Alexander,

Regarding Post #92 -

Welcome back from the future.

I don’t know how much I need to say. It seems like your post has grown since I skimmed through it yesterday. And it also sort of seems like you are going back and forth with yourself.

You say “the question has been approached from every angle except the right ones.”

I don’t think so. I’m just trying to figure out why I would want to switch from my XL2, which has a very proven and pretty much hassle-free workflow, AND, if it makes sense for me to get a Canon XL H1 when it’s released. My main concerns are: Will I be able to shoot good looking footage, capture it, store it, edit it and export it to the web? And to this point in time, it does not really look that way. The whole workflow has to make sense not just the camera by itself.

When it looks like there is a total solution from shooting to delivering HDV is the time I’ll buy some new stuff. But I’m not going to speculate on “and maybe this, and maybe that.” kind of vaporware.

Am I focused on the present? You bet I am. Am I focused on the present to the point of not looking for future solutions? Not at all. When there’s a good HDV solution I’ll switch to it. It’s just got to make some sense. If none of your clients want footage exported to the Internet, then you don't need to worry about (yet). But for me, how things look on the Internet is the most important factor.

Your point of “Storage and Recording are the issue” is quite valid. And from what I've read on storage solutions for uncompressed SDI output (in this forum) it does not look cheap OR easy. Paying $30,000 to store uncompressed SDI does not make sense.

You mention “There is one final consideration. I will be able to use this camera in five or ten years.” Alexander, you will be able to buy a XL H1 on eBay for $1,000 in five years. $250 in ten (shipping included). And why you would even want to use it at that point in time is beyond me.

Finally, on "I can say where it leaves me. I still do the bulk of my work with an XL-1. Yeah- the original. Most of my clients say its beautiful. So definitely hang on to your XL-2 until SD is not an option."

That's awesome. You are obviously a talented videographer and I hope you use your time to keep shooting the beautiful work that your clients appreciate instead of the headache's of a HDV workflow.

Another thing that needs to be pointed out. Even though you may not be able to deliver HD to a client, and the clients aren't asking for it, the time to learn the technique for shooting HD is NOW. That way, when it is mainstream, you will already be proficient with the technology and not playing catch-up. -gb-
When it's mainstream in our eyes will be well before it's mainstream to the general public. It's not mainstream for us yet. When it is, THAT will be the time to learn it. The majority of the bugs will have been worked out by then.

Go visit HDV equipment & HDV editing, you'll be busier than a one-legged man in an a$$-kicking contest reading posts about workflow problems.

Why waste all your valuable time (time that you can be making money) being a pioneer for the manufacturers with the products that WE PAY FOR.

When DV first came out I didn't have clients running up to me asking for me to shoot in DV. Should I have held off shooting DV?

Good point, but really have you ever had a client asking you to shoot in any certain format? Or do they just ask you to shoot because they've seen your work and it looks great? If you think HDV is to the point where you can transition over to it and shoot AND deliver better stuff, then by all means go for it.
When DVD recording came out my clients were not asking for DVD's. Should I have held off making DVD's for my clients?

Nope, because DVD recording came out and here's the key thing - it worked. You could buy the DVD recorder from the place of your choice, capture your footage, edit your footage and then SIMPLY burn it to a DVD.

Remember most clients don't know what is out there like we do. It is up to us to present clients with the best quality not to wait for them to ask for it. If that was the case we may all still be sending out VHS (barf) tapes to our clients and shooting on SVHS.
So then my question is this? What's the best quality? Is it footage from a Z1 or a HD100? And if they want the best quality stuff on the web, how will it be delivered?

In 2 years time, when my clients want their next HD presentation sequence produced and they want to use footage from the library that we are shooting today, they are going to be VERY happy that we shot it in HD.
This depends, what type of clients?

Nope, because DVD recording came out and here's the key thing - it worked. You could buy the DVD recorder from the place of your choice, capture your footage, edit your footage and then SIMPLY burn it to a DVD.


DVD's were a pain in the arse to start with! Nothing was compatible. Most of the early players wouldn't play burnt DVDs, especially Sonys.

DVD's were a pain in the arse to start with! Nothing was compatible. Most of the early players wouldn't play burnt DVDs, especially Sonys.
Well, I didn't know this. I was just drawing from my own experience. The first time I burned a DVD was about 2 years ago. I just put the DVD in my mac. Opened up DVD Studio Pro 2, spent about a day learning how to use it to achieve the best results and burned my first DVD.

