I just use the term "shooting" when refering to the production of a project.
Its not HD its HDV
- Thread starter after_effects
- Start date
I just use the term "shooting" when refering to the production of a project.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Well, that depends on whether you consider MPEG-2 to be a format for original material, even if only I-Frames are recorded. In the case of the last camera I saw a lot of mention of, the Canon HV30, the compromise was for less horizontal resolution, while recording in 1080i, to maintain a lower data rate going onto the tape. (I think there was also a compromise on the audio data rate as well...) There are a number of "profiles" that can be used, and so a manufacturer can claim 'hd' compatibility, but those profiles do have compromises.
This is plainly untrue. The resolution of a camera depends on the camera head, not just on the codec. This is why the 100 mbps DVCPROHD codec of the HVX results in only comparable resolution with the 25mbps HDV of the XH-A1. And that's considering the A1 gives up 15% of its vertical resolution when in 24F mode (not due to the codec, but to the interlaced CCD). With the HV30, I haven't heard of any sacrificices in term of resolution to fit into the bitrate, especially in the horizontal res. Do you own this camera or just speculating? I'll give you the compressed audio argument; HDV indeed have compressed audio compared to DV or DVCPRO but that's not relevant to the discussion.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
From a cnet review of the HV30:
The HV30 uses the same 1/2.7-inch 3-megapixel CMOS sensor as the HV20, capturing 1,440x1,080 (1080i) HD or wide-screen SD video (despite Canon listing 1,920x1,080 resolution in its specs, HDV does not support 1920-pixel horizontal resolution).
------
Perhaps you would like to take up the issue with the reviewers...
And from the wiki article on the topic...
High Definition Video, kurz HDV, ist ein digitales Videoformat, das die Weiterentwicklung des DV-Standards darstellt, welcher seit den 90er Jahren im Consumer-Bereich etabliert ist. Während DV auf den Standard-Definition Formaten (SD) der PAL und NTSC Norm in 4:3 basiert, beruht HDV auf den entsprechenden High Definition Standards 720p und 1080i in 16:9.
Das HDV-Videoformat wurde von Sony und JVC entwickelt und wird inzwischen von nahezu allen Herstellern und Softwareanbietern unterstützt. Die Aufzeichnung erfolgt dem Standard entsprechend auf in zwei möglichen Formaten:
* HDV 720p: 1280 x 720 Pixel mit den Frameraten 25p oder 50p (30p oder 60p) sowie optional 24p
* HDV 1080i: 1440 x 1080 Pixel mit den Frameraten 25p oder 50i (30p oder 60i)
Beim höher auflösenden 1080i-Format sind die einzelnen Bildpunkte nicht quadratisch, sondern anamorphotisch angelegt, also im Verhältnis 1:1,34 horizontal gestreckt, so dass sich auch hier ein Abbildungsformat von 16:9 ergibt.
Die Aufzeichnung der Videodaten erfolgt komprimiert in MPEG2 mit einer Datenrate von ca. 19 Mbps bei 720p sowie ca. 25 Mbps bei 1080i auf herkömmlichen DV-Bändern, auf HDV-Bändern, auf DVD oder inzwischen auch auf Speicherkarten.
-----
oops ok, here the pertinant info in English.
HDV 720p uses a resolution of 1280x720 square pixels. HDV 1080i uses a resolution of 1440×1080 pixels, but is still displayed with a device aspect ratio of 16:9 This is because the pixel aspect ratio is 1.33:1 stretching the actual pixels to make the proper resolution. This means it has lower horizontal resolution than true 1080 HD formats (1920x1080), but the same applies also to most other widely used HD formats including XDCAM HD, DVCPRO HD and HDCAM, all of which have the same or lower resolution than HDV.
------
and further, in regard to the use of the MPEG-2 and editing.
