Why doesn't the HVX do HDV?
- Thread starter roxics
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
I wouldn't go that far! I think HDV is an amazing accomplishment, and when it looks good, it looks very good indeed. The 720/24p version is probably the most robust, but on static shots the Z1 can certainly make you say "wow". It's definitely capable of delivering some great looking shots.Loki said:
With that said, there are definite issues with it, issues that I can't reconcile, but many people can, and more power to them. It's certainly an affordable format, what with HC1's going for around $1600, and the FX1 offers an awful lot of camera for its $3200 price tag.
I don't think it's robust enough for professional use, but I was willing to work around that (knowing what causes it problems, and having a reasonably good idea of how to avoid them). It was the HD100's other problems that killed it for me. And I just cannot stomach the 1080i version no matter how you slice it, although I recognize that others are very happy with it. I think the Z1's a nice design, and for the last 9 months it's been the best value in affordable high-def. I do think the HVX renders the Z1 completely irrelevant for all purposes except those that require a tape to be handed over at the end of the day's shoot, but that doesn't mean a Z1 is "bad", it just means that I can't fathom dealing with the artifacts and dropouts limited color sampling and other issues when the HVX is due out soon and suffers from none of those drawbacks.
For a closed shop, I can see where HDV could make sense. The main area where I say the format is bad is in the incompatibility among the various manufacturers; if they'd given it different names that would have been better (JVC should have never joined the HDV group, they should have just marketed it as ProHD, and Sony should have called theirs HDV, and Canon should have called theirs something else like XHD or something; then we wouldn't be complaining about the compatibility issues, we'd be celebrating the limited range of compatibility that they do offer!)
i think HDV is junk too. It can look pretty on some shots sure, but I just am not a fan of the post process.
That said.. HDV its better than nothing, and its pretty safe to say JVC and HDV helped kickstart the whole HD-Prosumer market. HDV is a good solution to people needing to hand off tapes at the end of the day... its the only real reason to use it.
But what if Panasonic or Sony made a little external field deck, like it did with the DVX, that went from firewire to HDV hah hah hah... then you would have it all covered. But, since that cool little field recorder panasonic released with the DVX didnt fare well and got discontinued pretty quick, i doubt it will happen.
That said.. HDV its better than nothing, and its pretty safe to say JVC and HDV helped kickstart the whole HD-Prosumer market. HDV is a good solution to people needing to hand off tapes at the end of the day... its the only real reason to use it.
But what if Panasonic or Sony made a little external field deck, like it did with the DVX, that went from firewire to HDV hah hah hah... then you would have it all covered. But, since that cool little field recorder panasonic released with the DVX didnt fare well and got discontinued pretty quick, i doubt it will happen.
stephenlnoe
Well-known member
I've been shooting with the HD-100 for weeks now in every kind of lighting and environmental scenario and I can attest to it's quality. It is extremely easy to work with in the NLE. The deliverables in SD have been great and far better than the DVC/DVX rigs we're used to. Right now we (my production company and SMS Chicago) are working an a 35MM transfer from HD-100 footage to show as a sales reel for the camera. We've also shot the Varicam and HD-100 together. It's surprising how a $6000 camera can have such great quality. The HD-100 in an excellent camera and very well thought out. There are some drawbacks and B.Green pointed out the biggest one with HDV1.
Barry is right about the fact of compatability between HDV. Even in my NLE (Liquid) I must setup the program to favor either HDV1 or HDV2 at any one time. If you do go with HDV you must make a decision to either go with HDV1 or HDV2. The BR50 deck will convert to to 1080i for you but it will not play tapes shot in 1080i. There is talk of a multi HDV format deck on the horizon but that's not now. The BR50 deck will play just about everything (DVCam, miniDV, HDV1) but HDV2 tapes so the only exclusive part is the HDV for that deck.
I reserve judgement on the HVX200 until the thing actually arrives. Nothing is ever as good as it seems (except maybe a first kiss).
@B.Greene, I've been working directly with JVC on all these HD-100 test. We're pushing the limits. Had you thought about looking at the HD-100 again?
Barry is right about the fact of compatability between HDV. Even in my NLE (Liquid) I must setup the program to favor either HDV1 or HDV2 at any one time. If you do go with HDV you must make a decision to either go with HDV1 or HDV2. The BR50 deck will convert to to 1080i for you but it will not play tapes shot in 1080i. There is talk of a multi HDV format deck on the horizon but that's not now. The BR50 deck will play just about everything (DVCam, miniDV, HDV1) but HDV2 tapes so the only exclusive part is the HDV for that deck.
I reserve judgement on the HVX200 until the thing actually arrives. Nothing is ever as good as it seems (except maybe a first kiss).
@B.Greene, I've been working directly with JVC on all these HD-100 test. We're pushing the limits. Had you thought about looking at the HD-100 again?
