HD versus HDV:Truth versus Hype

E

ericcosh

Well-known member
I've seen alot of hype with regard to some of the new cameras put out by both Sony and JVC and their claim that it's "HD", or at least making the implication that it is. As an example, JVC had a huge sign at their booth at NAB saying "Pro-HD".

It's my understanding regarding the new Sony, JVC, and soon to be released Panasonic AG-HVX200, that only the HVX200 is truly HD. The rest are in reality "High"DV.

My question is this. What are the real differences between the two with regard to visual quality? In other words, if you're shooting say a wedding using either the Sony or JVC camera that records directly to regular DV tape, you edit it say using FCP5, and take it out to DVD (when that finally comes about), will you notice that much of a difference between HDV and HD? By that much of a difference I mean, would a normal client notice right off the blocks that it was HDV versus HD?

I raise these questions because it's one thing to tell your client all the technical jargon as to why HDV is inferior to HD, but I"m much more concerned about the "visual" differences.

Any help on these issues would be greatly appreciated.

PS.
Anyone who would also like to add some of these technical differences would also be welcomed.

eric
 
It's my understanding regarding the new Sony, JVC, and soon to be released Panasonic AG-HVX200, that only the HVX200 is truly HD. The rest are in reality "High"DV.

All of these cameras are HD.
There has been a lot of talk lately about "true HD," which is nothing more than hype.
The definitions for HD are pretty clear, and something is either HD or it is not, there is no grey area.

All of the cameras you mention will record an HD signal to tape.
The amount of compresseion is irrelevant to whether or not a format is defined as being HD.

Just like we have various formats in SD with varying compression schemes and colorspaces. Everything from D1, DidiBeta, BetaSP, DVCPro50, DVCPro, DVCam and DV. These formats are all very different, and they each have their strengths and weaknesses...but they are all SD. There is no such thing as "true SD," just like it is meaningless to talk about "true HD."

My question is this. What are the real differences between the two with regard to visual quality?

Well, no one can answer that as we haven't seen the visual quality of the HVX200 yet, and probably won't for a few months.

As to the amount of artifact visable by the average viewer when it comes to HDV, I would say that seeing the amount of people using HDV these days it can't be as bad as the hype has been. Your best bet is to get your hands on a Z1 for FX1 and see for yourself. Of course, keep in mind that if you are distributing on DVD then your final master will be SD.

I raise these questions because it's one thing to tell your client all the technical jargon as to why HDV is inferior to HD, but I"m much more concerned about the "visual" differences.

Again, HDV is HD.
So to tell your clients that HDV is inferior to HD would be misleading.
Now, if you compare it to a specific format (like DVCProHD) then that's a different story... but they are both HD.

HDV is a specific format, HD is a format category.
Talking about "HDV versus HD" is like talking about "Apples versus Fruit."
I'm sincerely not trying to be a smartass with that comparisson, just trying to clarify my point. :) Now, contrary to popular belief you CAN compare apples to oranges...much like you can compare different HD formats to eachother. Every format has it's advantages and uses for certain projects, just like apples and oranges each have their uses. It's a matter of deciding what works best for your particular situation, and the only way to decide that is to compare them side by side, pros and cons, and see what fits you best. Of course you can't really do that until these cameras are all available.

Anyone who would also like to add some of these technical differences would also be welcomed.

I assume what you're looking for are the technical differences between HDV and DVCProHD?

Here is how they break down:

HDV (in present cameras):
25mbs, compressed audio, 4:2:0 color space, interframe compression.

DVCProHD:
100mbs, uncompressed audio, 4:2:2 color space, intraframe compression.

THe datarate on the HVX will differ depending on the frame rate and format you shoot. So, it could be anywhere from 40mbs to 100mbs (assuming you're talking about HD formats).


In the end, the answers to your questions won't be clear unil the end of the year when you can get your hands on an HVX and put it side by side with an HDV camera.
 
Hi Luis:

I thank you for your very quick and thoughtful response. I would however like to at least clairfy a few things. You are right about it's either HD or it's SD. I think what we have to be very careful about here is "quality". When talking to a client, I would never want to imply that just because I shoot "digital video" that all DV is the same, because it's not! Digital Betacam isn't the same as a $439 single chip mini-DV camera, even though both are SD DV cameras.

The same is going to be found true in the HD field. Maybe we haven't defined HD enough to clarify the quality differences between them, but I will guarantee you those changes are going to be coming and coming very soon. When you have a company like JVC making statements like "Pro-HD" when their output is 25mbs versus up to 100 mbs for the Panasonic, then I guess Panasonic might have to use a new word to describe their camera, maybe something like "Super Pro HD".

Do you see my point Luis? There is a difference in HD quality. How will the public know the difference when you have manufacturers "hyping" their product by bundling everything under one term "HD"?

It will be interesting to see how it all sorts out. For now at least, I'll think of the Sony and JVC cameras as HDV and the 200 when it comes out as HD.

eric
 
HDV is to HDCAM SR, like DV is to Digital Betacam. Both HDCAM and DVCproHD is like DVCpro50 is to Digital Betacam. That is HDV is low end "HD", HDCAM and DVCproHD are mid range to high end "HD" and HDCAM SR is very top end "HD". Roughly speaking, that is.

JVC ProHD is HDV. Just with a better sounding name. They're trying to elevate the perfomance of HDV by a few tweaks, and it looks good, but it's still low to mid range.

