HDV, The Good and Ugly

Anhar_Miah

Anhar_Miah

Veteran
In my view, the reason why HDV was agreed by Sony, Canon and others is beacause:

(a) It builts upon existing technology (miniDV tape)
so no need to built new tape format/ mechanism

(b) With full 35mm CCD/CMOS 4k res cameras very *slowing* comming to light this is the start towards the future of big Hollywood filmaking.

(c) Beacsue of (b) this will cause a trickle down effect in the video world, ie HD (CineAlta, Varicams) will come down in price and be in the day to day ENG, studio/ news/Docu field price range. (if it aint already happing)

(d) That means for the "prosummer" or "indie-filmmaker" market will something more that miniDV, and this is where HDV really shines (from a sony et al view) it gives the higher rez that "prosummers" / "indie-filmmaker" wants BUT puts a CRIPPLING/ consumer factor namely thats its heavly compressed, kind of like the whole Spining type focus on "prosumer" cameras.

(e) average Joe bloggs aka daddy cam will still have miniDV (or maybe DVD camcorder/ even Direct to disk or solid state? who knows) anyway things like 3ccd and will become comman place as well as novelty "movie" effects (i.e pseudo progressive).

SO basically the camcorder hierachy will look like this:
--------------------------------------------
BIG COMPANIES/INDUSTRY (i.e. Hollywood)

4K res, full 35mm CCD/CMOS type cameras.

--------------------------------------------
Your Average TV network/ Studio
Pro HD cams
--------------------------------------------
Prosumer ( ;) hopefully you and me)
HDV
--------------------------------------------
Joe Average/Daddy Cam
3ccd miniDV? some other DVD/DTD or SS format
----------------------------------------------

Bottom line, HDV is crippled deliberatley to stop it from harming its more *expensive* Big cams

Whadya guys think?
 
Re: HDV, The Good and Ugly

Your guess is good as any ones. There’s probably a little more to it, with the additional added functionality to the NLE’s and lower costs decks – the Panasonic HD1200A, it should be conceivable to produce in a “mixed” format. Shoot the money scenes with the professional HD equipment and inter cut with HDV scenes.
 
Re: HDV, The Good and Ugly

We also have to look into this guess work...of having a particular type of camera for a particular type of market in the future....with the perspective of how quickly the real consumer will endorse the idea of replacing his existing TV with the HDTV.

What is the use of a given technology, if an average conumer does not have the necessary equipment (hdtv in this case) to enjoy its real benefits. This is an imp secondary question to be addressed besides the main issue of which camera for whom...
 
Re: HDV, The Good and Ugly

You dont NEED to have a HDTV set to watch HD originated material (it helps though) i mean we watch films on TV (that was originated on 35m film) would that mean we should watch it on a 4K  res TV set?

The thing is that HD is portable, by this I mean if say you go for blow up it is not bad to the average guy (Star Wars, Once Upon a time in Mex etc..) and at the same time is you downsample to SD (DVD etc) it also looks great.

Oh yea as for Europe and the UK HDTV seems to be very far away, i mean it isnt even on the public radar!

maybe the real question is SD is fine for TV and DVD realm but its pushing it a little too far for blow up (well some hold up better than others  :) )

But what would HDV look like blown up  :-[ ??

I hear what ChuckS is saying about cheaper more flexible NLE systems, but what i really dislike about tapes based format is that they are not REALLY non-linear in the sense that until you capture/transfer the material to your hard disk it is still linear, i really wish their is more progress in hard disk/ solid state type cameras.

Untill then DVX will suffice  ;D
 
Re: HDV, The Good and Ugly

I don't remember if it was Barry green who made the comparison of the JVC one with the DVX.

But anyway, this camera sucked in comparison with the DVX, but it has only 1-CCD.

I wonder how the footate of a 3-CCD camera would look like.

But doesn't the cinegamma thing help it have a more cinematic image as well?

All the best

Fidel.
 