Maybe you all have been burning DVD's for 10 years or something and I just lucked out that the technology had advanced to the point that it did by the time I was ready for it.

In 2 years time, when my clients want their next HD presentation sequence produced and they want to use footage from the library that we are shooting today, they are going to be VERY happy that we shot it in HD.

This I agree with. We'll need B-roll for all kinds of situations. This is my main reason for (starting to) be against P2. I'd rather archive and index my tapes for whatever scenario and not have to buy hard drive after hard drive for P2 content. Steve you are right I think.

Why waste all your valuable time (time that you can be making money) being a pioneer for the manufacturers with the products that WE PAY FOR. It's not wasting your time, it's investing your time. Being a pioneer is riskier and comes with more problems, but in the long run, there's also a higher chance of getting a bigger return on your investment. The bigger opportunities tend to go to those who took the risk and thus were more prepared than the rest.

It's not wasting your time, it's investing your time. Being a pioneer is riskier and comes with more problems, but in the long run, there's also a higher chance of getting a bigger return on your investment.

Micheal,

I agree with you 100% on being a pioneer. I believe in getting the best (that I can reasonably afford) technology when I make the purchase. But I think there's a point of being too far ahead. I simply want to be able to deliver video that looks the best on-line. If Sony, Canon, JVC or Panasonic can give me a solution that can deliver HDV on the Internet that looks better than DV, I'll get it. If you look back a few pages, I was pretty excited a couple of days ago when I thought that a Sony Z1 could give me the kind of footage posted on Apple's H.264 page (shooting skills and abilities aside).

But then we found out otherwise. :(

That's one of the reasons I've been so focused on wanting to see ALL OF THIS GREAT edited footage that EVERYBODY who has HDV cameras has been getting posted in a viewable format on-line.

I want to be a pioneer as well, just not THE very first one.

I want to be a pioneer as well, just not THE very first one.Yeah I get you, it would be kinda like being the first guy to try cow's milk. Everybody looks at you weird, and you're not sure yourself what's gonna happen next.

Yeah I get you, it would be kinda like being the first guy to try cow's milk. Everybody looks at you weird, and you're not sure yourself what's gonna happen next.
LOL !!!
I was sort of thinking more like 100's of years ago when one guy was saying to another as they were standing on the shore of the Amazon River. "Those fish.... Those little tiny fish over there, they won't bite."

The first guy who jumped in left plenty of room for all the other "early adaptors" to spend time adapting other things...

things other than swimming with Piranhas.

Your point of “Storage and Recording are the issue” is quite valid. And from what I've read on storage solutions for uncompressed SDI output (in this forum) it does not look cheap OR easy. Paying $30,000 to store uncompressed SDI does not make sense.

Well, you can store in formats like DVCPRO 50 and DVCPRO HD. Those are much nicer than DV or HDV. Much easier to post, composite and SELL.

Finally, on "I can say where it leaves me. I still do the bulk of my work with an XL-1. Yeah- the original. Most of my clients say its beautiful. So definitely hang on to your XL-2 until SD is not an option."

That awesome. You are obviously a talented videographer and I hope you use your time to keep shooting the beautiful work that your clients appreciate instead of the headache's of a HDV workflow.
My clients expect me to deal with the headaches of HD so they can buy that product. The companies I want to sell to demand it as a MINIMUM.

That's my business.

I am sure yours is different. What do your customers want ? What do they need in the next few years ?

For example: If you do commercials for TV you have to be HD ready in the next 2 years or you are out of business.

If you shoot a commercial in SD for a small business right now, and they can't play it next year and have to produce a new one- they may be upset with you. Why didn't you tell them ? Why weren't you prepared ?

If you offer them upconversion of SD materials, it won't look very good next to the other slickly produced HD commercials. About the same effect of shooting with an industrial SVHS camera then posting in a linear suite in today's market.

If they come to you and you can say, "Oh, we shot and posted it in HD so for a {relatively small fee for minor post} we can have a true HD version ready in a week." You've won a reputation and a customer for life. Not to mention some easy future revenues.

This is a real scenario with small businesses, car dealerships for example. They shoot a commercial then reedit it for a couple of years with new stills/beauty shots of new models etc before producing a new spot.

The H1 is not the last word in <$10000 cameras. Your customers may not care about HD at all.

It isn't about the technology at all really. Its about YOUR business. Can this make you more money or not.

