Why doesn't the HVX do HDV?

[roxics]

I'm sure this has been asked but a search for HVX200 and HDV comes up with the entire messageboard.

So basically what is to stop the HVX200 from also doing HDV recording? Why hasn't panasonic tacked this on and is it possible that just a firmware update could enable this? Maybe they may add it on before it goes on sale, because of the XL-H1?

Seems a lot of people would like a cheap tape based HD solution from time to time, even if it's not the greatest quality.

 

[Haakon]

You have about 5 other choices already available if you want HDV. Panasonic clearly didn't want to go that route... HDV is an ultra compressed, low color space format that's already having it's multitude of problems now that there are at least three different variants of HDV that are completely incompatible with each other.

The way I see it, HDV may have a place in the consumer industry for average-joe users who want "cheap HD" in order to film their kid's birthday parties, but other than that, it's just a toy. The red flag should've gone up from the moment they announced that they were packing HD resolution - *four times that of SD* - onto a tape carrying the same bandwidth as standard resolution.

We've been given a superior codec, a radically forward thinking tapeless workflow, and a solution that will give us an array of resolutions and framerates at under 10 grand. HDV isn't even a blip on my radar at this point...

 

[Zig_Zigman]

Panny will have an HDV cam if you want to use it.

 

[stokestack]

Because HDV sucks. It's interframe-compressed, so it's essentially uneditable. Its data rate is pitiful for HD, at a measly 19 or 25 megabits per second (the same as standard-def DV!). And it doesn't even officially support 24P; that's been tacked on as an afterthought by JVC. This format's only what, two or three years old, and they "forgot" 24P?

HDV just continues the fraud that the "HD" moniker has become.

That's not to say that the HVX200 won't be a fraud in terms of the "HD" label as well; chances are those chips are going to be 960x720, which is well short of HD. But at least we'll finally have a 4:2:2 camera at an affordable price.

 

[Gundorf Dunderklumpen]

I have to say that HD is nice for resolution and color space..but, Digibeta has a "better" color space than mini dv and I would choose to shoot on the DVX over DIGI beta anyday.
if you expose and light properly you can get a GREAT look from these cameras. After all your real audience, the ones you make these videos and films for, will have a very hard time distinguising 16mm from the SD DVX100.

 

[Padmapriya]

Lighting

Lighting

I have to say that HD is nice for resolution and color space..but, Digibeta has a "better" color space than mini dv and I would choose to shoot on the DVX over DIGI beta anyday.
if you expose and light properly you can get a GREAT look from these cameras. After all your real audience, the ones you make these videos and films for, will have a very hard time distinguising 16mm from the SD DVX100.

EXPLAIN HOW ONE SHOULD LIGHT A SET PROPERLY. BASED ON
1. One has all lights available to him.
2. One works with a light meter to light the set.
3. The set itself is a restaurant with a bar and is 40' wide and 30' deep.
4. One has all Zells available
5. One wants to get good contrast lighting.
6. One has a basic DVX 100.

Curious because I have not transfered any to 35 mm yet but intend doing it. One dumb mistake we did was to save few hndred bucks and have not trial transfered to 35 mm. I guess LEARN AS YOU GO sometimes sucks.

 

[Batutta]

HDV is uneditable? That's news to me since I've been editing it for months now in Final Cut Pro with no problems whatsoever. That being said, why the hell would you want HDV over DVCPRO HD? That would be like getting a DV camera and asking why it doesn't record VHS.

 

[brianluce]

this is not a sarcastic reply but i think you should consider hiring a DP. Unless you have a ton of time and a good moniter a do some trial and error/look it up/paint by numbers method. probably easier and ultimately cheaper to just spring for the cash.

 

[Landon D. Parks]

why the hell would you want HDV over DVCPRO HD

Same thing I'm wondering...DVCPRO HD is better, tons better, and its not difficule to work with ether (considering you have a computer that can edit native DVCPRO HD footage).

It's kind of like the VHS v. MiniDV thing! Sure VHS works, and some people like, but MniDV is better and just as cheap.

