Perusing threads to see what's up and came across interesting but strange info.

JVC HDV 24p does not work in many apps that support HDV. Canon XL1 20F and 30F tapes don't play in anything. None of the cameras can record the others progressive formats, nor most play them back.

This is not "format" by any version of the term I'm familiar with. Take the 24p mode in the XL2 or DVX series or "frame mode" in Canon and Pannies. You can play it back and capture it in an device that supports miniDV format.

However, I can't understand why vendors are now ignoring this. Unless you buy new gear that does not exist, you can't claim to support "HDV". Rental houses, post houses, film festivals, broadcasters, etc. are going to be really unhappy and the format risks getting itself in trouble. Especially since no standard HD distribution format exists.

Seems like a market opportunity to create some kind of standard disc for exchanging HD material that would not require additional compression or loss. This would help P2 users as well, though at least they end up with a standard DVCPro-HD file without rendering...

Well - you're pretty much correct. There is one company that supports HDV in its entirety though: Cineform.

It CAN read the JVC 24P format
It CAN read all the Sony modes
and it WILL read the XL-H1 24F and 30F modes as soon as they are available.

They have patched their software to support every new addition, and have features such as 2:3 pull-down removal on the CF24 modes and image rotation on capture to support 35 mm adaptors to allow optimal editing of HDV footage in all conditions.

So yeah - hook me up with any HDV camcorder, and I have a working solution. I feel sorry for the people waiting for Premiere or FCP updates though. I've got to admit, I've heard few complaints about Vegas so far, but I haven't really being paying attention.

-Steve

Canon XL H1 24F and 30F tapes don't play in anything.Well, they plack back in an XL H1 all right.

The new Canon 30F and 24F Frame modes are officially now part of the HDV specification, meaning nothing released before the XL H1 can play those tapes, but future HDV gear seemingly will be able to. At least forthcoming Canon gear, that is, or so we hope.

You certainly do make a good case for P2 though.

And another thing, Stephen, although you have some good points there, it sure doesn't seem to be slowing down HDV at all. The format is certainly being bought into. Just look at our HDV traffic around here. In other words, the complications that you're bringing up don't seem to be stopping anybody from getting into the HDV format. It's definitely well into the "adoption" phase. It's not broken by a long shot for many people who use it on a daily basis.

And another thing, Stephen, although you have some good points there, it sure doesn't seem to be slowing down HDV at all. The format is certainly being bought into. Just look at our HDV traffic around here. In other words, the complications that you're bringing up don't seem to be stopping anybody from getting into the HDV format. It's definitely well into the "adoption" phase. It's not broken by a long shot for many people who use it on a daily basis.

That's a valid point Chris - but the HD100 has not been out long enough for the issue to really spread. The XL H1 is not here yet, so until there are several thousand of these cams in use and people start trying to move tapes around, it's nots going to be that much of an issue.

But again, the issue is potentially more problematic for post houses, transfer shops, archivists, film festivals, etc. When they say "we accept HDV" right now, it has to follow with a bunch of *'s of what HDV tape they can or cannot take...

Well - you're pretty much correct. There is one company that supports HDV in its entirety though: Cineform.



Cineform is impressive in how quickly they support stuff. They are setting a good example that more vendors should follow.

Well, they plack back in an XL H1 all right.

The new Canon 30F and 24F Frame modes are officially now part of the HDV specification.

But really: is not more like there are several HDV specs?

HDV 1.0 (JVC first HDV)
HDV 1.5 (Sony CF)
HDV 2.0 (JVC 24p)
HDV 3.0 (Canon) 24F 30F)

Since the new specs are not playable in the old spec, i don't see how that can be "extensions" e.g. like 24p or Frame Movie Mode. The are "revisions" or "new specs" since they lack any backwards compatibility (I know the HD100 and XL H1 shoot other modes that do, but I'm talking about the new modes.

But really: is not more like there are several HDV specs?

HDV 1.0 (JVC first HDV)
HDV 1.5 (Sony CF)
HDV 2.0 (JVC 24p)
HDV 3.0 (Canon) 24F 30F)

Since the new specs are not playable in the old spec, i don't see how that can be "extensions" e.g. like 24p or Frame Movie Mode. The are "revisions" or "new specs" since they lack any backwards compatibility (I know the HD100 and XL H1 shoot other modes that do, but I'm talking about the new modes.

