Well, what do you think, ?

HD or 24pMini DV, i am about to produce a motorsport show, which is similar to the concept of top Gear, and i am thinking to buy a new camera, what do you think?

Which one has better image quality ?

Price vs Value ?

Sound Quality?

Put your opinions, and let reach for some conclusions....

That's like asking, which is better: a fork or a spoon? All depends on what you're going to do with it.

If you plan on delivering your product in high-def, the JVC's the only way to go.

If you're delivering on standard-def, the DVX100 is a far superior camera in so many ways... but it ain't high-def.

The JVC is a consumer video camera with a high-definition mode.

The DVX100 has better audio, better picture adjustment, better controllability, better everything. The only advantage the JVC has is that it's extremely high resolution -- so high resolution that, in side-by-side test shoots, it makes the DVX look like it's out of focus. The DVX produces a picture that is superior in color fidelity, noise, latitude, basically the DVX is substantially better in all ways -- except resolution, where the JVC just kills it.

If you can live with standard-def, the DVX is the obvious choice. If you decide you absolutely have to have high-def, then the question becomes: what is your timetable? If you need high-def TODAY, again the JVC is the only game in town. If you can wait three or six months, do yourself a favor and wait, since Sony, Canon, and Sharp are all supposedly developing HDV cameras as well, and it would be nice to have a choice. But then again, they may not announce anything for six months, or a year, or two years -- who knows?

How about if i just need it to make a tv show... ? doesnt Hd will give me better video quality ? or DVX will do it better ?

Do current editing apps allow the transfer of HD through firewire and back, just like DV? Also the HD format they are using is some form of MPEG, is it not? I hear that MPEG is not a good format to edit with since each frame is not actually independent, like DV.

For your case Agus I'd go with the DVX100, especially if it's "just" a TV show. :)

i just read the dv.com article about the HD cameras vs the DV ones... pretty interesting.. still seens like all prefers the DVX100 ... must be an amazing camera... i want one :)

I think Barry nailed it pretty good.

Agus, DV.com is (surprisingly) very low key on HD.

SD miniDV folks normally hang out there.

Thus practically none of them actually have HD10 cams, and their opinions are more theoretical than practical.

To my knowledge, dvinfo.net's forum on HD cams is the most active and informative by far at this time.

This may not be much of a factor for TV distribution, but another factor to consider is the native 16:9.

If the DVX100 had native 16:9, all bets are off.

Brian

It does, if you add the anamorphic adapter...

Sigh.

All this talk about High Definition. Too bad no one can afford a t.v. that supports it. (At least I can't).

HD looks fabulous. But for years now, all we here is "HD, HD, HD". HAs anyone seen what an HD tv goes for? What good is it shotting in HD if no one is going to watch it in HD?

It's Monday! Good morning!

Good morning ! here in Guatemala Central America !

John, even if your end-game is SD distribution, then still acquire and edit your video in HD, then down-rez the result down to SD.

Without going into lengthy arguments, tried and true: AMAZING!

I made some test footage using great SD camera Sony VX200, and HD JVC JY-HD10.

Then I created a DVD with both segments (Hd one being down-rez'd in TMPGENC, of course, down to 720x480 from 1280x720.)

The segment originated with HD cam beats the SD one hands down when viewed on *any* TV (well, given that DVD is inherently SD, then HDTV is not even required in this case.)

Try it and see for yourself, you'll become a believer too.

Or ask David Newman, who has some great theoretical explanation for this phenomenon, as well as being a practical proponent of using HD source even for the final SD material.

Alex wrote:

>>>then still acquire and edit your video in HD, then down-rez the result down to SD.

If you are going to down-rez, is it still necessary to perform the edit in HD?

Wouldn't the native HD footage still be superior if you down-rez first, then edit as SD in say, Premiere 6?

Brian

I don't think it will be the same.

There was a long discussion on some other forum regarding this, and finally the consensus was that if you feed the MPEG2 encoder (last step before your output to DVD) with the high-res pixels, then the quality is better.

