Why doesn't the HVX do HDV?

[harddrive]

Since I am one that is completely disappointed in HDV, I am glad it is not even an option on the HVX.

I have some sympathy with your later reasons for saying that, but still say I'd prefer (in some situations) to be able to record at all in HDV, as opposed to record nothing in DVCPRO HD. In other situations DVCPRO HD would be the right route. Either way, it would be nice to have the choice. No camera on the market does, and the HVX200 is the only one that theoretically could quite easily - all the hardware is already there. I do hear what you are saying, but hope you can understand my frustration.

Ask around about what form factor people perfer, XL2 or PD170/DVX style? I don't think you can find a consensus.

For hand held use, and for Z1 size/weight cameras, in this respect most people I know reckon the HD100 wins hands down. (I stress "in this respect". ) If most work is on a tripod, it doesn't matter too much. Go much smaller, and the HC1 becomes optimum.

 

[wabbit]

At least for this camera! But perhaps if the message gets said enough it may influence the future, though no doubt that will bring a fresh set of options/challenges/technology to discuss.

Are you referring to a HVX200a type future upgrade or a completely different camera line that they might be developing?


Either way I think Panasonic will wait until the HVX makes their major push for a P2 HD workflow and then maybe consider a drastically different approach or how to refine the one they are presenting. Until that happens in December I don't think they have much new information to consider.

Best

 

[Barry_Green]

Sorry, it seems therefore the consumer is suffering from corporate pride.

That's one way to put it. Another would be that Panasonic Broadcast refuses to pander to the lowest common denominator, or participate in a race to the bottom.

Sony are happy to put HDV, HDCAM and HDCAM SR logos across their range of professional products, and leave it to consumers to pick the price/quality point that suits them.

Sure. And GM was happy to build diesel engines when they thought people wanted diesels. But that was a complete disaster for GM. HDV has issues, some serious issues, which can bite you if you don't know how to work around them. HDV, as a format, is not all that unlike the split-screen effect on the HD100 -- sure it usually doesn't show up, but there are times that it does, and it renders the footage unusable. HDV artifacting is the same way. Panasonic Broadcast decided they didn't want their customers playing russian roulette with their footage. Their angle is more of "Use the Panasonic, get guaranteed results; use the HDV products, and you don't necessarily know what you're going to get."

And I have to say, that while I wish the option was there as well, I can absolutely understand their position. Not everyone using this product is going to know what causes HDV to break, and what situations to avoid. I like to think that I'm experienced enough and well-versed enough to handle a format like HDV, but there are an awful lot of shooters who aren't, who don't understand the issues, who still think that panning causes artifacting, and who are someday going to shoot a smoky club with flashing lights and are going to be utterly horrified by what the HDV format does to their footage. Panasonic chose that they won't have that happen to their customers, and I imagine that they well understand that it may cost them some sales up front; I would wager that they're betting on picking up those sales on the back after people get bitten by HDV.

Panasonic COULD have played a blinder by having a product that appealed to two markets at the same time.

I said the same thing. I said "who in their right mind would buy an HDV-only camera when they could have HDV+DVCPRO-HD in the same camera?" I understand their point, but heck, I wanted 'em to at least put the JVC HDV encoder chip in there so you could record *something* to that $5 tape. They didn't think it was worth the tradeoffs.

"........plenty of people who don't care and are glad HDV is not on it driving up the cost of the camera".

I didn't see that part, so okay, I understand where that's coming from. There are others who are disappointed that there's a tape drive in it at all, and that it supports miniDV at all, and wouldn't want to pay the extra $20 or whatever it's costing to have the miniDV drive in there. I'm glad it's there, it certainly doesn't hurt anything and it provides a lot more flexibility. If it had HDV on it as well, even as an add-on option, even if it drove up the price $200, I think it would have been a nice option to have. But it doesn't, and I've been relaying the reasons I've been told. And I do see logic in their reasons. Doesn't mean I wouldn't have preferred to have the choice, but it does mean that it's the way it is.

I'll go along with all said above about reliability issues, but then how is it that the Firestore is then seen as the saviour? Surely an external solution, with flying cables, is even less reliable than an internal drive, or ideally a slot in device.

I'm certainly not looking too heavily forward to the FireStore. I think it's a product that's going to prove useful for some people, but I doubt I'd get one or ever use it. I haven't seen a direct-to-disk recording system that I fully trust yet, even my beloved DV Rack has caused a couple of hiccups (albeit in the course of digitizing over 60 HOURS of footage for a multi-camera feature!) I think the P2 card is a vastly preferable solution for every conceivable circumstance except one: long-form recording. For that purpose, the FireStore will have appeal to some buyers. But I think it's quite telling that Panasonic didn't make it themselves, that they let some other company develop it and market it -- if there's any sort of reliability issues, they won't be reflected on Panasonic themselves. I'm not trying to disparage the FireStore, as of yet we don't even know what type of product it will be (will it plug into the firewire port, or into a P2 slot? Will it record active frames only, or just the 60i/60p data stream? etc). But it's not what I'm looking for, for all the reasons mentioned about hard drive recording.

Which begs the question of what Firestore will do!? And if they can overcome the problem in a small device, then surely something comparable could be inbuilt?

I don't know what they'll do. They say it'll be 100gb, so that sure sounds like it'll be a single drive, but there are few laptop drives that can handle a 15mB/sec minimum sustained transfer rate. I had thought that they might actually be raiding together two laptop drives, and if the capacity had come in at 80gb or 120gb I'd think that was a good clue that that's exactly what they'd done, but with the stated capacity of 100gb, that kind of rules the raiding idea out.

