HDV vs. DVCProHD

[davbeisner]

Okay, so I'm new in the HD world, just getting into it, and I've spent the last six weeks at my job doing nothing but researching the different formats and cameras and learning about HD video. Right now I'm trying to convince my company that DVCProHD is better than HDV because it uses a higher bitrate, has better chroma subsampling, and the P2 workflow is just plain sweet. But they still want to try to find a cheaper camera--something along the lines of the Canon XH-A1 or equivalent (we have the budget for the 200A, but they like to pinch pennies...not necessarily a bad thing, but a pain sometimes). But those use the HDV codec which, I've learned from my research, is a pain to work with. Am I right about that? And if so, what's the best way to convince my superiors that we need to go with DVCProHD (specifically the HVX200A) over an HDV camcorder? And if I'm wrong, please explain to me how I'm wrong and why HDV is better. Storage space is not an issue.

 

[DChang]

This topic has been covered greatly, so I recommend a DVCPROHD vs search.

But I will try to find the strong points to help.

Obviously the tapeless workflow has tons of advantages over HDV on miniDV.

Also the variable frame rates which I am sure they will really like.

As far as codecs go, you are more likely to run into problems with HDV than DVCPRO. If they want to get technical you can have them read on how each works, GOP, etc.

You might also be interested in the 170 that comes out in September. Tons of useful features for any serious production company.

As for personal use, and for some pro use, for the price of a 200A you can get an A1 and a Letus Extreme...a penny pinchers dream!

Good luck, and try the articles section as well!

 

[DavidBeier]

Tell them that HDV uses inter-frame encoding and is so compressed that many professionals refuse to work with it. Tell them that by using it they are severly limiting who they could possibly sell the footage you shoot to. Also explain that it's going to be much harder on your computer if you're trying to edit HDV because of the amount of compression.

To be honest, it would be easier to give you a good argument if I knew what your business did.

 

[David Saraceno]

One word: conforming time.

errr, two words

 

[davbeisner]

Thanks guys... i've actually found a lot of info on this over at dvinfo.net as well.

I work for a college but rather than teach I produce promotional videos for the college

 

[Huy Vu]

Keep in mind also that it's not just the camera, but the support gears as well. If you can spend half the money and the rest on decent tripods, mics etc. then you'll get more out of it than blowing all your money on a single camera. HDV is an economical way to get into HD, and IMO most of its "weaknesses" are exaggerated.

 

[DavidBeier]

I work for a college but rather than teach I produce promotional videos for the college

I've done promotional videos for schools before but I used my own equipment which I own. If I was trying to convince a college I worked for to go with the DVCProHD over HDV; I'd tell them the following.

-HDV is going to require more system resources when we're editing the videos. Projects are going to take longer and there are going to be more technical hurdles when we're trying to encode stuff.

-The animation may end up looking odd and points and, when compressed for DVD, Blu-Ray, or net streaming, will look even worse.

-In layman's terms, just explain to them it's much lower quality footage. It's four times the compression and it's simply not going to look as professional which, in turn, is going to reflect poorly on the college and the image they're trying to portray in their promotional videos.

-You could also try to sell them on the true slow motion of the HVX200. I've used that in most promotional videos I've done and it's always gotten a great response. It seems silly but it really does make the whole video look more professional and more expensive.

 

[Huy Vu]

-In layman's terms, just explain to them it's much lower quality footage. It's four times the compression and it's simply not going to look as professional which, in turn, is going to reflect poorly on the college and the image they're trying to portray in their promotional videos.

Except that this would be a bald-face lie. Well shot HDV footage is indistinguishable from DVCPRO-HD and if you compress it correctly then there no difference. The advantage of DVCPRO-HD lies in the postproduction phase where if you need to stretch your footage to extreme then you have more headroom to do that. Most people do not do this and certainly not a college's promotional department. Once you've compressed the footage for the web or DVD, you're just throwing all that extra informations away anyway.

Give an honest report to the people who are funding you. It might make sense for them to want to save money on a cheaper camera and it might not be what one you want. But don't give them misleading informations to steer them to your point of view. That's just unethical.

 

[davbeisner]

Thanks Huy Vu, I agree... don't want to be unethical in what I do. But my research has also shown that there are more difficulties with HDV than with DVCProHD and if HDV really did look just the same after post, then why does the BBC accept DVCProHD footage but not HDV footage? I completely agree that they'll look the same for web delivery... not arguing anything there (except the 4:2:2 color space of the DVCProHD will make it look better anyway) but the really important stuff is going out on Blu-Ray and that's where it's gonna make the difference for us.