Plus, if you edit in HD, you always have your material in HD format for the future HD releases.

If you gotta go through the process of downrezing all your HD content, you should add into your equation the extra needed to do that step.

<<<-- Originally posted by Brian Mitchell Warshawsky : Alex wrote:
>>>then still acquire and edit your video in HD, then down-rez the result down to SD.
If you are going to down-rez, is it still necessary to perform the edit in HD?
Wouldn't the native HD footage still be superior if you down-rez first, then edit as SD in say, Premiere 6?
Brian -->>>

Alex is correct, it isn't the same for a several of reasons. First if you down res. (for editing) and you recompresses, you will throw a lot of data away (and not just through compression.) 4:2:0 in HD (the color space of HDV MPEG2) is nearly equivalent to 4:4:4 at SD resolutions. If you compress into common everyday DV (to make you editing easy) you will through away 4X the color information as DV is 4:1:1. The only way to preserve the beauty of the down res. is to use uncompressed 4:4:4 (too few are likely to do that.)

Next, many of your editing operations are effected but resolution. Clearly titles, any wipes or PiP motions would all be computed at the SD res. rather than the superior HD. It possible to see the difference even after the final DVD output.

Finally there are operations that can only be done on HD data before you down res. to SD. If you every need to zoom into a HD frame, correct a camera position, or camera rotation, these operations can done without resolution loss if performed BEFORE the down convert. HD has so much headroom. CineForm's Aspect HD includes a real-time Pan Zoom Rotation tool for this very purpose.

Once you edit in HD there is no way you would want to edit in SD again.

HD or 24pMini DV?

Hey Agus, here are my thoughts.
I am guessing you are aiming for TV distribution, so 24p is going to do you little good. 1 point JVC.
If you are going to be capturing fast moving objects (see cars:babe magnets) you might get an advantage with the JVC as you will be able to "zoom" in on a clip to steady it, or provide details that would be lost on SD resolution. As well the JVC offers a SD resolution 60p mode that would provide the best high speed capture in its class (anyone disagree?)
You will also be capturing in a 16x9 aspect ratio on the JVC. If you are selling to TV you may be forced to go 4:3. The JVC may be a plus or a negative if this is the case. If your camera person/editor is not a pro the JVC may be to much for them to handle. In that case you probably want to head to the Pana. But befor you do that you might want to fire your camera person and hire one of the many JVC HD experts you will find @ this FORUM. Like me ;>)
Ken

<<<-- Originally posted by John Hudson :

Has anyone seen what an HD tv goes for? What good is it shooting in HD if no one is going to watch it in HD? -->>>

My 27" Sony XBR cost almost a $1000.

My Toshiba 35" cost $1500.

There are several HDTVs for $750 to $1500.

B&H has a projector for $999.

The cost factor is no longer a huge issue.

Nor is programming. VOOM just lauched a DBS service with 38 HDTV channels.

I wont shoot anything except HD.

BUT -- I agree that the VX100 is a better camera than the HD10. For SD work you can't go wrong with it. Or, with a PD150.

Based on your feedback, Hi rez-> Std rez yields better output. So, can we say that those Mega 3CCD cam (eg. PDX-10) does produce better images than standard 3CCD (eg DVX100, PD-150) if given enough light?

<<<-- Originally posted by Yik Kuen : Based on your feedback, Hi rez-> Std rez yields better output. So, can we say that those Mega 3CCD cam (eg. PDX-10) does produce better images than standard 3CCD (eg DVX100, PD-150) if given enough light? -->>>

NO WAY. A hi rez chip is worse than a lo rez chip, when recording to NTSC.

I've been all over the forums and researching this same question of "Is HD ready for prime time" on various fronts for months now...my ultimate short answer: sort of.