I think it can.

I can say where it leaves me. I still do the bulk of my work with an XL-1.Since you're shooting "the bulk of your work with a XL1" what have you been telling all the clients "demmanding" HD?

This is a real scenario with small businesses, car dealerships for example. They shoot a commercial then reedit it for a couple of years with new stills/beauty shots of new models etc before producing a new spot.
A car dealership is not going to re-use a 2005 commercial in 2007 for more reasons than one.

A car dealership is not going to re-use a 2005 commercial in 2007 for more reasons than one.

Similar things happen all the time. A company phoned me two days ago about updating a video that was shoot just a year ago.

Similar things happen all the time. A company phoned me two days ago about updating a video that was shoot just a year ago.
That's good. Repeat business is always the best. Even though you having the original footage that they want to update is one reason they called, they probably phoned you because they liked the results you gave them a year ago. What did you shoot it with?

and when you say update -

Update, as in adding or editing graphics?
Upadate, as in shooting new footage?
Or both?
If shooting new footage:
What are you going to shoot it with?
Is that the same camera you used to shoot the original?

A car dealership is not going to re-use a 2005 commercial in 2007 for more reasons than one.

But they do! Collect dealership commercials for a couple of years and you'll see I am right.

Now, understand that dealerships have a better deal than most small businesses. They get plenty of B-Roll and beauty shots and other production materials from the manufacturers. They also get a promotional budget based on how many cars they sell. A budget we can tap into.

Finally they get regional advertising based on how many cars they sell direct from manufacturers, but we don't deal in that level. Not with an XL2 or an XLH1. HDCAM and 35mm only there. You may see a Mazda commerical produced and distributed by Mazda that has a local dealership name on it, but its a Mazda ad.

Still my main point is that many small businesses reuse advertisements for several years, with only minor changes.

OK, lets take one of your car dealership clients as an example:

What 2003 footage that you shot on the XL1 two years ago are you re-using in the 2005 commercial that you are doing for them today?

Since you're shooting "the bulk of your work with a XL1" what have you been telling all the clients "demmanding" HD?

I don't know if you were referring to me, but I have shot HD, yet most of my work (weddings, small event documentaries and training videos) is done with an XL-1.

I use the XL-1 because I own it.

When I do work with HD its because the client wants HD, and I rent equipment as needed.

I see a time coming, sooner rather than later, where I'll need to own HD capable equipment. I already have a need to be ready to post HD in house in various formats. So far its just preliminary dealings but its there.

For the small stuff I do HDV is actually pretty good. You aren't doing a lot of manipulation and compositing for a wedding, and what you do need is mostly overlays and such. HDV holds up to that.

That means I can offer clients interested in that type of stuff a finished HD production. Oddly weddings have been most interested- HD is the future and people have their weddings done so they can look back in ten or twenty years. They know they don't have HD today, but they expect to.

As productions get more complex they also need to be more controlled. You can't key shots done in a run and gun fashion.

When I shoot stuff I need to key it is almost immediately a studio type shoot. The H1 can do that in uncompressed SDI for me or DVCPRO HD direct to the computer. That makes my time in Shake or AE easier. It also means I don't have to rent a camera and deck- that means more profit.

Does my business sound like yours ? If not my advice won't necessarily be useful to you.

I've said it again and again- if all you do is online distribution the XL2 is just fine. You'll be able to wait longer than most of us for HD production.

If you look back a few pages, I was pretty excited a couple of days ago when I thought that a Sony Z1 could give me the kind of footage posted on Apple's H.264 page (shooting skills and abilities aside).

But then we found out otherwise. :(

That's one of the reasons I've been so focused on wanting to see ALL OF THIS GREAT edited footage that EVERYBODY who has HDV cameras has been getting posted in a viewable format on-line.

I want to be a pioneer as well, just not THE very first one.

It seems to me that you are focused on online distribution TODAY.

HDV doesn't deliver a huge improvement over DV for online distribution. One huge reason for that is that most people can't download or view full resolution clips.

Take another look at Apple's HD gallery. A lot of those clips are over 100MB. The Serenity HD trailer was 138 MB and requires a fairly new machine, Quicktime 7 and a high resolution display to view in its full glory.

Given all of that it looks better than a theater presentation of the trailer. Seriously.

If you want your work to look like that with you can do it- you can get Hollywood level production quality from a studio equipped with about $45000 of equipment starting from scratch built around using the HD SDI from the H1.

