Hi,

I am looking at buying some new cameras for my wedding business. I would like some suggestions. I would like to use the Panasonic AG-DVX100a but I am not sure how the focus-low light capabilities are. I am not a fan of the xl1s for weddings because of focus issues. Or should I go the HD route yet, and if so which cameras.


Thank you!

My advice is that you need to find the camera that is right for you.

On this board (and others) your going to get different people giving you different answers on what to get. The Panasonic 100a VS. Canon XL2 debate is still ongoing with no end in site (they are both excellent cameras in my opinion).

Many will say to go the HD route, and many will say it's best to wait awhile - since the HD market is still up in the air - I myself thought it was best to wait a few more years to see what happens - but again, what's best for me might not be best for you.

I use the Canon XL-2 myself, as it had all the options and features that I wanted - but that doesn't mean that it's the best camera for you. I love the XL-2, even though some people pan it for being bad in low light (I think it's actually decent/good in low light myself!)

The Panasonic AG DVX-100A is an excellent camera, with good low-light quality. I have used it on numerous projects and always had good results.

I really don't thing you can go wrong with either of these choices.

My advice is to go to a rental house and ask them if you can play around with a few cameras. Try them out and find the one that's best for you - even if you have to spend some money on rental costs to try them out - it's better than spending 5 grand on a camera that might not fit your needs.

Hope that helps
Ryan

I love my Gl2, it's worked for me to get started. I use a couple of PV-GS120s as side cams. I'll probably upgrade my main camera next years, but this setup with some good sound equipment has gottten me started. I agree, find the best camera for you. Another choice is that you will need other stuff like good audio, so the analogy goes, as silly as it is, don't spend everything on one thing, because it's hard to film a wedding if you were never able to afford batteries.

Spread the wealth so to speak.

I love my DSR-PD170's and they do just excellent LOW LIGHT.. Which is perfect for the weddings we do, since they seem to always be dimly lit..

:)

How are these cameras in auto focus mode? Xl2 and the Panasonic AG-DVX100a?

Thanks!

Hello,

I own two DVX100a's that I use for wedding videography. I like them. They give you options like 60i, 30p, and 24p. They are well balanced (good for moving camera work), nice big viewfinder, large LCD screen, mechanical zoom ring, focus ring with a number scale that tells you where the lens is focused (00-99) for repeatable focus. I have used both 30p and 60i for weddings, both formats have advantages and disadvantages. Overall the DVX's have better low-light than my Canon GL2 had. This is partly due to the larger CCD chips. DVX = 1/3'' and the GL2 = 1/4''.

Don't way your decision to heavily on the DVX's ability for 60i, 30p, 24p. Before I got the cameras I thought the progressive capability would be a great asset. Now that I have the cameras... eh... I'm leaning back towards shooting just 60i. It is a more flexible format for post, and when doing weddings I believe you should have as many post production options available as possible.

The DVX also has a great audio system. 2 XLR ins, switchable between Line and Mic Level, both XLR jacks provide phantom power for shotguns, etc...

I have heard alot of good things about the Sony PD150 and PD170, but have never used them. They are said to have superb low light performance, you can really crank up the gain with relatively low noise. I'm not complaining about the DVX's performance in lower light, but if the PD150/170 provides a substantially cleaner image in dim settings, I would gladly trade my progressive capability for the cleaner low-light picture. I'm pretty sure Glen used to use DVX's and switched to Sony PD and VX models, which makes me wonder......

Good Luck!

I would second the recommendation of going and trying out some of the different cameras, and deciding which camera fits you best.

I like Opturas. Small, lightweight, excellent color, good lowlight. We run them handheld/shouldermounted for 10-12 hours; couldn't do that with something heavier.

And if one breaks just run to Bestbuy and get a new one. Mighty convenient.

Are you targeting high-end or budget-conscious clientele? If it's the former, I recommend taking a good look at current high-definition options, especially the Sony HDV cameras. A year or two from now it may be difficult to sell SD video to high-end clients, so might as well start planning ahead for that now. The main drawback to current HDV cameras is that they're not the best low-light cameras available, but you can work with them in most typical wedding situations once you learn how to work within their limitations.

Thanks for all the good replies!!

"How are these cameras in auto focus mode? Xl2 and the Panasonic AG-DVX100a?"