------
As a consequence of the fact that HDV uses the interframe MPEG-2 GOP (group of pictures) structure instead of a solely intraframe compression system, native editing of HDV footage differs technically from the native editing of DV footage. In DV, frame-accurate splicing does not disturb the surrounding video because each frame of the video is stored as a self-contained unit. In HDV, splicing always introduces distortion at the splice points, due to the interdependencies between groups of video frames. Any editing of the video, whether it be a complex transition or a simple scene-change, requires a decompression and recompression of the entire HDV frame group. All modern professional non-linear editing software handles HDV by recompressing only in scenes where absolutely necessary, rather than needlessly recompressing the entire video. This limits degradation to the points of edit.
----
Given these sorts of provisos, I have little enthusiasm for the format.
Aroon_Narayanan
Well-known member
However, most consumers aren't going to be either examining the video distortion after editing or watching their movies on a big enough screen to notice it. HDV is marketed towards advanced consumers who want to record HD footage in a workflow similar to miniDV, and most people wouldn't know the difference between HDV and HDCAM if their life depended on it.
Also, don't forget that the only codec that doesn't use long-GOP that's under $10,000 is DVCPRO HD, and there are lots of people who can't afford $900 P2 cards. HDV is great in the respect that, with a decent camera, you can record acceptable HD footage for $5 a tape.
Also, don't forget that the only codec that doesn't use long-GOP that's under $10,000 is DVCPRO HD, and there are lots of people who can't afford $900 P2 cards. HDV is great in the respect that, with a decent camera, you can record acceptable HD footage for $5 a tape.
As I've suspected, you've had had no experience with HDV and are just speculating based on informations you've read online. Here's where your arguments falls apart
Yes, HDV is 1440 x 1080 using a 1.33 pixels to achieve 1920 x 1080. HOWEVER DVCPROHD uses a 1.5 PAR to get from 1280 x 1080. Or in the case of the HVX it uses a PAR of 1.33 to get from 960 x 540 to 1920 x 1080. If we compare it your way, DVCPRO-HD is way MORE compressed than HDV and has less resolution. But this clearly isn't true, why? Because the camera sensor can pack in more pixels and you can also pixel shift it to get more resolution. Therefore, a codec tells you NOTHING about the camera.
Exactly what I've just said. PAR is another way to compress, and it's another variable in the equation. It's not just the codec that matters, but the camera head as well. Note that DVCPROHD doesn't have "full" horizontal res either. The only low cost HD cam that does 1920 x 1080 native is the Sony PMW EX1/EX3, which ironically is a Long-GOP interframe codec.
------
------
Alright, so HDV is more difficult to edit than an intraframe format. What does that have to do with your original argument that it "mangles" HD? I edit HDV on a regular basis and it works just fine. The quality is great and resolution is definitely HD. The codec works well in practice, and if you never give it a try and just bash it based on the specs, you'll get it wrong every time.
Yes, HDV is 1440 x 1080 using a 1.33 pixels to achieve 1920 x 1080. HOWEVER DVCPROHD uses a 1.5 PAR to get from 1280 x 1080. Or in the case of the HVX it uses a PAR of 1.33 to get from 960 x 540 to 1920 x 1080. If we compare it your way, DVCPRO-HD is way MORE compressed than HDV and has less resolution. But this clearly isn't true, why? Because the camera sensor can pack in more pixels and you can also pixel shift it to get more resolution. Therefore, a codec tells you NOTHING about the camera.
Exactly what I've just said. PAR is another way to compress, and it's another variable in the equation. It's not just the codec that matters, but the camera head as well. Note that DVCPROHD doesn't have "full" horizontal res either. The only low cost HD cam that does 1920 x 1080 native is the Sony PMW EX1/EX3, which ironically is a Long-GOP interframe codec.
------
------
Alright, so HDV is more difficult to edit than an intraframe format. What does that have to do with your original argument that it "mangles" HD? I edit HDV on a regular basis and it works just fine. The quality is great and resolution is definitely HD. The codec works well in practice, and if you never give it a try and just bash it based on the specs, you'll get it wrong every time.