Your XL2 can produce results for online distribution on par with the movie trailers you can see at Apple's regular trailer page. Notice however that most of those trailers are 480x272 or smaller.

If that is really all you want to do then HDV, heck even full blown HDCAM SR is of no utility to you whatsoever. None of those cameras matter one whit considering you choice of distribution.

They still all have valid business plans attached to them.

I've said it again and again- if all you do is online distribution the XL2 is just fine. You'll be able to wait longer than most of us for HD production.
That's good to know. Sorry, I hadn't seen that statement.

That's good to know. Sorry, I hadn't seen that statement.

Well, maybe I am guity of not having been very clear. I ain't going back and reading all that to find out though.<grin>

OK, lets take one of your car dealership clients as an example:

What 2003 footage that you shot on the XL1 two years ago are you re-using in the 2005 commercial that you are doing for them today?

I am sorry if I implied that I have dealership clients I don't. It is a market I am trying to get into though so I've been studying it.

I'll give you an example though of how dealers reuse old footage. Bear with me...

Open on beauty of a car driving with titles. This shot will be reused until that body type is not being produced, between two and up to FIVE years.

A stock shot of the dealer lot with the owner talking about service etc. You know the part where the dealer rolls out his kids or sales staff. This is a shot I'd take. That will be reused until the cars in the shot are no longer produced or the dealer changes locations- again two to five years.

Then you have special promotions, normally VO with titles. Sometimes the background will be beauty shots of the vehicle under discussion, these beauty shots are usually manufacturer supplied. These get redone twice a year on average per model line advertised. I'd be redoing the VO and the titles.

Its very little work and pay rates are good from what I can find, because dealers have the best type of spending money- other people's. Still this year or next you will need to have in house HD acquisition and post capability.

HDV acquisition from any 3CCD camera would be fine, so the Z1 would be completely suitable for this work.

Hopefully someone here actually does car dealer commercials and can show some samples.

Well, maybe I am guity of not having been very clear. I ain't going back and reading all that to find out though.<grin>
LOL! and roger on that.

Alexander,

What would you choose if you were headed solely for DVD?

That's good. Repeat business is always the best. Even though you having the original footage that they want to update is one reason they called, they probably phoned you because they liked the results you gave them a year ago. What did you shoot it with?

and when you say update -

Update, as in adding or editing graphics?
Upadate, as in shooting new footage?
Or both?
If shooting new footage:
What are you going to shoot it with?
Is that the same camera you used to shoot the original?

I didn't actually shoot the video originally, but they got fed up with the company who did. I was doing some DVD authoring for them, so they asked me to update the video.

However, this is a perfect demonstration of one of the points that is being made: The original was shoot 4:3 on DVCAM, but they want to display it on a 42" 16:9 plasma. IMO the first company did a poor job in fufilling the customers needs. I may even suggest re-shooting the whole thing on HD for presentation off a HD-DVD from laptop and onto the screen as this is what the job really calls for. Had it been shot on HD in the first place it would have saved money. I think they choee not to because at the time they were using a smaller 4:3 display monitor.

Personally I always try to warn customers about changing technology so that they can decide whether it is worth future proofing their work. That way when the technology does arrive at least I can say I told them so, and they don't feel neglected by having info withheld from them.

We are the professionals and are their to serve the clients very best needs, we also must bear in mind that they may not be aware of these needs.

Alexander,

What would you choose if you were headed solely for DVD?

Big question. I think your DVD results look very different depending on how you originate.

I used to argue that DV could outperform DVD in every regard and thus was a suitable acquisition format for almost any project. That is wrong.

DV25 is a suitable codec but the cameras usually fail to live up to the codec. Only the best DVCPRO and DVCAM cameras can push the codec's edges, and most of those are DVCPRO 50 cameras in DV25 mode anyway. Why you would do that I have no idea.

You need a 4:2:2 format minimum to max out DVD. DV still can deliver good results, but not the best possible. I think you can composite DV better than HDV, but not nearly as well as DVCPRO 50.

Also there are some minor issues with color levels and such. New software handles DV better than before, but still a 4:2:2 format looks better.

HD formats can look better than SD formats for DVD, but I think that has more to do with the fact that they are treated better during production and until now have had uniformly more color space.

A lot of Hollywood is 4:4:4 from 35mm or HD acquisition. I don't think DVD can handle more than 4:2:2, but a little headroom is handy if you want to deliver top notch results.