Auto focus of all the cameras.... the DVX wins hands down, blindingly fast, except when shooting in progressive which is about half the rate. Back focus issues n zoom in sometimes, but the camera allows for manual overide of all the auto settings so its a brilliant piece of kit in that regard.
The stabiliser sucks when u get past 75% zoom though, but with practice, u can work around this..
For those that feel that progressive scan is NOT a viable option, think about the resolution of your image, you either get 2 half fields, or one full res frame.. the choice is yours. Its not just about flm look wow factor... but the obvious benefit is resolution
Personally i prefer progressive scan 576p SD as oppsed to 1080i... but thats just me.. i liek the rawer look of SD the HD...
In the end though, youre still working within comparable resolutions, only presented in a different manner on an SD delivery format.. that is of course unless ur delivering to WMV HD which i woudl only recoomend with 720p... also, with WMV HD, its still only pumpin at about 8000kbps so compression WILL be an issue.. especially ifshooting with a z1 (as an example) editing as HD or wavelet, then delivering to WMV9 HD 720p or 1080i... on a high res true HD plasma, that compression leaves many artefacts.

i also prefer the "film" look as oppsed to the super glossy interlaced look of an edited wedding piece which is so common....

HD and HDV are the way of the future, but until the clients can actually view these without having to build a media centre pc, and acquire a HD panel, theres no point in punching through when HD is still so early (for the consumer that is...) i dont see people paying 4grand for a plasma, then to pay another grand for a media centre pc just to see their wedding in HD.. theyre has to be something else in it for them..

me, im waiting until my clients can go to the video shop and hire a HD dvd... once they can do that, THATS when im going to start offering HD... and even with that, i'll be upscaling 576p to 720p... which really isnt all that much of a difference between the 2.. ill be gettin rid of my Z1's and replacing them with 1 HVX.. but we'll wait and see..
And before anyone asks, the reason i dont use z1's for weddings is that he camera DOESNT give me the kind of imaging options the DVX can...
I was thinking of the HD100, but a good friend at JVC here told me to hang back a bit.. ;)

Hi,

I am looking at buying some new cameras for my wedding business. I would like some suggestions. I would like to use the Panasonic AG-DVX100a but I am not sure how the focus-low light capabilities are. I am not a fan of the xl1s for weddings because of focus issues. Or should I go the HD route yet, and if so which cameras.


Thank you!

Was one of the folks saying to hold off on going HD ... until day before yesterday. Was in a seminar Sat with DSE where he showed side-by-side images of the same scene shot in the same camera (Sony FX1) and recorded both in SD direct from the camera versus recorded in HDV and rendered into SD in post. The image quality was dramatically better for the footage recorded in HDV even though both of the final images were in standard definition. Was headed in the direction of purchase of an XL2 but now am seriously reconsidering my options. I think there's something to be said for wedding/event/corporate to shoot and edit in HDV and deliver in SD for now but with the ability to deliver in HD in the future. And for indy film or aspiring broadcast uses I'm starting to think HDV is the ONLY way to go.

Really like the look of the new Canon XLH1! (drool)

hey stevem what your seeing is the different compression algorythms.. the z1 for example, is a 4:2:2 unit, where as DV is 4:2:0 or 4.1.1 depending on where you are

MPG2 on the other hand is 4:2:0, but DV itself is an "ugly" compression method, so image abberations and colour bleed are prominant compared to HDV (even though theyre running at the same bitrate) also sharpness makes a huge difference with HDV, but comparing 1080i and 720p, 720p is far more superior to my eye, when running on a HD panel or LCD monitor

for bradcast or xfers to Digibeta, HDV is an awesome solution, and has saved me countless thousands in camera gear, but its not perfect either..

Me, im just waiting to work with dcvprohd before i decide which hd format ill be jumping to

Well first of all you don't need a $4000 dollar plasma television to view high definition content. All this is is an urban legend. The fact is that many inexpensive cathode ray tube televisions are perfectly capable of displaying high definition images. When DVD was first introduced did people think that you needed a special digital flat panel television to view DVD content ? As it turned out even though the technology was digital it was perfectly compatible with the old analog televisions.