Perhaps the variations that are now seemingly appearing in the HDV specification should be seen as flexibility from a format, giving newer adopters greater backward compatability with older variants, while adding a flavour they find more useful.

Rather than 'ham-stringing' the format rigidly to a definition, that might have been counter productive to it's adoption; HDV is providing extra options, without requiring that the true fundamental basis of the format and the associated hardware change to a totally new format.

Just like any newer generation computer hardware must provide backwards compatability, the HDV hardware will be able to play tapes from older generation equipment. Imagine my surprise, when I found that my PAL FX-1e was able to play back tapes from my NTSC JVC HD10u! It was then I realised that while things are changing rapidly now, the whole HDV, low-cost HD arena is exploding faster than many give credit.

If HDV is 'broken'... then we certainly are gonna have a problem with it's replacement!!

Just like any newer generation computer hardware must provide backwards compatability, the HDV hardware will be able to play tapes from older generation equipment.
Yeah, but it doesn't. For example, the Canon has no capability to play back JVC tapes. JVC has had HD1s on the market for almost three years now, the Canon is brand new, so you'd expect it to be backwards compatible, right? But it won't even recognize a JVC tape at all.

Imagine my surprise, when I found that my PAL FX-1e was able to play back tapes from my NTSC JVC HD10u!
Only to analog though. Now try to digitize it, and you'll find that they disabled the firewire output. You can't give a JVC tape to a production house that uses Sony or Canon equipment and expect them to be able to work with it; the Canon won't play it at all, and the Sony won't let you digitize it.

HDV seems most suitable for "closed shop" operations, where the footage is edited in-house. For hired shooters, there certainly seem to be some very concerning issues. Hopefully someday these manufacturers will get together and produce a universal-playback deck; otherwise you as a shooter will have to own one of each of the three cameras if you want to be able to answer the phone and say "yes, I can shoot HDV for you, and yes I can provide a tape that you can actually use."

Yes it appears that HDV was never intended to be a distro format, or at least it is not turning out that way. To be fair there is only two varients of HDV. HDV1(progressive) HDV2(interlaced), and it hasen't taken long for software to adapt. FCP and 720p24 being the one standout (Me thinks Apple has a handshake deal with Panasonic that is holding out that one). Output to Anamorphic DVD or HD-DVD when they become available, or HD DivX or HD WM9 now as a data disk, or output to whatever format is required if you are in broadcast. There never will be another popular consummer tape format, even with miniDV not many people had decks, just a lot of cams. VHS was the last.

To be fair there is only two varients of HDV. HDV1(progressive) HDV2(interlaced),
Not really. There are two versions of HDV2 with only partial compatibility between them.

Basically it's easiest to think of it as three different formats. There's Canon, there's Sony, and there's JVC. The only compatibility between any of them is that Sony plays on Canon. Other than that, it's pretty much a no-go for swapping tapes among any of them. Canon 1080i should play on the Sony, but Canon 24F and Canon 30F won't play on anything but a Canon.

And, let's not forget that JVC's implementation is even partly incompatible with itself. HD100 24p won't play on any of the earlier JVC gear, the HD1/HD10 and CU1 deck all won't play it.

Not really. There are two versions of HDV2 with only partial compatibility between them.

Basically it's easiest to think of it as three different formats. There's Canon, there's Sony, and there's JVC. The only compatibility between any of them is that Sony plays on Canon. Other than that, it's pretty much a no-go for swapping tapes among any of them. Canon 1080i should play on the Sony, but Canon 24F and Canon 30F won't play on anything but a Canon.

And, let's not forget that JVC's implementation is even partly incompatible with itself. HD100 24p won't play on any of the earlier JVC gear, the HD1/HD10 and CU1 deck all won't play it.

So you're prepared to declare HDV 'broken' Barry?

For my part - I believe it's premarture to make such a declaration, and with solutions that provide work-arounds for many of the initial teething problems; which some of these 'incompatabilities' represent, being announced or released at increasing frequency... it may be that some of these issues become the "folklore" of early HDV users. :)

Hopefully someday these manufacturers will get together and produce a universal-playback deck; otherwise you as a shooter will have to own one of each of the three cameras if you want to be able to answer the phone and say "yes, I can shoot HDV for you, and yes I can provide a tape that you can actually use."