Makes no sense!

 

[Nathyn]

Most people who ask this don't want HDV over DVCPro HD, they just want a choice on the HVX to do HDV. P2 is causing most of this concern as well as basic storage. I even would've liked this. The choice to shoot HDV on P2 would make me comfortable with P2 versus having to buy a Firestore (no, I won't be shooting 8 - 16 minutes of footage on P2, spare me, unless someone wants to buy the P2 cards for me). Someone said something recently that go me wondering, how many of you have actually worked with HDV? I mean the one's trashing it. Have you actually seen and worked on it? Be honest.

-Nate

 

[Landon D. Parks]

No, I have not. However, With a compression ratio of 25Mbps, Recording SD is a sketchy venture, but recording HD is a no no! I mean thing about this: You have $10,000.00 to spend on a camera.... You have 2 options, the Canon XLH1 (the only real semi-professional HDV) or the HVX200.... Both are the same price. With the canon you get 25Mbps recording to MiniDV tape that is not playable / recordable in most other HDV devices, Horrible Color sampling, a Fake 24f mode and so on... OR, True DVCPRO HD 100MBPS, 4:2:2 compression, True frame rates of 24p among other progressive frame rates, and plus you get TWO 8gb P2 cards with your camera, which is enough to record 18 minutes of DVCPRO HD footage @ 720p... Plus the P2/MFX files are supported by most NLE systems, and those that dont support it are either #1: Not made to run on a powerful enough machine to edit native DVC-PRO HD anyway, or are to "Consumer-ized" to offer it yet.

Or, you can record your Canon XLH1 footage in HDSDI! Buy yourself a $60,000.00 HD cam deck and viola, instant HDCAM footage, from a $70,000.00 package :-(, which I could have bought a Varicam and lense for....

The choice is clear for me! HDV is a consumer/bottom line Prosumer format. It was not designed for professional shooting! But you know what? Neither was MiniDV, and look what happend... There will always be the exceptional person who thinks that HDV will be just a sufficiant as DVCPRO HD, but there is a lot more people who dont.

 

[Landon D. Parks]

(no, I won't be shooting 8 - 16 minutes of footage on P2, spare me, unless someone wants to buy the P2 cards for me).

No, of course not. I would want you to actually sit down and have to think about that... Take your MiniDV tape and a keep on a shootin' my man! Although, what I said in my other post still holods up, if you keep shooting and dont stop to think about what your shooting, it wont turn out as good!

I mean, really folks! Think about it, would it really kill us to stop shooting for 15 or so minutes between 18 minutes run time's just to pop the card in the laptop and let it unbload while your explaining the next scene to your actors?

Video-tape people are so spoiled, and those who complain about 18 minute run times have clearly never shot film.

 

[steindj]

Video-tape people are so spoiled, and those who complain about 18 minute run times have clearly never shot film.

Or...they could also be one of us doc people. Sure, HVX is not what would come to mind quickly as a doc cam, and the recording constraints will stink for a while. But...I love that film look, and I want the best one that I think will be out there. Bring on the HVX...even if I have to use a Firestore for a year or two.:happy:

 

[mezelf27]

Because HDV sucks. It's interframe-compressed, so it's essentially uneditable. Its data rate is pitiful for HD, at a measly 19 or 25 megabits per second (the same as standard-def DV!). And it doesn't even officially support 24P; that's been tacked on as an afterthought by JVC. This format's only what, two or three years old, and they "forgot" 24P?

To be honest, interframe compression is the way forward. It is much more efficient, and theoretically, better geared against dropouts. I expect all compression formats of the future to be interframe compression, although that degree has to be controlled if you want to edit it later. However: interframe IS the future - even for aquisition.