Yes there are many people that say that high definition television is too expensive. But these are the same people that are paying 80 bucks a month on their cable bill. If they owned an HDTV they could get free HDTV signals off of the air and they would actually be saving money. Of course they wouldnt be able to get 500 channels for free. But doesn't quality count for anything?

As far as the delivery of high definition video for 250 bucks you can get yourself an AVel Link player that can play high definition content.

A lot of people will say why bother shooting in HD when the clients don't have an HDTV. There is a good chance that these newlyweds will get an HDTV the very first Christmas after they are married.

i dont think you understand my point..
noone is sayin u need a plasma.. but the viability of a plasma in this australian market is virtually non existant.. at the moment its more the people who are out to make an impression to OTHERS as oppsed to enjoying the benefits of HD
Being a supplier to producers as well as consumers, i see alot of stupid decisions being made with regard to HD, however there is still NO market penetrations here in aus.. sure afew advertise the use of Z1's etc but in the end, theyre still delivering in SD..

As for HD delivery, there is WMV9 HD, as well as the TVIX HD unit which offers HD playback off a HDD with digital audio and component video signal..
noones saying there arent any options... hell even teh Bravo D3 offers HD WMV playback from disc...
There are quite afew, however the only thing to hav any market penetration at this time is MediaCentre...
Here in aus, the clients find it hard enough to fork out 2500 for a DVD, let alone another $500 for a device to play this HD footage on...

Noone dissing any technology, but there has to be a line which is SEEN whereby the MARKET value of the product is worthwhile, the workload is streamlined, AND there is i fact a market for this... no point in offering something at a premium price when the clients arent even educated on it..
With weddings, NO CLIENT wants to take a risk, and in their perspective, this would be a risk until it becomes the "norm" as its so new right now...

At the WEVA Expo in Las Vegas last month, we heard from at least two presenters who are making good money selling HDV-based wedding videos to high end clients for a premium price. And we keep hearing from people who swear that HDV footage encoded to standard SD DVDs looks better than the DVDs they've been able to create from their DV cameras. And no one disputes that HDV displayed on HDTVs is clearly higher resolution than footage from similarly-priced SD cameras, so obviously this is an advantage for any customer who might ever view their wedding video on an HDTV. As far as WMV compression is concerned, a while back I encoded some Sony HDV footage to WMV 1080p resolution and posted it on the internet, where it was picked up by someone who said it looked great on his 14 foot home theater projection system.

So what we have here is an option to buy an affordable video camera which can deliver impressive output at both SD and HD resolutions, and you can also run it in standard DV mode if you're so inclined to do so. Seems like a pretty obvious choice to me. I'm recording all my weddings now using two Sony FX1s and hope I never have to shoot anything in SD ever again. Once you've seen HDV displayed on an HDTV or projected on a wall-sized conference room screen, it's apparent that SD video is doomed, especially for something personally important like a wedding video.

By the way, Douglas Spotted Eagle is reporting that even native 720p video is proving to be inadequate for one of his pickier clients with expensive 1080p HDTV displays, so he's convinced that 1080i recording is a preferable solution.

hey stevem what your seeing is the different compression algorythms.. the z1 for example, is a 4:2:2 unit, where as DV is 4:2:0 or 4.1.1 depending on where you are

MPG2 on the other hand is 4:2:0, but DV itself is an "ugly" compression method, so image abberations and colour bleed are prominant compared to HDV (even though theyre running at the same bitrate) also sharpness makes a huge difference with HDV, but comparing 1080i and 720p, 720p is far more superior to my eye, when running on a HD panel or LCD monitor

for bradcast or xfers to Digibeta, HDV is an awesome solution, and has saved me countless thousands in camera gear, but its not perfect either..

Me, im just waiting to work with dcvprohd before i decide which hd format ill be jumping to

Yep, understood. The argument usually goes that it is pointless to shoot in HDV (or any HD recording format) for the corporate/event/wedding market because none of your clients have HD playback equipment and so it'll end up in SD anyway. What we saw was that shooting and recording in HDV and converting to SD when rendering in post gives a much superior image than recording in standard miniDV to begin with, even when the signal originates in the same high quality camera. So my conclusion is that shooting/recording in HDV and preserving the HD as long as possible in the chain before converting and distributing in SD will give noticably superior image quality to shooting and recording SD miniDV with even high quality conventional miniDV camcorders. And it gives you the option of delivering HD versions later if your clients get the playback equipment. Meanwhile you've got the highest possible SD quality for the buck.

i agree 100% with what you say, what im saying here is that until the public is educated on this there is no point in offering a product such as HD weddings unless there is a market for it.. yes there is a small niche market at the moment which will infinitely grow, but for now, its all about education, and i for one am not willing to offer a HD product to a wedding client who is tight budgeted as it is. The market here in oz is very different. they see video as inferior and despite what we do to make this change, it doesnt happen as there are too many backyard hacks ruining the industry for us.

