Agreed on aspect ratios. I mentioned HDV because the camera he is considering is HDV. It would take a HECK of a deal for me to jump into HDV at this point. And $1199 on a used camera isn't it.

What are the relative downsides of HDV? What is better than HDV right now? For the HD cameras out there that are decent for event/wedding videographers, what do you see as better or more useful formats? AVCHD? This is an interesting subject and I am curious to hear more about it.

Thanks.

What are the relative downsides of HDV? What is better than HDV right now? For the HD cameras out there that are decent for event/wedding videographers, what do you see as better or more useful formats? AVCHD? This is an interesting subject and I am curious to hear more about it.

Thanks.

Relative downsides to HDV?

1. Poor bitrate leading to codec breakup on action.
2. Long GOP structure leading to same problem as #1.
3. No PCM audio reducing audio fidelity.
4. Interframe codec.
5. Poor color structure.
6. Non-Full Raster recording.
7. Tape based when the world is moving away from tape.
8. Real time capture required since tape has to be played back.
9. Codec falls apart in post (grading and effects) unless transcode takes place.
10. Incompatibility forces purchase of expensive decks or to wear out camera heads to dump footage.

What's better??

AVCHD (Full Raster, better compression algorithm)
AVC-Intra (higher end codec)
XDCam HD (Better bit rate, more robust codec)
XDCam EX (Better bit rate, more robust codec)
DVCProHD (100 Mbps, but not full raster)

Improvements have been made in HDV over the years, but the structure of it limits how far things can go.

1. Poor bitrate leading to codec breakup on action.
2. Long GOP structure leading to same problem as #1.
3. No PCM audio reducing audio fidelity.
4. Interframe codec.
5. Poor color structure.
6. Non-Full Raster recording.
7. Tape based when the world is moving away from tape.
8. Real time capture required since tape has to be played back.
9. Codec falls apart in post (grading and effects) unless transcode takes place.
10. Incompatibility forces purchase of expensive decks or to wear out camera heads to dump footage.

Well I will look into this a little further but I can discount no. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 off hand
I shoot HDV/DV/DVCAM so this is firsthand experience.

3. I find I get very high fidelity sound, often better than the sound on my PD170 in DVCAM mode, when I shoot in HDV.
5. In addition to better resolution, my experience is rich colors.
7. varies by camera model, there are consumer HDV cams with internal HDD and in the pro line there is Firestore, Sony MRC, Sony HVR-DR60, Edirol f-1, etc all compatible with HDV
8. see 7 above
9. never had any issues with codec "falling apart" and I don't transcode
10. new decks are expensive regardless of format and since HDV is a new format those decks are pricey but I don't see what this has to do with HDV.

yes there are better options out there but I don't see XDCAM HD or XDCAM EX in the $2000 price range...HDV is a midline solution to the HD problem. If you can afford XDCAM go XDCAM btu HDV bridges the prosumer gap.

Just my $.02

I really appreciate everyones responses and advice.
The main power switch on my HD1 had started coming loose about a month ago, I took it into a local repair shop for repair. It was supposed to be ready on Wednesday but the part is on backorder. I got it back from the shop to use for the video I had booked for tonight but the switch completely came off.
So in the end I ended up buying the GL2. One out of necessity and 2 because I think it will suit my needs for this year. I ended up paying $1000 for it and he threw in a glidecam 2000 pro also.
I used the GL2 tonight to shoot a wedding and it is far better than my DVC7 and HD1. I was actually pretty impressed with the low light capabilities.
So I've got till the end of this season to save and research which HD cams I want to buy.

thanks again everybody.

Congrats on your new purchase, may it serve you well!

Your "experiences" notwithstanding, the facts are what the are.

Fact: HDV does not record PCM based audio.

"For audio, HDV uses MPEG-1 Layer 2 compression to reduce the audio bitrate to 384 kbit/s, compared to 1536 kbit/s for DV video and 1411 kbit/s for audio CDs. This makes HDV audio less desirable for situations where sound quality is critical, but MPEG-1 audio at 384 kbit/s is considered 'perceptually lossless.' For general video recording with an on-camera microphone, HDV audio is not a significant limiting factor."

Fact: HDV Uses 4:2:0 color sampling on a less than full raster image. It has more color than DV, but is poor by broadcast standards.

Fact: The HDV spec is tape based. Yes you can record with the HDV codec to other media. I have two such devices (Firestore and SxS), but it doesn't change the spec.

Fact: Long GOP 4:2:0 is awful in the edit suite when critical color work is needed. Frankly, just because you have no issue, doesn't mean there isn't one.