Barry_Green
Moderator
By the way, IINM, Europe is planning on skipping MPEG-2 and going with MPEG-4, aren't they? That right there would make *all* the difference in the world. MPEG-4 delivers quality about equivalent to MPEG-2 at twice its bitrate, so a 20-megabit MPEG-4 stream would be about equivalent to a 40-megabit MPEG-2 stream, and that would overcome a huge degree of the bit-starved nature of broadcast HD.harddrive said:
I only wish they could do the same thing here.
You're right about MPEG-4 (or another advanced codec, I'm not sure it's finalised yet) BUT the reason isn't to enable higher quality, but to enable reduced bit rates and more channels with all else equal. I agree with your maths about an approximate factor of two referred to MPEG2, so we're talking about twice as many channels. Currently I understand 20Mb is the MAXIMUM you're likely to get at home, though I'm less familiar with the US sitauation. In Japan I believe that's what a satellite receiver is likely to get, with around 14 Mb being the norm for terrestial transmission. Consequently, HDV2 with 25Mb doesn't seem so silly does it?Barry_Green said:
This is for broadcast to home. I don't know what will happen regarding links within broadcasters, especially satellite links, since the quality/bitrate improvement of MPEG4 comes at the cost of more complex processing and latency problems (delay). That's already a problem for situations such as a news programme and a reporter in the field, with a delay between a question being asked and the answer. MPEG4 would make that worse.
I've been led to believe that all this is the result of very extensive tests done to determine minimum acceptable bit rates before noticeable quality loss occurs. As said before, all TV must involve an element of compromise, but I don't believe the severity of the degradation you describe would have been considered remotely acceptable by such as the EBU or the equivalent US authority. Equally it doesn't match my own experiences. The engineers do speculate that maybe something is giving a high error rate within your equipment? Who knows. Either way, you may find some interesting reading at http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_home.html relating to what the situation is in Europe at the moment - and it may convince you that current systems have been arrived at after a lot of expensive complicated research!
The "all else equal" rule of thumb I've heard is that MPEG2 gives about one third the bitrate for comparable quality to an I-frame only system for the vast majority of material. (Very roughly.) The drawback is that it involves more processing power, and complicates the edit, though with modern computers the situation is arguably better than when DV itself first emerged, with the power then available. One engineer has said to me that if they were now bringing out a camera and could afford 100Mb, they wouldn't use it to make an I-frame only system. Better to improve on DVCPRO HDs resolution horizontally (up the luminance to 1280 from 960, and the chrominance to 640 from 480 for 720p), reduce the I frame compression, and accept a certain amount of interframe compression. Better still would be even higher bitrates, and even fewer compromises, but now we're talking about the likes of HDCAM-SR.
To be honest, I'm not sure how much most of this quality discussion matters, certainly not for my main client, who I believe is not alone in expecting to use high end cameras for the top work, and smaller cheaper ones for the rest. For the latter I'd be very happy to use DVCPRO HD and P2 if all else were equal. But it's not, and the reasons are nothing to do with picture quality, but workflow, and this brings this topic straight round to where I started.
An HDV recording on the tape is worth two DVCPRO HD recordings that didn't happen because not enough cards could be afforded. (And before somebody yet again screams "so go and buy a Z1 or a HD100", there are some scenarios where P2 would work well for us. Very well indeed. An HVX200 with HDV as an OPTIONAL EXTRA would be ideal for us, an HDV only camera would not be.)
So at present we're reluctantly inclining towards an HDV camera with Firestore for the lower end work when HD ramps up, along with other people I know. But my SD work with the FS4 leaves me in no doubt that that has it's fair share of issues - long switch on to ready time, powering issues, reliability of connecting cables, fan noise, and needing to be totally protected from rain being the ones that spring to mind. All of which would go away with a camera which recorded HDV to tape, as well as whatever to P2.
The Machinist
Respected Member
Barry
I read elsewhere from someone who claimed to have talked to a JVC representative that the split-screening effect only occured when theHD100's gain was cranked up to 12db. Did you find this to be true in your experience? Also what other problems did you notice with the camera?
I'm looking for a rentable HD solution while i wait for the horses to come in before making a final purchase, and have been looking to rent an HD100 to give it a test drive. I've already used the Z1 and was not very impressed by its handling of simple camera movements.
I read elsewhere from someone who claimed to have talked to a JVC representative that the split-screening effect only occured when theHD100's gain was cranked up to 12db. Did you find this to be true in your experience? Also what other problems did you notice with the camera?
I'm looking for a rentable HD solution while i wait for the horses to come in before making a final purchase, and have been looking to rent an HD100 to give it a test drive. I've already used the Z1 and was not very impressed by its handling of simple camera movements.
wabbit
Evil has Ears
The Machinist said:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/forumdisplay.php?f=46
There is a whole section dedicated to the JVC camera on here. Barry posts over there too. :thumbsup:
The Machinist
Respected Member
most excellent. Thank you.