Its difficult enough selling them SD, let alone selling them HD (ive tried and have prolly sold one couple in 50 on HD after showing them the differences.. )

I have z1s here (hel i sold a DSR570 to get them.. ), but i loathe to use them for weddings simply due to the lack of tweakability, and the fact that the DVX is (to me at least) alot more flexible and responsive.

Like i said, HD is the way of the future, but businesswise.. its still up in the air.. there are too many factors (for me at least) to just jump and offer the product openly without having to change my prices too much or having the need to educate the client...

Why buying a DV camera when you have HDV offers for just a bit more? Don't forget that these cameras can work in both formats using real 16:9. I sometimes shoot wedings with my DSR-PD170, but some companys want me to use a pro camera, in this case I rent a DSR-390. I prefer using a pro shoulder camera, however the DSR-390 is to heavy for a long working day.

The PD170 is a great camera, you don't need more for weddings but in my case weddings are just a small part of my job and I'm really needing a real pro camera. That's why I decided to purchase a JVC GY-HD101, it's a professional camera, HDV, no autofocus, shoulder mount and it's light. I'll use it as DV for now, but I'll be able to shoot in HD if I want. I personaly don't like prosumer cameras, they have focus issues and don't give me the stability I like. XL2 has a very good image quality, but is very unbalanced and like all others the focus is servo assisted... it would be better with a real pro lens without autofocus.

So,this is my advice: if you're purchasing a camera and are not concerned about focus issues and a pro look, go for the Sony HDR-FX1 or the HVR-Z1 (for weddings the FX1 is enough). If you prefer a real pro camera without automatic functions go for the HD100. This is only my personal opinion...

I love my Gl2, it's worked for me to get started. I use a couple of PV-GS120s as side cams.

Just wondering what has been your experience using the
GS120s for weddings? How is the image of the 120s
at the ceremony?

i wonder how HDV looks slowed down cause i know a lot of wedding vids use slowmo shots

I actually work a company that shoots everything HD and the stuff usually gets laid off/final output to SD and it definitely does look better compared to that of going SD to SD its just more information you get to work with, its like the "camera raw" feature in photoshop
Yep, understood. The argument usually goes that it is pointless to shoot in HDV (or any HD recording format) for the corporate/event/wedding market because none of your clients have HD playback equipment and so it'll end up in SD anyway. What we saw was that shooting and recording in HDV and converting to SD when rendering in post gives a much superior image than recording in standard miniDV to begin with, even when the signal originates in the same high quality camera. So my conclusion is that shooting/recording in HDV and preserving the HD as long as possible in the chain before converting and distributing in SD will give noticably superior image quality to shooting and recording SD miniDV with even high quality conventional miniDV camcorders. And it gives you the option of delivering HD versions later if your clients get the playback equipment. Meanwhile you've got the highest possible SD quality for the buck.

So,this is my advice: if you're purchasing a camera and are not concerned about focus issues and a pro look, go for the Sony HDR-FX1 or the HVR-Z1 (for weddings the FX1 is enough). If you prefer a real pro camera without automatic functions go for the HD100.

I love how people try to make it sound like a good thing that the HD100U has no automatic focus feature. If you'd prefer to spend your time and energy trying to ensure accurate focus manually (which needs to be extra precise for HD work), by all means go ahead. But here's a funny thing: the autofocus feature on the Sony HDV cameras works surprisingly well, and there's a switch you can flip to turn it off and focus manually when the urge strikes you. Imagine that. :-)

It is a good thing not to have autofocus, manual lens don't have a servo and a stupid non-stop focus ring. Yes, I know you can always switch to manual mode, but the "funny thing" is that it's not you who really move the lens but a built-in servo that has a poor precision.