I don't see a big problem here when it's relatively easy these days to capture all your footage to an inexpensive hard drive and move the data around that way. People are all excited about the P2 format which assumes you'll offload your data from the recording media, so how much different would it be to assume that tape-based data will be copied to something else for processing? Maybe it's time to stop thinking of tapes as an integral part of the production process and just assume everything's going to be moved to a more universal storage device, with no intention of ever needing to play the tapes again.

As far as being able to shoot in any requested format is concerned, that sounds like an opportunity for rental houses.

Another reason why HDV is considered a "prosumer" format. To be complaint with the outside world, you'll have to consider a DVCPRO HD deck or the like, and the means to feed your final work into that.

Cineform does seem more like a sweet deal.

I think that it is premature to declare HDV broken. Is it really customary that when you go out on a shooting job that you have to hand over a tape at the end of the day because it is not your job to edit video or even process video in any way? If that is the case then you have a real problem unless the studio you work for has compatible HDV playback equipment. But I would think that the studio if they are reasonable and knowing that you are working in a high definition format would give you reasonable accomadation and allow you to firewire the footage into a laptop computer and burn a high definition Data DVD disc that is playable and editable on most Windows XP computers.

Personally, from a professional post house angle, we are having a great deal of difficulty finding a way to make HDV work for us at all. We have actual HD gear in the form of several Sony pieces and use Adrenaline, Nitris DS systems and now an Avid Xpress ProHD system. We bought into the AG- DVX100 and that was great because it is really interlaced on tape. Compatible with everyone and the pulldown can be added or removed at will in several of our systems. Cool.

On the other hand, we also bought the JVC BR-HD50 deck along with the HD100 camera and are finding no way to get the 24p, the most sought after frame rate naturally, into any of our professional editing systems. I partly blame Avid for dragging their feet on the format issues. Especially after announcing they would fully support the JVC camera. I have made notes in the Avid and JVC forums about the BR-HD50 deck not having deck control via firewaire and now the 422 control seems to be faulty. JVC techs and I are in discussion on that issue. Avid is not saying anything that I know of about when they might get around to supporting the 24p mode, and they are loosing customers over it to Vegas, FCP, Premiere Pro, Axio, etc.

The camera seems to make really nice video. Our DS editors are quite impressed with the 30p and 60p footage and watching the analog output in 24p. We just wish we could see the 24p footage actually in our systems as HDV footage.

I also have issues with labels. Is 60p really 60 frames? We hope so. Is 30p really 30 frames? In various places in various manuals they seems to use "p" as if it were "i". That is, refering to 30 frame footage as 29.97i, etc. There is a similar issue with the AG-DVX100 series. Yes I suppose it may be accurate to state that the DVX100 records in 24p but the tape is really recorded as 59.94 interlaced fields. What would be the proper way of stating this in a sales pitch? The great thing is that it really is 59.94i fields standard old NTSC video. That's why everyone can use it.

I find the whole mess confusing and yes, it doesn't seem like a real "format" to me. It's like someone said we need a new tape deck that records on 1/8" tape and left it at that. Everyone would have different ideas on how to do that. Different track spacing, digital or analog signals, tape speeds, tape thickness, connector type, etc.

If folks can just make it up on their own, it isn't a real format to me. I suppose those of us that want to be early adopters are just going to have to get burnt a few times trying to figure all this out.

Sean

So you're prepared to declare HDV 'broken' Barry?

No, not necessarily that word, but obviously there's a massive problem brewing. I think it was a mistake to label the incompatible versions under the same label. I mean, there is basically no compatibility whatsoever between JVC and anybody else, so why do they share the same "format" label? JVC really, really should have just gone with ProHD and ditched the whole "HDV" label entirely. Then it would make a lot more sense and avoid a world of confusion.

As a practical, real-world matter, JVC's HDV is no more compatible with Sony's HDV than Hi8 is with DV. I mean, yes you can get a Digital8 camera that can record DV data onto a Hi8 tape, but what does that mean? Does that mean you can put that DV-data Hi8 tape into another DV device and play it? No. Can you put that DV-data Hi8 tape into another Hi8 device and play it? No. So saying they're compatible just isn't true. Sony made the right choice by calling it Digital8, because it is a different format.

