HD100 vs HVX200 vs XL H1 vs HDFX

[Luis Caffesse]

HDV about a 20mbps format, DVCPRO HD 100mbps. I could be a little off but that's the specs I was given, something like that. Anyway that's a lot data.

I know this has been mentioned in the past, but it's worth repeating.

Keep in mind that at 24fps DVCProHD is actually a 40Mb/s format.
If you're shooting 1080/24P then in terms of space you will need to be able to handle 100Mb/s, but once the pulldown frames are removed from 1080/24P DVCProHD footage the datarate is 40Mb/s. While that's still a pretty give difference, it's not 5 times more data than HDV.


*Edited to add*
DOH!
Just read ThisIsWells' post.
That's what I get for responding before I finished reading the thread.

 

[mmm]

Luis,

That is 720p24 DVCPRO HD, it runs at 40Mbps. 720p30 = 50Mbps and 720p60 = 100Mbps

With 1080p24 and 1080p30, it is always carried in a 100Mbps 60i stream. You MAY (not sure about this!) be able to ditch the extra frames (6 out of 30per second) in the NLE (not on P2 or Firestore) but you would still have an 80Mbps datarate. I also don't believe you could drop the frames and stay in DVCPRO HD, you would have to re-encode.

 

[mezelf27]

What are you thinking HDV is horrible. Now thats footage not worth archiving...MPEG2? What were they thinking? It's so CONSUMER! Huh.

An now you shoot on miniDV? What are you thinking?

Anyhow there's nothing wrong with MPEG2, it is the way forward,, because the datarate to quality ratio is MUCH MUCH MUCH higher then with MiniDV (in case you didn't know...)

 

[mezelf27]

No, not accurate. The basics are right but the conclusion reached is wrong.

It's true that HDV samples the original 24 frames, and that it records them within a 60p data stream (which is also what it outputs to analog). So every even frame gets recorded twice, and every odd frame gets recorded three times. It's 2:3 pulldown, but frame-based instead of field-based.

Which led you to your 8mbps conclusion -- and that's the part that's inaccurate. Because MPEG-2 is interframe, and because the recorded frames are exact duplicates, the MPEG encoder can encode the duplicate frames extraordinarily efficiently: basically it encodes just a flag that says "oh yeah, repeat that last frame bit-for-bit." So it takes up practically no bandwidth -- that means that the 24fps mode, even though it's carried within a 60p container, is actually the most efficient compression method for HDV. You get the most bandwidth allocated per pixel in 720/24p HDV than in any other flavor of HDV. That's one of the main reasons why I say that JVC's 24P HDV is the best HDV you'll ever see.

Indeed, it can't be said better. The encoder knows it has to encode the same info, so it just ads a 'repeat'-flag, taking next to nothing of datarate. If the framerate was 10, images would be even better. That's why I trust 24 and 25 p on HDV at 19.7 Mb/s, but I wouldn't trust 60p at 19.7 ...

 

[magji2000]

Now about the data rate of the format, I guess I am not getting this part right, some are saying:

Quote:

"HDV about a 20mbps format, DVCPRO HD 100mbps. I could be a little off but that's the specs I was given, something like that. Anyway that's a lot data.

I know this has been mentioned in the past, but it's worth repeating.

Keep in mind that at 24fps DVCProHD is actually a 40Mb/s format.
If you're shooting 1080/24P then in terms of space you will need to be able to handle 100Mb/s, but once the pulldown frames are removed from 1080/24P DVCProHD footage the datarate is 40Mb/s. While that's still a pretty give difference, it's not 5 times more data than HDV."

End Quote

Now to my understanding, in the tape world, which the DVCPRO HD should still be considered as because of the Higher End DVDPRO HD cameras that actually use tape and will remain to do so, the data rate shouldn't change ever because tape is tape and the recorded tape speed on the tape will remain the same. What I am trying to say is that to make everything compadible and workable, all recordings need to keep a same consistant speed (both physical on tape and data) to keep things the most compandible even if the extra data is needed or not. Because not every one is going to edit on the computer and eventually we need tapes to broadcast.

So if we could drop the data rate as sugguested, then technically we would get more record time for media. On on tape systems the tape speed could slow. Like digital cameras in which the low ISOs don't take as much data as the higher ISOs. But spec wise, I don't see this, we are given a single record time regardless of what is shot. So this leaves me to believe that the data is in there weather it is really needed or not (it will use the full 100mbps regardless if needed). Also I would think that variable data rates would cause problems or make it more difficult to edit especially if we mixed footage with different data rates. If you think about it it wouldn't make sense because if I am using some shots at 40mbps and others at 80mbps, and if the final product is 80mbps I have to increase the 40 in editing. Do you know what I mean, I wouldn't make sense because in the editing process that would mean extra work for the format to convert everything back and forth. I think that they would keep things constant to make it the most workable possible that way everyone would play nicely. And being that DVCPRO HD is still a compressed format it would be such a pain to juggle things around.