I dont care for HDV that much but it is viable, editable and can look very very good. It also is CHEAP and records to tape for up to an hour. Fitting in HDV just was probably too much to ask but if you compare apples to apples... the cost of getting HD from the HVX is substantially more than getting HDV, same goes with the post. We are still a ways away from developing a solid workflow and field acquistion for the masses...
ash =o)
ash =o)
Malcolm Wright
Well-known member
harddrive said:
Its not necessarily an advantage to place a product straddling two markets, and I'll exempt myself from having to demonstrate the how's and why's of that: it should be self-evident.
It is simple: everything about the HVX points to cater to the expectations of users with professional, higher-end needs. People who couldn't afford previous dvcPro HD cameras, or who need smaller, less obtrusive amd more maneuverable cameras offering similar image quality to the gruntier and more expensive options.
That's the target market, and diluting that market in any way to cater to people who want to use a lesser quality format simply doesn't make sense.
I cannot bring myself to see how the consumer is suffering from 'anything' if the HVX200 delivers what it seems to promise for the price it will be sold for. But I guess some people just need to complain.
You just need to figure out what you really want. If you want HDV, there are plenty of cameras out there for you...
Sure, but how long do you think people are going to ask for HDV? P2 is going to drop radically in price over the next few years. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 50 percent drop within the first year or two. Once that is under way, why would you even be thinking about HDV anymore?
This simply proves you'll never be happy.
Once again, from Panasonic's viewpoint, P2 is going to satisfy a large portion of their customers from the get go. The expense, even in the early days, is nothing to what one had to pay for a dvcPro HD camera to date. The fact that a firestore will be available is simply another option for those who absoutely refuse to dump their p2 cards alternatingly while shooting, or who can't afford to have many of them. As a manufacturer, you don't want the liability of building a big hard drive into your camera that might fail necessitating the unit to be returned for service, when you know the camera is going to be in situations that tend to cause such failures.
As an option, the firestore can be used in less perilous conditions, or left out of the equation on shoots where conditions would endanger it. Option = good. Plus, with the drive separate from the camera, your camera doesn't have to be immobilised when transferring data to an editing system, or for derushing.
They have other issues AND none of the incredible innovations the HVX200 is such a big deal for in the first place... hence my wonder at why they are being brought into the equation.
For everyone who thinks like you, there will always be someone like me (or two) who will think: why did I have to pay for the rights to the format and the encoding chip when I have no use for HDV whatsoever? If you want/need the advantages that dvcPro HD offers in terms of greater color correction latitude, ease of keying, and overall better image quality (which are the main reasons for desiring this camera in the first place), chances are you are not going to care whether you can shoot to the lesser format.
You have more of an argument suggesting changes to the camera that would hike its price that are in line with higher-end needs: interchangeable lenses, for instance.
This is my forst post to these forums, and I'm sorry its not the most joyous post you'll ever read. I'm just a bit at a loss to see so much negativity about such a bold and visionary move on behalf of Panasonic. You mentioned having your cake, eating it and wanting another piece... That's a pretty good description of your expectations for this new camera. You want it to do EVERYTHING that you want it to do, regardless of sound economics, and regardless of what its primary target market wants out of it.
So people don't get the wrong impression: I think this forum is excellent. I've learned a huge amount from reading, and I joined because I hope to contribute back. I'm sorry my first post was a bit of a rant.
M.
stephenlnoe
Well-known member
That is definately a point of view that you are entitled too. The P2 scenario is not new though. They used to call it 'flash memory' and flash cards. People have legitimate trepidation about P2.Malcolm Wright said:
The truth of the matter about the new league of cameras in the 5k to 9k range is that any one of them can record to DVCProHD when suited with an appropriate external device. Also the HD-100 is fully capable to record variable frame rates as demonstrated by David Newman of Cineform on this blog:
http://cineform.blogspot.com/2005/10/jvc-hd100u-frame-rates.html
The notion that the HDV camera's (XL-H1 and HD-100) are relegated to only HDV is not based in fact. You can get signal before codec off of both cameras and the HDV codec hardwired to the JVC is excellent (if you choose to record to tape).
It's all good, but quibbling over a camera that doesn't even exist in the market is a little over the top. The hype has been going on for months. I maintain the wait and see stance on the HVX200. Nothing is ever as good as it sounds....