JVC's format isn't compatible with Sony's. That's just the way it is. The only concession at all, anywhere along the road, is that Sony's gear can play back a JVC 30p tape to analog. Other than that, they're mutually incompatible. And Canon's stuff won't even try to play JVC tapes back. So why are they all called HDV?

With BetaSP, I can take a tape from an Ampex deck and play it in a Sony deck; I can take a tape from an Ikegami camera and play it in a Ampex deck or a Sony camera, etc. BetaSP is a format, and if it says "BetaSP" on it, that means BetaSP, and anything that says "BetaSP" is guaranteed to play anything created by any other "BetaSP" equipment. HDV isn't that way. Take a Canon HDV 24F tape and put it in a Sony, and what do you get? An error message. Take a JVC tape and play it in a Canon and what do you get? Nothing. Take a Sony or Canon tape and play it in a JVC and what do you get? Nothing. No more than if you'd put an HDV tape in a DV camera. Completely incompatible.

Just because the tape physically fits, doesn't mean that it's compatible, because it isn't.

So would I call it broken? Well, actually, yeah maybe I would. It certainly isn't a standardized format by any definition we've come to recognize in the history of video formats. If you want to call HDV a "format", then yeah, it's "broken" in that it isn't a single unified compatible format (like DV, or VHS, or any other multi-manufacturer, completely-interchangeable format is). It's three nearly mutually incompatible formats, all sharing the same label. That's a mistake. If they're as incompatible as they are, they shouldn't be labeled the same. JVC should be marketing ProHD, Sony should be marketing HDV, and Canon -- well, maybe they'd call it XHD or something. Then instead of complaining about incompatibility, we'd be able to celebrate the limited compatibility they do offer (i.e., instead of people saying "why the heck won't my Canon HDV tapes play in my Sony HDV deck", you'd instead have Canon bragging "why buy Sony HDV when our XHD offers everything they do, and more! We can even play HDV tapes!")

So, actually, yeah -- using the concept of HDV as a "format" is ... well, don't know that I'd say the word "broken", but rather I'd say that it's completely inapplicable. HDV is not a format. It's at least two formats, and probably three. And who knows -- when Sharp finally starts producing HDV product, maybe it'll end up as four incompatible formats. (and yes, "incompatible" is a harsh word, so maybe "barely intercompatible" would be better, except in the case of JVC because JVC provides no provision for making their gear in any way accomodating of HDV2).

I don't really see the problem. Like I said befor there are the two versions of HDV. I consider the "F" modes of the Canon, and the 24p of the JVC performance options of those cams and not standard HDV. Sony 1080i and Canon 1080i are exactly the same. If any other company besides JVC puts out a HDV1 cam it SHOULD ;>) work perfect with that format.
HDV is not broken. Get a deck that matches the cam. If you shoot HDV2 get a HDV2 deck. If you want to shoot in a "f" mode, consider yourself stepping out of HDV and therefor get a Canon deck.
As from a software standpoint HDV is definately not broken. Again except for additional support for non standard performance modes HDV is HDV. Any software that supports HDV will support all of the standard modes, usually with the performance modes being added very quickly.
My point is that just because cam makers are throwing out additional features/shooting modes that shouldn't confuse that there are two standard HDV formats (p/i) and they are not broken.

I think Barry has a very valid point with betaSP as an analog comparison. The format is not standarized properly. DV was created and because of the realitively simple specs nobody had a problem. Here is your resolution, your framerate, your datarate, and your simple DCT codec. HDV is more like: Heres a few resolutions, a tape speed, and by the way, use mpeg-2 to compress.

So now you have JVC, Sony, Canon and who ever else saying stuff like "Thats a spec... Guess I have to work with it" then going on and building a camera. I don't blame any company for not building a camera that is compatible with another companies but the spec is way to open to interpertation. This is more a result of seeing a market, seeing hugh market threat from every company around and shipping something asap. In the next round of HDV equipment I expect the standard will be more finalized (if it isn't actually now).

But that doesn't make it any less painful knowing that their has been some obvious issues with the spec, if their hadn't been then everything should have been compatible just like DV. They could have at least specificed a set in stone GOP structure.