There are some drives that can do it; the new Seagate Momentus has a minimum sustained speed of 18 megabytes per second. That's just fast enough, that's probably what the FireStore will use (that or something like it).

So lets get this straight. Are you therefore saying that the Firestore will never work with an HVX200? Or if it will, why will a microdrive never work within a camera such as the HVX200?

Do you know how fast a drive needs to be to work with the HVX? And how slow microdrives are? And just how big a task this is?

The existing FireStore FS-4 has a maximum transfer rate of 40 megabits per second. 40. As in, it'd need three of them RAIDed together to work with the HVX. That's why a new FireStore had to be developed. A top-of-the-line super-densely-packed Seagate Momentus notebook drive is just fast enough. If they use SATA or something, I don't doubt that they'll get it working, but maybe one reason it's not due until March 2006 is they're waiting for technology to catch up to what they need (and prices to drop accordingly).

Compare that with a MicroDrive, as used in the JVC Everio line of camcorders. The best microdrives have a minimum sustained transfer rate of 4.5 megabytes per second or so. About four times slower. Again, you'd need to RAID four of those together to get close to the performance you'd need. And even then it'd still be 1/4 the speed of a P2 card.

Microdrives can work for a little still camera or a tiny MPEG-2 SD-only program stream of maybe 3 megabits per second, like the Everio uses. But they're not the right tool at all to handle the comparatively massive 100-megabit data streams the HVX produces.

Well - JVC and Canon don't consider interchangeable lenses to be pie in the sky for a camera in this price bracket.

No, but have you seen the JVC's lens? I'd say the Canon's lens is probably a good six times more expensive than the JVC's, and probably accounts for at least half, if not more, of the total pricetag of the XL H1. And even then it doesn't have manual controls.

I've been lobbying Panasonic to build an HVX model with proper interchangeable lenses; we'll see where that goes. It'll probably be much more expensive, and someone would have to develop some quality 1/3" high-def lenses. It's probably a ways off from ever happening.

If that would indeed have been a low cost additional option, and if it was on your wish list, was it really refreshing to see Panasonic deny it for what seems like departmental pride reasons?

"Departmental Pride." Well, that's one way to look at it. Another way is to say they have standards, and they wouldn't compromise them. I think that the fact that they gave us almost everything else is quite reassuring.

I'd be far more impressed with them including the option, and putting a big warning sticker on saying "this gives less good results than the other option, but the choice is up to you".

And there are some of us that can handle that.

Then again, there are REASONS that hair dryers sold in this country include warning labels that say "do not use while in the bathtub."

If the HDV option was there, people would absolutely use it. And when things go wrong, it would absolutely reflect poorly on the manufacturer, and them saying "hey, you're the one who was dumb enough to actually USE the HDV feature" is not going to be much of a defense. So they chose to make a product that, in their opinion, they can be assured will always perform to their expectations.

You can fault them for that, or you can applaud them for that; I've seen people do both. But what you can't do is change the product at this stage of development, and continuing to ask for HDV on any Panasonic Broadcast product is, as near as I can tell, wasted breath. They are going to move past HDV, skip it entirely, and the only thing that could change that would be if ABC, NBC, CBS, the BBC, and every other broadcaster said "well, sorry, no, we only want HDV". If that happens, you can bet they'll backtrack and start producing HDV.

But the odds of that happening are slim and none, and Slim left town.

 

[harddrive]

Barry - thank you for your detailed reply. I fear we must agree to differ on the HDV option. I hear what you're saying, it may apply in a crystal clear fashion to one group of user, but it doesn't address what's really at issue to many of us - how to overcome the very expensive cost/minute of recording to P2. Equally, it doesn't solve the problem of what is for many cameramen a common situation - being booked for a days shooting, then waving production goodbye at the end of the day and giving over a handful of tape. It may be possible to work around the situation, but only at the cost of additional hassle.

Panasonic even acknowledge the cost/minute problem, and hence their comments about Firestore being an answer. But for all the reasons you outline above, is it really going to be reliable enough? They can't have their cake and eat it.

You paint a very bleak picture of HDV. I'll acknowledge it is not as good as DVCPRO HD, but then that is more compressed than HDCAM SR, say. Where should one draw the line? MPEG2 at 25Mb is after all comparable (better than) HD transmission to the home - is it really THAT bad?

If we were talking about a camera costing many times more, I'd be more inclined to agree with Panasonics points. But for a camera in the same range as a Z1, I wonder if the inevitable quality compromises of the front end will be more significant than the recording part. We will have to wait and see.

If, as you say, "Panasonic refuses to pander to the lowest common denominator, or participate in a race to the bottom", then why no interchangeable lenses? Why not go for 2/3" chips? Why not adopt a better form factor, a la HD100?

The obvious answer must be "we're designing to a cost"! And no doubt they will say that P2 and DVCPRO HD don't cost that much to incorporate. But they DO come at a cost to the consumer, either thousands of dollars for memory, or very limited recording time. I'd admire Panasonics commitment to quality standards far more if it was tempered with more pragmatism, and an understanding of field workflows. ALL field workflows.

Are you referring to a HVX200a type future upgrade or a completely different camera line that they might be developing?

I'm being completely unspecific, I'm not even SOLELY directing the comments at Panasonic alone. ALL the current cameras in this price point have their strengths and weaknesses, and if I bought in the foreseeable future it would be a case of the one with the least disadvantages - not really an ideal situation.