Furthermore, everyone keeps complaining HDV is "only" 19.7 of 25 of datarate, and they're saying that's low. it isn't low at all, the compression is just efficient. Of course the images would be better if the datarate was higher - but that's a trade-off - as any format has. 19.7 or 25 is actually very high seen the nature of the compression. You CAN NOT compare this to DV25, because the compression in DV25 isn't efficient AT ALL. It is old school. Obviously with its adavantages (easy and fast editing) but not quite as performant as it could be for the bandwith it uses...

That's not to say that the HVX200 won't be a fraud in terms of the "HD" label as well; chances are those chips are going to be 960x720, which is well short of HD. But at least we'll finally have a 4:2:2 camera at an affordable price.

Perhaps this is personal, but I'd rather have the better camera-head with 4:2:0 then a mediocre camera-head with 4:2:2. I'm not going to say this is the case, I'm just replying to your statement. I choose a fine camerahead and a mediocre format over a medriocre camera-head and an excellent format any day...

 

[mezelf27]

However, With a compression ratio of 25Mbps, Recording SD is a sketchy venture, but recording HD is a no no!

The choice is clear for me! HDV is a consumer/bottom line Prosumer format. It was not designed for professional shooting! But you know what? Neither was MiniDV, and look what happend... There will always be the exceptional person who thinks that HDV will be just a sufficiant as DVCPRO HD, but there is a lot more people who dont.

I'm teaching somle classes about compression that would be interesting for some of the guys here. It is unbelievable that there is so little known about the methods used in compression, yet so many strong opinions.

Obviously DVCPRO-HD will be superior to HDV, but it isn't a efficient format at all. 100 Mbps e.g. is 4 to 5 times the bandwith of HDV. It isn't quite 4 or five times the quality, thats obvious - and that's in its nature.

I can agree that HDV 1080i won't suffice for high quality broadcast, but about the 720p-variant I'm not so certain.

Anyhow, why aren't there any cams that record directly in the 'intermediate' codec of Cineform? THAT would be a killer (on recompression step less in the editing process, better color-sampling to begin with, "constant quality" rather then constant bandwith, ....)

 

[Mediacre]

I don’t think roxics wants HDV instead of DVCPRO-HD. I think he just wants one more option. Maybe for projects he doesn’t need the extra color space, and could use some storage space savings. Having said that, this thread had some pretty funny and other plain ridiculous comments.

why the hell would you want HDV over DVCPRO HD?.

Why the hell would you want DVCPRO-HD over HDCAM?

The way I see it, HDV may have a place in the consumer industry for average-joe users who want "cheap HD" in order to film their kid's birthday parties, but other than that, it's just a toy.

I’m glad you started with “The way you see it”. Because to say such a stupid thing is the same as saying, HDCAM is the real professional format, DVCPRO-HD is just a toy! Also, which one looks more like a toy for you? A HD100 or the HVX200 with it's Fisher Price blue plastic looking?
The thing is that as somebody else said, most of HDV bashers have never worked with HDV. So they have no right or base to put the format down. Most of those people who are praising DVCPRO-HD have never seen anything shot on DVCPRO-HD, or even operated a Varicam. So they have no base to compare either. All they have is specifications to draw from.
If compression was what determined the quality of a format, DVCPRO-HD would be worse than DV, because it’s more compressed. If color space was what determined the quality of a format, DVCPRO-HD would be better than HDCAM. But HDCAM is the chosen format by Hollywood for movie production. Do you think they picked it because it’s worse?
I have never seen a major studio film shot on a Varicam. Only HDCAM, HDCAM-SR and Viper. Now we have Superman with the Genesis.
So the whole talk that HDV is so much worse than DVCPRO-HD because it’s more compressed and have an inferior color space holds no water. Also we have the matter of the camera head. As mezelf27 said, DVCPRO-HD will be no good if the camera head is not. Since Panasonic is hesitating in releasing any specifications on the camera head, you can only guess it’s not that impressive. Why would they miss the chance to hype it if it was impressive? Specially Panasonic, who is the queen of hyping. If it was Canon, it would be understandable. They are not of the talky kind. They don’t hype. They just release their products. But Panasonic loves to hype their things even before they know what it will be. So why are they withholding the specs?
So yes, DVCPRO is better than HDV in some ways. But HDV also has advantages over DVCPRO-HD, like a more efficient compression. DVCPRO is not that much better in the real world and not better in every scenario. If shot with a Varicam, against a HD100, DVCPRO will sure look better. But we don’t know about the HVX200. As mezelf27 , I will also take a superior camera head on an inferior format, over a mediocre camera head on a superior format any day of the week.
The real test will be when the HVX200 comes out. We will see if it will be the better camera or just have the “better” format. Until then, all this ridiculous comments only sound like cheerleading from people who have no idea of what they are talking about.