Re: HDV, The Good and Ugly

I figure that what realy keeps the divide between us and them is going to be the optics. I visited Arri in London and they have a video dept there, yes Arri Video. What makes it still feel like the real deal is the fact that they can supply you with a bunch of optics that rock. That is what I will never be able to afford. A 14mm prime or . . . . I am no expert, MHO, the cameras can get good and affordable but it is all that glass that seems to always cost the earth, that makes it. I was lucky enough to be with a crew shooting some elemenys with the cinealta for the NAB. This was in January, together with Stargate Digital and one of the designers of the Cinealta from Sony. That was a load of fun!
 
Re: HDV, The Good and Ugly

I don't think it's the manufacture cost that keeps lenses expensive, but rather designing them to very restricted markets. (Not a lot of HD or 35mm film cameras out there to justify selling top glass for a reasonable price). Note that lenses are a lot cheaper when more common formats are used (35mm still SLR, cheap lenses for auto cameras...). When HD becomes popular, and every prosumer video/film maker start going after HD lenses, we will see some cheap alternates to come.

It will happen.

It's just that the change to HD is a huge change, and it's going to take long to complete it. When we do it tough, there will not be long auntil there is a sub 5000 HD camera that holds up to film transfers, the transfer price will probably come down and we will have the pleasure to watch a whole load of feature independent 35mm films that suck. The revolution will be complete. That's what my life is all about, baby! ;D

I'm thinking 15 years, but it could be sooner!
 
Re: HDV, The Good and Ugly

There seems to be an interim step, the transition from 4x3 to 16x9 even in SD. In California, the percentage of 16x9 sets being sold compared to 4x3 sets is much higher. In fact, it is getting difficult to find 4x3 sets for sale. That change has mostly been driven by DVD sales; DVD’s are a 16x9 medium.

If you consider that, the U.S. market for TV and film production grew at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.6% from 1998 to 2002 to a value of $8.9 billion and it is forecast to grow at a CAGR of 5.9% between 2003 and 2007. And that, in the DVD market, total spending reached $11.3 billion in 2002, up 67% from 2001, and is projected to grow at a CAGR of 40.6% through 2006, DVD growth is continuing at a rate exceeding that of the entire TV and motion picture production industries combined.

What does this mean for the independent DV producer? It could mean a lot – first, I believe that we have about a two-year window of opportunity to produce and distribute 16x9 standard definition content. When you watch productions on this site from disjacta – The Waters Edge, ArkhamFilms – California, and others, it is obvious that the quality of the DVX100a is more than acceptable by the consumer/viewer. The most important aspect to a growing market is your ability to “ship.” Get your productions out there as fast as you can. Once HD-DVD gets out there, the bar will be raised quickly leaving many behind to debate the virtues of the XL2 versus the DVX100 etc.
 
Re: HDV, The Good and Ugly

[quote author=Anhar_Miah link=board=nws;num=1089841842;start=0#3 date=07/15/04 at 07:08:35]
But what would HDV look like blown up  :-[ ??[/quote]
It depends on what it starts out looking like. If the HDV footage looked good on a high-def television set, it would probably look great when blown up to film. But if it looks awful, like the one-CCD JVC HD camera, then it would look awful blown up.

HDV has the potential to be much better than DV, but it's going to need better chips and more of them, and it's going to need to run at 24p or (at the worst) 60i. No 30p. The resolution is great -- but the JVC has horrible flat colors and no latitude at all. They'll need to develop better chips before we can see how it'd look on the big screen. JVC has planned to introduce a 3-CCD, 24P, HDV camera with full 1080 resolution -- it'll cost $20,000 but if they get it "right", it would probably look stellar on the big screen.
 
Re: HDV, The Good and Ugly

What????? 20k for a HDV camera? What the hell?

This is going to be more expensive than I thought. Wow!!!
 
Re: HDV, The Good and Ugly

Consider that it matches the SDX900 feature-for-feature (2/3" chips, interchangeable lenses, shoulder-mount, etc) but it's high-def instead of standard-def, and costs $5,000 less. Doesn't sound like a bad deal to me.