I don't think anyone is saying they are "relegated to only HDV." But the fact of the matter is, these are expensive 1/3" cameras and the people who are buying them are not going to have an additional $20,000 laying around to blow on an external deck just to get DVCPROHD out of them, or have mammoth ammounts of computer power and storage to deal with the uncompressed abilities of the XL H1's HD SDI port. And let's be realistic. Anyone who's THAT anal about shooting uncompressed is going to buy/rent a 2/3" chip camera with better optics anyway. There are a handful of ways to get around the native codecs in these cameras, and there are definitely many options with how to handle the footage. But at the end of the day, the HVX is a DVCPROHD camera and the XL H1 and HD-100 are HDV cameras, period.stephenlnoe said:
Malcolm Wright
Well-known member
stephenlnoe said:
Mmm. Not saying solid state is a new scenario. The new scenario, obviously, is offering a camera under 10k that can record dvcPro HD.
Yes. What devices are available though, and at what cost? You know this already, but I'll say it anyway because it really does justify calling the HVX200 a bold and visionary move: it'll be the first cam for less than 10k that can record its signal to dvcpro HD in the field, without need for a deck.
Its all good and well to say that in theory, any of those cams can record dvcpro formats, but in practice, once you look to do this, you're no longer in the 5-9k price range, and you're lugging an external device around.
Props given where props due: if the cam delivers what it is promising, it will be the first of its kind - and that's not really an opinion.
I haven't seen footage from of JVC's hdpro recording format, but I doubt it will suit my purposes... It is still interframe compression at the end of the day, and money lost trying to pull good keys adds up very quickly.
Well that's the bottom line isn't it, and my point exactly. I don't understand the heavy duty negativity about the product when it isn't even out yet. I always give the caveat 'if it delivers what it promises' to my theoretical approval, but the negativity I read about the camera has no grounds. Holding a new product to the standard of fulfilling all of one's special interests simply isn't reasonable...
M.
stephenlnoe
Well-known member
Hi,
@Haakon, Thinking of the HD-100 and XL-H1 as only HDV cameras is selling them way short of their capabilities and actual design specifics. Those component out's and HD-SDI aren't there for looks.
@Malcolm, You and I come to the same conclusion but from different angles. You may like to check out the HD-100. dvinfo.net is building a really nice following for the it. http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=98 Key's are always an issue but with the HD-100, you can dump the HDV to a DVCPro50 or I frame timeline and key your heart out for SD.
good luck...
@Haakon, Thinking of the HD-100 and XL-H1 as only HDV cameras is selling them way short of their capabilities and actual design specifics. Those component out's and HD-SDI aren't there for looks.
@Malcolm, You and I come to the same conclusion but from different angles. You may like to check out the HD-100. dvinfo.net is building a really nice following for the it. http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=98 Key's are always an issue but with the HD-100, you can dump the HDV to a DVCPro50 or I frame timeline and key your heart out for SD.
good luck...
wabbit
Evil has Ears
These are the points we all keep making. Specwise the HVX is an exciting camera. 2 years ago the idea of any form of HD for under $80,000 much less $10,000 was a revolution. If we are lucky 2 years from now the HVX will seem pretty average.
Of course the camera could suck. That split screen issue with the JVC caught us all by surprise. HVX COULD (not saying it will, please don't flame) have a issues that are just as frustrating. The point has always been let's wait until it comes out to see if it delivers on it's promises.
The start of this thread was why not include HDV in addition to DVCPRO HD. It has been beaten into the ground (even before this thread). Some are unhappy with the answers, others don't care, and still others are happy it doesn't have it (like myself). No matter what camp you are in, the camera's specs are locked. You can either like it or not.
To continue on debating it is just futile. As I said before if the P2 solution does not "catch on" then the naysayers can come back on and say "I told you so". Beating it into the ground now reads as people who either can't afford the P2 workflow or already own a HDV camera trying to disparage a camera they can't own.
At least that is now I am seeing it.
Best
Of course the camera could suck. That split screen issue with the JVC caught us all by surprise. HVX COULD (not saying it will, please don't flame) have a issues that are just as frustrating. The point has always been let's wait until it comes out to see if it delivers on it's promises.
The start of this thread was why not include HDV in addition to DVCPRO HD. It has been beaten into the ground (even before this thread). Some are unhappy with the answers, others don't care, and still others are happy it doesn't have it (like myself). No matter what camp you are in, the camera's specs are locked. You can either like it or not.
To continue on debating it is just futile. As I said before if the P2 solution does not "catch on" then the naysayers can come back on and say "I told you so". Beating it into the ground now reads as people who either can't afford the P2 workflow or already own a HDV camera trying to disparage a camera they can't own.
At least that is now I am seeing it.
Best
Malcolm Wright
Well-known member
stephenlnoe said:
Thanks!
Barry's nightmare with the split screen is just too prominent in my mind to really consider the camera. The fact that even a camera you have tested out before buying may later drift so that the split screen issue arises just makes it too much of a gamble for me... I'll hold my horses and wait for the opportunity to test the HVX!
M.