? Spatial offset only goes so far. You really can only get so much *real world* resolution this way, and that's why there's a lot of debate about the HVX's 1080 modes.


960x540 is plenty of pixels to derive an HD image from.

Again, quite debatable, to say the least. Have you ever taken a bicubic uprezzed 960x540 image in photoshop and compared to a true 1920x1080 from a 2MP and up still camera? I bet in all honesty you can tell a difference. And yes, I know that isn't quite the same as what's going on inside the HVX, but it's still filling in pixels that really weren't there to begin with.



My opinion is that HDV recorded onto MiniDV tape is far too compromised to really compare it with other flavors of HD. That's why I personally don't think of HDV as HD.

Do you also consider XDCAM to be "far too compromised"? Sony's going into the professional realm big time with this format, and somehow I doubt that they would invest so much in such a compromised format. And let's get something straight: HDV is MPEG2! Same with XDCAM, and I know there will be lots of productions shot with 25mbs MPEG2 with those cameras that will air in HD and hold up just fine. It's efficient, but has its limitations, although I would argue that in most scenarios it HDV works quite well. Sure, it ain't for everyone, but it's turned out to be much better than most honestly anticipated so give it its due.

Let me say this: DVCproHD is heavy compression too. It isn't necessarily smooth everywhere either. It's greatest virtue is that it's I-frame. Most of the time that's good, but it isn't always perfect either.

I think of HDV as an acquisition format anyway. I convert my HDV footage to PhotoJPEG now, and it holds up amazingly well.


That's not necessarily the case with what is recorded to MiniDV tape. Fast action could be fine or it might not be. Anything shot with HDV could be fine or it might not be. It has to do with the percentage of the screen that's changing frame-to-frame. So in this regard, what you see on your monitor or in your viewfinder isn't necessarily what you get on tape. That is my biggest complaint with HDV - its inherent unreliability.

Fair enough. I understand where you're coming from and also for that same reason that is why I chose the H1. A scenario like Barry posted with the Treasure Island thing is one situation where HDV might break down to some extent...but then again, if we're talking about prepared production and not just "run and gun" you can avoid a lot of the problems. It was for ultimate image doomsday scenarios that I imagined tapping the SDI, but the need is actually extremely rare. The other good reason for it is greenscreen, but again, the HDV has surprised me.

To each his own. All these cameras have their weaknesses, but don't be surprised if HDV ends up being HD broadcast accepted, just like DV was for SD.

[HVXguy]

Wow, I did not know I would raise such a ruckus...

I never said HDV was not HD. All I was saying is that I feel like I made the right decision in going with the HVX. I have seen a lot of good footage shot with HDV but it looks like super hyper reality video to me. I am just gald to move beyond DV and leave the "BetaSP is better" mentality behind.

[Justyn]

Well Spice and the big booty network are allowing pixelvision and VHS-C... in response to Discovery channel's ultimatium. I don't think I'd be using them as a standard to compare quality.. but would be more inclined to check out HBO and others for that kind of qualification. I know several HBO shows have been using HDV.. and I'm sure a few will use the HVX.


Personally, HDV seems like a baby step into HD. I like to take big leaps when spending cash. I'm with everyone here in saying that Tape is DEAD to me. Who wants that hassel.. and that tech. Ya can keep it. I prefer to shoot.. watch.. delete. dump to tape for the client.. and then backup to DVD-R and harddrive.

I also concur with HVX guy... this camera loves colors. Reds and any primary color. I have told the talent to wear primary bright colors and it loooks fabulous. I think even Carrot Top would look alright on the HVX...

I also feel so confident that I bought what is good and right for me. I've been attacked for my purchase just like others are for their HDV.. but I'm secure and confident it was a good one. Just like when people slam my Mac... I'm happy and confident that its the best for me.. so whatever people say is okay with me...

[HVXguy]

I was shooting a time-lapse for a client today. The Mr. "BetaSP" is better guy. He has seen many of the Quicktimes posted here and he has seen some of the stuff I shot and was not convinced and said well that look might be good for some stuff. After we shot for 6 hours a 1 frame every 5 sec and then played it back right after we shot......he exclaimed "That camera is worth $6000 for the time-lapse function alone!" I think he is finally convinced and said he will wait & see what NAB brings but he is finally shaken & stirred!!

[Justyn]

I'm going into a 12 step timelapse program myself. But I plan on timelapsing the whole event with possible camera movement in a full 360 degree path. I am possessed with fluffy clouds flying by...

[TedRR]

Sorry PapasArts. Not trying to PO anyone. It's just that I've had a lot of people claim that their product is better then our Beta SP because it, (DV) was digital. (So is my cell phone camera) :) I'm sure you have seen this misinformation too.
Now the claim is that their HDV is better becuse it's HD.
I can guarantee that DV as well as HDV doesn't do chromakey well without 3rd party keying software. It just doesn't have the color info.
Even my HVX isn't going to compare to a 2/3" camera. But with equal lighting and talent, the HVX IS a step above HDV.

