Those who are interested in the comparison between DV and HDV may find this interesting:-

http://www.supervideo.com/shtoutsvFXVX.htm

nice comparison, looking like the HDV has substantially improved the quality from the VX2100, iwonder how good the prog scan version would look.?

cheers, this was a good link.
HD looks very good. Though i did kinda retain the fact that the poor images you showed from dv were seen when you zoomed in and took a piece of the picture.
In otherwords, hd is gonna be far superior for editing creatively etc. But dv is still good, and the straight to timeline nature of dv avi is good.

Maybe its just me, but what does this article tell us that we don't already know when you compare an image at NTSC standard def to one at the much higher resolution of HD? You can do the same test with any still digital camera - just shoot one pic at low rez and then one at high rez - interlacing and compression notwithstanding of course.

I'm as excited as anyone about HDV (because we already know how much better higher resolution is), but this seems to me kind of like comparing apples to oranges and an exercise in fueling our excitement for HD until the onslaught of new HDV Cameras arrive.

A more interesting comparison would be to take the HDV footage and bring it down to SD size and THEN compare it to the SD stuff from the SD native camera. This would allow us to see how any HDV camera can still be used as an SD camera by way of downconverting the videos size when we need to do something in standard def.

You bring out an excellent point in regards to down conversion!


<<<-- Originally posted by Todd Siechen : Maybe its just me, but what does this article tell us that we don't already know when you compare an image at NTSC standard def to one at the much higher resolution of HD? You can do the same test with any still digital camera - just shoot one pic at low rez and then one at high rez - interlacing and compression notwithstanding of course.

I'm as excited as anyone about HDV (because we already know how much better higher resolution is), but this seems to me kind of like comparing apples to oranges and an exercise in fueling our excitement for HD until the onslaught of new HDV Cameras arrive.

A more interesting comparison would be to take the HDV footage and bring it down to SD size and THEN compare it to the SD stuff from the SD native camera. This would allow us to see how any HDV camera can still be used as an SD camera by way of downconverting the videos size when we need to do something in standard def. -->>>

No, the point is to show the value of these HDV cameras, that you really can get HD at DV prices, and that it isn't all smoke and mirrors. To my knowledge this is the first time someone has done a scientific comparison of HDV and DV frames using exactly the same shots, so I was very impressed by the "review".

It really shows that HDV is a viable format that actually outputs true HD resolution images, regardless of the compression used.

As far as downconverting, in my experience if you start out with a higher resolution original and downconvert, it looks as good or better (usually better) than a low-resolution original. We have been using the JVC HD10 to produce wide-screen DVD's (standard def) for over a year, and the results are fantastic (in spite of the nutty limitations of the HD10). I can only imagine the FX1 will be better.

<<<-- Originally posted by Todd Siechen : Maybe its just me, but what does this article tell us that we don't already know when you compare an image at NTSC standard def to one at the much higher resolution of HD? You can do the same test with any still digital camera - just shoot one pic at low rez and then one at high rez - interlacing and compression notwithstanding of course.

I'm as excited as anyone about HDV (because we already know how much better higher resolution is), but this seems to me kind of like comparing apples to oranges and an exercise in fueling our excitement for HD until the onslaught of new HDV Cameras arrive.

A more interesting comparison would be to take the HDV footage and bring it down to SD size and THEN compare it to the SD stuff from the SD native camera. This would allow us to see how any HDV camera can still be used as an SD camera by way of downconverting the videos size when we need to do something in standard def. -->>>

<<<-- Originally posted by Ben Buie : No, the point is to show the value of these HDV cameras, that you really can get HD at DV prices, and that it isn't all smoke and mirrors. To my knowledge this is the first time someone has done a scientific comparison of HDV and DV frames using exactly the same shots, so I was very impressed by the "review".-->>>

I guess I never saw the article about HD being smoke and mirrors. HD resolutions are HD resolutions - not sure how you can fake them except to upscale regular SD DV which is exactly what this review did. I doubt there are many people upscaling SD DV to HD so I still fail to see the relevance of the comparison beyond my original contention.

<<<-- It really shows that HDV is a viable format that actually outputs true HD resolution images, regardless of the compression used.-->>>

Of course it does. If a camera came out that claimed HD but instead recorded only at SD reolutions I think that company may have a bit of a problem. As far as compression goes, that would be a worthwhile comparison if we were comparing different companies versions of HD DV MPEG2 spec if indeed they are different enough to warrant a comparison - but generally speaking MPEG2 is MPEG2, doesn't matter if it's HD or SD on DVD. It has no relevance to the dimensions of the image to begin with.

<<<--As far as downconverting, in my experience if you start out with a higher resolution original and downconvert, it looks as good or better (usually better) than a low-resolution original. We have been using the JVC HD10 to produce wide-screen DVD's (standard def) for over a year, and the results are fantastic (in spite of the nutty limitations of the HD10). I can only imagine the FX1 will be better.-->>>

Yes I agree this would be a fantastic alternative and the original comparison I suggested in the first place - show me DV footage in SD right alongside the same footage that was downconverted from HD to SD.

Like you Todd I can't recall any articles saying HDV is smoke and mirrors, but I certainly have seen posts saying forget HDV it's all marketing hype, you're better off with a good DV camera.

I think this is a good test which shows that it isn't just marketing - there is a clear and significant difference in quality.

I agree with you that a comparison of DV and HDV downconverted to DV would be interesting. As far as I can see both tests are valid and we don't have to choose between them.