Yes, I fully accept that it's too late to change the design of the HVX200, but by commenting now, along with everybody else, hopefully the cameras that follow the HVX200, the Z1, and the HD100 will be more suitable than if nobody had spoken up. The HD100 is a case in point - it has it's issues, but JVC really do seem to have consulted and listened to cameramen, real cameramen. The result is something that really does handle like a scaled down pro camera, and not a scaled up consumer camera. Potential problems with the HD100 seem to be down to the limitations of the technology at their disposal, rather than ideology, and I for one respect them for that. Compared to what came before, they really do at least seem to be moving in the right direction.

It begs the question what my ideal camera would be, which in turn begs the question of how much money we're talking about. Off the top of my head, for the same amount of money, I'd probably reckon that with current technology it would come out as something like the HVX200, but with an HDV OPTION, and with an HD100 form factor.

With more to spend, perhaps something more like the forthcoming Sony HD XDCAM, but with higher bit rate recording, and the ability to record to solid state as well as XDCAM. Maybe the latter built along the lines of the standard that's been agreed to replace the PCMCIA slot.

Discuss.

 

[mezelf27]

yep, stabwound, you found the typo.... I'll steer away from the above discussion. Of course any company will say they won't use any other format because it doesn't meet their quality standards, but it is a personal thing to agree with them or not...

 

[MovieSwede]

Harddrive how many of your costumers have asked for HDV tapes?

 

[stabwound]

Harddrive:

The changes you'd like to see done to the HVX would have driven the price beyond what I can afford.

I'm very happy with the current specs and especially the price. When and if the p2 prices drop (soon, pretty please) , then I'd say that everything is perfect.

But if you managed to convince Canon, Sony and JVC to use DVCproHD as an option then I'll seriously have to reconsider my order with Rush....

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

Harddrive said:how to overcome the very expensive cost/minute of recording to P2. Equally, it doesn't solve the problem of what is for many cameramen a common situation - being booked for a days shooting, then waving production goodbye at the end of the day and giving over a handful of tape. It may be possible to work around the situation, but only at the cost of additional hassle.

Yes, there is an associated workflow change with this camera and frankly some will enjoy it and others won't, and because of the workflow change, there is the ability to have the entire shoot backed up and ready to start editing before you leave the set. And yes, it is something that you need to work through, and it is not HDV. So the point is, the more you use the P2 cards, the less expensive they become. It is a DVCPRO HD camera or a DVCPRO50 camera or a DV camera or whatever you need today camera. But it isn't nor will it be an HDV camera. So if you want to work with this camera you have to think through the workflow and there are a number of workflows that can be utilized.

Panasonic even acknowledge the cost/minute problem, and hence their comments about Firestore being an answer. But for all the reasons you outline above, is it really going to be reliable enough? They can't have their cake and eat it.

The Firestore is really one way to deal with a long recording situation, for events where you need to record continuously without a break, like a wedding ceremony.
It may not be necessary when larger P2 cards are available. And yes we do feel that the Firestore will be reliable, as does its manufacturer, Focus Enhancements. They have a very good track record with the FS-4, and we expect that to play out in the FS-100.

You paint a very bleak picture of HDV. I'll acknowledge it is not as good as DVCPRO HD, but then that is more compressed than HDCAM SR, say. Where should one draw the line? MPEG2 at 25Mb is after all comparable (better than) HD transmission to the home - is it really THAT bad?

Point is where do you draw the line to compromise. What we heard was people wanted low cost HD production equipment, and so we followed our heart on that and brought DVCPRO HD down to an affordable price point. Actually the HDV algorithm is the delivery to home signal if they were to use the entire bandwidth for one HD signal.

If we were talking about a camera costing many times more, I'd be more inclined to agree with Panasonics points. But for a camera in the same range as a Z1, I wonder if the inevitable quality compromises of the front end will be more significant than the recording part. We will have to wait and see.

On the front end, the cameras will just about be equal, plus or minus here and there. The recording differences will be the key. When I stop on a frame that has motion in it, what I have is motion blur as the artifact, not compression artifacts. What I see through the viewfinder is what I have in the recording. There is a large difference in working with DVCPRO HD as compared to HDV. Those folks used to working with DV will make some honest mistakes in working with HDV, because they assume that what is in the VF is what is on the tape. This is simply not true, because the resolution is not frame based, one frame with lots odf detail and motion can affect the resolution of the next frame. DVCPRO HD will net them the result that have been used to, what you see in the VF is what goes to the recording.

If, as you say, "Panasonic refuses to pander to the lowest common denominator, or participate in a race to the bottom", then why no interchangeable lenses? Why not go for 2/3" chips? Why not adopt a better form factor, a la HD100?

Three questions here. Why no interchangengeable lens?
Because the mechanism to make interchangeable lenses is expensive and the likelihood of a great piece of glass will be expensive. So Panasonic chose to have a consistant performance out of the camera at $6000. At $6000, the JVC looks one way, due to the cheap nature of that lens, and like something else with a lens that costs twice the price of the camera, so how many folks are going for the more expensive lens for that camera and how many 1/3" HD lenses are there? This is rhetorical and if you don't know, there are 2. Point is, there are other lenses that you can put in front of a fine piece of glass, from other manufacturers like Schnieder. The lens that is on the HVX200 is the best that the money can buy and it certainly passes the muster of Leica. They really do have to approve the lens if their name is on it.

Why not go for 2/3" chips?
Well at this price point, you could not do it.