Wiki seems a little out of date then. Ill point out that in 1/3 chip cameras where HDV is predominant - non of the cameras (including HVX) shoot with full 1920x1080 pixel chips, quite simply to fit all those pixels on the small ship means rubbish low light performance. Theres trade offs but it has nothing to do with the chip size. THus why sony went 1/2 (cheaper) cmos chips to get the full 1080 HD.
And if you edit in FCP, FC does not compress anything until final output if it is an SD downconversion. You can output uncompressed.
The original HVX used 960x540 chips which was then pixel shifted to 1080, Canon A1 1440x1080. You wiki extract even mentions this "This means it has lower horizontal resolution than true 1080 HD formats (1920x1080), but the same applies also to most other widely used HD formats including XDCAM HD, DVCPRO HD and HDCAM, all of which have the same or lower resolution than HDV."
TBH if you dont want HDV then dont, but please have all the facts before you just add to the internets already existing falsehoods surrounding not only this but many subject.
And if you edit in FCP, FC does not compress anything until final output if it is an SD downconversion. You can output uncompressed.
The original HVX used 960x540 chips which was then pixel shifted to 1080, Canon A1 1440x1080. You wiki extract even mentions this "This means it has lower horizontal resolution than true 1080 HD formats (1920x1080), but the same applies also to most other widely used HD formats including XDCAM HD, DVCPRO HD and HDCAM, all of which have the same or lower resolution than HDV."
TBH if you dont want HDV then dont, but please have all the facts before you just add to the internets already existing falsehoods surrounding not only this but many subject.
Huy was a bit faster than me.
Beat Takeshi
Two-Hip Shakur
Don't you just love these threads?
Tell me about it.
Glen Gustafson
Active member
I just use the term "shooting" when refering to the production of a project.
__________________
-Paul Sage
***********************************************************************************
Yep, me too. Once in a great while I've probably said filming or taping if the recording medium mattered, but looks like the term "taping" is going away...
You still don't "film" a video, strictly speaking. I only thought it was funny because of the HD HDV snobbery. Saw a reflection from my past in there.
__________________
-Paul Sage
***********************************************************************************
Yep, me too. Once in a great while I've probably said filming or taping if the recording medium mattered, but looks like the term "taping" is going away...
You still don't "film" a video, strictly speaking. I only thought it was funny because of the HD HDV snobbery. Saw a reflection from my past in there.
ProfessorU
Veteran
I prefer videologizing or videographying.
Dan Vance
DVXUser Sponsor
I'm not a newbie. Sometimes I say "filming." Okay, sometimes I also say "shooting," but never at the airport...
But seriously, the meaning of a word changes over time and (many times unfortunately), the popular usage rules. To wit:
From my Merriam-Webster: "Film, vt, 2: To make a motion picture."
Don't matter none how it's recorded no more, it can correctly be called "filming."
S
SeanEmer
Guest
Big point being: who really cares? Calling it filming or shooting won't make your project better or worse, so focus on the things that will!
Happy filooting
Happy filooting
filmman
Veteran
Normally I don't read this thread because I've been doing cinematography for 35 yrs, but I enjoyed reading this thread regarding HDV. I was given a Sony Z1 as a present, so I thought okay use it for something appropriate. I shoot my serious movies in 35mm with my own Arri camera. I have all the post equipment too so for me it's cheaper to shoot and even edit in 35mm. That's a long story, but if you want to really shoot film, read my articles at http://www.releasing.net/rawstock/
But about the HDV, I found out that by going from HDV to uncompressed and then encoding in DVD SP I was able to get a by far superior quality DVD than by going from HDV to Compressor and then to DVD SP. I was amazed at the difference. And the time it took to encode was even shorter overall.