I would also have liked a comparison of some frames where everything in the frame is moving (eg flowing water). I've seen mixed reports on how the FX1 copes in that situation.

What is HDV usable for though? Unless you work for a network that is going to broadcast in HDV (in which case you'll probably be using professional HDV cameras anyway), or you're going to blow it up to film and present it in theaters only, I really don't see the point.

If you're going to distribute your work on DVD or internet you might as well use SD because HD will be pointless.

The FX1 and HDV is an excellent camera and format, and in many tests, exceeded the resolution of DV.

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Dave Ferdinand : What is HDV usable for though? Unless you work for a network that is going to broadcast in HDV (in which case you'll probably be using professional HDV cameras anyway), or you're going to blow it up to film and present it in theaters only, I really don't see the point.

If you're going to distribute your work on DVD or internet you might as well use SD because HD will be pointless. -->>>

My interest in HDV is because I think it gives you a lot more future proofing. HD-DVD will be in the shops by next Christmas, but how long will it be before HD TV is really established? 4 years? 8 years?

I don't know, but I do know that I'm still using stuff I shot on Hi8 nine years ago. Most of my stuff has archival value and I don't want to look back in 4 years time and think that all that DV stuff needs redoing because it looks bad on a HD TV.

I would certainly agree that if you're shooting solely for the here and now HDV is much less attractive. But I like the idea of doing a HD edit, downconverting to SD for current sales and then releasing a HD version when the market is there. It seems to make more sense than shooting and editing once in DV, then starting again and shooting and editing in HDV.

I guess it all boils down to the type of work you're doing. That's how it looks to me, but I'm certainly interested in contrary views.

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : The FX1 and HDV is an excellent camera and format, and in many tests, exceeded the resolution of DV. heath -->>>

Huh??!

When has HD ever NOT exceeded the resolution of SD?

Let me look at the numbers one more time:

SD = 480 lines

HD = 720 or 1080 lines

Well I have tried and tried, but no matter how I look at it, the numbers of HD lines always seems to be higher than SD. Am I missing something?

<<<-- Originally posted by Dave Ferdinand : What is HDV usable for though? Unless you work for a network that is going to broadcast in HDV (in which case you'll probably be using professional HDV cameras anyway), or you're going to blow it up to film and present it in theaters only, I really don't see the point. If you're going to distribute your work on DVD or internet you might as well use SD because HD will be pointless. -->>>

I look at it similarly to Paul - future proofing is certainly important. It won't be long before we have recordable HD-DVD drives and media in all our computers - hell the HD-DVD players are rolling out September of this year and 90 movie titles have already been announced by the large studios.

It's happening folks, and a hell of a lot faster than the original SD-DVD spec did.

I also really like the fact that I can use original HD footage as raw source for use in much of my effects and graphics work for downconverting later to SD for SD projects. Its always better to start with larger more detailed source plates than smaller of course and HD is perfect for this. The only real downside I see to HD for now is the longer rendering times associated with it, but with faster computers that will end quickly enough.

Well, as Paul said I was just thinking shooting for the here and now. I think most people think that way; They purchase a camera thinking of the projects they'll be working on in the next 2-3 years.

I guess if you want a long-term solution HDV is the way to go, but don't forget that in 2 or 3 years time your FX1 camera will be obsolete, a bit like the VX1000 or GL1 nowadays. You'll be looking at the newest Panasonic/Canon/Sony/JVC HD camera and thinking 'I wish I had that one instead'.

I suppose that depends on each person. I for one prefer to keep up to date with the new hardware available, but I suppose some people prefer to stick with what they've got for a while, which is fair enough.

As to HD becoming a standard or even popular format, it will happend of course but it will take time. Maybe some 5 or 6 years.

As we often say here, it's what gear you need NOW.

I had a sizable store credit at Small Dog (www.smalldog.com) in August 2003, and I planned to buy a brand new G5 2 ghz DP when it was to come out in November 2003. I also just purchased a new copy of DVD Studio Pro 2 to finish my film's DVD, which needed to be out by October 2003.

By early Sept. 2003, I received the copy of DVDSP2 and was about to install it on my G4 TiBook 400 mhz when a friendly screen popped up informing my my computer was too slow and my graphics card wouldn't be enough. Facing a deadline, I used my credit to buy a single processor 1.6 ghz G5 Power Mac (the 1.8 was too much more money and a single processor at the time). I wish I'd bought the DP 2 ghz, but I have no regrets. I needed gear then, not two months later, and I made the deadline!

heath

Hi Dave. I certainly agree that in 3 years the FX1 will have been surpassed, but cameras are the same as computers - whenever you buy there will always be something newer and better just round the corner.

In fact three years is about the timescale within which I've mentally written off the cost of a piece of equipment. If it's not horrendously expensive (the FX1 clearly isn't) and I get three years good use out of it then that's fine.

Or put it another way, I've got some Hi8 originated material which I want to replace. It means a foreign trip which will cost about the same as an FX1. I could do it on DV and accept that I will want to redo it in the not too distant future, but it seems to me the safer route is to do it on HDV and hope it gives me the necessary future proofing. Again it all comes down to your budget and the type of work you're doing.

I've quoted you on Forum:

Under Water, Over Land ... thread .. Footage Links

Sorry I don't know how to give you direct link but please have a look ...

You don´t need much testing to see that HDV makes good SD video.
When I switch my Canon XL-H1 from HD to DV I see the improvement instantly, just by watching the live downscaling performed by the camera, on a monitor. If you´re doing SD with a digibeta your OK. But I think HDV will outperform any DV camera in SD mode.