HDV Compression, Can you really tell?

Well you can always run DVCpro50 stuff off to HDV. i considered that, as an emergency backup plan. Buy a small 1080i HDV camcorder, and just print all my footage to HDV tape. If the event of a MASSIVE catastrphy, i still have a good, HDV copy of my footage. Its not that bad, its just not the best.
 
They says " the difference between the wise man and the smart one is that the wise man won't put himself in a situation that requieres him to be smart to get out".
Understand your needs, what are you really going to do with the cam. Then understand the pros and cons of the cameras you are comparing and make the wise choice for yourself. No piece of equipment is perfect and cover every situation but if you know your tool then you can be "wise" and avoid it's pitfalls.
 
If someone refuses to read, I can't help that. I always put adequate and thorough descriptions on all test methodology. What else could I do?

I don't want anyone here saying "don't use HDV, you can't pan with it" -- that's ridiculous. But it's equally ridiculous to ignore the potential shortcomings of the format. Poor Kaku Ito has gone through every camera on the market, and eventually moved back to a frame-discrete compression system, because the HDV codec can't handle what he does. NOT that it won't handle what you (or you, or you, or you) need, but it won't handle what HE does, and he tried 'em all: JVC, Canon, Sony, all of 'em. He needs to know what it can do and what it can't. The topic of this thread was: Can you really tell? The OP wants to know if it happens or not. I think it's important to know the limits of the gear. And I certainly think it's important to know what's too much and what isn't. And I also think it'd be important to know if the Canon is actually superior and artifact-resistant. Those are easily-discernable, documentable facts that can be found out with a little testing.

I've got a Canon now, so I'll put it through some paces. Granted it's not an XHA1, but it's the latest Canon on the market.

Thing is -- if the issues exist, the issues exist, and I for one would rather know about them before shooting, and know how to work around them. If a product is unsuitable for someone's purpose, they should be able to find that information out. And if someone's being FUDded, we should be able to find that out too.
 
Agreed, I am really commenting on the disconnectness of a post-driven forum where things can be taken out of context rather than contained in one article. The subject is valid and an article would help to talk about it in a balanced way.
 
after reading these discussions about HDV if lets say I do shoot more action stuff whats my alternatives?

I can't afford to buy a HVX and I am looking to buy a HD camera more closer to the A1 price range?

If I shoot on a DV camera or in DV format is that any better?
 
HDV is the primary alternative in this price bracket. There are some others, but they all use the same type of long-GOP structure, so there's not much reason to expect them to perform substantially differently.

Specifically, there's HDV in its different variants, then there's AVC-HD, and then there's JVC's new MPEG-2 camera, and then there's Sanyo (it's Sanyo, right? Or Samsung? I don't know which) who've put out their own MPEG-4 camcorder.

None of those alternative formats has a camera that's anywhere near the class of the XHA1. I do expect that eventually we'll see an AVC-HD camera with an adequate bitrate that will be more robust than HDV, but that day is not here yet. So your choices, in this price bracket, are XHA1 with HDV, or HVX.

Try an XHA1 in your particular circumstances; see if there's someone nearby who'll come out for a few hours and work with you to get some sample shots. You may find it perfectly adequate for your usage, and if you couldn't afford an HVX anyway then the A1 is really the only game in town. Well, that or perhaps the V1U from Sony.

And Disjecta, I know what you're saying, and please note that I didn't go posting pictures until someone specifically asked for them. I'm not here trying to scare people, I'm trying to answer questions that were asked. I've actually got an idea that could really clarify this issue once and for all (if there were ever going to be a "once and for all", sigh). HDV is here for a while, the XHA1 and HV20 are very popular, and it's not a question of whether people are going to buy it, but it's that our users are going to be using it. I'd like to help them get the best from it, and avoid the worst from it.

Maybe next week I can get something put together; travel schedule's rather ridiculous right now (I'm actually writing this from the Charlotte airport...) :)
 
Bishaway said:
If I shoot on a DV camera or in DV format is that any better?
Click to expand...
DV is impervious to motion-related artifacting. It simply will not experience any motion or frame-changerlated degradation like as seen above. And, the XHA1 can shoot DV.