Get a deck that matches the cam

thats a great line....on so many levels

i guess it all depends what your doing, if your shooting grandma, then yes if you can get a deck or use your cam, if your shooting a doc, and lets face it hdv is perfect for most doc work (cheap, easy to record long form) then you you will not be able to use a finishing house, because get a deck just doesn't register with any nyc production house...your going to have to finish it in your bedroom using vegas or like

if your shooting eng work..forget it, if your shooting corporate work like vnrs where you never touch the raw footage, then forget it nobody wants to bother with anything but a standard...

so to some yes hdv may seem broken to others its just right, i think the future is all about codecs anyway as we move away from a tape based solution so hdv may be tapes last stand...

so to some yes hdv may seem broken to others its just right
Exactly. For a "closed shop" that edits their own footage, then yes maybe "get a deck that matches the cam" would work. But if you think about it, that's exactly what I've been saying -- they're pretty much three separate formats, and you have to stick with one manufacturer. It is not one universal format, or even two. So why didn't they just name it differently, so you'd know "oh, that's ProHD, you need a ProHD deck". Wouldn't that have been a simpler, more accurate, and more customer-friendly way to address it, rather than throwing three nearly completely incompatible formats all under the same name?


i think the future is all about codecs anyway as we move away from a tape based solution so hdv may be tapes last stand...
HDV is definitely tape's last stand. I doubt we will ever see a new tape format developed for acquisition; tapeless is the only way to go, and it's the way every manufacturer is going. XDCAM, XDCAM HD, P2, Grass Valley's Infinity Rev/CF system, the FireStore, JVC's Everio, DVD camcorders, etc. Tape's done.

Now, interestingly enough, almost all of HDV's incompatibility goes away if you just don't use tape! If you use a FireStore instead, you have almost complete compatibility; only 720/24p is likely to pose a problem and that'll eventually get solved. It remains to be seen whether Canon's 24F and 30F modes will require updates to the NLEs, but if it doesn't, then you have almost full compatibility across all three manufacturers if you just ditch tape and use hard disk recording instead.

if your shooting eng work..forget it, .

Well you wouldn't be doing ENG on HDV unless you knew they would accept it. If they accept it, it would be 1080i HDV2 as that is the only HDV format that really suits ENG, and you could use any cam as long as you shoot 1080i. I would think a lot of outfits would get a HDV 1080i deck to accept ENG work as these cams are only getting more and more popular. The XL-H1 could be the greatest paparazzi cam ever! I think at some point HDV 1080i will become a ENG standard. Especially when the 2/3" cams hit.

A few notes.

First, tape is hearty. Unless we go solid state, like P2, and man do I loathe P2 - stay tuned - there are issues with sports using hard drives and other spinning objucts to record things like desert truck racing and so on. You have the same troubles with tape so I suppose that could be a moot point. Things that rotate have issues with sudden velocity and vector changes.

I don't like P2. Initially folks were killing these cards left and right from the reports I had read. Maybe that has changed a bit and folks are just leaving them in the cameras now but the original idea of interchangable solid state memory doesn't work too well for your average news crew that wants to jam the drive in place and hit record. Have you seen the pins on those things? Get a grain of sand in the socket and jam a card in there and that socket is done for. I know this is just the begining so it will improve. I don't know what they were thinking with the new mini camera however and P2. How much is that camera loaded with the max amount of P2 storage? Interchangable lenses? I see issues here, but again, that will change over time.

I suppose the thing is, everyone went to market with "HDV" cameras but they don't speak the same language as far as formats go. We all know this now but buy a camera and a matching deck only works if you buy one you can interchange with the guy down the road or the broadcast stations in your town, etc. It's tough to stand on your little format island by yourself and tell everyone they need to buy Sony because you have Sony when they are telling you to buy JVC because that's what they have.

Last comment on this one, I agree that it will come down to a Codec war in the future. Trouble there is, Avid has theirs, Apple has QT, windows has WMV and so on. For now, the best option in my book is, Focus Enhancements. God bless them for keeping up.