 

[seunosewa]

- The XH-A1 is much cheaper than the HVX. 1 point for HDV
- The XH-A1 uses the inexpensive DV tape medium. 2 point for HDV
- You can edit HDV natively on the latest versions of most NLEs. 3 points for HDV.

Companies are in business to make a profit. You don't buy a $7000 cam when a $3000 cam would do the job just as well with lower running costs. The HVX has a couple advantages over the XH-A1, but is it really 2 times better? No. It is just slightly better overall - and that's just because resolution isn't everything.

 

[David Saraceno]

Once you've compressed the footage for the web or DVD, you're just throwing all that extra informations away anyway.

We shot with a Z1U compressed to DVD, and were not impressed. The 25 mbps footage with Long GOP didn't look good at all. Original footage was generally good and sharp.

However, using 100 mbps with a HVX200 created qualitatively better DVDs.

At capture, HDV has already thrown away alot more information than DVCProHD. Alot more. Not to mention color space.

 

[davbeisner]

Met with the director of our film program this morning and I presented the pro's and con's behind the HVX, the EX1, the XL-H1, and the HD200U. Actually printed off the full-color long form brochures on each one to take to him...I did my best to argue FOR every camera and just present the cons of each, rather than to argue against it. Also gave him an excel spreadsheet that lists out all the possible video formats and all the details on compression, bitrate, color space, etc. for each one.

He likes the HVX best of all of them (helps that its the only one of the above he's had a chance to actually put his hands on) and he's going to second my recommendation for that camera.

I'll keep y'all posted on what happens...

 

[Kevin Shaw]

... if HDV really did look just the same after post, then why does the BBC accept DVCProHD footage but not HDV footage?

If you read the BBC specs carefully you'll find the same restrictions for footage from the HVX200 as from HDV cams, which reflects the quality limitations of cameras with small (<1/2") sensors. Conversely, several network TV shows use HDV cameras including "Deadliest Catch," so the HDV format can work even in demanding broadcast environments. As discussed elsewhere DVCProHD is a good recording format, but it's not the only functional answer for situations like yours.

 

[joshtownsend]

Changing P2 cards and backing them up on a Crab Boat is very unrealistic. You got that point right.

I love my HVX and agree that DVCPROHD is WAY better than HDV...... but If was on the Northwestern in Febuary even I'd use tapes not P2.

But unless your shooting the Deadliest Catch DVCPRO is always better. Especially if you want to do any greenscreen.


josh
www.gainesvilleripper.com

 

[Huy Vu]

And we're talking about HDV and DVCPROHD as if the codec is all that matters. The camera head plays an equally important role in determining resolution, low light performance, dynamic range and the likes. The A1 for example is way sharper than the HVX at 1080p, so you can't just make a blanket statement based on the codec specs.

David S., it's very possible that your compression was off on that DVD. I've downconverted A1 HDV footage into SD, render out uncompressed and burn to DVD with very satisfactory results.

 

[Conrad Radzik]

Haha, I was watching "Behind the Catch" and someone on the show mentioned that less than 1/3 of the cameras that go out actually end up making it back functional.

Just a little off topic, but I thought I should mention it.

 

[DavidBeier]

Except that this would be a bald-face lie.

No, it's an exaggeration; not all that different from the one you make here:

Well shot HDV footage is indistinguishable from DVCPRO-HD and if you compress it correctly then there no difference.

Or perhaps a better example would be here:

Once you've compressed the footage for the web or DVD, you're just throwing all that extra informations away anyway.

This one is particularly perplexing. The idea that the previous compression magically disappears because you're compressing again is just ludicrous. Layering on compression on top of compression doesn't produce great results. Make an MPEG2 file for DVD base of an uncompressed signal compared to a mini-DV signal and the uncompressed tends to look better. If you've got motion artifacts or some color blocking in your HDV footage, those aren't going to magically disappear when you then compress it further for a DVD. They may well be magnified.

We're both guilty making statements that are exaggerating the truth to argue a point.

But don't give them misleading informations to steer them to your point of view. That's just unethical.

Well, I come from a freelance perspective but you'll find that all my clients view me as very ethical because I do my best to save them money, produce better results than anyone in my area, and do it for a cheaper price.

That said, when you're dealing with someone who doesn't know a lot about the technical aspects, you have to dumb it down and yes often exaggerate because they simply don't have the background to make a valid judgement.

