Answer to why HVX vs. HDV

[izoneguy]

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/...tefn=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.