My PD170 has a very precise autofocus and I rarely use it, it is always a risk because it can focus on something that I don't want. I don't spend my time and energy focusing, it just comes out when you're used to manual focus lens.

It is a great thing that the HD100 has no auto focus, do you know why? Because it's a professional camera, the only affordable HD one. And, because it is HD, it has a very usefull function to assists you when focusing.

For some reason pro cameras don't have autofocus and amateur or prosumer have... why would that be? Think about that!

i agree 100% with what you say, what im saying here is that until the public is educated on this there is no point in offering a product such as HD weddings unless there is a market for it.. yes there is a small niche market at the moment which will infinitely grow, but for now, its all about education, and i for one am not willing to offer a HD product to a wedding client who is tight budgeted as it is. The market here in oz is very different. they see video as inferior and despite what we do to make this change, it doesnt happen as there are too many backyard hacks ruining the industry for us.

Its difficult enough selling them SD, let alone selling them HD (ive tried and have prolly sold one couple in 50 on HD after showing them the differences.. )

I have z1s here (hel i sold a DSR570 to get them.. ), but i loathe to use them for weddings simply due to the lack of tweakability, and the fact that the DVX is (to me at least) alot more flexible and responsive.

Like i said, HD is the way of the future, but businesswise.. its still up in the air.. there are too many factors (for me at least) to just jump and offer the product openly without having to change my prices too much or having the need to educate the client...

Yep, and I wouldn't a retire a good quality SD camera in favour of an HDV camera just yet. Just if one is already shopping the market for a new camera anyway, it makes sense to me to go with an HD instead of a new SD cam, even if the final delivery will be in SD for the forseeable future. There's a higher cost to consider, true, but it's not THAT much higher and in the meantime you'll be delivering better SD images than the competition.

For some reason pro cameras don't have autofocus and amateur or prosumer have... why would that be? Think about that!

That's an arbitrary distinction you've defined for yourself: a professional will know how to get good images with any camera at his/her disposal. I have no doubt you can get good images using manual focus, but for "run and gun" weddings shot in HD it's going to be a lot easier to shoot some scenes using autofocus. But either way, it's great to have affordable HD recording options, no matter what camera you choose.

That's an arbitrary distinction you've defined for yourself: a professional will know how to get good images with any camera at his/her disposal. I have no doubt you can get good images using manual focus, but for "run and gun" weddings shot in HD it's going to be a lot easier to shoot some scenes using autofocus. But either way, it's great to have affordable HD recording options, no matter what camera you choose.


not to mention the fact that most pro level lenss in still photography are also runnign auto mode, with manual overides..

not to mention the fact that most pro level lenss in still photography are also runnign auto mode, with manual overides..

Photography is different, you are woking with still images. You focus and then you shoot, you won't take the risk of unfocus during shooting.

A professional will know how to get good images with any camera when he has abolute control over it, in automode is the camera who controls the situation, the operator just points and shoots. That's why manual focus and manual iris are essencial to get exactly what desired.

Another thing that a pro lens allows to do is to mark different focus ranges for different distances in the same shot. For exemple you are shooting the fiancé from is right side, the bride is on his left. You want to focus the fiancé, then the bride and then someone next to her. This is impossible with autofocus and very difficult with a servo assisted lens.

Kevin, I have some experience with both kinds of cameras. Shooting is my profession but that doesn't mean I know everything, I still have a lot to learn. I shoot weddings every Saturday and some Sundays, I love shooting them for 2 reasons: first it's very well paid, an extra money is always welcome. Second, I have freedom to improvise, do what I want and learn with my mistakes. I learned that handycams are not stable as a shoulder cam and the autofocus is to use the less you can.

I was decided to purchase a FX1 untill JVC announced the realease of the HD100. With the FX1 I would still need to rent a pro camera for most jobs, as a freelancer the look of your material is very important, some clients think that my PD170 is my home camera. The HD100 is actually the best affordable offer, however the FX1 is a bit more light sensible... witch is usefull in weddings.

Well first of all I think that if you are going to offer your clients high definition it is very important not to charge more money to shoot in high definition. This is because most clients will refuse to pay extra for high definition video. Before when high definition video cameras cost 50,000 dollars it was impossible not to charge more money and still stay in business. But today high definition video cameras are very affordable so there is little reason to charge more money.