But DV isn't high-def. So if you need high-def, the only practical options are HVX for frame-discrete, or HDV for lower-cost.

But if your work doesn't demand high-def, then you can certainly use DV, from any of these cameras.
 
What Barry, you are going to write an article? You are a glutton for punishment.

jk :Drogar-Evil(DBG):

I'm really not disagreeing with anyone here, it just seems that way :beer:
 
Thanks Barry

That makes sense and HD is not really that vital for what I am doing right now, especialy since I am quiet inexperienced with it I would just like to experiment/learn with HD and figured the A1 would be a good way to learn with, and if it handles the stuff I shoot then obviously its nicer to work with higher resolutions.
 
disjecta said:
I'm really not disagreeing with anyone here, it just seems that way :beer:
Click to expand...

Disjecta,

I'm delighted that you are here and have posted so much of your experience. The things that you have shot and shown is some of the best work I have ever seen on this board regardless of the camera used.

Your work with the Canon has really made me seriously think about trading in my 100B.

Regardless of what I'm certain is unintended "attitude" which kind of seems directed towards you or your comments, I greatly appreciate your input and view and always look forward to reading your well thought out posts.
 
yep, I gave up on generally sharp high resolution image of HDV over continuously stable bu not as high res. HVX200. As Barry indicates, my decision is only for my kind of purpose, street pist bikes, skateboards, BMX, mountainbikes. You don't know sometimes what the cast is going to do, you just have to follow him/her with your cam.
So you can say, my needs are very demanding, although I do try to be moderate comparing to some of the action video they shoot.
One of the last test on HDV cam was very dissapointing on panning. Put the cam on a good tripod, tried as much as possible to stablize the panning, but the compression was terrible. Although the same cam does wonderful job shooting people, things with moderate camera work. All the cams have characteristics that each company put together and pretty much there's none terrible camera. If I can afford it, I would like to own HVX200, XH G1, GY-HD250 and HV20. But my budget is limited, so I have HVX200 and HV20 for now.

But Barry, I don't feel so poor about my testing because it was all learning process and didn't have to buy each camera.

I forgot to mention since this is XH G1/A1 thread, XH G1 was mostly great. I think best of all among HDV cams (ofcourse this is me, for my needs). When I shot some live music performance, nothing was problem but sound (but sound is recorded on MacBookPro with Digital Perfomrer/896HD anyway).
G1 is a great camera and the artifacts I encounter was minimum.
 
Last edited:
I'm really agonizing over whether or not to get an XH A1. The image that I saw looks great, but a friend has warned me against going this route,

"HDV is a lossy pro-sumer format that is crappy for editing. It uses the same MPEG-2 codec that's used for encoding DVDs...I just can't buy into the MPEG-2 codec as a "working" format. I see it as more of an output format because it has this rigid "group of pictures" structure. I'm wondering what that will do when you want to add transitions in the timeline? I'm not saying it couldn't work for what you want to do, I just don't think that there is ANY good HD option for cameras at that price point (~3000 dollars)"


At the same time, I still feel like it would be better than shooting in SD. We're returning to Copenhagen in December to shoot more of our documentary, and it looks like we may have a third person joining us - one who already owns an XH A1. It would be great to have two identical cameras on the shoot, but I'm not sure that HDV would be the best option to commit the documentary to (but, because of price, the other option is to continue shooting in SD with the DVX)

Help!
 
i think HDV is the perfect solution for Docs. what you need is long runtime, cheap media. HDVd looks good enough for Docs wit hstraight cuts and a reality feel. I am opposed to using it for narritive or commercial work, but for a doc its fine.
 
Thanks, TimurCivan -

I am still concerned about editing issues with transitions and other types of post work. I do use transitions and post effects in my docs, and I would also be using the camera for other types of projects.

But the long runtime, cheap media and (mostly) great images do make it very attractive.
 