Now all that said, I use my XL-1 most often for DVD, and most of the time it looks fine.

The bigger issues tend to be how you light and whatnot. I can see a huge difference in my productions where I had time and resources for proper acquisition vs. some sort of run and gun stuff.

With run and gun DV and HDV can look pretty bad compared to 4:2:2 SD or HD. It takes only a little bit of production care and technique to bring them much closer together.

Also, try and remember that these cheap video cameras we all have have very limited dynamic range. DVD doesn't "like" when you over or underexpose, so keep it tight within 5 stops, and if that fails color correct your output.

That last bit is a huge difference in what we can manage vs. Hollywood. They have ~11 stops dynamic range on HD or 35. You can match that look or at least come close even in DV but you have to be a freaking master of light.

I think if you only go for DVD you even don't need HD or HDV. I think SD just does fine. I think an XL2 suffices.
People forget that these cams (XL1, XL2, PD170, DVX100,...) still shoot great video.
Heck, 28 days later was shot on the XL1 and was projected and became a little hit!
I know that movie is always the example, but it just a prime example of how great SD can look!
Okay they had a professional crew and spent millions in postproduction, but they knew how to light!

OK,

So I'm getting 4 gig of RAM installed at the Apple Store right now.

Low and behold, they've got a Sony FX1 here.

Low and behold, they had some mini DV's for sale.

So I bought them and put one in the Sony FX1. I'm recording footage right now, so I can take it home, load it up into FCP and see what and see what I think.

I'm just recording in auto mode, and it looks like its in 1080i mode.

I guess the only issue is, can I put the miniDV that I take out of this FX1 into my XL2 and capture it from there without it causing my XL2 any problems down the road?

It was a brand new tape, right? Probably no worries at all, but if you have a head cleaning cassette handy then you might run it for about five seconds in your XL2 after capturing that tape.

Thanks Chris,

Yep. Brand new tape.

I thought about it some while driving home and I gave my parents one of my old Sony Camcorders. It's about 5 years old but it's miniDV and has a FireWire in/out so I think I'll try to capture the 15 minutes I taped with it on Sunday (just to be on the safe side).

I'm sure you are right though, just hate to take an unnecessary risk even if it's just a .000000001 chance.

I'm looking forward to it though. Especially with my 6 GIG of RAM! My neighborhood's lights are going to flicker!!!

- - - - - - - -

Just a quick side note here - this forum is excellent. Thanks for running for us Chris.

I guess the only issue is, can I put the miniDV that I take out of this FX1 into my XL2 and capture it from there without it causing my XL2 any problems down the road?

It should play just fine if its any sort of DV.

I don't think the XL2 will play back HDV at all. So, if you are right and the FX was in 1080i mode, you won't get a useful picture.

Waiting to hear, but please when you capture check the clip info and see what resolution you used to record.

Just an update on this. I had given my parents an older Sony DV that I bought about 4 years ago. I thought I would try using it to do the capture, so I wouldn't have to risk any bad side effects with the XL2. I think the risk are minimal, but when faced with the risk vs. reward factor I often use - it was not worth the gamble.

So I tried the sony that I mentioned above and it did not work.

Although, thinking about it now, even if it did work:

I don't think it would have been fair on the FX1 for the following reasons:
-I've never shot with it
-I don't know how "jacked up" the settings could have been from about a million people messing with it.
-If you've ever been in an apple store, you know how bright (all white basically) they are, and I'm sure the footage would have been very bright and not properly balanced.
-I'm sure there are other reasons as well.

So, to sum it up - Best to everyone using HDV and to those who are going to acquire the new Canon H1. Keep on keepin' on. I'm looking forward to seeing the footage on-line.

Wow, yet another thread questioning the viability of HDV recording and HD video delivery. I don't know if I would rush to pay $9K to replace a Canon XL2 with the XL-H1, but I'm blown away by the image quality difference between a $3K Sony FX1 and the Canon GL2 I bought last year for about $1800. My FX1 footage is clearly better in many ways even for SD delivery, and on an HDTV it's just plain jaw-dropping compared to the GL2. I haven't had time to upload many samples yet, but here's one downsampled to Windows Media at 720p resolution:

http://www.videomem.com/hdv/yosemite_720p.wmv

HDV is going to disrupt everything because any new videographer can drop $6K on two FX1s and $1500 on a dual-core editing setup, and deliver HD image quality that rocks for the same price any decent SD videographer is charging. (Assuming the content itself is worth watching.) Once proper HD DVD players start shipping all heck is going to break loose, because anyone paying good money for professional video projects may start wondering why they shouldn't get it done in HD. Plus the fact that most HDTVs being sold are widescreen and most SD cameras are primarily 4x3 will be a problem for many videographers -- XL2 owners can get by a little longer delivering widescreen SD video. But at some point any customer with real money is going to start asking for HD recording options, even if they're not quite sure whether they really need it.

