HD vs HDV
- Thread starter Joe_Hicks
- Start date
Jeff Brown
Member
Joe, thats a bit like saying what's the difference between SD and MiniDV.
HD refers to High Definition (as in the standard - currently in two flavours either 720 of 1080 resolution). HDV is a codec that compresses information but is still in the HD standard (it is 720 in resolution).
HD covers all High Definition formats (compressed or otherwise) including HDV, DVCProHD, HDcam etc.
If you're question is HVX related as in "is the HVX better than the Z1" then what you mean is what's the difference between DVCProHD and HDV.
Both are compressed HD formats. HDV offers 4:1:1 colour space and is compressed in GOP (group of Pictures) MPEG format at 25mbps. DVCProHD is 4:2:2 and compressed in DVCProHD codec at 100mbps.
There are lots of other threads that cover these issues in much greater depth - I am not a techie by any stretch.
Hope that helps.
HD refers to High Definition (as in the standard - currently in two flavours either 720 of 1080 resolution). HDV is a codec that compresses information but is still in the HD standard (it is 720 in resolution).
HD covers all High Definition formats (compressed or otherwise) including HDV, DVCProHD, HDcam etc.
If you're question is HVX related as in "is the HVX better than the Z1" then what you mean is what's the difference between DVCProHD and HDV.
Both are compressed HD formats. HDV offers 4:1:1 colour space and is compressed in GOP (group of Pictures) MPEG format at 25mbps. DVCProHD is 4:2:2 and compressed in DVCProHD codec at 100mbps.
There are lots of other threads that cover these issues in much greater depth - I am not a techie by any stretch.
Hope that helps.
John Rivers
Active member
Summary - DVCPRO HD offers better color compression, less motion artifacts, and is by FAR easier to edit with than HDV. Lemme emphasize the "BY FAR" part.
If you're more interested in this topic, I recommend reading the tech descriptions of both compressions. Basically, HDV (which is the "flavor" of HD recorded onto everyday MiniDV tape) compresses frames and footage in such a way as to keep the data being recorded at or under 25 mb/s, which is the max rate of MiniDV. DVCPRO HD (Panasonic's format, and the one used in the HVX) doesn't have to worry about making sure footage can fit onto MiniDV since it uses P2 to record. P2 has a 100 mb/s max rate. Thus, it doesn't have to throw away as much data (leading to the better color compression), or do fancy compressing techniques with Groups of Frames (GOPS), which results in it being easier to edit and having less motion artifacting for fast moving shots. Pretty cool stuff though (well, I'm a geek, so I think it's cool, heheh).
Hope this helps.
If you're more interested in this topic, I recommend reading the tech descriptions of both compressions. Basically, HDV (which is the "flavor" of HD recorded onto everyday MiniDV tape) compresses frames and footage in such a way as to keep the data being recorded at or under 25 mb/s, which is the max rate of MiniDV. DVCPRO HD (Panasonic's format, and the one used in the HVX) doesn't have to worry about making sure footage can fit onto MiniDV since it uses P2 to record. P2 has a 100 mb/s max rate. Thus, it doesn't have to throw away as much data (leading to the better color compression), or do fancy compressing techniques with Groups of Frames (GOPS), which results in it being easier to edit and having less motion artifacting for fast moving shots. Pretty cool stuff though (well, I'm a geek, so I think it's cool, heheh).
Hope this helps.
Last edited:
Jeff, John--
Thanks for the input.
So, from what I gather, sounds like DVCPRO HD is the way to go for quality. I do have concerns about the data rate. 100 mb/s is some thick stuff.
Couple of questions:
- With the data rate so high, does that slow down render times in post over standard DV? If so, how much roughly.
- Given this data rate, seems that you would start talking terabytes instead of gigabytes in choosing storage and scratch space. Any recommendations on this?
- P2 cards with 4gb or 8gb don't seem like they'll go very far at 100 mb/s. Any thoughts on this?