Secound I think one needs to deliver high definition video and not just shoot it. If your clients are told that high definition video cannot be delivered they will sense a problem and may opt out. Decks capable of playing high definition video can be had for around 250 bucks and should be bundled with the wedding video package.

Also you can let your clients know that HDTV can save them money. An HDTV with a built in digital tuner can receive free high definition broadcasts from the air. The payments on the television are cheaper than most cable bills.

i beg to differ with the HD comments..

yeah sure shoot in HD.. but if u wnat to deliver in SD AND offer a HDV backup, its alot more post producion work for you..

think about it..

yeah sure u shoot in HDV..
from here, what editor are u using? Vegas? Premiere? if ur using these two, best ot convert to a eavelet format or work with proxies.. to set this up takes TIME...
yeah sure u can do it nativeluy with edius or liquid, but i guarantee you the results wont be as clean as using a wavelet format..
Cineform (as an example) allows up to about 15 generations.. mpg2.. maybe 2 gens if your lucky..
ok, now uve done your edit, u can either output to HDV stright, or render to your wavelet format, which is then rendered out to tape..
this is yoru HD outpt file..
ok, then what.. u have to render out to SD for dvd delivery..

now this is a typical workflow (this is how i do it anyway) but you can see the extra steps that i have to take to offer HDV on tape as well as SD on dvd..
Now this isnt considerin WMV HD output.. or DivX hd output... this is raw HDV from the timeline...
Have u ever transcoded a cineform AVI w.5surround sound file to WMV9 with 5.1 audio channels?
how much time in the day do you have?

now theres NO WAY i would do this at the rate of SD (which only requires sd capture with no transcoding to wavelets)
I would definately charge more as these prcesses take more time..
Put simply time is money.. and if ur spending al tis time and resources on offering HD at SD prices, then youre ripping urself off...

If people want HD they shoudl pay for it.. hell if theyr ehappy to pay 4grand for a friggin TV, im sure an extra 500 bux for HD delivery wont bust their bank..
no seriosuly.. people spend all this money on shit and dont want to pay for a service, ive been to weddings where theyve paid 3700 for a friggin cake which will be shat out the next day.. but to pay for a video.. i had to twist their arms to get them to fork up the cash..
i say if you can afford a plasma or a largish lcd panel, u can afford to pay a ll extra for a HD wedding...

priorities people.. it seems this industry is still falling on its arse as even with these opportunites to expand our business offerings (ie, offering HD as an upgrade for the client which could land you anything between 500to 1000 extra on top of the standard package...
and the worse thing is that the videographers accpet the fact that people wont pay for these upgades unless theres "something in it for them"

So you all can keep charging peanuts and offering the world.. or you can profit on the fact that you now have a new product to sell...

but in the end, it all comes down to how much you value your time, talent and resources...

I for one am not falling into the "professional non professioanl debate" I make money, i take shortcuts, i take long cuts.. im making a liiving from this, its paying bills.. its my profession.. im a professional.. irrespective of whether im using a DSR570, Z1, or DVX100...
like the next guy, i work my ass off, and spend stupid amounts of hours in editing, i have clients sending me thank you cards with gift vouchers, and yea, i am close with them, but in the end, theyr still clients and theyre weddings are what are used to sell my products to other potential clients.

its a great big whopping circle and if its mismanaged by me offering to much to one client while another waits for his edit to be completed, you end up burning out, you end up with complaints about delivery and in the end its for naught.. believe me, i been there and done that...

all i can say is that if u want to go HD, go for it, hell, who wouldnt..
Me, im jsut waitng for the HXV and firestore...

but dont be a fool by giving the product away and setting a BAD precendent for the INDUSTRY by not charging accordingly...

Am i sounding stingy and tightassed?? yeah? well think about the fact that youre in this game to make money from it.. All of us.(well most anyway) live by what we do, and if some numbnuts decides to offer a product at a set rate, the next guy has to match or beat it to compete (for price alone... workmanship doesnt come into play at this time)

so yeah whatever anyone decides, just be sure to think about your business GROWTH, your business WORKFLOW, and your business behaviour within the industry..

Steve Mullen claims that the JVC 720p format is twice as easy to edit as the Sony 1080i format. Perhaps a wedding videographer could shoot 720p at no extra charge but charge more for higher resolutions like 1080i.