Draw your own conclusions based on sensible business planning, but SD video is on its way out.

I don't personally think that HDV is going to take off, I think by the time consumers have caught up in order to justify the widespread use of HDV then a new format will have arrived which will utterly trounce it, and consumers will buy that. It's a bit like BetaMax in a way, or Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD. One day there will be a winner, but it wont be for another five years at least, and ultimately the average consumer will decide.

So out of the currently available low-cost (compared to previous HD camera offerings) HD/HDV camcorders; how many are offering a comparable competitive format?

It's been nearly a year since the release of Sony's HDV camcorders, and 2 since JVC's HDV initial foray. I'm yet to see anyone announce any "competing" format for High Definition video at HD broadcast level specifications.

Some how, I get the feeling that the number of Sony and JVC HDV camcorders already sold will mean that HDV remains with us for more than just a fleeting glimpse before passing into the abyss known as the "Cavern of Forgotten Technologies"... Seems to me you're more than hoping that HDV is going to fail dismally.

Come to think of it - this whole thread wreaks of doubt amongst those seeking reasurrance that their decision to stay with SD, rather than moving to HDV, was the correct one to make. It's a shame that so soon after making that decision there's so much doubt about having made it.

Personally: I made the choice to go HDV. Why? Because I was able to!!

I'm damned happy that I made the choice I did. Why is it so hard for some folks who decided to stick with DV to be the same?

If you got cold-feet, because you didn't understand what HD/HDV was about or offered - how to work with it or what is required... that's your problem.

BTW for those Mac users who seem to be rather afraid of the m2t files that are available for them to view. Why don't you try a well known PC user trick? Change the file type (the three letter extension) to .mpg? Just so you know: the m stands for MPEG, the 2 for MPEG2 and the t stands for Transport Stream. By crickey!! it's an MPEG2!! If you can load MPEG2 into FCP then you can load this...

Steve, thanks for your comments. One of the great things about this forum is its ability to help expand your thinking and see other views and points.

... Seems to me you're more than hoping that HDV is going to fail dismally.

Personally, I do not want to see HDV fail, or any other technology for that matter.

Come to think of it - this whole thread wreaks of doubt amongst those seeking reasurrance that their decision to stay with SD, rather than moving to HDV, was the correct one to make. It's a shame that so soon after making that decision there's so much doubt about having made it.
Not really looking for reassurance either. I can sell my XL2 and go get a JVC or any other HDV camera at any time, due to how well this equipment seems to hold its value. Really though, I don't see myself selling the XL2. It's too good for the money. I would just purchase a HDV camera and use the camera I want for whatever I was shooting. Technology will always be improving and I knew that my XL2 was not going to be a 5 or 10 year solution, but a 1 to 3 year solution. But here's the key - during that 1 to 3 years the entire workflow is EASY, with a very limited amount of "work arounds" and "tricks" and other stuff that just costs more money and takes up more time. I think maybe in two or three years the HDV workflow could be that way.I just don't feel HDV is the right solution for ME at THIS point in time. Just doesn't make sense to have a 30 second clip on the web be 30 to 40 megs. Broadband has come a long way, but even with a very fast broadband connection the beautifully shot 12 second clip posted by Kevin above (thanks Kevin, looked really nice) took about 2 minutes to download. I just don't see people wanting to wait 8 minutes for a one minute clip.

If you got cold-feet, because you didn't understand what HD/HDV was about or offered - how to work with it or what is required... that's your problem.It's not a problem for me as it's not a format I'm using. And REALLY, from the video's I've seen, both on-line and on TV, I'd rather see the manufacturers put their R & D into reducing the cost and size of cameras like the Panasonic SDX900 with three 2/3" 520,000 Progressive CCD imagers.

somehow my message posted twice. Just deleting the duplicated post. Maybe a moderator could delete this?

Broadband has come a long way, but even with a very fast broadband connection the beautifully shot 12 second clip posted by Kevin above (thanks Kevin, looked really nice) took about 2 minutes to download. I just don't see people wanting to wait 8 minutes for a one minute clip.