So now that I've eaten crow on my comment from frustration, we can get back to the fact that on equal lighting and talent, the HVX should beat out any HDV. :dankk2:

[brianluce]

Fast action could be fine or it might not be. Anything shot with HDV could be fine or it might not be..

I have the exact same complaint with the Viper camera. some of the footage shot with it might be fine, BUT! (and this is where it gets tricky....) some might not be. I've decided it's better to play it safe and not use the Viper.

[brianluce]

So now that I've eaten crow on my comment from frustration, we can get back to the fact that on equal lighting and talent, the HVX should beat out any HDV. :dankk2:

that statement is totally wrong. check out adam wilt's page, he rates mini DV as slightly superior to beta sp. but do a side by side and beta sp will usually kick the crap out of the mini dv. why? because the beta sp will most likely be shot with a 20,000 dollar camera with 2/3" ccd with real glass and the dv will be shot on a dvx100 or some other prosumer camera.

the image you get will have more to do with the camera and glass than the format.

all else being equal, according to gramn natress, hdv actually provides a better image--that 's what he posted in another forum at least.

but dvcprohd is still the more robust and professional format.

[Ranger]

we can get back to the fact that on equal lighting and talent, the HVX should beat out any HDV.
Horsepoop.

I think many professionals that have tested these cameras might disagree with that assessment.

I'm an HVX future owner, but objective enough to realize that any of the current crop of HDV cameras could easily give the HVX a run for its money. To be honest, in terms of image quality, if the Canon or JVC had the feature set and tapeless solution like the HVX, then I would have opted for them instead.

[halfelement]

on equal lighting and talent, the HVX should beat out any HDV. :dankk2:

but i plan on lighting my hvx far better then i would light any other camera. = )

[TedRR]

that statement is totally wrong. check out adam wilt's page, he rates mini DV as slightly superior to beta sp.

No dis to Wilt, but the Beta SP "FORMAT" IS better then the miniDV format.
Any broadcast engineer will confirm this. I've been doing Professional Broadcast for 28 years and DV IS NOT as good as Beta SP!

We get a lot of chromakey shoots here because the DV format is heavily compressed and doesn't do a good native key.
I get a kick out of the kids around here making those "Digital" claims. :grin:

[Stevet]

Michael,
The quality of your H1 frame grabs are excellent.

Nice stuff

[TedRR]

Horsepoop.

I think many professionals that have tested these cameras might disagree with that assessment.

I'm an HVX future owner, but objective enough to realize that any of the current crop of HDV cameras could easily give the HVX a run for its money. To be honest, in terms of image quality, if the Canon or JVC had the feature set and tapeless solution like the HVX, then I would have opted for them instead.

4:2:2 will beat out 4:2:0 & 4:1:1 plain and simple.
HDV is highly compressed. DVCPro50 IS a better format. Still compressed though.
Now stack up a 2/3 camera shooting in HDV and you might have an argument. There could be some out there I'm not aware of.

[johncordell]

Many people seem to freak out at the possibility of HDV artifacts, which are incredibly uncommon and difficult to invoke on my Canon XL-H1. One thing to consider: if your footage is going to eventually be distributed via HD-DVD, or DVD, or broadcast on TV as HD, it will be highly MPEG compressed.

So it might be good to minimize or avoid visuals that can't be handled well by MPEG. I wouldn't let it totally constrain the artistic visual goals of the project, but neither would I go out of my way to make something that is only watchable on film. Whenever I watch anything in HD on DirecTV or over the air HD for that matter, there are tons of MPEG artifacts.

For me, the Canon flavor of HDV as an acquisition format is very workable, although I don't use it for editing.

[Elton]

4:2:2 will beat out 4:2:0 & 4:1:1 plain and simple.
HDV is highly compressed. DVCPro IS a better format. Still compressed though.


And DVCProHD is a 10 year old technology. Yes, it's obviously still quite good, but it depends on the imagery you feed it. I converted an entire feature shot on F900 to the codec so it could be "offlined" in HD and it held up amazingly well. Almost identical to the original tapes with the excepetion of a little compression noise in shadow areas. (sound familiar?) Also a slight amount of horizontal res loss due to the 1280 subsampling of the codec. Still fantastic though.

IMHO, the Varicam does justice to the format. Not surprising of course because of the lenses that are likely to go in front of it, the DSP processing, and the fact that it's CCDs have the oversampling necessary for the 720 DVCpro format. The HVX gets to 720 ok with the spatial offset...but 1080?