Also to the other comment that MPEG2 is so bad and not worth archiving, well isn't that what the stations are broadcasting their HD Feeds at? I mean its not the greatest to edit, we have to deal with GOPs but that in theory isn't so bad and software wise over time that should get to a point where thats not going to matter much.

 

[mezelf27]

That's why there's GOPs in MPEG2.... The datarate is constant over all GOPs (Group of Pictures), not over all frames (otherwise we all better shot 250p and converted it to whatever we wanted and get GREAT slo-mo too... )

In the JVC 6 frames constitute 1 GOP. you could think: 30p = 5 GOPs/s, 24p = 4 GOPs/s, but that's wrong, it is ALWAYS written as 60p to tape. BUT The encoder knows how to encode i.e., it knows where to put most data. so if in those six frames (of 1 GOP) there are 3 actual frames and 3 'repeat-frames', virtually the complete bandwith for 1 GOP goes into those three frames, making them exceptionally well ecoded with an absolute minimum of loss.Obviously, If there are 6 actual frames in the GOP, the bandwith needs to be spread over those 6 frames.

 

[Nathyn]

Okay, but consider this: with the FireStore for the HVX, you should be able to save FOUR hours of 720/24p on it... :laugh:

Don't you dare play with my emotions Barry Green! Four hours of 720/24p on one Firestore? That changes a lot actaully. I could sacrafice the form factor for the space. How much is that in minutes to gigs. (I mean for editing. How much space are we talking for 720/24p on a harddrive for six to ten hours of footage).

Really? It's nearing the end of 2005 and I still haven't had a single client request HD, nor would they pay a nickel extra for it.

Have you told anyone you could do it? The guy who hired me mainly for my boasting of 24p "filmlook" blah blah blah at a time when clients didn't know 24p was. But they knew what "filmlook" meant. I don't get a lot of "clients" considering I'm mostly indie film but this guy only knew what he saw looked like film to him. He hired me four times. Once for a doc and three times to complete a short.

If you've actually found someone who's actually willing to pay for HDV, and pay more than they would for SD, well, that's great and a good incentive to make the switch. But don't just go off a gut feeling, actually test it out and see if there is such a client base there and if they'd actually pay more.

You tell them it's worth it and tell them and if you can show them why. The worse they can say is no and they usually say yes.

Not trying to be contradictory, but keep in mind that we don't know *anything* about the lens on the Canon yet. While we do know the JVC's, and we can guess that Canon will deliver a better lens, it's far from a known quantity.

True and I am only guessing as state but I'm betting that for $9000 the money is in the lens. And if it is what I think it is. (A hardcore HD lens but on the cheap end) there should be less for people to complain about. I would love to have a JVC but the problems it had are scary. I was serious about not even considering it until I knew the problems are fixed. You're backing is the only thing that's makes me even think about second guessing that.

One thing we can say is that the manual control on the JVC lens is likely to be significantly better than the manual control on the Canon lens, seeing as it seems to be derived directly from the existing XL2 stock 20x lens.

But the few times I've used an XL the manual focus has never been an issue.

We could also say that the OIS and autofocus of the Canon lens are far superior to the JVC's (because the JVC doesn't have any at all). Other than that, it's all speculation at this point.

True but educated guessing. I'm thinking that the price points of these cams, you better be packing something raw if you're coming out the box with a $9000 and the only thing I can see possible is a better lens. Manual focus and being interchangeable for many aren't enough to warrant $9000 when you can buy Panasonic or JVC for less. (Actually it would be hilarious if Sharped dropped the best HDV camera ever made. I'd love the irony).

Okay, this is really puzzling. You say you'll use the Canon because it's less expensive? How? Presuming you're using the FireStore, the HVX+FireStore will be less than $7995, the Canon+FireStore will be around $10,500. If you're basing your choice on affordability, the HVX beats it six ways to Sunday. And you'll never need a deck with the HVX, whereas if you're shooting tape you'd definitely want a deck for the Canon -- and that means another $3,000. And if you want to edit on a lesser computer, you'll find that the G4 will do a lot better with DVCPRO-HD than it would with processor-hungry HDV.

I'm basing it on the expense of shooting and storing HD for editing etc. Of course if this DVCPro HD is as compact as you say the storage doesn't seem to be a problem but I would want an HD master so I would need a deck versus shooting on HDV. Would I be right saying I could make a master on DV tape that could be shown or HDTV with pretty good resolution or am I completely wrong here?

You might have to re-evaluate this cost thing, because the DVCPRO-HD solution is way less expensive than the Canon HDV solution.