You have $10,000.00 to spend on a camera.... You have 2 options, the Canon XLH1 (the only real semi-professional HDV) or the HVX200....

Dude, you made me almost choke to death laughing. A camera with an auto lens is the only real semi-professional HDV camera? So I hope you are saying that because you consider the HD100 is professional. Because it is, and way more than the Canon XL-H1. The HD100 is sold by JVC's professional division. I passed on the HD100 because of the split screen issues. But, it's much more professional than the XL-H1. The XL-H1 is just a black XL2. The XL2 is no way more professional than the HD100, that is a camera with a manual professional lens. Besides that, just pick a HD100 up and then do the same with a XL2. Just there, you can see which one is more professional. SDI doesn't make a professional camera and neither does a format.

 

[mezelf27]

I coudn't have said that better....

 

[Nathyn]

No, of course not. I would want you to actually sit down and have to think about that... Take your MiniDV tape and a keep on a shootin' my man! Although, what I said in my other post still holods up, if you keep shooting and dont stop to think about what your shooting, it wont turn out as good!

I mean, really folks! Think about it, would it really kill us to stop shooting for 15 or so minutes between 18 minutes run time's just to pop the card in the laptop and let it unbload while your explaining the next scene to your actors?

Video-tape people are so spoiled, and those who complain about 18 minute run times have clearly never shot film.

I graduated from Columbia College Chicago, you don't take film classes if you don't shoot film, and shooting and editing film is why I love DV. I'll agree I am spoilded. The DVX aided in the spoiling and the HVX continues. I don't like having to reload a camera or stop and dump P2 cards, if I did, I'd be shooting film. If you read my many posts you know I advocate the Firestore system and tape only as a back up.

And no one whose really directing a film continues to shoot without set-up, running lines, general direction, etc. As a one man crew or often part of a small crew, I would prefer not having to worry about reloading/dumping P2 every few minutes while I'm also directing, choregraphing, etc. So yes, while I love the HVX and hope to get one I do see the advantage of HDV being able to back up on tape while capturing digitally at the same time. I like the idea.

Again I would say I too would've loved an HDV setting on the HVX specifically for movies I knew weren't going to film (micro budget horror/action) but I'll take what I can get and for the money, the HVX seems to be king and I can always drop the footage down to SD. Still if it wasn't for the problems with the JVC it would've been the main contender with the HVX as far as I'm concerned. The initial Split Screen/Dead pixel problem (Sony's PS2 had dead pixels and virtually destroyed them in Japan), $13,000 step lens and now the continual split screen problem keep me far away from the HD100. And I'm not one of these anti-JVC people (it's obvious JVC does make good pro-stuff but they just dropped the ball here) considering I used to love that consumer Hi8 camera with the swivel screen and I liked the images it produced.

Again I'm curious as to how many HDV bashers have used (shot on/edited) HDV because I've been on a lot of video forums and there's always a lot of chatter but I'm willing to bet 90% or more of those who bash HDV (like those who bash cameras) haven't used it. That not a pro HDV statement as much as it's just probably the truth. People shot on the original JVC and found ways to edit, many seem to love the Sony FX1 even without 24p, and some have even found ways to shoot on the current JVC w/ split and all. And these people will beat you if you try to take their cams. Many of these people are professionals. So do they just not know the pitfalls of "uneditable" HDV? Have they been in the dark for years?