[Justyn]

No dis to Wilt, but the Beta SP "FORMAT" IS better then the miniDV format.
Any broadcast engineer will confirm this. I've been doing Professional Broadcast for 28 years and DV IS NOT as good as Beta SP!

We get a lot of chromakey shoots here because the DV format is heavily compressed and doesn't do a good native key.
I get a kick out of the kids around here making those "Digital" claims. :grin:


DV is better for DVD work completely. Look at the poo poo quality of Beta when it gets on DVD... Just doesn't look at good as DV, IMHO. Beta also comes with a whole crapload of headaches and back-breaking problems. Along with all that added expense.


Ya just have to look around and see that Beta is still being used.. but kind of like a hard-working horse that's on it's last legs. In the convention world it used to be on every shoot.. and now it's seldom on site, with the ability to get almost the same quality and functionality from an XL1 or such....

If I had some Beta gear.. especially after doing a side by side with the DVCPRO 50 and the HD, I'd be looking to use it as a nice door stop.. or great anchor to weight down my canoe.... Maybe even smash it at 60fps...


It's tough to let go of the past... especially when it cost so much.. but it's okay. Don't fear the future... It will be your friend.

[Jarred Land]

And DVCProHD is a 10 year old technology.

brilliant argument there chief....... lol. You do realize that Mpeg2 is 12 years old now right?

[xray]

MPEG2 (iso 13818) is very open, and gives room for new development. Look at D10 4:2:2 I-frame only 30/40/50 Mb/s (AKA IMX) it is a new implementation of MPEG2.
The DV codec and all its combinations like 2x DV or 4x DV is quite old yes.

Watch NAB 2006, you will see HDV everywhere, natively edited into the timeline with Quicktime, you see MPEG2 not only as a strong transmission codec but also as a acquisition codec combined with MXF data archiving.

[TwoHatCat]

Good to know

And your right about listening to the client when he tells you how to shoot
ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS listen to the client! (Just don't pay attention)

[Boomerang]

I love the look of Panasonics image so if they released the HVX HDV I still would have bought it....... but deep down I am damn happy they didnt!

Hey anyone see the South Park with the Hybrid cars. Maybe us HDers have a higher smug factor going on :)

[Elton]

brilliant argument there chief....... lol. You do realize that Mpeg2 is 12 years old now right?

see below...


MPEG2 (iso 13818) is very open, and gives room for new development. Look at D10 4:2:2 I-frame only 30/40/50 Mb/s (AKA IMX) it is a new implementation of MPEG2.
The DV codec and all its combinations like 2x DV or 4x DV is quite old yes.

Watch NAB 2006, you will see HDV everywhere, natively edited into the timeline with Quicktime, you see MPEG2 not only as a strong transmission codec but also as a acquisition codec combined with MXF data archiving.

This is basically what I meant, Jarred. HDV is an evolved form of MPEG2, which although 12 years old, has been improved greatly over the years. We are all beneficiaries of it with the latest encoding tools for DVD and HD DVD.

I don't think DV in the form of DVCproHD has had nearly as much work done to it. And rightly so: it's a good codec...but it hasn't changed much. In the interest of image improvements with the format, shouldn't there be a DV200 codec by now?

[DC]

. . . and I know there will be lots of productions shot with 25mbs MPEG2 with those cameras that will air in HD and hold up just fine. It's efficient, but has its limitations, although I would argue that in most scenarios it HDV works quite well. Sure, it ain't for everyone, but it's turned out to be much better than most honestly anticipated so give it its due.

I understand your points. I do give it its due for what it is. However, my personal opinion is that I wouldn't choose HDV as an acquisition format when I have other choices like DVCProHD. Please forgive my cynicism toward this. Some people act as if I am trash talking their mothers. We're only talking about geeky, techie video junk!


Nobody's harder on HDV than I am; I just don't like the format at all. But, I have always said that it is of course an HD recording format.
Remember, DigiBeta and VHS are both SD recording formats, even though there's a world of difference between them. HDV and HDCAM-SR are both HD recording formats, even though there's a world of difference between them.

And actually, lesser formats are on the way -- I haven't spent any time with Sanyo's 9mbps MPEG-4 HD recording format, but I would expect HDV should look better than that. And then there's Sony's XDCAM HD in its low-quality 18-megabit rate; I don't know if the variable-bitrate recording lets it match HDV's 25-megabit rate or not. So it's possible that while HDV is currently the entry-level recording format for HD, there may be new entries that actually fit in below it.

Yeah, and it's that low-end entry into HD through HDV (or whatever else) that I don't personally like. I prefer DVCProHD (or higher) in terms of specifications.


