Mini DV or HDV

M

maltess

New member
Hello from spain, I am looking for a camara and I am choosing between . DVX100,canon xh a 1 , sony Z1 or V1. I found a good Deal with The HVX 200 , but since I want to do documentary work, it would be too expensive to use the P2 system for HD or 50 when you need to shoot hours and hours. If the main use is the miniDV recording I can get the DVX100 which is a lot cheaper

my main question is . Is rellally HDV format a big improvement in image quality enough to justify a double price for a camera? if you compare the DVX100 with sony z1 v1 or canon xh a1, to me the main difference is the HDV format. In the other funcions although this cameras have some improvements like the native 16:9, overall is not a big diffrence except for the format and thay are a lot more expensive then the dvx100. I did not have the chance to use HDV yet, so do you guys think is worthit to spend that money for the format? can ypu really see a big diffrence in quality?

My intention is to send the work to festivals and try to sell it in DVD

thanks very much for listening me
 
it depends on who you ask. Mini DV is the norm. It should work with about anything. It depends on the camera too. If you can get a good deal on a DVX100 you will have a nice camera.

If you want to move to HDV I would go with one of the new ones. Like the Sony V1 or Canon A1. Your going to need more computer power but it's not a big deal for just alittle cash.


For myself I waiting to see a few reviews on the V1. Maybe a price drop on the DVX100. I don't need one right now so I'm going to wait. Who knows maybe Panasonic will bring out something new.
 
Heres the thing. Alot of people think its just upgrading the camera. Its not. If youre going HD, you need Mini HDV tapes, then you need a deck to be able to read the HD format, you also need MAASSSIVVE storage, as HD is about, from my experience, 10 times more HDD space than the SD format. Also, alot of the new HD editing software programs have major glitches with HD still. I am in the market for a camera as well, and the difference between what the DVX100 produces and HD formats, the money is not worth the upgrade. Plus the DVX100 series has 24p frame rate, which takes out all of the hard edges naturally produced w/ a MiniDV cam.

Save yourself a ton of money, hard drive space, and frustration and go with a DVX. They are beautiful.
 
HDV uses basic minidv tapes and the MPEG2 HDV files aren't any bigger than normal DV files due to similiar bitrates. HDV does need a bit more computer power but there is no need for computer farms.

And as we can see, he is from Spain. No need for 24p there as it's a PAL country :)

I wouldn't get a SD camera anymore, especially as there are some very nice HDV options available and coming next year. I vote for HDV.
 
I have a DVX100a, but will probably switch to an HDV camera next year. I'm leaning toward the Sony V1, but the Canon A1 looks attractive too.

With HDV, archival storage is not a problem -- just store your footage on the tapes. And for all the anti-tape sentiment that exists, I love the fact that tapes are cheap, reliable, and available everywhere.

Yes, you'll need more computer horsepower to edit HD. BUT I can edit HDV right now on my old computer (3.2 GHz with HyperThreading). 1st quarter next year we'll have Quad Core processors from Intel hitting the market., so horsepower will be mass market.

As for HD being overrated, I respectfully disagree. A couple of weeks ago I bought a Sony HC3 consumer cam that records 1080i images. Played back via HDMI into a 60-inch Sony HDTV, the picture quality is jaw-dropping. I can only imagine what kind of images the V1 with 24p will produce.

Yes, HD is still ahead of its time. But project 10 years into the future -- I don't think you will regret shooting in HD, but you may regret shooting in SD.

I've loved my DVX. If the HVX recorded HD to Mini-DV instead of P2, I would buy it immediately. But it doesn't, and there's no suggestion that it ever will.
 
Right now, HD is overrated, its not worth my expense to go HD yet. and 10 years from now everything will be in HD anyway, that shooting in SD will obsolete, it'd be like shooting on 8mm today. It just doesnt happen unles you want somesort of film effect.
 
I understand your point about expense. But with HDV, you have no P2 cards to worry about. You can sell your old SD equipment and at least partially recoup the cost of a new $4k camera.

I've pretty much decided to go ahead and migrate to HD. I'm tired of cropping 4:3 footage for 16:9 playback, etc. etc. Yes HD is a little ahead of its time. But if you really want SD content, you still record SD with the new cameras.

For me the quality leap to HD is worth it. Yes there are challenges involved (financial and creative) but nothing too drastic.

My main regret is that Panasonic doesn't offer an DVX successor that records HD to tape. The DVX has a "mojo" that other cameras lack. But I guess Panasonic isn't interested in the HD-to-tape market.
 
HD is worth it. Shoot and edit in HD then downconvert ot SD format. It's still gonna look a lot better than stuff originated on SD, whether it's interlaced or progressive.

I wish panasonic would have put a full size DVCPRO cassette deck in the HVX. I would rather pay $50 a tape than $500-$1000+ for a P2 card.
 
Thanks a lot for the information, I guess the best option when I got the chance is to try Sony V1 and Canon A1 and compare the images to DVX100 and then make a dcisition. Is probably good to start shooting in HDV and use that extra quality in your work. Progressive Pal cameras shoot at 25p
 
Tibby said:
HD is worth it. Shoot and edit in HD then downconvert ot SD format. It's still gonna look a lot better than stuff originated on SD, whether it's interlaced or progressive.
Click to expand...
Absolutely! Mathematically it would be the equivilent of having an even better prism than the 100b gave us fronting a much better, more sensitive CCD or CMOS sensor, backed by a 16- or 17-bit A-to-D converter instead of the 14-bit unit that the 100a/b has. That is, assuming the actual prism and individual pixel response of the HD sensor is not significantly worse than what we have now.
 
But for a college student just getting started like me... its not worth the leap right now, although I think in 2 years at this time of year HD will be dominating the market.
 
It is a given that eventually HD will dominate the market, the only question is whether that will be 2 years, 3 years or 5 years away. If I were a betting man I'd say 2-3 years.

Whether or not it is worth making that leap now depends on what projects you are doing.

When something like the about to be released Canon XH-A1 has a street price comparable to our venerable DVX I believe we'll see the beginning of a big shift to HD shooting, combined with a significant drop in the resale price of cameras like ours.
 
I wish that Panasonic would make the DVX100c or HVX100 (a 24p cam with HDV or DVCPRO Capability)... then all our problems with P2 cards being too expensive can be solved in the meantime...
 
griffin86 said:
I wish that Panasonic would make the DVX100c or HVX100 (a 24p cam with HDV or DVCPRO Capability)... then all our problems with P2 cards being too expensive can be solved in the meantime...
Click to expand...

Me too. And it's not just the expense of the P2 cards, it's the workflow. Their storage capacity is too small for run & gun documentary style shooting. Plus, there are long term archival storage issues. For all of the downsides of tape, there are also some nice advantages. Tapes are cheap, reliable, and available around the world. And the visual quality of HDV footage is very impressive.

The arrival of cameras like the Canon HX A1 and Sony V1U will change the market. Panasonic appears to be ceding the market to its competitors.
 
MiniDV yes, but only sd. Not DVCPro 50, 720 or 1080. Basically you get the DVX with 16 x 9 chips (and slightly less low light performance if I understand correctly).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top