We still can't use 24p HDV in Avid land as unless we grab the HD output from the JVC at 720p24 and transcode it on the fly to hard drive, which I don't think is happening yet, it won't make it into our Avids. I know that's an Avid thing but it's like the tape issue. For me it can be summed up like this, HDV formats, they're like elbows. Everybodys got one.

Not meant to encite riots. It's just frustrating for those of us trying to find a good post production path.

See you guys when the war's over,

Sean

Actually the 720p format shot at 30 frames per secound could indeed be used for electronic news gathering. Of course it would have the movie look but remember movie tone news used to be shown at the movie theatres. Also most news was shot on 16mm movie film as late as the 1970s and was transferred to video for broadcasting. The 720p30 format would indeed be a huge impovement over 480i video that is presently being used for news broadcasting and it would not eat up as much bandwidth as 1080i. Also 720p30 footage is relatively free of compression artifacts. While nobody doubts the quality of 720p60 no newsroom can say that 720p30 does not meet their standards while still embracing 480i.

The only part I currently hate about the HDV spec is that all equipment should be able to handle HDV1 and HDV2. a mpeg2 encoder is an mpeg2 encoder. I am sure the next generation of gear will be able to do this. "They" had to hold something back to get us to buy the next generation of HDV decks.

The issue with the Canon 24p I think is a little silly. This is a special format that Canon tried very hard to make as high quality as they could to fit in HDV2 1080i.

SONY stuck to 1080i to make sure every mode would work no matter how you wanted to play it or edit it. The results are a sucky form of 30p and 24p that everybody has complained about. Mpeg2 is not as easy to remove pulldown as it was with DV. First an interlaced frame encodes in a different way to a progressive frame in Mpeg2. Look how long it takes to render a HDV project just to get it back to tape. Imagine capturing 60 minutes of 24p HDV video wrapped into 29.97i and then having to wait hours to convert it to true 24p not to mention take a generation loss by having to re-encode the mpeg2 stream or it wouldn't be a real HDV stream anymore. The GOP would be all messed up by removing the interlaced frames. Cineform get get away with this because the video is converted to Cineform first and isn't trying to remove the pulldown on HDV and convert to HDV. Systems that use native HDV editing would kind of be screwed with 24p material.

Canon wanted to give us the highest quality they could think of to fit in a 1080i stream and they came up with actually encoding 24 progressive frames. Even though there is some level of unknown interpolation taking place to get a progressive frames the encoding in the end is progressive. If a system can take in the 24p stream then you are all set to start editing.

I would hate it more if Canon did use a 24p with 3:2 pulldown. This would mean a huge pain/rendering time/lower quality/generation loss.

Even if Canon just used mpeg2 flags and then dumped the extra frames how would it deal with the GOP? a 15 frame GOP would jump down to a 9 frame GOP.

The way Canon is doing it is in my opinion the best way to handle 24p 1080 HDV. If SONY ever wants to have respectable 24p then they should use the same format as Canon and start to build decks and cameras that will work.



While DV was a universal format when DVCAM and DVCpro and DVCpro50 were added this wasn't exactly the case. All of these formats are based off the same DV codec. At first if we wanted to be able to edit all of the formst we need a DVCAM deck and a DVCpro deck. If you shot DVCAM it would not play in DV devices even if you did use a mini tape. DVCpro50 was even worse. How many of your clients have a DVCpro 50 deck sitting around just in case you shoot on DVCpro50. Eventually universal decks came out so at least they could for the most part play mini dv/dv/dvcam/dvcpro25. You were still screwed if you had DVCpro 50 or digibeta or digital S. I doubt anybody is really handing off HDCAM tapes or DVCPRO HD tapes to their clients.




Barry you make good points but isn't a lot of those concerns also true for the HVX200? You will not be handing off P2 cards or your Firestore to your clients. You would have to transfer to a hard drive and give that to your clients right away. Well the same could be done with the Canon as well. Shoot with a Firestore and quickly transfer to a cheap hard drive and hand it off to the client.


Finally how many of us hand off 24p tapes to our clients anyways? If it was a the quality of shoot that needed 24p wouldn't you want to keep the master tapes for yourselves and then run off a copy for your client. A lot of clients may not even know what to do with 24p even if they could play it back in a deck.