Panasonic are using a mid range codec, DVCproHD, but again putting it on a low to mid range camera. What the end results will look like is anyone's guess, but it certainly sounds promising, and DVCproHD, as a codec, does tend to look better than HDV as a codec, but it's not as simple as that. A camera is more than a codec - it's an entire system that includes the lens, the camera operator and the workflow too.

The big jump in HD quality comes from going from the cameras with 1/3" chips to 2/3" chips, just as it does with SD.

As for the public knowing the difference - they don't, they won't and they will never see the faults we spot in video footage.

Graeme
 
I think what we have to be very careful about here is "quality". When talking to a client, I would never want to imply that just because I shoot "digital video" that all DV is the same, because it's not!

Absolutlely... that's what I was saying about the SD formats, and the same goes for HD. But, although some may be "better" or "worse" for your particular application, they are still HD or SD. I think we're on the same page here.
Of course quality is an issue, but your original comparison just didn't make any sense (HDV vs. HD).


Maybe we haven't defined HD enough to clarify the quality differences between them, but I will guarantee you those changes are going to be coming and coming very soon.


Well, it's not up to us to define HD, just like we didn't define SD standards.
I'm with you 100% on comparing formats and clarifying the differences between them, that always needs to be done. But the definitions as set, and HDV is an HD format, there is no getting around it. People can say it isn't HD, but they will be just as wrong as I would if I said Hi8 video wasn't SD because I thought it wasn't good enough.


When you have a company like JVC making statements like "Pro-HD" when their output is 25mbs versus up to 100 mbs for the Panasonic, then I guess Panasonic might have to use a new word to describe their camera, maybe something like "Super Pro HD".

"ProHD" is a marketing term, it is the name of their camera line.
It is really a nonsense name that just sounds good.
But I agree, it's misleading because many people thought it was a new format (myself included), and in fact it's now biting JVC in the ass a bit.
But, in the end, the camera is an HD camera and you can't blame a manufacturer for hyping their own product. They will ALWAYS do that, that's why it is important to understand what's going on behind the scenes and get past the hype (which was the goal of your original post). Of course it doesn't sound like I gave you the answer you wanted :)

Do you see my point Luis? There is a difference in HD quality.How will the public know the difference when you have manufacturers "hyping" their product by bundling everything under one term "HD"?

First off, all of these products are HD. There is no false advertising there.
They are all HD.

That said, manufacturers have ALWAYS hyped their own products, and they will continue to do so in the future. If it's not the "HD" banner in cameras, it's the "realtime" revolution that we saw in NLE's in the late 90's.... or the "lossless" editing systems which weren't exactly uncompressed as many thought....
As all car commercials remind us, "your mileage may vary."

How will the public know?
They will do their research, they will look at the facts and not just the brochures.
They will learn.

Anyone unwilling to learn about a camera and a format before spending up to $10,000 on new gear deserves any problems or dissapointments they get from their gear, quite honestly.

It will be interesting to see how it all sorts out. For now at least, I'll think of the Sony and JVC cameras as HDV and the 200 when it comes out as HD.

Well, think of them however you like...but, again, they are all HD.
It is black and white.
Again, HD does not say anything about quality, compression, colorspace, etc.
ONLY the frame size.

HD is not a format.

HDV and DVCProHD are formats.

Your division between HDV and HD is not only meaningless, it only confuses the issue and will probably confuse others too.

I think we agree on these issues Eric, it's just an issue of semantics.
But when you're dealing with standards, there isn't much wiggle room for what is considered part of a standard and what isn't.

I'm not saying I like it, but HDV is an HD format.
No way around it.


eric[/QUOTE]
 
Graeme & Luis:

I thank both of you for imput. Your answers have helped me better understand the HD question. I do now see that using a term HD to define a format just doesn't wash. I'm sure that many others reading your answers will also be helped with questions they may have had regarding the world of HD.

Thanks again,

eric
 
I think it's a bit like saying "I shoot on SD". Nobody says that. We spell out what format we shoot on -- whether it's VHS, or DigiBeta. We never reference the all-encompassing video standard (which would be "standard-definition video").

So with the introduction of HD, people have begun to refer to it as if it were a format, rather than a video standard. DVCPRO-HD is a format, and HDCAM-SR is a format, and HDV is a format (well, two, actually, or three if you count ProHD as its own format).

It is confusing, and I don't know what the right way to spell it out is. For example, you could use a $25,000 SDX900 and shoot 4:1:1 DV on it. Is it fair to say you're shooting DV? Yes, because you are. But you're clearly delivering a far superior product than the guy down the street shooting on a $299 Sharp ViewCam DV camera. Yet he could say he's shooting "DV" too.

We don't just say that we shoot "SD", because the guy shooting Digital Betacam is shooting SD, and so's the guy who's shooting on an 8mm camcorder. The term conveys no information (other than to say that it's not HD) so it's meaningless.

I don't know what a clear and easy way would be to make the distinction, especially to a potentially not-educated-in-video-standards clientele.
 
Barry_Green said:
But you're clearly delivering a far superior product than the guy down the street shooting on a $299 Sharp ViewCam DV camera.
Click to expand...

But, then the guy down the street could mumble his words when he says "ViewerCam"
making clients think he shoots "VariCam" and you could lose all your business to him.

That's cold reality. These are strange times. :undecided
 
In all seriousness, Apple markets Final Cut Pro as being three quality points:

DV
SD
HD

There's a difference and clients that what the next level will pay for it. Though certainly HDV
blurs the lines, it won't change anything for people except those that shoot weddings.
Big production companies and ad agencies will know the difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top