Fact: HDV is not a new codec. The first shipping camera models appeared in 2004. HDV is being quickly phased out in favor of the superior AVCHD in the consumer camera market. In the mid-range pro-sumer market, HDV never really took hold and has all but disappeared in favor of DVCProHD,XDCamHD/EX, AVC variants, etc.

HDV was a nice bridge into HD, but technology is moving on quickly, and it's had a year run.



Well I will look into this a little further but I can discount no. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 off hand
I shoot HDV/DV/DVCAM so this is firsthand experience.

3. I find I get very high fidelity sound, often better than the sound on my PD170 in DVCAM mode, when I shoot in HDV.
5. In addition to better resolution, my experience is rich colors.
7. varies by camera model, there are consumer HDV cams with internal HDD and in the pro line there is Firestore, Sony MRC, Sony HVR-DR60, Edirol f-1, etc all compatible with HDV
8. see 7 above
9. never had any issues with codec "falling apart" and I don't transcode
10. new decks are expensive regardless of format and since HDV is a new format those decks are pricey but I don't see what this has to do with HDV.

yes there are better options out there but I don't see XDCAM HD or XDCAM EX in the $2000 price range...HDV is a midline solution to the HD problem. If you can afford XDCAM go XDCAM btu HDV bridges the prosumer gap.

Just my $.02

Perrone
As far as choosing a PC for editing do you need a faster one for editing AVCHD than HDV?
I have a Pentium 4CPU 3.2GHz and I do straggle to edit HDV, so I always use DV with my FX7 instead of HDV; besides most of my customers do not have HDV players or TVs yet.

Stelios

I think I'd like to put in a good word for HDV. Perrone's technically correct and Bryan's practically correct, but the most amazing thing about HDV is the way camcorders hardly had to change at all to suddenly start recording hugely sharper pictures.

Go back and read the test reviews of the just announced FX1 in 2004. Just look how gob-smacked the world was to learn that the camcorders used the same tape deck mechanism that had been around for years, the same tape even, and yet were still able to record for an hour at the same tape speed.

Back then 1 gb of flash memory probably cost as much as 100 Mini DV tapes, so AVCHD was just a pipe dream. I give HDV a big thumbs up, and marvel at the ingenuity of the engineers that brought it all together while at the same time making it backwards compatible. These new HDV cameras would play back all the tapes you'd recorded since 1995 - amazing.

So I discount Perrone's list of negatives. In the real world HDV has enabled hundreds of us here to gather in beautifully detailed pictures on bog-cheap tape using cameras no heavier, bulkier or more expensive than the DV cameras that went before them.

tom.

Perrone
As far as choosing a PC for editing do you need a faster one for editing AVCHD than HDV?
I have a Pentium 4CPU 3.2GHz and I do straggle to edit HDV, so I always use DV with my FX7 instead of HDV; besides most of my customers do not have HDV players or TVs yet.

Stelios

Yes,

AVCHD requires MUCH more power to decode. Nature of the game. When everyone had machines suited to DV, HDV was a killer for the machines to work with. It's the same technical challenge 5 years later.

I think I'd like to put in a good word for HDV. Perrone's technically correct and Bryan's practically correct, but the most amazing thing about HDV is the way camcorders hardly had to change at all to suddenly start recording hugely sharper pictures.


There's nothing technically difficult about compressing the heck out of an image by reducing both color and luma samples, going to interframe rather than intraframe, and having it write to tape. VHS had dome the same thing 15 years prior. When you throw away more than half the HD signal you can do fit it in a lot of places. The genius of AVCHD is that they throw away less of the signal, and still manage to fit it into a smaller space; To me, that is far more impressive.



So I discount Perrone's list of negatives. In the real world HDV has enabled hundreds of us here to gather in beautifully detailed pictures on bog-cheap tape using cameras no heavier, bulkier or more expensive than the DV cameras that went before them.

tom.

Yes, in the "real world" i.e. consumer space, HDV has enabled many to dabble in the world hf HD. For those who had aspirations of getting their work broadcast, it was a heartbreaker. Depends on your needs.

Don't get me wrong, HDV has many uses. I still record my long form stuff with it because my clients don't care, the material is headed to the web, and there is nothing more than a couple of quick edits and basic color correction to be done. But I couldn't hand that footage to the local PBS station.

Interesting debate here. While I doubt many would argue that HDV is far from the optimal HD format, the decision on which format to choose has to be made in context of the user's entire situation. To say that being tape based is a negative will not always be true. It's a personal preference and I won't be going tapeless until a better and more cost effective method of archiving becomes available.

Perrone's comments on HDV have merit but they reflect a personal point of view that works for him, and I'll agree that from his perspective are the right view from his spot in the world.

I, however, disagree with some if them. Here are his comments and my view.

>> 1. Poor bitrate leading to codec breakup on action.
>> 2. Long GOP structure leading to same problem as #1.
>> 3. No PCM audio reducing audio fidelity.
>> 4. Interframe codec.
1, 2 and 4 are really components of the same issue. It can cause artifacts but not always. And depending upon what you're shooting, not even very often at all. It's not the best you can get but it's very workable for a wide variety of needs. As to item 3, it's a minor issue. If you're really needing optimum audio fidelity, you're not going to record audio to a camera anyway.

>> 5. Poor color structure.
420. Yes 422 would be better and 444 better still but it still can work for a lot of situations.

>> 6. Non-Full Raster recording.
There are many of these non-full raster codecs and formats. By itself, nowhere near a deal breaker.

>> 7. Tape based when the world is moving away from tape.
>> 8. Real time capture required since tape has to be played back.
>> 9. Codec falls apart in post (grading and effects) unless transcode takes place.
>> 10. Incompatibility forces purchase of expensive decks or to wear out camera heads to dump footage.
7, 8 and 10 are traditional down-sides to tape. These neglect tapes upside of easy archiving and great suitability for long-term storage. Successful tape based workflows have been around for nearly half a century. Nothing has caused them to break now. There are just new options available.

As for 9, there are many ways to get avoid this now and there will be more as developers come up with more tools for current and future HD codecs.

While HD capture format is very very important to getting the best looking video, HDV can generate some pretty stunning video quality. To get there, one must know where the pitfalls are and do everything possible to avoid them. That said, content is king. Very few will really care if you shot HDV if you create a compelling piece. I'd be willing to bet my next job that each of us will see at least one piece of video shot in HDV on broadcast/cable/satellite TV in the coming week. And I'm not counting local commercial spots.

IMO, HDV is ready for prime time, if done right.

Good points Tripp. Your last comment is the killer. MiniDV was ready for prime time when shot right.

Again, I use HDV, and am aware of it's shortcomings, but it's still fine for a lot of uses. My real issue with it is not any one thing. It's the amassing of things.

Choose from this list:

1. Non full-raster
2. 4:2:0 color space
3. Compressed audio
4. Low bit rate
5 Long GOP

To me, those are the significant technical failings. Most codecs exhibit one or more of these to varying degrees when you move away from dual-link HD-SDI capture. The further you move down the chain, the harder it is for the codec to stand up.

XDCamEX solves #1, #3, and to some degree #4. DVCProHD solves #2, #3, #4, and #5.

It all comes down to the compromises we are willing to make. If you are shooting for yourself, then all this is moot. You are the only person you need to please. But if you are being paid to shoot, then some of these factors should really be causing some thoughts. And in any case, those looking to get into the game today have options we didn't have 4-5 years ago. Maybe HDV is still the correct choice for that new shooter, but maybe it's not. You say you are waiting for a viable archiving solution. I already have one and wouldn't touch tape again unless mandated. The RED/Viper/SI2K/Phantom guys aren't waiting either. They all have solutions and have moved forward.

...You say you are waiting for a viable archiving solution. I already have one and wouldn't touch tape again unless mandated...

May I ask you, what is it?..

Just say NO to HDV and use an intermediary codec like cineform. It will resolve a lot of the aforementioned issues. Tape based HDV is the best solution for weddings because of the long record times, low prices and ability to get redundancy with Firestore -- which can be bought for under $700 now. Some of the HDV cameras get excellent picture quality, better than the HVX200 which is often used in indie features, so it's a great choice for event coverage.

May I ask you, what is it?..

BuRay or other optical. Does everything I need. Reasonably cheap if you actually look at the per GB cost, stable, not subject to magnetic field issues, easy to store. If in 5 years something better comes along, I can move to it. It also gives me faster than realtime transfer which is something tape (in video format) cannot do.

If I had to move beyond optical into storing 2k-4k data, I'd be using LTO like the big boys.

BuRay or other optical. Does everything I need.

This is what's cool about the state of video today. Everyone develops the worflow that functions best for them. Lo those many years ago when I shot my first commercial job there were precious few options. In fact, I wasn't even able to keep a copy of that first project for myself because even VHS was nearly a decade off in the future. Now, like the lyrics from the old Traffic song... do what you like.

I'm staying with tape for the foreseeable future primarily because of it's simplicity, cost and archiving ease. After a tape is captured and it goes into the rack, it's archived. Dead simple and there's no generational loss. Since I can capture tapes on up to three machines at a time, capturing 17 tapes from one job last summer can be done in an evening. Archiving that much video to BD or other media would take as long or longer and would cost more. But that's just me. I'm old and used to tape, going all the way back to the old U-matic.

My point is that there are so many ways to do this stuff that there's a sweet spot for everyone. Find yours and have at it.

I'm staying with tape for the foreseeable future primarily because of it's simplicity, cost and archiving ease. After a tape is captured and it goes into the rack, it's archived. Dead simple and there's no generational loss....

...I'm old and used to tape, going all the way back to the old U-matic.



Tripp, do you worry about print-through on these super thin stock miniDV/HDV tapes? Do you retension your tapes at all? Wind them through? Do you have humidity control to make sure mold isn't growing on them? I ask these things because I had to manage that stuff in my REAL job as a server admin with several Terabytes to back up every night. I now do everything to multiple layers of HDD, but that crap was a nightmare. I try to wind through my video archives at least once per year.

The other bugaboo with tape is the trouble of moving forward. Moving that material from U-Matic to Beta, and from Beta to Beta-SP, and from Beta SP to whatever is next. And it all has to be done at real time. This is where optical really shines. DVD players could read my old CDs, BluRay players can read my old DVDs and CDs. And transfers happen at much faster than real time. I am waiting until BluRay gets to about $2 a disk, and then moving all my SD materials off tape and onto optical. Or maybe onto SDHC since it will be dirt cheap also.

But you're right. This stuff is amazing. Who ever thought it would be possible to save an hour of Full Raster HD video on card the size of the end of my finger. And do it for $30 or less. And yet, we still complain!!

Bottom line is there is no perfect archive solution. I use tape because it's easy and cheap. The best solution is, as Perrone says, LTO. But I don't want to spend.

What's the scuttlebutt on these little flash drives Staples sells for $2? Do they last? I never hear anyone talk about using them for archive. People always fight it out between tape, optical, and hdd.

...Tape based HDV is the best solution for weddings because of the long record times, low prices and ability to get redundancy with Firestore...

Hi Brian,

I would have agreed with you, until just recently. I have been experimenting with AVCHD. A 16 GB card currently cost about $25-30, with prices continuing to drop. A 16 GB card holds 90 minutes in the highest quality setting. Solid state recording eliminates many of the potential problems of tape, which burned me on a recent wedding. Now that cameras like the Panasonic HMC150 records to SDHC cards in the AVCHD format, HDV may not be the best solution for weddings.

Hi Brian,

I would have agreed with you, until just recently. I have been experimenting with AVCHD. A 16 GB card currently cost about $25-30, with prices continuing to drop.

Good numbers! Can you also back up simultaneously with firestore?

Firestore is a dead solution by most accounts. If you want to back up, you need to find a solution that can accept HDMI input.

Firestore is a dead solution by most accounts. If you want to back up, you need to find a solution that can accept HDMI input.

A lot of people still use them. Still viable and a good deal at $700.

A lot of people still use them. Still viable and a good deal at $700.

Yes, I own one and use it. But it's still a dead end product. Heck the new Macbooks don't even have firewire on them now. HDMI is the way forward in the consumer space and SDI in the pro space.

Tripp, do you worry about print-through on these super thin stock miniDV/HDV tapes?

Print-through went out with analogue Perrone, however thin your tapes. The beauty of digital is the amazing robustness of the ones and zeros. 0.4 is still read as zero, and a 0.8 is still read as a one.

Print-through went out with analogue Perrone, however thin your tapes. The beauty of digital is the amazing robustness of the ones and zeros. 0.4 is still read as zero, and a 0.8 is still read as a one.

Sweet! I still like the shiny disks though!

Sweet! I still like the shiny disks though!

Me... I'm all over the blinkin' lights!

No, I don't retension my tapes, but I should. I also should have kept the original reel to reel audio tapes I transferred to CD years ago for archiving. Long-term stacking on a spindle (I'm guessing) caused the substrate to separate on most of them and hundreds of hours of material was forever lost to the ages.

Ain't no magic bullets here. At least we don't have to deal with the disintegration of ancient film stock.

I really wish rotating magnetic (hard disk) storage would work for archiving. Price is right and the format/interface is liable to be around for a long while.

I have now fully and completely hijacked this thread. Sorry.

Good numbers! Can you also back up simultaneously with firestore?

Hi Brian,

The HMC150 does not have a firewire output. It does have HDMI and Composite. The nNovia drive can accept composite, so it could be used as a backup for legal depositions, but I wouldn't recommend composite in a scenario where quality matters. I don't know if the Firestore unit can accept composite.