I agree with the postings that suggest that these two cameras have distinct and somewhat incomparable merits--but it all points to the very frustrating fact about the 'state of HD' that I have come to realize. All affordable options for both acquisition, authoring and display of HD to date are fraught with compromises and belay the fact that it's still being treated by the consumer electronics industry as a fledgeling format (or they're just nowhere near getting their production pipelines into any sort of efficiency yet). Those $700-$1500 HD sets being referred to aren't true/full HD. Most of the $4000+ plasma/lcd sets aren't either. They cheat resolution or refresh rate to offer a lower-rez or clipped (think cropped edges) image. I'm not about to spend thousands on a T.V. that claims to be HD until it really is full 720p 1K. That's HD. The JVC camera cuts similar corners in color space and image control...and it's single CCD is lower rez that some SD CCDs. Wait or not to jump in , but you have to call it as it is.

Shane,

Regarding: <<-"Is HD ready for prime time"-->>

HD10U aside. With all due respect, I think that you are missing the point.

HDTVs being expensive is irrelevant.

Assuming you are shooting a Discovery Channel nature show. Would you prefer a 35mm Arri cam or a DV cam? The answer is 35mm even though no one is going to project your show with a 35mm projector. The ultimate delivery is NTSC TV. Still, the added resolution combined with top of the line optics creates better imagery.

The same applies to HD. Many TV shows are shot in HD. From "Cedric the entertainer" to "Jay Leno". BTW, nobody watches these shows in HD, they watch on regular NTSC TVs.

Now back to the HD10U. In my opinion, the question should be a two part question:

1/ Can this camera deliver better quality footage for the NTSC market than comparably priced DV.
My answer so far is YES, absolutely as long as you know how to work with lighting. Which btw is the case with all HD.

2/ Can this camera deliver acceptable HD to the HD market. I think the jury is still out on this. Discovery seems to think no but other pros seem to think yes.

Shane, can you tell I am passionate about this camera? ;)

<<<-- Originally posted by Frederic Haubrich :

The same applies to HD. Many TV shows are shot in HD. From "Cedric the entertainer" to "Jay Leno". BTW, nobody watches these shows in HD, they watch on regular NTSC TVs.

-->>>

Many shows are shot in HD because it is a nice alternative to shooting in film while still preserving the image quality the audience have come to expect, even in the SD domain. No way this camera will offer the color latitude, depth of field, and resolution as the studio models used on today's network programs. Thus that arguement is entirely irrelevant. When the day comes a greater number of "average Joes" have a widescreen HD capabale set in their homes, then this JVC cam will have a greater importance. This JVC cam might serve as a catalyst to get to that day. But that remains to be seen. I would personally never buy this camera for my uses. I own a DVX and would love to get a second one.

Yang-"When the day comes a greater number of "average Joes" have a widescreen HD capabale set in their homes, then this JVC cam will have a greater importance."

I don't think so. When that day comes this model JVC will be superceded by later models. This cam has a great importance NOW because it allows idependant film makers the resolution needed for large screen display or quality down sampled SD content. This camera has nothing to offer most of the general public or "average Joes" who are happy shooting SD.
Ken

I agree this camera has an advantage of higher resolution but it can never compare to similarily priced SD cams as far as color handling goes. Not everyone is out there shooting some obscure indie film, some of us are actually trying to make money with our cameras. Hell, You'll prolly see me selling my DVX and buying this camera if my 75% of my clients has HD sets.

And they know what they're talking about up there in Canada! Check out this footage shot with the HD10U:

http://www.4lanes.com/reel_523.htm

This whole argument going around about image quality with this camera comes down to lighting and know-how. This is not a pick it up, turn it on and shoot solution. If you want beautiful images you have to work for it. Like other HD cameras...and film. Image quality isn't only about color it's also about resolution and this camera has it. You either have it or you don't. DV doesn't HD does.

Don't get me wrong, this camera is FAR from perfect. But it's the only HD solution for under 30K out there.

"Not everyone is out there shooting some obscure indie film", yes but people who love this camera usually are ;>)
No one here is saying this camera is right for everyone, by in large everyone here is to smart for that
Ken

Well if your passion is to shot obscure indie films all day and night that only you and your buddies will like, then by all means get your light kits and this camera. You'll have a blast I'm sure.