Sony's talking about a PD170-style camera with three HDV chips for under $5,000.
 
Re: HDV, The Good and Ugly

Oh, I thought it something similar to the HD1.

In that case, yes it is worth the money.

All the best

Fidel.
 
Re: HDV, The Good and Ugly

a good HD (HDV or DVCProHD or whatever HD) camcorder, interchangeable lenses,

BUT LIGHTWEIGHT please...not a big shoulder cam...

hmmm...would be GREAT !
 
Re: HDV, The Good and Ugly

I prefer bigger cameras, as I handle them with much ease.

I don't know, it is just me. I don't know about other guys.

I loved my old Sony VX9000. That was a big camera, which was then replaced by the Sony VX1000

Anyway, all the best

Fidel.
 
Re: HDV, The Good and Ugly

[quote author=Aejaz link=board=nws;num=1089841842;start=0#2 date=07/15/04 at 04:39:57]We also have to look into this guess work...of having a particular type of camera for a particular type of market in the future....with the perspective of how quickly the real consumer will endorse the idea of replacing his existing TV with the HDTV.

What is the use of a given technology, if an average conumer does not have the necessary equipment (hdtv in this case) to enjoy its real benefits. This is an imp secondary question to be addressed besides the main issue of which camera for whom...[/quote]

I can't speak for your country, but I did 2 years ago. I don't know anyone here that doesn't have an HDTV. Sam's Club sells a 30" 16x9 flat screen HDTV for $669. That one's going into the bedroom. I watch HDTV every day off of sattelite and over the air antenna. I buy movies ib D-VHS because they make a DVD look as bad as a DVD made a VHS tape look.
 
Re: HDV, The Good and Ugly

[quote author=araujofh link=board=nws;num=1089841842;start=0#4 date=07/15/04 at 08:23:37]I don't remember if it was Barry green who made the comparison of the JVC one with the DVX.

But anyway, this camera sucked in comparison with the DVX, but it has only 1-CCD.

I wonder how the footate of a 3-CCD camera would look like.
Fidel.[/quote]

I did an exhaustive review on the JVC (had the camera 3 months). You're right, the 1 chip thing made life difficult, and the camera unusable IMO. So did the lack of full manual controls. The tape format was interesting though. Now Sony comes along with a mock-up of one. A mock-up is a long way from a prototype, which is a long way from a selling product. Who cares?

Now having said that, JVC announces a full size, shoulder mounted 2/3" 3-chip model. Depending on price, that could change things quite a bit.
 
Re: HDV, The Good and Ugly

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=nws;num=1089841842;start=0#8 date=07/15/04 at 19:25:30]
It depends on what it starts out looking like.  If the HDV footage looked good on a high-def television set, it would probably look great when blown up to film.  But if it looks awful, like the one-CCD JVC HD camera, then it would look awful blown up.[/quote]

The JVC HDV footage actually looks better on my 65" HDTV than any DV footage does (relax everyone: I have two DVX-100a's and no JVC HDV cameras).

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=nws;num=1089841842;start=0#8 date=07/15/04 at 19:25:30]HDV has the potential to be much better than DV, but it's going to need better chips and more of them, and it's going to need to run at 24p or (at the worst) 60i.

JVC has planned to introduce a 3-CCD, 24P, HDV camera with full 1080 resolution -- it'll cost $20,000 but if they get it "right", it would probably look stellar on the big screen.[/quote]

Yes, that will be interesting, but I also think the price of that camera has to street at around $12K with lens to get anywhere...
 
Re: HDV, The Good and Ugly

The footage from the JVC HDV didn't impress me that much.

I was going to buy that camera, but after seeing a lot of grabs from the DVX, I definitely went for it. Dude, the DVX rocks!!!

And it took about 8 months to decide. When I was about to buy the DVX100, I heard the new DVX100A was coming out. So, I waited about 6 months for it. It was well worth it.

All the best

Fidel.

PS:I guess I was luckier than those that got the DVX100. I just read the news on time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top