Bus No. 8 said:
I'm really agonizing over whether or not to get an XH A1. The image that I saw looks great, but a friend has warned me against going this route,
Click to expand...
There's a point of where someone may end up being technically accurate, but about things that don't really matter. I mean, yes HDV is crappy for editing; that's why codecs like CineForm and AIC exist -- the sooner you get away from the MPEG-2 codec in editing, the smoother your edit will be. But with that said, the latest versions of Vegas and FCP do a fine job of shuffling HDV data around. You're not going to get five or six streams of video in realtime, but one stream should be within the capability of any halfway decent computer now.

MPEG-2 as an acquisition format seems like a silly idea, but y'know what? It works pretty well (with the prior caveats about certain circumstances that exceed its capabilities). MPEG-2 was conceived and designed as a delivery format and it can do very well at that.

So frankly, I say look at the footage, and look at the price tag. There's nothing on the market that compares to the XHA1 at its price tag; it's streeting for around $3,000.

Is it perfect? Of course not. But it's $3000. It's a high-def camcorder for $3000. And most XHA1 owners seem very happy with their purchase.

I wouldn't let someone else's sweeping statements turn you away from what you want to get. Educate yourself as to what the tool can do and what it can't; for most circumstances it'll do very well, and there's nothing in its price bracket that delivers so much bang for the buck.

I'm wondering what that will do when you want to add transitions in the timeline?
Click to expand...

It's true that recompressed HDV will show notable degradation in the image, but that's not really the way many (if not most) HDV users work with the footage so it becomes a non-issue. If you're editing the native MPEG-2 data stream and outputting back to HDV then yes it can be an issue. If you've transcoded to CineForm or AIC, and are outputting to blu-ray or HD-DVD or the web, then it's pretty much a complete non-issue.

I'm not saying it couldn't work for what you want to do, I just don't think that there is ANY good HD option for cameras at that price point (~3000 dollars)"
Click to expand...
Again, there's truth here, and there's a whole other side. I happen to think the XHA1 is amazing at its price point. I also happen to think that it's not half the camera that my particular favorite camera is. So in some ways I do agree with what your friend is saying, but the simple fact is: if all you've got is $3000, then does it really matter what anything else does? Look at what's available in your price bracket. For $3,000 there's nothing else that comes close to the XHA1 right now.
 
Barry_Green said:
It's true that recompressed HDV will show notable degradation in the image, but that's not really the way many (if not most) HDV users work with the footage so it becomes a non-issue. If you're editing the native MPEG-2 data stream and outputting back to HDV then yes it can be an issue. If you've transcoded to CineForm or AIC, and are outputting to blu-ray or HD-DVD or the web, then it's pretty much a complete non-issue.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Barry. Would this affect editing and outputting in SD? For my doc I'll want the HD content in the long run, but will probably want to edit in SD for rough cuts and fundraising trailers.
 
Bus No. 8 said:
Thanks, Barry. Would this affect editing and outputting in SD? For my doc I'll want the HD content in the long run, but will probably want to edit in SD for rough cuts and fundraising trailers.
Click to expand...

To get the benefit of HD content you'll have to capture HD and edit in HD, and then downconvert in your NLE to SD. So all of the requirements for HD editing applied. Unless you want to downconvert SD in camera, in which case it comes out as regular DV codec. But then if you want an HD version you'll have to capture all the footage again and reedit them the exact same way.
 
I figured that I would capture in SD, edit, and then, when needed, recapture the footage this is actually used in the project in HD.
 
Bus No. 8 said:
I figured that I would capture in SD, edit, and then, when needed, recapture the footage this is actually used in the project in HD.
Click to expand...

In SD, the A1 acts like any other DV camera, so no problem there. But I have no idea how you're going to restore your cut later on with HD footage; it's basically editing everything again from stratch.
 
This is starting to get off topic, but I guess it's ultimately related, so...

jade8472 said:
But I have no idea how you're going to restore your cut later on with HD footage; it's basically editing everything again from stratch.
Click to expand...

Really? I'm thinking this is just a form of offline editing. Once the edit is complete then the clips are replaced in full resolution, but the transitions, titles, etc. remain intact. Someone please correct me if I'm hopelessly wrong.

Perhaps I need to clarify that I would shoot in HD, capture in SD, edit in SD and then recapture in HD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top