Yang, I saw a couple of your previous posts before with your point well made.

But to throw in the implicitly negative "obscure indie films" expression as you just did is very lame.

Alex, My prior generalization is precisely how i feel about indie films as a whole. However, I meant not to put down every indie filmmakers out there, but I do find a good number of the stuff (both online and at festivals) to be crap. Thas my $0.02, I try not to sugar coat it.

Have you watched any Hollywood flicks lately? They are running @ about a 90% *crap* level. And thats being generous!
If you insist that a good movie can only be made by throwing handfulls of money at it, hollywood style, that you are hanging out in the wrong forum Yang!
We aren't here discussing weddings shoots.

Ken

On the flipside, I can say the same about the indie stuff. But you've got your taste and obviously everyone can see that "you" dont want to talk about wedding shots. Which is preceisely why I haven't brought up that subject with you.

That's the title of my next wedding video...I mean indie film.

I think the point I was making, and what noone has really addressed...is that cost issues have pushed all major consumer electronics makers to treat HD like a hot potato...and only offer it to the masses in a "cut-rate" form in pretty much all acquistion and viewing options. Most people are abusing the term HD and are really talking Enhanced Definiton--an a/v '8-track-cassette inbetween format' just waiting to become obsolete.

I saw a DV feature last night projected in theatre made by a VERY succesful DV Feature filmmaker. It looked like CRAP! and somehow he sold it. Believe me when I say that he had a lot more to worry about than a bit of Chroma Noise. The whole film was a bunch of noise! He made his success by being one of the very first DV feature in Theatres.

We spoke about HDV and he was frightened by the NEW technology. Interesting... Because he had overcome his fears with DV and that's what contributed to his success.

My point is that I'm not going to get on these boards and try to convince people that HDV and the HD10U is great. Because when it comes down to it, it doesn't matter what other people think. What matter is the product. At some point I had to ask myself the question: Am I defending the merits of this camera to convince others or myself?

I did test shoots with this camera and overall I am thrilled by the results! Not perfect but better than any DV I've seen projected.

So now it's time for me to produce.

From now on, I will contribute to this board to share technical knowledge on the camera and post production. Other than that, I'm done defending it. The product will speak for itself.

Wow! That was powerful wasn't it...

Frederic, right on.

Practical question: how do you index the footage captured from the camera?

Say, you had a log of your shots/takes during production, each corresponding to the timecode.

But when you capture the files using the HD10's bundled HD Capture Utility, it only numbers them sequentially, without any timecode reference.

So you lose all correlation between your shot/take log, and the files you have on your PC now.

What do you do to re-establish such connection?

Shane- It can hardly become obsolete. You can edit with it now, it uses mini-DV tapes, and imports via firewire. None of these will change. The only thing that will become obsolete will be DV format once more HDV cameras arrive with full features.
Ken

I agree with what you said Frederic. But I also don't think it is right when some corporate or format loyalist come here bashing the camera. Curiosity and fear are the reason why these lurkers show up. They need to come here and spout-off to build up their ego's.
I have never seen such agression towards a new product. Was this how the hi-8 to miniDV transition happened?
Ken

Alex,

Great question. The last production I shot and edited was a 2 episode children televion show. We shot with 4 cameras all synched to one master track. So we slated each camera with conventional slating format (Scene/Take/Roll/Sound Reel).

To get back to your question, when time came to edit the footage I dumped the 25 hours of DV on hard drives.

Our script supervisor did an excellent job at keeping track of each shot on her log and that's what i used to find my scenes and synch them back to the audio. timecode was never mentioned in the log and that was no problem at all. Would've been a nightmare to keep track of TC for 4 cameras anyway. It's more important for me to know which cam has the wide or CU on a particular take than it is to know the exact timecode. Often i also give the script supervisor my notes. Such as "Take 3 has a great reaction from sleepy" or "Camera C has the props".

I used a naming convention to label each file (reel) per camera and by consulting the log I could find my take in a few seconds no problem. I started using the FCP feature DV Start/Stop find by eventually decided against it. It was just as quick to use the slider and find the slate.