If what you say is true then it all sounds good and only thing I need to see now is the image. Back to SMS in December I guess (they're the Panasonic guys here in Chi).

-Nate

 

[sonisfear]

I think the administrators of this forum should make an additional url/domain


www.HD100user.com

I love ...I repeat love my HD100...
The imaging is great...
The form factor is great..
I didn't have any problems with dead pixels.
the lens is superb (for this price point)

the only minus for me (not really a minus) is the manual focus. The DVX had spoiled me like driving a automatic car and then driving standard up and down hills. Through a long wedding day it gets tiring. Having said that it is amazing how instinctual manually focus has become. the plus side of this I can now work in any broadcast environment and shoot with the pros.

 

[Barry_Green]

Now to my understanding, in the tape world, which the DVCPRO HD should still be considered as because of the Higher End DVDPRO HD cameras that actually use tape and will remain to do so, the data rate shouldn't change ever because tape is tape and the recorded tape speed on the tape will remain the same.

Which is one reason why all manufacturers are moving away from tape and developing tapeless systems...

and eventually we need tapes to broadcast.

Why? Tape's old-school. You don't need tape to broadcast. Lots of local broadcasters will accept a DVD, you can transmit an MPEG-2 file, all sorts of non-tape-based ways...

So this leaves me to believe that the data is in there weather it is really needed or not (it will use the full 100mbps regardless if needed).

Nope. Because the data is stored as data, it only stores what it needs. We are not limited by tape here, so there's no reason to cling to the limitations imposed by tape.

Also I would think that variable data rates would cause problems or make it more difficult to edit especially if we mixed footage with different data rates.

Nope. FCP-HD has been working with variable-frame-rate VariCam data for about a year now. It's already out there, already established. If you have a lame editing program maybe you'll have a problem with it, but any reasonable editor can support it. Vegas has supported variable frame rates for at least a couple of years, probably longer.

 

[Barry_Green]

How much is that in minutes to gigs. (I mean for editing. How much space are we talking for 720/24p on a harddrive for six to ten hours of footage).

720/24p is 2.5 minutes per gig. It's about twice as much storage space as HDV 720/24p, and about 60% more space than HDV 1080.

Have you told anyone you could do it?

Well, sure -- we've done HD shoots for high-end commercials, etc. But those are $50k to $100k projects. What I'm saying is nobody has yet asked for HDV, or for a low-cost product to be done on high-def.

You tell them it's worth it and tell them and if you can show them why. The worse they can say is no and they usually say yes.

But -- why is it worth it? I'm talking about the local commercial guy, or the infomercial/corporate film person here. What do they get from having spent more to have their product shot on HDV?

I would love to have a JVC but the problems it had are scary. I was serious about not even considering it until I knew the problems are fixed. You're backing is the only thing that's makes me even think about second guessing that.

I'll know more next week -- mine finally arrived at EVS; I'm wiring the money to them today so the cam should be here next week!

But the few times I've used an XL the manual focus has never been an issue.

Really? I hated using the manual focus on that camera. And yes, I did use the word hate. The XL H1 should be better, because it allows for MF00-MF99 readout.

I'm thinking that the price points of these cams, you better be packing something raw if you're coming out the box with a $9000 and the only thing I can see possible is a better lens.

Well, I sure hope the lens is "up to snuff". But that's not the only thing; remember they're supporting 1080 vs. 720, that'll be worth it to some people (especially those networks that have chosen to broadcast 1080/60i). And it can do "reality" video too, at 1080/60i; the JVC can't shoot "reality"-looking footage in high def. So that'll matter to some people as well. I don't know if it'll justify a 50% price differential for a lot of folks, certainly not for indie filmmaking folks, but for some people that lack of "reality" look is a dealbreaker, and the Canon does at least offer it.

Of course if this DVCPro HD is as compact as you say the storage doesn't seem to be a problem

720/24p DVCPRO-HD is 40 megabits per second. 1080 HDV is 25 megabits, and 720 HDV is 19 megabits. So it's still more space, but not tremendously more space (not like the 100 megabits of 1080).

Would I be right saying I could make a master on DV tape that could be shown or HDTV with pretty good resolution or am I completely wrong here?

Not sure what you're asking. Making a master on an HVX to DV tape? If that's what you mean, then be aware that it'd be a standard-def DV recording, so you'd be giving away all the high-defness of the image.

 

[Antoine_Fabi]

Tape has three advantages:

1-original footage archiving is cheap because tape is cheap.
2-once recorded, no need to immediately download the data.
3-no need to carry any other capture device.

BUT...

tapes have also disavantages:

1-longer time to transfer data to hard drives.
2-droupouts (although i have experiment maybe 4 or 5 times in 200hres of DV shooting in all conditions)
3-one recording format only.