Note that the clip I referenced was posted at roughly 6 times the bandwidth I would use for a typical web sample for clients, and for me it starts playing in about a minute via a standard cable modem connection. So yeah, the internet isn't a good way to distribute HD content for now at anything approaching full quality, but then downloading from the internet isn't how most people watch their videos. Once you've seen HDV material displayed at full quality on an HDTV, it's clear that the days of SD recording for professional purposes are numbered. Maybe the HD transition will be a slow one, but it's going to happen sooner or later.

Kevin,

Thanks.

Note that the clip I referenced was posted at roughly 6 times the bandwidth I would use for a typical web sample for clients, and for me it starts playing in about a minute via a standard cable modem connection.
So that was 6x the normal quality?

...but then downloading from the internet isn't how most people watch their videos.In my opinion, I don't think so. Look at EVERY major Web Site for the following categories:
All networks - ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX.
Cable stations - HBO, CNN, FX, ESPN, Comedy Central (just to name a few).
Newspapers - Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Dallas Morning News, etc.
The list could go on and on.

HDTV is good, but I think that it's a mistake to underestimate the amount of video that will continue to make it's way to the Internet and Internet related devices, both now and in the very near future. I have no source to back the following statement up but I would think more people are watching video over the Internet, than on HDTV's. Not full blown movies or TV shows, but footage of news, product info, demo's, pre-view's and clips of movies and TV shows, etc. Just look at the latest deal from Apple... iPod video.

the rest is optional reading:
- - - - - - - - -
Not to say that people don't watch HDTV. They do, and I agree that if you are shooting something that will primarily be viewed on that medium, getting a HDV camera would be worth considering. I had HDTV through DirecTV (dish) about 3 or 4 years ago. HAD being the key word. I still remember the very first day it was all installed and I could watch High Def television. It was stunning. I could stare at it all night, but I got tired of not being able to watch ANYTHING when it was raining outside (or even just windy in some cases). The straw that broke the camel's back was not being able to see The Soprano's one Sunday evening about 15 minutes into it. So now I've got two HDTV's and could care less about being able to watch anything in High Def. I just have cable now... and it works all the time, rain or shine. I have not even looked into trying to get High Def again.

So that was 6x the normal quality?

You could say that it's roughly six times the quality of samples I'll be posting in the future on my web site, but then most internet video is still posted at 320x240 resolution -- so it'll look good compared to that. Ideally I'd like to post my HD samples at a bandwidth of 1.5-2 Mbps, but that would still be a bit slow to download. On the internet, convenience trumps image quality.

Look at EVERY major Web Site for the following categories:
All networks - ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX.
Cable stations - HBO, CNN, FX, ESPN, Comedy Central (just to name a few).
Newspapers - Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Dallas Morning News, etc.
The list could go on and on.

Okay, but name even one such web site which posts full-bandwidth SD samples or any sort of HD samples, and think if anyone you know spends more time watching video on the internet than they do watching TV. For purposes of professional video production and delivery, the internet simply doesn't work unless what someone really wants is to watch their video at low resolution on a web site. That may change someday if people get used to streaming video to their TV from a computer-based multimedia center, but that's currently a rarity.

I had HDTV through DirecTV (dish) about 3 or 4 years ago. HAD being the key word. I still remember the very first day it was all installed and I could watch High Def television. It was stunning. I could stare at it all night, but I got tired of not being able to watch ANYTHING when it was raining outside (or even just windy in some cases)...I have not even looked into trying to get High Def again.

Understood, but what you described was a delivery problem, not a lack of interest on your part in HD programming. And I suspect people will have a different attitude in the future about their paid video projects than they do today about HD content: why on earth would you pay good money for an SD video when you can get HD quality for almost the same price? That change in expectations hasn't happened yet, but it's coming.

Kevin,

I just visited your web site and you do very nice quality work. I'm looking forward to seeing how your SD compares to your HDV... on the web. Which HDV camera have you been using? (I did not see it in your profile)

But I do agree, that if you are delivering to HDTV (and I would imagine that that's what most of your wedding clientele will want now and in the future), then a HDV camera should be part of your equipment mix.