Why not adopt a larger form factor?
Well that is a question that just can't be answered. We happen to think that the form factor of the HVX to be sweet, if you want to adopt a shoulder mounted routine you can, there are shoulder mounts out there, but if you want a hand-held then you couldn't use it that way effectively as it is too big. I mean it is a question like; did you walk to work or bring your lunch?

The obvious answer must be "we're designing to a cost"! And no doubt they will say that P2 and DVCPRO HD don't cost that much to incorporate. But they DO come at a cost to the consumer, either thousands of dollars for memory, or very limited recording time. I'd admire Panasonics commitment to quality standards far more if it was tempered with more pragmatism, and an understanding of field workflows. ALL field workflows.

While there is a way to address many workflows, the short recording time of the P2 card doesn't address them all, in time that will change as well. One cannot hit this price point with DVCPRO HD without P2. If you want to work with DVCPRO HD which was engineered for high end HD production, then there is the need to figure out how to work with the P2, or buy a VariCam. If we had put in the HDV algorithm, then everyone would be shooting in HDV and calling it an HVX200 recording, and that would confuse and erode the DVCPRO HD format. Why? Because people would see the artifacts that are a part of the HDV algorithm and and mistakenly attribute it to the DVCPRO HD format because it is an "HVX200 recording." This is a mistake that Panasonic would not endure.

I'm being completely unspecific, I'm not even SOLELY directing the comments at Panasonic alone. ALL the current cameras in this price point have their strengths and weaknesses, and if I bought in the foreseeable future it would be a case of the one with the least disadvantages - not really an ideal situation.

And so you should look at the cameras with a slightly different eye, which one has the least compromise, rather than disadvantage. If you can figure out how to work within the P2 paradigm, there is a no compromise to its quality over other 1/3" cameras because it is working in a frame based compression scheme. There is a compromise of it to a bigger brother 2/3" camera, but that is not the discussion here.

The HD100 is a case in point - it has it's issues, but JVC really do seem to have consulted and listened to cameramen, real cameramen.

I can point to just about every feature on the HVX and relate it to a list that was on this very forum, actually under the DVX100 forum. We too listened to experienced camera people, we listened to some inexperienced ones as well. Many of the features on the HVX are part of that very customer focused design.

With more to spend, perhaps something more like the forthcoming Sony HD XDCAM, but with higher bit rate recording, and the ability to record to solid state as well as XDCAM. Maybe the latter built along the lines of the standard that's been agreed to replace the PCMCIA slot.

The PCMCIA slot will be here for years, and I do mean years, to come. And in a few years we will have P2 cards that will individually hold 30 minutes and 60 minutes and 128 minutes. Memory prices always fall, and increases in capacity at the same time. This is the beauty of the paradigm as it is driven by the consumer market's demand for higher capacity SD cards. There are over 700 manufacturers making products that are based on SD memory. There is demand. and the P2 Card benefits.

I do see that this discussion goes on and on and seems to have a life blood in wanting the HVX to be something it is not. It is not an HDV camera, and it was designed that way on purpose. It may not be the camera for you, not you in particular Harddrive, but the ubiquitous you that wants this camera to be HDV. If want to use $5.00 tapes, okay, go buy the HDV camera, because this camera will not be that camera. If you want the feature set that makes the HVX200 a slick little camera, it is based on the fact that it is frame based recording and DVCPRO HD. This is what sets it apart from the other cameras.

Best regards,

Jan

 

[harddrive]

Harddrive how many of your costumers have asked for HDV tapes?

The simple answer is not many. Before you go "huh, well then" then none have asked for DVCPRO HD, and not too many for HDCAM.

All that is because in the UK there is no HD broadcasting - yet. Hence shooting for my main (large) client is currently mainly Digibeta at the high end, DV at the low end. The top end is starting to go towards mainly HDCAM, and currently Z1s are starting to be used in quantity at the other end. Currently mainly in SD, but with the advantage that they are a far better 16:9 camera than what went before. The expectation is that over the next couple of years these will increasingly be used in HDV mode as HD broadcasting ramps up. Hence my visiting this and other forums - I want an idea of how things will progress in the next couple of years.

The point that seems to be being missed is that this client (like many others) will not be choosing to use HDV over DVCPRO HD because they consider it a better format. They will choose it because of practicalities of workflow, and put up with the disadvantages. The possible ways of changing workflow to make P2 feasible have been fully explained and explored, believe me, and I don't personally know anyone who has been convinced. (Though many concede it will be the norm in about 5 years, and I go along with that.) Obviously there are many on this board who disagree, and yes, there are types of work for which it is the right answer. But I'd maintain that in the industry as a whole, that work represents a minority, albeit a very important one.

Thanks to Jan for her very detailed reply. There are a couple of things I must respond to though.

And yes we do feel that the Firestore will be reliable, as does its manufacturer, Focus Enhancements. They have a very good track record with the FS-4, and we expect that to play out in the FS-100.

I use an FS4 Pro a lot, have been using one all this week, and use it out of choice - it saves me a lot of time overall. That said, it is NOT 100% reliable. Occasionally when importing into Avid I get one or more clip report "Media offline". Because I always record to tape AS WELL there's no problem, I can always go back to that. I would not entertain now ONLY recording to the FS4. Equally some of my colleagues have had no problems, some have had a couple of catastrophic ones - but we can always revert to the tape copy at the moment.