My current system:
Dual AMD 254 Opteron's (single core running at 2.8)
Tyan Thunder 2895 MOBO
4gb RAM
75gb WD Raptor 10K system drive
2- 250gb 7200 Seagate SATA drives
2- 147gb Maxtor Atlas V 10K SCSI drives
Quadro FX 1400 Video Card (soon to be FX 1500)
Thx,
Joe
Thanks for the input.
So, from what I gather, sounds like DVCPRO HD is the way to go for quality. I do have concerns about the data rate. 100 mb/s is some thick stuff.
Couple of questions:
- With the data rate so high, does that slow down render times in post over standard DV? If so, how much roughly.
- Given this data rate, seems that you would start talking terabytes instead of gigabytes in choosing storage and scratch space. Any recommendations on this?
- P2 cards with 4gb or 8gb don't seem like they'll go very far at 100 mb/s. Any thoughts on this?
My current system:
Dual AMD 254 Opteron's (single core running at 2.8)
Tyan Thunder 2895 MOBO
4gb RAM
75gb WD Raptor 10K system drive
2- 250gb 7200 Seagate SATA drives
2- 147gb Maxtor Atlas V 10K SCSI drives
Quadro FX 1400 Video Card (soon to be FX 1500)
Thx,
Joe
Last edited:
booth said:Gotta correct you there Jeff, HDV is 4:2:0 same as Pal DV.
NTSC DV is 4:1:1
And Joe render times in Avid aren't that bad with 1080p DVCProHD. Surprisingly.
Anybody doing DVCPro HD in Premiere 2.0? Curious to know render times there without outboard acceleration...
Joe
DavidBeier
Veteran
Actually, HDV uses 4:2:0 color compression not 4:1:1. They both compress the color to 25% of it's origional size but 4:2:0 does it differently (people on this board have explained it to me and I kind of understood but can't quite articulate it myself).
Anyway, the key things you want to remember is this:
1.HDV Compresses it twice as much as DVCProHD. In HD you only get 1/4 the color resolution but in DVCProHD you get 1/2. Now, some people argue that a good codec can make HDV look just as good. I don't think this is quite true. I've seen some really nice HDV images from the Canon XLH1 but they still don't have quite the color beauty of the HVX. The REAL difference though will be seen when you try to color correct. You ever had a nice mini-DV image from the DVX100 and tried doing some complex color corrections? Ever notice how when you push the image too much, suddenly things that looked like they were one pixel of resolution start to look like four because of the limited sampling? Suddenly the image that was great a little while ago seems to break up? Similar things happen with HDV.
2.HDV compresses frame, DVCProHD has pure frames. Looking at footage this tends to mean that HDV has more motion artifiacts. Once again, there are those that argue that you can't see this much with a good HDV codec. Once again I argue that I've seen good stuff but I still see a bit more compression than with an HVX200. Just like color though, the real test comes with editing when trying to cut between frames and suddenly seeing how the image has been compressed.
Anyway, the key things you want to remember is this:
1.HDV Compresses it twice as much as DVCProHD. In HD you only get 1/4 the color resolution but in DVCProHD you get 1/2. Now, some people argue that a good codec can make HDV look just as good. I don't think this is quite true. I've seen some really nice HDV images from the Canon XLH1 but they still don't have quite the color beauty of the HVX. The REAL difference though will be seen when you try to color correct. You ever had a nice mini-DV image from the DVX100 and tried doing some complex color corrections? Ever notice how when you push the image too much, suddenly things that looked like they were one pixel of resolution start to look like four because of the limited sampling? Suddenly the image that was great a little while ago seems to break up? Similar things happen with HDV.
2.HDV compresses frame, DVCProHD has pure frames. Looking at footage this tends to mean that HDV has more motion artifiacts. Once again, there are those that argue that you can't see this much with a good HDV codec. Once again I argue that I've seen good stuff but I still see a bit more compression than with an HVX200. Just like color though, the real test comes with editing when trying to cut between frames and suddenly seeing how the image has been compressed.