HDV versus DVCProHD in Post

David Saraceno

David Saraceno

Moderator
Staff member
In another forum, a user stated:

"DVCProHD has less horizontal resolution than other HD codecs (including HDV), so technically it's not as good a post format in that regard."

I've made all the regular responses.

Any body with more understanding of the technical side have a couple of good responses?
 
I'm tired of hashing the same crap over again with folks like that.

Look, when I shoot something, the LAST thing I want is VARIABLE compression based on what some engineer decides is important in the image.

I LOVE DVCPro HD and would never consider HDV for its I frame-based compression codec.

HDV is fine for others, just not for me.
 
Matt:

Part of the issue I have having with this guy is a pdf from the Discovery Channel HD that treats HVX200 footage the same as HDV.

He keeps claiming that HDV, when captured to an intermediate codec such as prores, is everybody as good as DVCProHD.
 
Well he's completely wrong, for numerous reasons.

First, Discovery HD treats DVCPRO-HD as a completely unrestricted acquisition medium and is acceptable as a final mastering format. HDV meets none of those requirements.

The confusion comes in because Discovery lumps all the 1/3" camcorders together, regardless of what format they shoot on. So the HVX's DVCPRO-HD format is vastly superior to HDV in many ways, but because the HVX itself is a 1/3" camcorder and therefore subject to the same 15% limitation as HDV camcorders receive, certain people like to think that DVCPRO-HD is no better. It's simply fallacious logic.

Besides, I was in NZ last week and heard from the guys at Natural History New Zealand -- they shoot tons of stuff on their HVXs, and Discovery broadcasts every bit of it. Then again, I'm sure they broadcast plenty of HDV as well, under the "don't ask, don't tell" kind of treatment that a lot of shows go through.

DVCPRO-HD and HDV both make certain compromises; 720p DVCPRO-HD gives up horizontal resolution, 720p HDV gives up 4:2:2 color and temporal resolution. 1080/50i DVCPRO-HD gives up nothing as compared to 1080i HDV, it's just better across the board. 1080/60i DVCPRO-HD has slightly less horizontal spatial resolution, but again it has twice the color res and no motion issues.

Simple fact is: Sony has three general classes of HD recording. They put HDCAM at the top (well, not the top/top, that'd be HDCAM-SR), but HDCAM is at the top of the general-use products. Then there's XDCAM-HD. Then at the bottom is HDV. DVCPRO-HD is not a competitor to HDV, it's a competitor to HDCAM.

If someone wants to argue a specific camera's performance, that's one argument, but they should keep their arguments separate. Discovery accepts DVCPRO-HD as an unrestricted acquisition and mastering/delivery medium. They do not accept HDV unrestricted or for delivery or mastering.
 
David S. said:
In another forum, a user stated:

"DVCProHD has less horizontal resolution than other HD codecs (including HDV), so technically it's not as good a post format in that regard."
Click to expand...
Technically, for horizontal resolution, the other user is absolutely, completely, 100% right. (Though maybe not for 50Hz 1080i ;)) The important words are "*in that regard*" - if he was claiming it to be a worse post format, period, it would be a different matter.

You may point out that *in other regards* DVCProHD may be superior, rather than challenging his quote as it stands. And yes, the front end of the camera is likely to have far more relevance to overall quality than recording codec.
 
Last edited:
David S. said:
Part of the issue I have having with this guy is a pdf from the Discovery Channel HD that treats HVX200 footage the same as HDV.

He keeps claiming that HDV, when captured to an intermediate codec such as prores, is everybody as good as DVCProHD.
Click to expand...
I believe they may treat HVX200 the same as other HDV cameras, but that is because of the 1/3" chips issue, *NOT* anything to do with codec. The two issues should be kept separate, which he does not seem to be doing.
 
Progressive footage from the HVX LOOKS a hell of a lot better than HDV. I would love anyone to disagree. In fact I LOVE it when other shooters disagree because then it just gives HVX shooters an edge.
 
gregg, i am not trying to disagree with you, but having seen comparisons between both the HVX from P2 and the XH A1 off of hdv, and also having had the opportunity to mess around with both types of images in post, i can honestly say that YEs, there is a difference, is it enormous, no and to the general viewer, the difference is too scarce to tell. Now when we get into large scale color grading and mattes such as keying, yes there is a large difference,

but when you say " looks a hell of a lot better" thats a bit of an over statement.
 
"hell of a lot better" is an overstatement and "enormous" is not? Aren't we arguing terminology now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top