Why not adopt a larger form factor?
Well that is a question that just can't be answered. We happen to think that the form factor of the HVX to be sweet, if you want to adopt a shoulder mounted routine you can, there are shoulder mounts out there,

The question I asked was "Why not adopt a BETTER form factor, a la HD100?", very different to "larger form factor". After first seeing photographs, I was amazed to find the Z1 and HD100 very similar in terms of size and weight, give or take a bit, and I'm expecting the HVX200 to be similar again. But I've tried hand holding the first two. The HD100 I could happily film with until the cows come home, the Z1 gave me wrist ache after a few minutes, and there seems to be considerable consensus amongst cameramen about this. A shoulder mount may be possible, but then the entire length of the camera is pushed in front of one, whilst with the HD100, half the length is alongside the head. Far better in confined spaces.

I feel the Z1 would be far more ergonomically satisfactory with an eyepiece finder where the LCD screen currently is.

If we had put in the HDV algorithm, then everyone would be shooting in HDV and calling it an HVX200 recording, and that would confuse and erode the DVCPRO HD format. Why? Because people would see the artifacts that are a part of the HDV algorithm and and mistakenly attribute it to the DVCPRO HD format because it is an "HVX200 recording." This is a mistake that Panasonic would not endure.

I really, genuinely believe that if you and your company truly think that you are underestimating the intelligence of the film making company at large. We must agree to differ.

If want to use $5.00 tapes, okay, go buy the HDV camera, because this camera will not be that camera. If you want the feature set that makes the HVX200 a slick little camera, it is based on the fact that it is frame based recording and DVCPRO HD.

I'd like to have my cake and eat it. Sometimes DVCPRO HD will be most important (and P2 will suit a workflow), sometimes it will be totally unsuitable and HDV will be a more pragmatic approach. I'd like to have the option to decide for myself on a job by job basis. As things stand I see no camera at this price range that properly meets many peoples needs for the foreseeable future.

Jan - I'm afraid I'm still unconvinced by Panasonics arguments, though I concede they may be true for some people. But thank you for taking the time and trouble to reply in detail, and thank you for listening.

I wonder if Sony are across this debate? And what they may even now be planning for the "Z2"?

 

[Barry_Green]

Equally, it doesn't solve the problem of what is for many cameramen a common situation - being booked for a days shooting, then waving production goodbye at the end of the day and giving over a handful of tape.

Oh, I agree, and I couldn't figure out a way to do it either. And I've made some decent money doing exactly that. I badgered poor Jan for a workflow solution to that situation, and finally realized that while there's a way, it's not the way we're used to (it would involve dubbing to an off-the-shelf drive and handing that over). And I think that would be a fantastic option for the producer to receive, but not necessarily practical in all cases.

So frankly, that's why I bought an HD100 as well. I figured that yes, it'll cost me more, but then I have two cameras, two approaches to whatever circumstance arrives. For those who need a tape at the end of the day, and just can't imagine any other workflow, well, I'd have the ability to provide that. And at an anticipated rate of $1000-$1200/day for shooting HD, it really was a no-brainer -- the thing would pay for itself in five days of shooting, so big whoop as far as having to shell out for two cameras, right?

Well, sorry, but it just wasn't ready for prime time for several reasons, and I returned it. First, the split-screen made it impractical for available-light shooting circumstances -- I simply could not trust that the footage I was getting would be usable for the client. And others will disagree, and they're free to -- but for my standards, I could not reconcile the idea of handing over footage that had the split-screen down the middle.

But second, and far worse: HDV is not a standardized format. It is, at current count, three different and incompatible formats! Sure you may want to be able to hand over a tape, but: can the client use it? If the client has Sony or Canon equipment, that JVC HDV tape will be utterly useless to them. Are you going to require your clients to have a JVC deck and a Sony deck and a Canon camera, just so they can be sure they can play whatever tape you happen to give them? Or, alternately, are you going to have to buy a Canon and a Sony and a JVC camera, so you're prepared for whatever a client calls you and asks for? And they can't just say "HDV" because there are three incompatible HDV formats out there. If your client has JVC equipment and you shoot Sony, you are 100% incompatible with them -- you may as well give a DigiBeta tape to a VHS user, because that's about how compatible the formats are.

HDV is majorly flawed, and those who buy into it are in for some rude awakenings. Interestingly enough, the *only* way to guarantee compatibility is to *NOT* give them a tape, it's to give them the footage on a hard disk! HDV is compatible at the editor level (well, actually, that's a lie too -- FCP can't read HDV 720/24p, and it's likely that editors will have trouble with Canon 1080/24F as well)... but assuming you shoot 720/30p or 1080/60i, editors are cross-compatible if you supply the footage on hard disk, not on tape. And as long as you're supplying hard disk, why not hand over a pre-dubbed hard disk from the HVX, which will be better-quality footage anyway?

One of these days one of these manufacturers will pluck their heads out of their rectums and design a universal-format deck that can properly play (to firewire) all the HDV variants. When that happens, and when everyone adopts that deck, then the incompatibilities of HDV will start to fade away. Until then, someone who buys into HDV with the idea that they're going to be a hired shooter is just asking for a world of hurt.

MPEG2 at 25Mb is after all comparable (better than) HD transmission to the home - is it really THAT bad?