Well Spice and the big booty network are allowing pixelvision and VHS-C... in response to Discovery channel's ultimatium. I don't think I'd be using them as a standard to compare quality.. but would be more inclined to check out HBO and others for that kind of qualification. I know several HBO shows have been using HDV.. and I'm sure a few will use the HVX. Personally, HDV seems like a baby step into HD . . . this camera loves colors. Reds and any primary color. I have told the talent to wear primary bright colors and it loooks fabulous. I think even Carrot Top would look alright on the HVX . . .

I agree.


I can guarantee that DV as well as HDV doesn't do chromakey well without 3rd party keying software. It just doesn't have the color info.Even my HVX isn't going to compare to a 2/3" camera. But with equal lighting and talent, the HVX IS a step above HDV.

4:2:2 will beat out 4:2:0 & 4:1:1 plain and simple. HDV is highly compressed. DVCPro50 IS a better format. Still compressed though. Now stack up a 2/3 camera shooting in HDV and you might have an argument.

That's pretty much where I stand too. It's those types of compromises that are unsettling to me.


I have the exact same complaint with the Viper camera. some of the footage shot with it might be fine, BUT! (and this is where it gets tricky....) some might not be. I've decided it's better to play it safe and not use the Viper.

Seriously? If so, very interesting comment. I don't know a whole lot about the Viper cam.


. . . dvcprohd is still the more robust and professional format.

Compared to DV, BetaSP and HDV - yes, I agree.


. . . if your footage is going to eventually be distributed via HD-DVD, or DVD, or broadcast on TV as HD, it will be highly MPEG compressed.

Of course. And it will come at a price (the artifacting). But I'm speaking strictly of acquisition formats.


DV is better for DVD work completely. Look at the poo poo quality of Beta when it gets on DVD... Just doesn't look at good as DV, IMHO. Beta also comes with a whole crapload of headaches and back-breaking problems. Along with all that added expense.

And I also agree with that assessment.


Hey anyone see the South Park with the Hybrid cars. Maybe us HDers have a higher smug factor going on :)

LOL! Yes! The smug cloud is choking us all on DVXUser.com! :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

[zoostory]

lordy. i wish people would quit focusin on HD and the camera and start focusing on some stories and performances that are High Def. mostly i see some seriously SD directing going on. actually, it's worse than Hi-8, or regular 8. vhs looks good compared to the quality of performances and stories.

make your creativity HD, then worry about your camera.


otherwise, i will give you a fortune telling, some lines from the future:

you [ the filmmaker] are showing your film at a crappy festival and someone will ask you this:

"what did you shoot it on and how much did it cost?"

they could care less about anything else.

you [the filmmaker] at one point will say
-"well it was a really great learning experience."

translate that to mean: i know it sucks but i learned what i will never do again.

you [the filmmaker] will find that your DP will strip all horrid dialog audio from the final cut and recut it to some rock song for their reel. they're reel will rock. they didn't pay a cent. you paid for their fancy reel.

of course, you may be the DP and director. awesome. just remember the actor won't perform better if they understand that 4:2:2 is better than 4:2:0

-just some rumblings from my cave.

peace.

[Elton]

However, my personal opinion is that I wouldn't choose HDV as an acquisition format when I have other choices like DVCProHD.

This I understand. I shoot SDI to PhotoJPEG and DVCProHD here and there and I certainly prefer working in these formats when given a choice too. (will definitely go this route full time when portable SDI arrives) BUT! The image coming out of the camera is what's most important not just the recording format.

[DC]

. . . The image coming out of the camera is what's most important not just the recording format.

I completely agree. I think the HDV cameras produce incredible images (though I still prefer that "magic" Panny cinema look) when you're recording to an external deck. It is only what is being recorded to MiniDV in the HDV format that I object to. And for me, I prefer the P2/Laptop route as opposed to an external deck/tape. Because in all honesty, if I had a budget for a deck like that, I'd likely just shoot on a VariCam or CineAlta.

We all must use the tools that are important to us - to tell that compelling story, etc.

[xray]

HDV is an evolved form of MPEG2, which although 12 years old, has been improved greatly over the years. We are all beneficiaries of it with the latest encoding tools for DVD and HD DVD.

Age is not so important, intelligence is. How clever is a codec and what brings us most in the converging industries like the cinema and television and the IT world. On the moment tens of billions of $ are invested in MPEG-2, and MPEG-4 is more scalable and intelligent and can even be implemented into a MPEG-2 stream.

You want multiple alpha channels and bitrate room for pixels? I frames only?, Digital rights management, full scalable, interaction with animation? Go MPEG-4 with room for bitrates to almost 2 Gigabit p/s.

In that light, yes DV codec is old.

[Stevet]

I guess HDV would be a tough argue in an HVX200 DVCPRO-HD forum.

They both look and good and they both have their faults.

I truely believe neither codec is up to where it needs to be.

Things will only get better.