I hope that answered your question.

Frederic

Frederic, I appreciate the info.

So if I understood correctly, in post-production you had just 1 very large video file.

You then scrub through it in NLE and find the slates, at which point you cut the footage, name it according to scene/shot/take, and save it.

You then assemble your editing timeline based on the list of good takes, and proceed to editing.

Correct?

If it is, then we can do the similar thing with HD10. The HD Capture Utility cuts footage into the individual files automatically at the points where you paused/stopped recording. This will correspond to the slates automatically (or to some junk segments without the valid takes.)

So you now capture the tape, then view each file (say, in Elecard player - no need for NLE even) and rename them based on the slates to reflect scene/take number.

Then on to the editing.

Is this how you plan to do this now with HD10?

Also, what software do you use to edit?

I have hit the limits of my existing PC with Premiere Pro in HD, so my newly ordered, upgraded PC will arrive in a week. I'm hoping to pull mostly real-time HD editing on it either via proxy files or using the originals, if the horsepower will be enough for that.

What's your approach?

Exactly Alex.

Actually, this capture process (cutting files on start stop) is even better than DV. Unless you used features like find Start/Stop.

I'm using FCP 4.0. I edited 2 feature documentaries on Premier and I like the MAC solution much better.

I just purchased a Dual 1.42 Ghz G4 with 2 GIG RAM on Ebay! It'll do the trick. I am however exploring to do HDV editing offline. haven't decided yet. It's either offline or Pixlet. I need to do a bit more testing before deciding.

F

I'll tell you how my new PC fares when it's here and functional :)

With the processor/memory/bus I chose, it should pull up to 6.4Gb/s bandwidth between processor and memory.

Not sure what Macs do; I know that Athlon's memory support architecture is currently behind Intel's thus I got P4 3.0Ghz with Hyperthreading and DualDDR PC3200 (400x2) HyperX memory from Kensigton.

Then again, let's see how the whole thing is going to act in reality.

Thanks again for detailed explanation!

No problem.

We'll do an encoding race when you get it...sounds like you're getting yourself a heck of a machine!

I edited my first documentary on a Dual Pentium II, with 2 X 9GIG Barracudas. The whole thing cost me $10K. I couldn't get $50 for it now.

I guess the depreciation of computer equipment motivates you to work a lot to get your money's worth before they loose their value.

F

Well, so-called senior members thanks for the lack of proper response--instead dismissing the voicing of common sense and very real concerns with wasted thousands of dollars in equipment and software purchases as the 'rantings of lurkers' and the 'biased.'

Maybe you have lots of cash to throw away on toys or do the ebay 'trade-in' proceedure like a lot of six-figure income enthusiasts, but for many the purchase has to stick and it needs to work well right out of the gate. I'm speaking on behalf of the stated question that started this thread..."Which of these camera is the smartest purchase?" Not, is 'HDV cool and fun to play with?'

The intermediary format of HDV is indeed very, very intriguing, but many on these lists are dismayed by how virginal the territory is and are looking for trustworthy workflows--that it works 100%. I dove in with DV/desktop editing back in 1997 and it took 2 years of upgrading checkerboarding before it worked as promised, and another two to really become efficient. If forums like this one had given me serious food for thought perhaps a lot of time and money would not have been wasted. That's what this thread's about, solid objective advice, not knee-jerk defenses of personal investments or an egoist's partitioning their so-called professional realm from the odd peon wandering in and stirring up trouble. Is this a stuffy Country Club lounge with the long-time members looking down their noses at the newcomers or what?

In short, I and others may indeed be new to this forum but you don't do yourself any great favors by chosing to belittle or berate. You only illuminate your own biases, not the issues. The moment it becomes a 'no brainer' as to which of these cameras is the most solid tool for those wanting to know, then we can stop asking the hardline.

Shane,

Was that a question?

to the topic of the thread.

Frederic, but admit it - what a great writing skills! :)