Answer to why HVX vs. HDV

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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...
 
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!!
 
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...
 
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:
 
DC said:
Fast action could be fine or it might not be. Anything shot with HDV could be fine or it might not be..
Click to expand...

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.
 
TedRR said:
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:
Click to expand...

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.
 
TedRR said:
we can get back to the fact that on equal lighting and talent, the HVX should beat out any HDV.
Click to expand...
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.
 
brianluce said:
that statement is totally wrong. check out adam wilt's page, he rates mini DV as slightly superior to beta sp.
Click to expand...

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:
 
Ranger said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
TedRR said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
TedRR said:
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:
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
imgentertainment@mac said:
Good to know

And your right about listening to the client when he tells you how to shoot
Click to expand...
ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS listen to the client! (Just don't pay attention)
 
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 :)
 
Jarred Land said:
brilliant argument there chief....... lol. You do realize that Mpeg2 is 12 years old now right?
Click to expand...

see below...

xray said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top