You're in London, so I assume you haven't been watching much HD broadcasting, correct? Yes it definitely is that bad, when you consider that it's happening to your source footage. 720p transmissions usually look pretty good, 1080i transmissions break up any time there's a fade or dissolve or transition of any type -- and break up significantly. I find 1080i HDTV irritating and frustrating to watch -- when it's performing well it looks so good, and when it breaks up it looks so BAD. Now, HDV is better than that, and while it is prone to artifacting, you don't get it quite as bad as broadcast transitions etc. But this is your SOURCE footage we're talking about here. I can almost understand it happening in the final broadcast, which is always the worst that any signal ever looks. But in your source footage? Completely unacceptable -- to me, at least. Others standards will vary. The only flavor of HDV that I find reliable and satisfactory enough is the 720/24p version, which allocates by far the most bits per pixel and is thus the least-compressed of any variant.

Why not adopt a better form factor, a la HD100?

I keep asking... and I hope they will. I hope they'll make a companion product, such as the DSR250 was to the 150. But frankly, the DVX has been such a runaway hit, by far the biggest hit Panasonic has ever had, that I don't blame them for one second for designing the HVX to be as DVX-like as possible. I just hope they see the wisdom of releasing a second, companion product.

But they DO come at a cost to the consumer, either thousands of dollars for memory, or very limited recording time.

Versus the cost to the consumer of getting ruined macroblocked footage... as you like to say, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Panasonic makes the compromise known up front. HDV bites you in the butt when you least expect it.

but JVC really do seem to have consulted and listened to cameramen, real cameramen. The result is something that really does handle like a scaled down pro camera, and not a scaled up consumer camera.

Agreed -- the JVC handles beautifully, its ergonomics are great (provided you get the IDX or A/B battery; it's very front-heavy otherwise, but with a proper battery it balances very well). If it hadn't been for the split-screen, and there had been an easy way to adapt 16mm movie lenses to it, I would have loved that HD100.

Off the top of my head, for the same amount of money, I'd probably reckon that with current technology it would come out as something like the HVX200, but with an HDV OPTION, and with an HD100 form factor.

I agree, which is why I bought both. Although I will say that the HDV option, after experiencing it, is no longer what I'd want. I'd want what HDV should have been, not what it is. What it is, is a mishmash mess of three incompatible formats. What I would have wanted is a cheap and easily-delivered, easily-recorded-on-cheap-media, standardized high-def format.

I still have hopes that FireStore will get it right for the HVX. If they make it like the FS-4, it'll be a mistake in my opinion. The FS-4 is not the product we need or want -- I'm sure it'll be useful for some purposes, but not for what you & I are asking for -- a way to hand footage over to the client at the end of the shoot. What it should be is a user-interchangeable hard disk solution. Something where you can buy a $100 laptop drive at CompUSA, and plug it in to the FS100 housing. At the end of the shoot you press an "eject" button and it spits it out. Then you hand the hard drive over to your client (and if you're kind, you encase it in a $25 enclosure so it's USB2-compatible). Same workflow as handing over a tape, similar cost to other professional HD tape formats, but it's pre-digitized and instantly editable. That's what the FireStore should be. And I hope that's what they make it.

 

[wabbit]

The simple answer is not many. Before you go "huh, well then" then none have asked for DVCPRO HD, and not too many for HDCAM.

All that is because in the UK there is no HD broadcasting - yet. Hence shooting for my main (large) client is currently mainly Digibeta at the high end, DV at the low end.

That is part of why I believe Panasonic hit the nail on the head here. Professionally very few of us are receiving a demand for HD. Eventually (and hopefully soon) HD will be the standard request. By this point P2 will be at a more reasonable price and size for most. In the meantime, customers who want HD will pay for it and you can rent P2 cards for that shoot. That's why I see it as the perfect transitional camera as we move into the HD world.

I really, genuinely believe that if you and your company truly think that you are underestimating the intelligence of the film making company at large. We must agree to differ.

I would disagree with you on that. The IQ of the producers I have had to deal none-withstanding, they are move often quite clueless as to equipment and technical details. Basically they become parrots of what some cameraman or editor they trust told them. For that reason, I believe the HVX will impress enough people that it will be the requested "cheap HD" camera like the DVX has become for DV. Throw HDV on it and you have to expect the producer to listen and comprehend the difference in compression schemes. As a whole, how many producers do we know that will listen, pay attention, or comprehend the differences? "Just tell me what camera we should use!"

(apologies to any producers reading, but that has been the majority of my experience :happy: )

 

[Konrad]

Lets not forget that sound is 50% of the viewing experience. Sony's own spam in the form of the VASST book on HDV that came with Vegas paints a dim view of HDV sound. The HVX200 appears the clear winner in the sound department. But as Barry said it's not the specs it's the qualty when you view it.

Not to mention while all the HDCP fallout that the FCC drop on us 7/1/05 which is a negative impact on all HD users.

 

[baro]

Hard drives are noisy, and they have to be big to be fast. You mention consumer cameras using hard drives -- have you seen how SLOW those hard disks are? Nowhere near fast enough to support a minimum sustained transfer rate of 15 megabytes per second. You'd have to RAID four of those microdrives together before you had a chance at achieving the data transfer rate necessary to record a 100-megabit signal.

Forget Microdrives! 1.8" hard drives are much better. For one megabyte they are much faster, lighter and cheaper than microdrives. They are not too large, so they are quite resistance to shock (they are used in iPods), still they are capable of recording the required data rate (in the Kinetta they record 110Mb/sec). Two of these are the size of one 2.5" HDD, so you could easily put two of these for data redundancy into the HVX200.

It is not that I'm unhappy about the HVX200. It seems they came close to perfection as far as the initial information can tell. But with an internal HDD versus the FireStore, they could have come even closer.