-Nate

 

[Barry_Green]

Why the hell would you want DVCPRO-HD over HDCAM?

Because HDCAM can't do 720p and can't do variable frame rates maybe? :thumbsup:

But HDCAM is the chosen format by Hollywood for movie production. Do you think they picked it because it’s worse? I have never seen a major studio film shot on a Varicam.

Stick with apples to apples please. HDCAM/CineAlta has been chosen over the VariCam by Hollywood primarily because the VariCam is only 720p. HDCAM is a directly comparable format to DVCPRO-HD, but 720p is not directly comparable to 1080p. They chose 1080p, not HDCAM. When the VariCam II comes out, with its rumored 1080p version, that will make for a rather interesting choice, and we'll see if the CineAlta remains the Hollywood choice.

Since Panasonic is hesitating in releasing any specifications on the camera head, you can only guess it’s not that impressive. Why would they miss the chance to hype it if it was impressive?

See, that's where you lost me. Did you even bother to go look at the footage at any of the ResFest events? Specs don't mean crap if the footage doesn't hold up. The footage holds up. It looks substantially superior to any HDV footage I've seen yet. Substantially.

So why are they withholding the specs?

I don't know. And, frankly, I don't really care, as long as the footage delivers. I have a "native 1280x720" HDV camera here, I know all the specs in the world on it, and the specs sound pretty good. But the footage isn't very good at all. The lens is abnormally soft, it's grainy, there's a lot of chroma noise, there's white speckles all throughout whenever you use the slow shutter speed, and -- oh yeah, every now and then there's a split-screen issue that ruins the shot completely. And sure, the specs on the lens sure sound great -- "professional this" and "professional that" -- but when you get massive chromatic aberrations and color fringing, and you get incredibly soft edges when you zoom in, and when the entire picture takes a slight magenta or slight green tint depending on how you pan -- what do the specs matter at that point?

Specs? Footage is king. Specs are not. Specs are not what you use in day-to-day use, they're what marketers use to try to sell the product. Footage is what you use to sell your services, not specs.

The XL2 is no way more professional than the HD100, that is a camera with a manual professional lens. Besides that, just pick a HD100 up and then do the same with a XL2. Just there, you can see which one is more professional. SDI doesn't make a professional camera and neither does a format.

I'm 100% with Mediacre on this. We haven't done a lot of agreeing in the past, but here we will for sure. The HD100, if it would just work, would be a fantastic little camera and completely professional. It looks and feels and acts like a pro cam. If they solve the split-screen issue and fix whatever the heck's wrong with my lens, I'd be happy with it for what it is. I used the XL H1 at ResFest, and it's a little better than the XL2, but it's still a consumerish cam from a consumer division of Canon, that happens to have some nice pro connectors on it. That doesn't make it a pro cam, and that lens (while sharp and basically aberration-free) is not in any way "professional" to use. If they could gut the JVC's optics and replace them with the glass from the Canon, (and fix the JVC's other issues), then you'd really have something there.

 

[Alex Leith]

There seems to be a rather a lot of predjuce here against all things that don't have a Panasonic badge.

Judging by some of the responses you would get the impression that HDV looked worse than 3rd generation VHS, and that DVCProHD can see in the dark and gently massages your feet while you film, and that HDCAM - whilst looking good - calls you names and then has a poop in your coffee when your back is turned...

HDV is not as bad as most people here seem to think. MPEG2 as an interframe compression codec is about twice as effecient as an intraframe codec like DVCProHD - and that's part of the reason why the data rate is so much lower. HDV chroma resolution is lower, but luma resolution is higher. And contrary to popular belief motion artefacts are not as common as some would have you believe - jumping out of the picture, kicking you and then shaking the tripod.

In terms of data-rate HDCAM is less compressed than DVCProHD, although it does have weird undersampling of both luma and chroma.

And I would agree with most that DVCProHD (especially in the HVX200) is a great combination of quality and value. But I wouldn't assume that HDV is leaving crumbs in the bed just because I'd prefer DVCProHD.