As soon as price and weight will go down for hard drive capture, tape will be useless.
Bu for now, tape is still very convenient and affordable,...and not dead at all.

...the FireStore may change all that...

 

[Barry_Green]

Bu for now, tape is still very convenient and affordable,...and not dead at all...

Tape is still in use, yes, but it's dead as far as technology goes. Nobody is going to spend another penny in R&D to develop tape any further. Its game is over.

It's like BetaSP -- yes people are still using it, but Sony hasn't spent a penny to develop a new BetaSP product in years. They discontinued BetaSP cameras a while ago (2 years ago I think?) BetaSP is dead as far as development, it's been completely replaced by IMX and DVCAM. That doesn't mean the existing BetaSP cameras aren't used, but it does mean that technology is dead.

Just like tape in general. I think MicroMV was the last new videotape mechanism we'll ever see introduced. It's tapeless from here on out, baby! :thumbsup:

 

[Antoine_Fabi]

I understand your point, but i think tape will be used for a long time.
Portable hard drives, P2, Blue Ray etc....will drop in price, size, and convenience, and THEN, yes i think tape will disapear.

...but i think we'll still use tape for many years.

...time will tell.

 

[Barry_Green]

Tape will be used, yes; just like BetaSP tape is still in use at some places. I'm just saying that there won't be any more development put into it.

We will probably still see some new cameras introduced that use tape too, but they'll use existing already-amortized tape drives (like HDV does) instead of developing new tape systems.

People kept asking "why can't we just put HDV at 50 megabits and put that on a faster tape?" Because nobody's going to work on tape systems anymore -- there won't be a faster tape developed. Sony solved the faster-bitrate problem by using optical disc; their new XDCAM-HD system allows for 35-megabit recording. And JVC is addressing it by skipping tape and going to hard disk -- the GY-HD7000U will have a higher-bitrate MPEG-2 recording system and even though it has an HDV tape drive in it, that higher-bitrate 1080i system will record straight to hard disk. And Panasonic and JVC have already introduced consumer cameras that record onto SD and Flash memory.

Tape will not disappear from the workplace for quite a while, that is true. I'm just saying it's dead-end technology that won't be developed any further. The manufacturers have moved on -- and, eventually, so will the users.

 

[magji2000]

Well think about this, hard drives can and will crash, memory cards will fail. At least with tape when problems happen, most times its pretty workable. But with other media, one malfunction and you can lose everything.

As for DVDR, I've been using them from the beginning, and sometimes I'll pop a old one in and guess what, somethings wrong with it, can't read it. Or if it get to scratched up you also have problems. Tape will still dominate for at leat 7 more years at the minimum, so its not smart to rush in.

And why are we talking about Betacam SP? What does that have to do with anything. We are in a digital world now, thats why they are not wasting time on developing Betacam SP.

 

[mezelf27]

Tape will be used, yes; just like BetaSP tape is still in use at some places. I'm just saying that there won't be any more development put into it.

Obviously, that day will come. Perhaps a little too early to mention it now, but it won't be far off, but for now, not all of the 3 players in pro-video have commited to a tapeless format - nothing definitive for sure (or what? DVD for Sony, HDD for JVC and P2 for panny?)

 

[Nathyn]

Not sure what you're asking. Making a master on an HVX to DV tape? If that's what you mean, then be aware that it'd be a standard-def DV recording, so you'd be giving away all the high-defness of the image.

Sorry, I just read that sentence and I know it seemed totally crazy. What I meant to say was would I be right saying the with HDV (Canon or JVC) I could make a master on DV tape that could be shown on HDTV with proper resolution or am I completely wrong here?

-Nate

 

[Barry_Green]

You're referring to mastering your program in high-def to an HDV tape? Well, it could look pretty darn good, or it might not -- depends on how much post work you do. Recompressing HDV is very lossy and really takes a hit. If you do a cuts-only edit, and are using an editor that knows how to use smart GOP grouping, you could probably master it to HDV without much trouble. If you're having to recompress the whole timeline, you may not be all that thrilled with what the final product looks like (or you may -- maybe your level of acceptance would still be satisfied with recompressed HDV...)

In other words, it's basically a subjective question. Adam Wilt did a lot of HDV testing a few months ago for DV magazine, and his comment was that recompressing HDV causes it to really degrade very quickly. You may or may not find it acceptable, but if you do then obviously it's the cheapest way to master out your project.

 

[Nathyn]

So how do you get your finished product from your Mac (or PC) to the studio? I don't want to recompress it. What are my options on this? Do you have to master on HD tape, is that it?

-Nate

 

[mezelf27]

You'll need to recompress it anyway... No way around that. But with some intermediate (lossless)b codec you could limit the damage done by recompressing (only once). Depending on what NLE you work, perhaps CineForm?