 

[dstevens]

The advantage for us more creative types is that while most of this technical talk flies way over our heads and we'd really like to understand more of it, at the end of the day we arrive at the same place. The footage looks good or it doesn't.:thumbsup:

Sorry to jump into the fray rather late, but this discussion is interesting.

I've seen some footage on the HDR-FX1 posted on the web which blew me away. Part of the appeal wasn't just lines of resolution, there was clearly a lot of thought and talent in composing the picture, DOF, etc.

Maybe it looked that good I was watching on the web, not on a big screen. But I'm more on the creative/indie film maker side, and the results speak the clearest to me. I emailed the guy who did it, he had the PAL version of the FX1 and a 35mm adapter. Whatever he had, I'll take it. He had a Fisher Price looking camera and the uncompressed/doohickey/flux capacitor editing thingy? Fine! I'll take it if it looks that good!

How does Sony's HDV look when will transferred to 35mm? I'm not chasing the 35mm grail. I'm among those tending to think the future is watching stuff on the web, downloadable content on your pc and mobile devices.

 

[ullanta]

Harddrive, dude, you just have to come to terms with the fact that Panasonic is making a product for which you are not the intended audience. These things happen. I shoot long form, and though I love my DVX, and long for all the features of the HVX, I just had to come to the realization that, until P2 prices come down, it's not ready for me and I'm not ready for it. A few years ago, I had no need or justification for the cost of the DVX, and didn't buy a DVX. When it made sense, I bought one. You're not ready for the HVX. Don't be offended... many companies make products that don't suit your needs. Lucky for you, many companies do indeed make products that suit your needs and desires - Sony, Canon, and JVC, for instance. Buy one! And let the HVX travel it's own path without enmity.

-Barry

 

[harddrive]

Lucky for you, many companies do indeed make products that suit your needs and desires - Sony, Canon, and JVC, for instance. Buy one! And let the HVX travel it's own path without enmity.

I don’t think you can have really read what I’ve been saying. I’ll requote again just one of the ways I said it. “ALL the current cameras in this price point have their strengths and weaknesses, and if I bought in the foreseeable future it would be a case of the one with the least disadvantages - not really an ideal situation.”

I don’t have enmity for the HVX200. Far from it. It has much to commend it, and what is really, truly irritating is that it could so easily be so much better, so much more universal, without making it any worse for any of it’s current admirers. The truth is that none of the models you refer to is without fault, none is ideal for me and many others.

Why should I therefore just go away and buy another model with it’s own set of problems, rather than try and debate the matter through logically? Especially somewhere where influential people are known to listen, and hopefully take note? Just because it may suit you well as it stands, isn’t it somewhat selfish to then say “to hell with the problems of others”?

Professionally very few of us are receiving a demand for HD. Eventually (and hopefully soon) HD will be the standard request. By this point P2 will be at a more reasonable price and size for most…….

I don’t think there is that much time. The expectation is that HD demand will greatly increase in about a years time, and be well on the way to the norm in maybe two. At least for some clients which concern me. One particular (large) company’s estimates reckon that P2 viability for them will not be close to acceptable for HD at 100Mb for about six years (24p and 40Mb is not an option in their case, it will be 1080i/25 or 720p/50). HDCAM will soon supercede Digibeta for their high end work, but what about the rest?

Z1s are currently the most likely least worse all round option, with maybe HD XDCAM for mid range work, but an added to HVX200 would, IMO, be a better option. (Can anybody really believe those to be the words of one who bears “enmity” towards it!?!) “Add-ons” that wouldn’t inconvenience or disadvantage any of it’s supporters here?

You're in London, so I assume you haven't been watching much HD broadcasting, correct? Yes it definitely is that bad, when you consider that it's happening to your source footage. 720p transmissions usually look pretty good, 1080i transmissions break up any time there's a fade or dissolve or transition of any type -- and break up significantly.” …….

Yes, I’m in London, and yes, I haven’t seen any at home. But we do get satellite services from Belgium for demonstration purposes, live big events for cinema showing, etc etc, which are all 1080, and I’ve been able to view plenty of those. I’ve never noticed a “significant breakup” “any time there’s a fade or dissolve or transition of any type.” Maybe there are some imperfections, but generally it is very, very good. Better than other demos we’re getting at the moment in stores, using hard drives and WMV with god knows what bit rates/processors etc. Even so, those are still substantially better than the RF distribution that retailers generally use!

I had the chance at work to bring some of these points up with some of the broadcast engineers in the company in the last day or two, who also brought up the subject of the OB links that are necessary as an overall solution, as well as the eventual transmission to end viewer. One comment stuck in my mind: “Do you really believe the world’s broadcasters would be moving over to a system (MPEG2 at about 20Mb) if it really was as flawed as (Barry) makes out!?” They suspect the problem may lie with a local fault, poor reception, whatever rather than an intrinsic system failing if you really do experience such serious problems – your experiences don’t appear to be general.

That’s not to say you’re wrong when you talk of DVCPRO HD being preferable to HDV for production in principle. Just that for links, transmission, recording when memory is constrained (as with P2) etc etc broadcast TV sometimes necessitates compromise (always has). And they don’t believe the compromise is anything like as serious as you’d have us believe. Even DVCPRO HD has it's compromises - reduced horizontal resolution compared to other HD formats.