There are plenty of professionals on all levels who will not touch HDV because of the compression. I've met countless ones and you can see examples of this on shows such as the 4400 where they'd refused to use any the HDV cameras because of the compression but did go with the HVX200 upon release because of DVCProHD. And yes, I'm willing to exaggerate a point with a client if it's in service of the bigger goal. The bottom line is that he's the one who is going to be operating this camera. He's most likely the one who's going to be dealing with the footage and post-production. If he feels it's the best choice then I don't see an issue with him dumbing things down a bit when he explains why this would be the camera he wants to work with. The accounts aren't going to be in there with him when he has to figure out how to make that swish pan or high-motion shot look less odd because of inter-frame encoding. The administrator may ask him to "make this scene look warmer" or "add a blue tint" but he's not the one who is going to have to then deal with the 4:2:0 color space and the limitations it comes with. Trying to explain to these guys the intricacies of digital work is an exercise in futility. I've had to learn that the hard way. If this is equipment that he'll have to deal with in his job then I don't think there's any issue with him selling it to them in a way he deems appropriate. It's be his head-ache, not theirs.

And we're talking about HDV and DVCPROHD as if the codec is all that matters. The camera head plays an equally important role in determining resolution, low light performance, dynamic range and the likes. The A1 for example is way sharper than the HVX at 1080p, so you can't just make a blanket statement based on the codec specs.

You're right, you can't just make a blanket statement based off anything. I'm guilty of that with my talk of codecs as are you for claiming the two are indistinguishable.

A big part of it comes down to preference. For many, HDV is a pain in the ass they never want to deal with and simply not worth it (and this includes people I know who shoot promotional and college videos). For others, HDV is "good enough." On the flip side, for some the Panasonic's 1080p performance is not worth the hassel and they want something sharper while, for me, it's "good enough" (especially since I always shoot 720p). A lot of this is preference and there are people I respect on all sides who have divergent opinions. This guy came on asking how he can sell the money men on DVCProHD and I gave him some ideas. I assume he's a pro himself so if, in his judgement, that's the codec/camera he wants to use, then go for it.

Companies are in business to make a profit. You don't buy a $7000 cam when a $3000 cam would do the job just as well with lower running costs. The HVX has a couple advantages over the XH-A1, but is it really 2 times better?

I gotta ask where you're getting your numbers from. At a quick glance, the HVX200 is $5200 (not $7000) with a 16 gig P2 card and the XH-A1 is $3300. The A1 is certainly a better bang for the buck (I'm still amazed at how cheap it is compared to all others in the range) but not to the extent you're making it out to be.

 

[Huy Vu]

You're right, you can't just make a blanket statement based off anything. I'm guilty of that with my talk of codecs as are you for claiming the two are indistinguishable.

Ok, how about this? I show you two DVDs, one compressed from A1 HDV footage and and the other from HVX DVCPROHD footage and you tell me which is which. It's not an exaggeration. Provided that you shot and encode it correctly, nobody will be able to tell what the originating format is once it goes into DVD.

That said, when you're dealing with someone who doesn't know a lot about the technical aspects, you have to dumb it down and yes often exaggerate because they simply don't have the background to make a valid judgement.

You go to buy a car and the salesman "dumb down" the specs for you and get you to purchase a more expensive vehicle than you need. Wouldn't you be pissed off?

If he feels it's the best choice then I don't see an issue with him dumbing things down a bit when he explains why this would be the camera he wants to work with.

That's why you be honest and upfront about the pros and cons of the format and let the client make that decision for themselves. If there's a problem down the line, then that's gonna be on their head. I know that if I'm asking somebody for advice then I'll want the most honest answer I can get; I don't like people presuming that I'm too dumb or too ignorant to understand something and make the decisions for me.

BTW, all that talks about "interframe compression artifacts" are a thing of the past. The HDV codec as implemented on the A1 is rock solid. I've shot action scenes with plenty of whip and and have encountered zero problem.

 

[David Saraceno]

Ok, how about this? I show you two DVDs, one compressed from A1 HDV footage and and the other from HVX DVCPROHD footage and you tell me which is which. It's not an exaggeration. Provided that you shot and encode it correctly, nobody will be able to tell what the originating format is once it goes into DVD.

That's exactly my point. I've been creating SD DVDs since DVDs arrived on the desktop more than eight years ago.

I can't count the number of replicated DVDs we've produced.

We shot HDV and used a number of excellent encoders to produce SD DVDs for replication.

They didn't look good. Our clients thought so as well.

The point being that the clients made the decision for us. We just agreed.

Then we compared identically shot SD DVDs created from a Z1U and a HVX200.

Our clients immediately saw the difference. We just agreed.

I haven't shot with your cam, so I can't compare, but I can see how titling and FX holds up with HDV footage

 

[Huy Vu]

Doesn't make sense. The DVD that I author from HDV looks great. Certainly HDV doesn't automatically equal bad DVD. If that's what your client wants then that's great.