Just thought I'd add this to the expert opinions presented here. I'm still learning about the digital phenomenon. I do enjoy shooting in digital for highly experimental projects. My new feature shot all with my Sony Z1 is FELLINIESQUE PLAYERS, soon to be released Promo-teaser at http://www.felliniesque.com bottom of page
Thanks for sharing...
But about the HDV, I found out that by going from HDV to uncompressed and then encoding in DVD SP I was able to get a by far superior quality DVD than by going from HDV to Compressor and then to DVD SP. I was amazed at the difference. And the time it took to encode was even shorter overall.
Just thought I'd add this to the expert opinions presented here. I'm still learning about the digital phenomenon. I do enjoy shooting in digital for highly experimental projects. My new feature shot all with my Sony Z1 is FELLINIESQUE PLAYERS, soon to be released
Promo-teaser at http://www.felliniesque.com bottom of pageThanks for sharing...
Aroon_Narayanan
Well-known member
(utters wistful sigh...)
emretufekci
Well-known member
Since going Digitla/tapeless we have replaced these terms:
Filming = Compiling
Speed = Write data
Print that = Archive that
Dailies = Instantenouses
Video tap = Lets give a monitor to the kraft services so they can tell us what they think about our lighting.
Bad Directing = DIT screwed up my scene
Producer = Jerk
:laugh:
Filming = Compiling
Speed = Write data
Print that = Archive that
Dailies = Instantenouses
Video tap = Lets give a monitor to the kraft services so they can tell us what they think about our lighting.
Bad Directing = DIT screwed up my scene
Producer = Jerk
:laugh:
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
You're right, I don't buy products I don't like the specs for. If who ever 'invented' the name, HDV, had called it MPEG-2 HD, just as was done with DVCPRO-HD, one could 'easily' understand the intent, and the limitations of the format.
I was not referring to 'sensor' resolutions or methods to overcome limitiations of sensors at a given price.
For me, when an appeal to HD, and 1080i is made by a manufacturer, there is implicit in that statement, that they are dealing with the generally expected full resolution.
Just as I have a problem with display manufacturers who say 'HD', and once sleuthing through the specs, one finds they really mean 720p and upres to really get '1080', why should I be impressed with camera manufacturers who not only hide the fact that their senosrs are low res, and with some amount of futzing (technical engineering term) they are able to produce a signal that sort of matches some profile of the spec.
So, yeah, what does one expect from a 'cheap' camera... well, many compromises, and you may be ok with those compromises. And if I needed a cheap solution tomorrow, perhaps I'd use a camera like the HV30. But since I've looked at the specs, found things I don't like relative to thei marketing hype, I won't buy.
The fact that other manufacturers make similar compromises does not, in my mind excuse the use of the HD, and no clear statement of those compromises, does not set well with me and I will make note of it.
I'm reminded of the 'big screen' TV's of yore. I've met any number of people who 'loved' the look, no matter that it looked like an array of blury christmas lights, they loved it.
I didn't graduate from small analog TV, less than 20", until last year because I thought the 'big' 'digital' whatever, screens looked like ****, and because people where 'so in love' with them the could not really stand back and say the image was crap.
A rose by any other name. It's always the consumer's responsibility to research what they are buying and make their own decisions instead of relying on their perceptiion of what they want it to be. And the DVCPROHD example makes no sense. DVCPROHD is NOT simply the HD version of DVCPRO. There are differences, such as a color sampling of 4:1:1 for DVCPRO and 4:2:2 for DVCPRO-HD and DVCPRO50.
Go spend $100,000 on a Sony F23.
Except that nobody is pretending that what the camera is capturing isn't HD. You're speaking like everybody who has ever bought a camera that's not "full HD" is a dumbass who refused to see the truth and the companies who market these cameras are all liars. The proof is in the image, it's HD.
You strike me as an armchair theorist who refused to ever get your hand on the gears and try it out, but instead pass judgment based only on what you've read. Newflash for you: that approach never works. There's always more to a camera than the specs, and unless you've try it yourselves, don't make unsupported claims about it.