I just visited your web site and you do very nice quality work. I'm looking forward to seeing how your SD compares to your HDV... on the web. Which HDV camera have you been using? (I did not see it in your profile)

Thanks Derek, I appreciate the positive feedback -- especially since my web site samples are out of date and don't reflect either HDV quality or my latest shooting/editing techniques. I currently own a Sony FX1, a Canon GL2 and Canon GL1, plus I have access to another FX1 when I need it. I hope to ditch the Canons soon and get another HDV camera, but I need to think about the timing on that.

OK, to be fair, I just saw some very nice footage ON-LINE and in a Quicktime movie format that downloaded and played perfectly. The person who did the work used a FX-1 and RedRock M2. I'm impressed. I'm going to send the person an email to ask if it's OK to post a link here.

So I think to be fair, I'll have to look into getting a HDV cam. Canon is way overpriced though and I would prefer something smaller and easier to handle, so the FX-1 or Z1 is looking pretty good. At Sony's prices, I would be able to keep the XL2 as well.

I think the best thing to do would be to see if I can find a Sony to rent for a weekend in the Dallas / Fort Worth area. And then see what I think of the editing process on my G5.

This thread started by Meryem had some beautiful nature footage as well:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=52904

For Mac viewers - its best to right click and "download linked file" to your desktop.

kev,

while it isn't a large majority of the population, there is a growing niche market for computer users who don't have a "TV" in the traditional sense of the word. they utilize their HTPC quite frequently and do watch a lot of content from the internet. i wouldn't under-estimate those people.

http://fongunlimited.com/htpc
^like me. i don't have a TV. i watch all of the latest movie trailers from quicktime.com (check it out, they have increased their HD movie trailers exponentially). so when i goto the cinema, there are very few trailers i haven't seen. although i subscribe to HBO, HD cable TV, i don't have time to catch 'em, so i use on-demand. failing that, the internet. having a HTPC means flexibility. watch it WHEN i have time ANY time i want it. that's the future of video media.

Well,

I rented a Sony Z1 for the weekend and look forward to using it - from filming to editing to outputing to the web.

I found a rental place in Dallas after doing a search.

http://www.videotexsystems.com/contact.aspx

The above place was recommended by someone, and my experience with them to this point has been just great. I spoke with Roger (who handles the rentals).

FYI - Rental rate is $275 per day. The weekend counts as 1 day... nice!

kev,

while it isn't a large majority of the population, there is a growing niche market for computer users who don't have a "TV" in the traditional sense of the word. they utilize their HTPC quite frequently and do watch a lot of content from the internet. i wouldn't under-estimate those people.

http://fongunlimited.com/htpc
^like me. i don't have a TV. i watch all of the latest movie trailers from quicktime.com (check it out, they have increased their HD movie trailers exponentially). so when i goto the cinema, there are very few trailers i haven't seen. although i subscribe to HBO, HD cable TV, i don't have time to catch 'em, so i use on-demand. failing that, the internet. having a HTPC means flexibility. watch it WHEN i have time ANY time i want it. that's the future of video media.


No icons here, but you get a thumbs up from me!

My primary goal is to be able to export efficiently to to the web. I'm very anxious to see if the Z1 will allow me to do so, and how it will look when compressed using various settings.

It would be nice to have a camera that would allow for great looking footage on-line and on HDTV, but on-line is my primary concern.

If it does look good, then Canon will have helped to sell a Sony FX1 or Z1 to at least one person.

I really do like this camera so far.

The Good News -
The images are crisp and colors are nice and vibrant.
Light and easy to carry.
Works better in FCP 5, much better than I thought it would. Just plugged in the firewire, changed my easy set up to the HDV 1080i setting and the computer, FCP 5 and the Z1 had no problems with each other. Did take a while to export a 1 minute quicktime movie, BUT right now I'm on a 2 year old mac dual 2.0 G5. Not my newer 2.7 with the latest upgrades. And the increased time in exporting was to be expected.

The Bad News -
I'm really going to have to figure out what the best settings are on the camera along with how best to compress this beautiful footage so I can find the right balance between footage quality and download times. The first attempts were not so pretty. With my XL2, I shoot 24p(a). 24 frames per second vs. 60 frames per second... 36 more frames, much larger frames per second.

This IS a great camera though.

By the way - to anyone reading this - Chris Hurd and/or any other moderators included.

I know this thread has kind ventured off path from my original question on what XL2 owners thought - more to what "this XL2 owner is thinking & doing." If you ever see the need to move the thread or have any suggestions, I'm more than open. I appreciate the organization of this forum and never want to take away from that.