Peter: I'm using Edius to edit HDV footage converted to the Canopus HQ format, then outputting directly from the timeline to whatever delivery format I need using Procoder Express. Workflow on a dual-core computer running at 3 GHz is basically the same as DV, including SD MPEG2 output for DVDs, and the only thing which takes time is rendering to HD formats like Windows Media. If you were starting from scratch today you could shoot and edit HDV for about the same price most of us have spent to produce DV, so in the long run there may not be much of a price premium. But I agree that for now we should all be charging something extra for HDV, and the trick is figuring out what customers are willing to pay.

Steve Mullen claims that the JVC 720p format is twice as easy to edit as the Sony 1080i format. Perhaps a wedding videographer could shoot 720p at no extra charge but charge more for higher resolutions like 1080i.

720p footage requires less processing power to edit effectively than 1080i, but that's quickly becoming irrelevant with the introduction of affordable dual-core processors. I doubt most customers would pay extra for one format over the other and would prefer not to be bothered with such details, but chances are 1080i will have a little more appeal because most people will assume the higher primary resolution of 1080i makes it a better format. (Whether that's true or not.)

Steve Mullen claims that the JVC 720p format is twice as easy to edit as the Sony 1080i format. Perhaps a wedding videographer could shoot 720p at no extra charge but charge more for higher resolutions like 1080i.

Resolution isn't everything, 720p is less resolution but better quality, it works with full frames and it has no artifacts. So would you extra charge for better resolution or for better quality? I'd go for the quality and film look of progressive scan.

If you don't know how it works, take a look at this:
http://www.avdeals.ca/classroom/Proscanexplained.htm
:)

For anyone who has seen both 720p and 1080i:
Does the 720 have the "film look", similar to
what the DVX100 has?

Resolution isn't everything, 720p is less resolution but better quality, it works with full frames and it has no artifacts.

Douglas Spotted Eagle has reported that he's finding 720p HDV to be inadequate for display on high-end 1080p HDTVs. Something to test before you settle on one format or the other.

Maybe 720p isn't the best format but it's the one that is being adopted by major broadcasters. Of course the best format to display on a 1080p HDTV is 1080p, but I've seen some 720p footage of an HD100 displayed on a high-end big professional HDTV and the image was incredibly good, didn't seem inadequate to me or to the 12 directors of photography and camera operators that were also there for the first presentation of the camera in Portugal. I think inadequated is not the correct word, he should say 720p is not the best format to be displayed on a 1080p HDTV, but 1080i isn't certainly better than 720p.

"The argument that 1080x1920, 30 frames/sec interlaced (1080I) will give better picture quality than 720x1280, 60 frames/sec progressive (720P) because it has twice as many picture elements (pixels) per frame is the most recent erroneous idea put forth by those who have been pushing the NHK 1125/60 system for years as a world-wide production standard. The earlier arguments all turned out to be incorrect; this new one is but the latest attempt to foist off this obsolete technology on the American broadcasting industry. In fact, the vertical resolution actually achieved in 1080I is lower han that actually achieved in 720P, while the horizontal resolution is considerably less than 1920 pixels, as clearly shown by objective tests carried out at ATTC. Subjective tests carried out by ATEL showed that the perceived picture quality of the two systems was comparable...

The idea that 1080I has higher resolution than 720P has been shown to be false. The resolution actually achieved in the interlaced system is far below the nominal 1080x1920. The reduction in vertical resolution is due to the need to lessen the interline flicker that would otherwise be present. The reduction in horizontal resolution is partly a camera problem and partly a limitation of the MPEG compression system. These limitations are inherent; they cannot be removed within the given transmission data rate. There was a time when these matters were not fully understood, but that time is long past. There is now a mountain of evidence that shows that there is no advantage whatsoever to using interlace in digital TV broadcasting except to the manufacturers of interlaced production equipment. The fact that some interlace advocates are still pushing this obsolete technology shows that their viewpoint cannot be based on facts, but is almost surely due only to their last-ditch attempt to make the already developed 1125-line production equipment the appropriate equipment to use as HDTV broadcasting is initiated."

by William F. Schreiber,
Prof. Emeritus of Electrical Engineering, MIT