“But second, and far worse: HDV is not a standardized format. It is, at current count, three different and incompatible formats”

It also seems that any incompatibilities between HDV systems aren’t quite as bad as you infer. By and large, there are really only two – HDV1 (for 720) and HDV2 (for 1080), which is comparable to NTSC and PAL for DV. The basic spec for the latter allows for 1080p/25 and 1080i/25 (/30 in 60Hz countries). Canon seem to have extended that to permit a 24p option which earlier machines hardly surprisingly don’t recognise. My understanding is that any other (non 24p) recording made on the Canon will be fine on any other HDV2 machine. Since 24p is not really seen as so important in Europe (except for solely laying off to film) it’s not seen as a real problem here. No worse than having 720 and 1080 in the first place, or NTSC and PAL for DV.

Barry, I’m glad at least we agree about desirable form factors. Over the last day or two I did hear an interesting point of view as to why JVC seemed to be so much better than Sony or Panasonic in this respect – namely that they have no significant very expensive true pro range to protect, so need all the help they can get! Whereas for the big two it’s a way of “stunting” their appeal for the higher end market, without lowering the output quality. I don’t normally go for conspiracy theories, but that has made me wonder.

 

[Barry_Green]

Yes, I’m in London, and yes, I haven’t seen any at home. But we do get satellite services from Belgium for demonstration purposes, live big events for cinema showing, etc etc, which are all 1080, and I’ve been able to view plenty of those. I’ve never noticed a “significant breakup” “any time there’s a fade or dissolve or transition of any type.”

I recorded some footage of a football game from NBC, from the over-the-air transmission, on a digital DVR recording the native broadcast stream. If I can figure a way to export single frames or take screen shots, I'll show you what I'm talking about. Some of it will curl your nostril hairs, I guarantee.

When it looks good, it looks great. When it gets overloaded, it does not look great.

One comment stuck in my mind: “Do you really believe the world’s broadcasters would be moving over to a system (MPEG2 at about 20Mb) if it really was as flawed as (Barry) makes out!?” They suspect the problem may lie with a local fault, poor reception, whatever rather than an intrinsic system failing if you really do experience such serious problems – your experiences don’t appear to be general.

Hey, I'm just pointing out what I'm seeing, and I get HD in two different feeds -- via over-the-air, and via cox cable. It does it equally on both. It's much less prevalent in 720p, but 1080i is just pushing things too far. It's mostly noticeable in sports, but it can happen in other circumstances as well. And it ain't just me -- google search for the HD broadcast of the olympics if you want to read some horror stories, especially related to the diving competitions.

Now, with that said, I greatly prefer watching HD over the SD broadcasts of the same shows. When it looks good it looks amazingly good. But I'm not going to pretend that there isn't serious SERIOUS artifacting going on, because there most obviously is. Someone would have to be blind as a bat, stoned on acid, and actually have their television turned OFF in order to not see it. Again, not so much in primetime dramas (unless it's a radical jump cut, a foggy/smoky scene, or a dissolve) but very prevalent in sports coverage, and moreso in 1080 than in 720.

It also seems that any incompatibilities between HDV systems aren’t quite as bad as you infer.

Well, here's where things are at today with "HDV", and you can decide whether it's bad or not.

No Sony recording of any type will play in any JVC equipment of any kind.

No Canon recording of any type will play in any JVC equipment of any kind.

No JVC recording of any type will play in any Canon equipment of any kind.

Of the three modes the Canon records, only 60i will play in Sony equipment. 1080/24f and 1080/30f will not play in any Sony equipment of any kind, and presumably 1080/25f won't either.

Sony equipment cannot be used to digitize JVC footage. Sony equipment can play back JVC footage to an analog output, but cannot play it back digitally. And I don't know if Sonys can even try to play back the 720/24P footage from the JVC.

Only the HD100 and BR-50 deck can play back JVC 720/24p footage. Not even JVC's other products (the HD1, HD10, and CU1 deck) can play that! JVC's own format is somewhat incompatible even with itself!

On the plus side, Sony footage can be played back in Canon equipment.

So there you have it. You decide if it's a workable situation for your own purposes, but this isn't "opinion", this is tested and guaranteed facts. This is what's actually happening under the "HDV" label.

For a "closed shop", where you edit everything you shoot, it's workable. For a hired-shooter who gets a call from someone who says "hey, I need you to shoot some HDV"... well, it isn't quite the same as when someone calls and says "hey, I need you to shoot some BetaSP" or "some DV", etc. I don't know about you, but I don't relish the idea of being hired to provide footage and handing over a tape that the producer cannot use, or have them find out that now they have to go buy a $3,000 deck just to be able to view it! (and of course in the case of the Canon, they couldn't even do that because there *are* no decks!)

 

[wabbit]

I don't own a HD set yet but when I go to Best Buy I swing by the TV's and watch some programing. The HD content certainly is beautiful but I have seen tons of artifacts from some pretty simple pictures. The one that really stood out to me was a live broadcast of a gold tournament. 98 percent of picture was fairly static, the pro putts the ball......little artifacts chase the ball all the way to hole. Clearly live compression needs some work. :angry:

 

[Emanuel]

Your quote:

(...)24p is not really seen as so important in Europe (except for solely laying off to film) it’s not seen as a real problem here.(...)

:thumbdown

Your own words:

(...)[about HVX200]and what is really, truly irritating is that it could so easily be so much better, so much more universal, without making it any worse for any of it’s current admirers. The truth is that none of the models you refer to is without fault, none is ideal for me and many others.(...)

:thumbsup:

 

[Loki]

HDV is just a poor format...

I prefer DV to it immensely.. and I don't even consider DV a good format..

guess I will just have to use the HVX... life sucks :happy: