I'm looking after buying the HD10 - I have many doubts, of course, mainly because I am not able to go to a store and try out the camera. I just have to buy it blindly, import it for me and pay taxes, etc, so it's a bit more than a simple $3000 investment for me.

I am new to this forum, and somewhat confused by diverse opinions, like, the output is not real HD, it only has 1 ccd, and so. I have read many of the Steve Mullen articles, which I found very interesting, but I wanted some 'pop' opinions from users.

Perhaps I'm wrong about these, but I'd choose the HD10 over, say, a XL1S or PD150, for the following reasons that would be interesting for my current kind of job:



About image quality:

-It has only 1 ccd, but definition seems incontestable. Here are two frames from the JY-HD10 i found from a review:

http://www2.ddn.com.br/emi/jvc_hd_2.jpg
http://www2.ddn.com.br/emi/jvc_hd_3.jpg

-Other well known cameras, such as the XL1, have better lenses, 3-ccd and better operation. The XL1 has undoubtely one of better images from its category. But I have no way to compare DV resolution with the so called HDV from the HD10.

These are samples from the XL1 I shot myself, for TV ads,
http://www2.ddn.com.br/emi/XL1_1.jpg
http://www2.ddn.com.br/emi/XL1_2.jpg

This is not so simple, I know... but can the HD10 have limitations SO BAD that they overcome advantage of getting an image that is almost four times the DV screensize in pixels?




About editing:

-I am aware of the difficulties to edit the HD1 MPEG2 video. That is, if compared of the so easy to setup normal DV editing. But I am using currently vegas 4 and After Effects. Most of my works, indeed, are 30-sec commercials entirely edited and processed in After Effects.

I think there are some ways to convert this video to some kind of format I can use as footage in After Effects, in worst case a JPG sequence.
If this is the case, I have great improvements in the footage: it is progressive, it is big, I can zoom (crop) almost twice into an image, i can rotate it, shake it, and i'll still be over DV resolution.

I can use the 60 progressive frames from SD and slow down to 24 or even to 15-fps, that is, getting a barely smooth SLOW shot of 4x the time, at 720x480. This is also an interesting feature I could use. Could I?


About converting to Cinema:

Besides the limitation of adapting 30p to 24p, I checked with the bureau I use to transfer video to 35mm film, and they confirmed they can convert using the 1280x720 format using a couple of ways. A rudimentary JPEG sequence was the first solution I came with, in which case i could put some 120 seconds in a CD and some 10 minutes into a DVD-R. Are there other common solutions?


I am almost signing the check. Or am I mislead?

Emilio

Disclaimer: I don't own the HD10 or any H(D)DV camera and have
never seen/worked with the footage directly. I own an XL1S.

First, it looks like your XL1 footage is a bit too hot. When shooting
with the camera it is usually best (in my opinion) to under expose
SLIGHTLY. This gives a much better picture contrast wise in my
opinion.

Second keep in mind that tools for working with HDV (which is
MPEG2) are in their first generation. A lof of connections to other
applications seem to be missing or can only be done by buying
some other (shareware) tools etc. Someone correct me on this
if I'm wrong.

"but can the HD10 have limitations SO BAD that they overcome advantage of getting an image that is almost four times the DV screensize in pixels?"

Yes, it certainly can -- but it all depends on what your final goals are. The HD10's resolution is undoubtedly a huge advantage for it (and it's not 4x, it's about 2.7 times as many pixels as DV).

If you intend to use the camera in a professional environment (meaning, on a paid gig) I would strongly, thoroughly recommend you wait for the next iteration of an HDV camera - either a JVC follow-up, or a Sony or Canon version. If you're used to the controllability and feature set on the XL1, I suspect you will be very frustrated by the limitations of the HD10. I further suspect you would be furious if you sunk the money into an HD10, were held up by its limitations, and then six months later Canon introduced an XL2 which was HDV and used all your existing XL1 accessories, etc. (which of course may not happen, but you never know).

Thank you both, that's the kind of answers I appreciate.

Barry: have you had bad experiences with the HD10?


Among the facts I am considering before buying, i can see I could buy the HD10 for $3000, which I consider my investment limit at this moment. The PD150 is at $3400 and the XL1s has a cheap tag (IMO) of $3600, so I wont consider a PD150 by now. Even so, the 600 extra bucks of the XL1S would be a bit pressing for me right now...

I do not own a XL1, but I rent one when I need. I own a trv17, wich is very sluggish and limited, and even when its image quality is good enough for some jobs, it's very embarrassing to present myself armed with one of these.

One day I had to bring an old M9000 SVHS camera to a job to 'fill up' the client's eyes, but the real product was edited from the DV footage I took with the TRV17 which I brought 'to take make-off shots'

So, my thinking at this moment is that I could buy the HD10 to have some 'bonus' capabilities. Perhaps I could take some advantage from having higher definition in a PD-150 camera that I can take with me, and continue renting a XL1 or other camera when the job deserves it...

But of course, if general opinions are against the HD10, i would think much more before buying.

Emilio

I have evaluated the HD1 and found it unacceptable to me to use for paying gigs, at its current level of development. The fact you can't disable AGC in the audio, the fact you can't manually set shutter speed and aperture at the same time, the fact that it has no true manual zoom and a servo-type manual focus, the viewfinder is exceptionally low resolution when compared to the resolution of the picture, the audio is fed to the camera with a 1/8" minijack (even on the HD10), the audio tracks are apparently recorded out of phase with each other, resulting in a "canned" slap-echo situation... it has no provision for controlling the image (such as edge enhancement, black stretch, etc), no built-in ND filters, so adjusting light control means stopping what you're doing, screwing in a piece of glass, and then starting up again... plus I just don't trust it. I've seen it deliver fantastic footage and I've seen it deliver atrocious footage. And with no way to monitor HD as you record it, how can you trust what you're shooting? If all you shoot is studio stuff, under controlled conditions, you can make it work for you and get very nice results -- but exteriors, or under non-controlled conditions, the risks are too great.

The camera is not meant for professional shooters, it wasn't designed for professionals, and it originally wasn't marketed towards professionals (the HD10 was announced after overwhelming interest by pros in the HD1).

If the HD1/HD10 was the ONLY high-def consumer camera that was EVER going to be announced, well, yeah, go out and buy it and don't look back. But considering that there has been a formal HDV coalition announced, and that by this time next year there will probably be at least three more models available (one each from Sony, Canon, and Sharp, and maybe even a revamped JVC offering), and with the prospect that the Sony and/or Canon models (or potential new JVC models) will have actual professional controls that address the HD1/HD10's shortcomings, I just can't see why someone who shoots for a living would settle for all the compromises inherent in the HD1 design -- unless their situation simply does not allow them to wait for new camera announcements, of course.

The prospect of a PD150 with HDV resolution is so overwhelmingly positive, that it really calls into question why one would settle for the HD1. Buy hey, your mileage may vary. If you're the type who absolutely has to be the first on the block with an HD camera, the HD1/HD10 is here now. But do your due diligence, spend some time with it and see if you can live with the limitations -- and if you decide you might be able to, then also consider how you'll feel if you sink $3000 or so into it, and then a potential HDV Canon XL2 gets announced in April. If that would give you buyer's remorse, try to wait. But if that wouldn't matter to you, and the HD1/HD10 does everything you need, then by all means, go for it! It is capable of some amazing footage.

As per your numbers, the HD10 is around $3000, the PD150 can be had for $3100 (but is due to be replaced by the PD170) and the XL1s is very long in the tooth. Also consider the Panasonic DVC80 (which is a direct competitor to the PD150 at only about $2400) or the DVX100 (at around $3100). However, those are all standard-def. If you can afford to wait six months to a year, you may be richly rewarded by a pro-caliber HDV camera. (of course, we may all be roundly disappointed too! There's no way to know what the manufacturers have in store for us.)

<<then also consider how you'll feel if you sink $3000 or so into it, and then a potential HDV Canon XL2 gets announced in April.>>

You are right in your argument. Even more, imagine if I sink almost $4000 in a XL1s and canon DOES ANNOUNCE the hypothetical XL1 HDV.


Well, as I need a first camera of my own, I am considering other possibilities. I gave a look to the DVC80 and the DVX100.

I am thinking even on reducing my budget this time, just to hold up with my work until i have a better camera. That would mean investing in a big plastic DVC7 or something in the range.

Well, i'll think about this later, when I manage to get some sleep. Thank you, Barry.

I think Barry is completely right about everything he says about the JVC. But....if I were planning to make a feature film at a low budget. I would still chose to use the JVCHD1OU over a $25,000 Sony SDX900 or my $16000 IKegami HLDV7W, purely because of the resolution. It is the only game in town that delivers HD at an affordable price right now, Canon MAY come out with an HD camcorder next year, or they MAY NOT, it's a guessing game. If you need HD resolution right now, use the HD1OU if you can't aford film or a Varicam. If you don't need HD right now, keep waiting, yes there'll probably be something better down the road, there always is, maybe a year from now at the earliest.

All the best

I agree Paul that new HDV cameras seem a way off, so if you can use HD now, the JY-HD10 in the way to go (I find shooting conditions not that limting, with the results generally excellent.) The JVC cameras were first annouced around September last year, then they where released about 9 months later. I would expect a similar pattern from competitive releases. We haven't seen any new annoucements yet -- although we at CineForm are hoping for more cameras to support. Look to CES as the place for the next HDV annoucement as HDV is considered a consumer format (like DV); annoucements at CES will probably hit the shelves in Sept 2004.

The HD10 is still in my list. I just can't stop thinking $3000 is a big deal for HD, even if I recompress the video to 'progressive' DV footage later. And HDV footage is surprisingly lighter than DV. More CPU demanding of course.

I am somewhat excited as a child with the ideia of playing with high definition footage... that's why i am afraid of making an impulsive bought.

I'd like the HD10 to have more direct controls of iris, shutter, focus, etc. But I think i can live manipulating the HD controls.

I've heard the DV image quality from the HD10 is 'so so'. How would it compare with other cameras, say, a PDX10?

ONe other thing i'd like to ask to owners...
What does the camera include?

does it came with 2 handles? the microphone shown in most pictures is included too?

<<<-- Originally posted by Emilio Le Roux :

I've heard the DV image quality from the HD10 is 'so so'. How would it compare with other cameras, say, a PDX10? -->>>

Really if you can help it, it is much better to shoot and edit in 720p then scale to NTSC if needed (picture quality is excellent.) The only reason to shoot in DV mode is if you need 60i.

It comes with two handles, yes (one with and one without the XLR audio input.) It doesn't come with the shotgun mic.

Hi Emilio,

I think Barry and Paul gave you good advices, I think you should download footage (not photos) to get a better idea of what can be done, Paul has some footage posted and I too on the DVI forum from the HD10 and there are links to some HD1 footage too, here are the threads for Paul's footage and mine:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11460
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14422

hey! that's great!

I was wondering about how to get some footage.. but was afraid to ask. Didin't know you made some available already.

There is nothing like moving images right? :)

I've spent considerable time with this camera and think some are being alittle hard on it.

true the camera is not a panacea, but it does give you a true HD image and does allow you to get more pop out of your images for very little money.

As I've said - probably too many times, I've done a comparison with the Cinealta and the image of the HD10, even upconverted to 1080i is very nice in comparison.

My opinion is a well shot HD10U image will match a poorly shot Cinealta image.

We are going into great detail on the controls and the manual work arounds on the Jumpstart DVD. I also expect to be able to provide footage people can fiew and compare in native format.

I still think it's a much better camera than people want to give it credit for.

my 2 cents

Darren, I'm not sure whether your DVD is already shipping, or you are taking pre-orders on that?

Also, I'd buy it online, but not via PayPal - which unfortunately is the only online option you offer right now.

Kindly clarify.

Thanks!

No, it's currently on Pre-sale. Ships in a few weeks, November 1

If you don't want to use Paypal, which does allow Visa and MC, you can email me privately and we will accept Visa and MC.

Send 2 email, one with your Name and Visa Number and the second one with your address and expiry date, that way you have additional security.

dkelly@masterworks.bc.ca

Hope this helps

Why not Paypal, just out of curiosity

I can use the 60 progressive frames from SD and slow down to 24 or even to 15-fps, that is, getting a barely smooth SLOW shot of 4x the time, at 720x480. This is also an interesting feature I could use. Could I?

Yes I think this would be possible to do, I have tought about it for a long time too. YES FINALLY great slowmotion on video!!! // sure you can use twixtor, but real slowmotion with more filmed frames would be much better..

There's nothing wrong with PayPal. In fact it's one of those really GREAT business ideas. It's made the world of person to person or person to small company transactions A LOT safer. I don't see why it would be more hazardous to buy something using PayPal compared to buying through any private e-store (?). Any mobster can pay money to set up a legit e-store. PayPal is a bit bigger than that and have survived most dot com companies and is doing better than ever.

I would however strongly advice against sending numbers over email. If money would disappear through an established service like PayPal you're bank will do a refund of the amount you've lost (most banks I know of do). But if you admit you've sent your credit card info via email I don't think they will help you get anything back. Even if you've sent only partial information over two emails. Any hacker could easily go through Darrens email. A computer geek friend of mine showed me how easy it is to hack anyones email once. It's quite scary.

...I know I'm of topic but anyway...

Thank you, pals, for the footage.

I've played around with it quite a bit.

First of all, it is true there are some blocky artifacts in color areas, but that's not so diferent from DV compression. I've raised the staturation of both XL1 and HD10 stills, and the blocky artifacts become evident, only the artifact patterns are different. DV is more a block pattern, HD10 is more chaotic.

Footage responds very well to level modifying, which I do a lot.


For editing, I've renamed the m2t streams to MPEG and they load correctly in Vegas Video 4.0d and in After Effects! But the speed is unacceptable.

Of course I can recompress to DV but that's limited to 720x480 ntsc. I want to keep the HD footage to manipulate freely, zoom, etc. into AE.
I was thinking about an intermediary codec for HD editing, mainly inside AM.

I re-rendered the footage in AE, to several quicktime CODECS like MJPEG. They are slow but work nice if comparing with the MPEG files.

For my surprise, i downloaded PicVideo MJPEG software compressor/decompressor and it is so fast it allows realtime editing in VEGAS even at 1280x720 full quality preview!

(
full demo available in http://www.pegasusimaging.com/picvideomjpeg.htm
)


In maximum quality (=20), a 30 second stream was 600 MB big. Comparing closely with the original stream, even saturating it, it looks identical.
In quality=16, it dropped down to 90MB (just below DV) and playing smoothly from the editor since the data rate is lighter. This allows fades to be seen in realtime.

I believe a compression factor (quality = 18 to 19) will deliver a good image and size ratio, perhaps better than editing in MPEG2 since MJPEG is a well known editing codec. But that I will not know right now because I don't have the camera to 'upload' the final video and project it somewhere.

Just wanted to share this experiences to those who are working with it.

Of course these are attempts to make HD editing possible for the 'poor man', like me, with an Athlon XP 2000+ and just one dedicated 120 GB HD for video. If money were not a problem, ther would be a couple better solutions. Any ideas?

Emilio

Also, i think this link is nice, for MAC only:


http://www.bitjazz.com/


sheervideo lossless codec. Claims to be 100% lossless and perfect quality yet halving uncompressed video size and rate.


Emilio

How is the quality when you want to move away from the mjpeg codec? I have read that mjpeg to an .avi format is not ideal as they use different compression schemes that cause artifact type problems when recompressing.
I still have a Matrox Rainbow Runner capture card and I would capture to Morgan Mjpeg or Pic Video Mjpeg, I would the have to convert to Huffyuv then to .avi to get a decent convertion. Mjpeg direct to Divx always gave bad results.
ken

For what i've read, the problem is if you introduce yet another lossy compressor when editing, it gets worse.

MPEG2 compressor is very lossy.

It is already unavoidable to accept the HD10 footage compressed in MPEG2. From now on, the ideal thing is to work with a better compression scheme up to the final render.

MJPEG codec is a widely used editing codec, and it is also destructive but can be better (and god, faster) than MPEG2. MJPEG cards were intended to be for offline editing purposes, yet they are being used for broadcasting (the same way miniDV is being used in professional video).

Im not a experienced pro in codecs and video, but i work very carefully into after effects, sometimes zooming the picture a lot... pushing up levels and saturation, blurring or sharpening, so artifacts are a problem for me.

From the experiences I have done with the HD footage, i get some ideas (not conclusions yet)

-The best result is to have MPEG2 streams from the HD converted to uncompressed AVI. That's unpractical because we're talking some 100MB a second, and also the big data stream makes editing slow.

-Picvideo MJPEG gives almost identical quality at 20, big files (20MB/second) and slow to stream too. Instead of this option you have Huffyuv codec, somewhat bigger files (30MB/sec) and a bit slower but lossless. There is also that sheervideo codec for mac and due for windows, but it has also big file sizes. (similar to Huffyuv, as seen from their stats). It claims to be faster indeed.

-Almost identical quality to the eye at Picvideo MJPEG with quality=19, much smaller files (6mb/second) and real time editing in vegas, very fast in AE too.

- The worst thing is recompressing to MPEG2, even without an intermediary lossy codec. The artifacts become evident. If I was editing in DV i would edit in MJPEG or Huffyuv codec then render in DV. If I wanted output to 35mm film I would then deliver a JPEG sequence at 1280x720 for the final filming process, not recompress to MPEG2.


Emilio

You are right Emilio, DV and HDV are very alike in therms of chroma compression noise. You are also right that compression artefacts become a problem when tweeking a lot (witch I do also). I had this problem with DV but HDV is of better resolution so, to me, it still is a step forward.

well i'm having fun.

HDV video resolution is so high I can't compare it to DV. In the definition/quality compression I can't help keeping HDV, specially in my kind of work, that is usually 30 seconds of high detail. (Of course if my main job were events and weddings, or documentaries, i'll stick with a better DV camera).

In the compression side, I'd work with uncompressed AVI or with HuffYuv, which is free, lossless and half file sizes.

But for the time being I need smaller files, so I'm using Picvideo MJPEG at quality=18 (in a 0-20 scale). Comparing the final picture, even zoomed in and with a lot of image tweaks, I see no evident blockiness or quality loss.


I use picvideo MJPEG because it is a fast software codec (I don't have hardware MJPEG). It is AVI so it works with most tools. I'm using a demo but I'll buy a registration soon.
Also, it has a 1:1:1 subsampling compression option, theorically better and slightly larger files, but since the video has been already sampled at 4:2:2 on the camera, don't know if it's of any use. The codec also has different luminance and chrominance compression factors.

I wanted to ask in here, is there a tool for batch converting m2t files? until now i've been renaming them to mpeg, loading them in vegas and rendering as AVI.


Emilio

Most will want to go from mpeg2ts to WM9/Divx or mpeg2. From what I understand mjpeg as an editing codec is not the best in-between when used in that equation.
How would you rate Pic mjpeg at quality=20/19/18, compared to HuffYUV in the above senario?
Also it is my understanding the camera is 4:2:0 in colour space.
Ken

sorry, I was mistaken...

DV video uses 4:1:1 in NTSC, which is worse than 4:2:2.
MPEG2 is 4:2:2, but I don't know if this applies to the HD10 stream. So it would be better than DV in matters of Chroma sampling?

It's hard to tell about the codecs, since the original MPEG2 footage has some very light blocky artifacts that could cover new ones produced by recompression.

MJPEG at quality=20 and 19 seemed identical to the original m2t footage or the footage converted to uncompressed AVI, or the HuffYuv codec, after examining closely. Suppossedly the Huffyuv codec is lossless.

At q=18/17, after saturating, zooming and contrasting the video, perhaps you can tell very light differences in the artifacts.

At q=16 the video is too blocky, and this becomes evident when it's in motion and saturation is raised.

I compressed a 30 second 1280x480 and got different sizes:

Huffyuv: 900MB
MJPEG at 20: 600MB
MJPEG at 19: 220MB
MJPEG at 16: 90MB

30 sec DV(720x480) is 110 MB

I haven't tried to encode to DivX, although.

<<<-- Originally posted by Emilio Le Roux : sorry, I was mistaken...

DV video uses 4:1:1 in NTSC, which is worse than 4:2:2.
MPEG2 is 4:2:2, but I don't know if this applies to the HD10 stream. -->>>

It's 4:2:0.

I'm not sure why everyone is looking at all these other codecs. If you want to edit HDV on the PC -- there are the KDDI, Vegas 4, and Aspect HD solutions.

Clearly, nothing so far gets the job done like Aspect HD.

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : I'm not sure why everyone is looking at all these other codecs. If you want to edit HDV on the PC -- there are the KDDI, Vegas 4, and Aspect HD solutions.

Clearly, nothing so far gets the job done like Aspect HD. -->>>


Barring the simpliest editing, one always has to shuffle chunks of video between the NLE (Premiere) and AfterEffects.

I don't see how this would work if editing is kept in MPEG2 format domain, like wth Aspect HD.

Rather, the practical way of doing this would be to convert all captured m2t files into HUFFYUV-compressed AVIs (lossless, 1/3 of the uncompressed AVI size at 2Gb/minute), and then import these AVIs into the NLE.

Roundabout betw. NLE and AfterEffects then happens in AVI format.

<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Raskin :
I don't see how this would work if editing is kept in MPEG2 format domain, like wth Aspect HD. -->>>

Problem is -- your understanding of aspect isn't correct. No problem using AE. It works fine.

Emilio- The quality=19 setting is interesting. But my concern all along is unless you are going to leave your final video in Mjpeg format (not very usefull) you will want to convert to WM9, Divx, Mpeg2, or back to Mpeg2ts. From my experience in the past I have found that Mjpeg, due to the way it compresses is not very suitable when recompressing back to a mpeg4 type codec (WM9 or Divx) I have never tried recompressing back to mpeg2 or mpeg2ts in that situation.
I would be very interested in knowing the visual differences between
mpeg2ts --> Pic Mjpeg quality=19 --> mpeg2
&
mpeg2ts --> HuffYUV --> mpeg2

<<<-- Originally posted by Ken Hodson : I would be very interested in knowing the visual differences between
mpeg2ts --> Pic Mjpeg quality=19 --> mpeg2
&
mpeg2ts --> HuffYUV --> mpeg2 -->>>


I've done the following:

mpeg2ts --> HuffYUV (edit... edit...) --> (a few steps omitted) mpeg2 ->m2t -> back to D-VHS

...with great success. No visible image degradation using HD monitor.

Of course, it'd be great if someone did the tests using professional signal analyzers, so actual measurements could be used to proof whether the quality of the signal deteriorates or not.

Again, subjectively, looks the same to my eye.

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : <<<-- Originally posted by Alex Raskin :
I don't see how this would work if editing is kept in MPEG2 format domain, like wth Aspect HD. -->>>

Problem is -- your understanding of aspect isn't correct. No problem using AE. It works fine. -->>>


I have no understanding of Aspect HD except what I read in this forum and on their web site.

Nowhere did I see any mentioning of Aspect working with AE, but rather with P 6.5 only.

If I missed something... care to elaborate?

One-liners are not very helpful/useful, sorry.

The CineForm Aspect HD high definition CODEC (CFHD) works perfectly well with After Effects. In fact CFHD works will all VfW and DirectShow window packages (VirtualDub, AVISync, MediaPlayer, third editing and effects apps) and really anything that can use an AVI file. This is one of the many benefits of Aspect HD.

Thanks David!

Now, *practically* speaking, what is the workflow?

My workflow: PPro outputs HUFFYUV AVIs of whatever I want to be processed by AE. Then I import them into AE, process, output back to PPro. Repeat until PPro edit is done.

Result: lossless roundabout, as HUFFYUV is a lossless codec.

Your workflow (I guess): PPro with Aspect imports the original mpeg2's. Whatever needs to be output to AE is then compressed into mpeg2 and imported into AE using Aspect. Then AE uses Aspect to compress ITS output into mpeg2, which then is imported back to PPro.

Is this correct?

If it is, what I see is multiple mpeg2 compression/degradation.

Note that because in "my workflow" example above the HYFFYUV codec used is lossless, there's no image degradation.

(I hope no-one is taking my comments as an attack on Aspect HD: I'm simply interested in figuring out the best possible way of practical HD editing, now.)

Ken and Alex:

<<mpeg2ts --> HuffYUV --> mpeg2 -->>
I agree with your workflow. As I was saying I am using MJPEG at almost max quality, with a little compromise with quality, because huffyuv video is still huge for my current storage capacity.


Steve:

<<Problem is -- your understanding of aspect isn't correct. No problem using AE. It works fine.>>

My understanding of Aspect is that it costs $1200.


I have nothing against anyone who wants to profit from this apparent HD boom, with unique software and books. People who buy a camera usually have money for extras, i suppose. But sadly this isnt' the case of this particular 3rd-wordly guy. I simply don't have the money.

I haven't tried Aspect HD, i think there's no demo available, but my guess is that MPEG2 recompression during edition will introduce more artifacts than Huffyuv lossless codec, and perhaps more than a high rate MJPEG codec either.

Of course there's more than a simple MPEG2 editing scheme. Aspect HD is based in a new codec technology, so I can be wrong about the quality.

But I'd rather be wrong with free huffyuv codec, or picvideo free demo, or with $99 picvideo MJPEG registered codec, that works seamlessly with premiere, vegas and AE for any purpose.

Perhaps my next investment could be Aspect HD, if it proves to pay itself in a short period of time. But i fear there will always be some nice video hardware offer at this price tag to tempt me. Perhaps I would trade the $3000 camera plus the $1200 codec for a $4200 camera.

Aspect HD of course is much more than a codec. The Codec is not MPEG2 based (for all the reasons mentioned.) CFHD is wavelet based with very high quality multi-generation abilities -- plus real-time. It is 2-3 more efficient than HUFFYUV and 3-4 times faster.

<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Raskin : Thanks David!

Your workflow (I guess): PPro with Aspect imports the original mpeg2's. Whatever needs to be output to AE is then compressed into mpeg2 and imported into AE using Aspect. Then AE uses Aspect to compress ITS output into mpeg2, which then is imported back to PPro. -->>>


Did you get this understandstanding from the the Aspect HD site?

<<<-- Originally posted by Emilio Le Roux :

My understanding of Aspect is that it costs $1200. -->>>

Didn't the HD10 cost you nearly $4000? So I'm curious since you already have the KDDI NLE, why you aren't using it. It really isn't that bad.

And you can avoid all these convertions you worry about.

As earlier stated by David Newman:
"It comes with two handles, yes (one with and one without the XLR audio input.) It doesn't come with the shotgun mic."

Is this true? (sorry I don't always believe what I read.)

If so, What would be a quality shot gun mic that would work well in most cases?

Matt

To get the most out of the audio, you will want to use a professional -60db mic.

It helps with the camera's auto gain.