1. This HDV is all too bleeding edge, and needs time to work out issues and incompatibilities.
2. If you plan to shoot one of these bleeding edge formats, you'd better partner with a house/facility that will accomodate that. Otherwise, be prepared to do some post or intermediate conversion.

Pete

The issue with the Canon 24p I think is a little silly. This is a special format that Canon tried very hard to make as high quality as they could to fit in HDV2 1080i.

Frame Movie Mode that was in the XL series did not break the spec, so i don't think it's "silly", especially for buyers of the XL H1.

While DV was a universal format when DVCAM and DVCpro and DVCpro50 were added this wasn't exactly the case. All of these formats are based off the same DV codec.

no, they were not the same format, thus the different tittle (DVCAM, DVCPro). Tape speed etc. were different specs and although the formats are related and multi-format gear was released, they are not the same format.

Barry you make good points but isn't a lot of those concerns also true for the HVX200?

I'm not sure what Barry thinks, but my take there is a reduced but similar issues with the HVX200. Yes, P2 card don't fit in other cameras, but you can load a P2 card most laptops or in any computer with a cheap PC Card reader. And you edit with any NLE that supports DVCPro-HD. Panny added 1080p 24fps without breaking the codec or NLE support. So yes, workflow is an issue, but not nearly as big as one as various HDV formats present.

Finally how many of us hand off 24p tapes to our clients anyways?

There are some that will. But far more people hand tapes to post houses, film festivals, etc. and that's the bigger issue. I'm sure if you shoot HDV, you would much prefer to screen your work in HD not SD. That's the problem. You can't just hand a HDV tape to someone and except them to play it. To claim yourself as "HDV ready" or "HDV Compliant" post house or film festival, you would need to own the current batch of cams.

Secondly, if you want to uprez to HDCam or DVCPro-HD, your post house will all the cams again to transfer off the tape. Or use some other convoluted route to get there.

Either Canon/JVC/Sony need to promptly release a universal, affordable HDV deck or just split the format to avoid confusion.

Or many will end up shooting Firestore which add much cost as well as weight to the HDV production plan though there are still glitches with NLE support as well.

I'm not sure what Barry thinks, but my take there is a reduced but similar issues with the HVX200. Yes, P2 card don't fit in other cameras, but you can load a P2 card most laptops or in any computer with a cheap PC Card reader. And you edit with any NLE that supports DVCPro-HD. Panny added 1080p 24fps without breaking the codec or NLE support. So yes, workflow is an issue, but not nearly as big as one as various HDV formats present.

yes it is easier to playback a P2 card in a laptop but still you wouldn't hand off a P2 card to a client since the cards cost so much. You will have to transfer the video and give it to the client at a later point unless they want to sit around and wait for the transfer to finish.

My whole point to the DV/DVCAM/DVCPRO part was not that they are the same formats but the fact that there are different SD formats out there that do not work with everything else. Eventually we got decks that could at least playback other formats but it took a little time until those came out. I'm sure in a few years we will start to see decks that can encode/decode any type of HDV. I do agree that having everything under the same name does make it confusing and perhaps they should just change the name for each type of HDV but by no means does it make my life any more complex. While I would love to have a deck to play 24f Canon HDV I will not whine about it any longer if I do choose to go with the Canon.

I doubt anybody is really handing off HDCAM tapes or DVCPRO HD tapes to their clients.

Actually I've had to do both.
Usually I get downconverts made for the client as well, so they get DVCProHD masters and DVCPro or DVCam downconverts.


the same could be done with the Canon as well. Shoot with a Firestore and quickly transfer to a cheap hard drive and hand it off to the client.

Of course now you're losing what many see as the best thing about that camera, the ability to shoot on low cost tapes and shoot longform projects.

Besides, it's not a very cost effective solution.
Handing off a Hard Drive is one thing when you're comparing the cost of Hard Drives to DVCProHD tape. When comparing the cost of DV tapes to Hard Drives it isn't quite so affordable to just hand out drives.

Handing off a Hard Drive is one thing when you're comparing the cost of Hard Drives to DVCProHD tape. When comparing the cost of DV tapes to Hard Drives it isn't quite so affordable to just hand out drives.

Pricewatch lists 80GB hard drives starting at $44 including shipping, or a little over $7 per hour of HDV capacity. If people are prepared to transfer all their video data on hard drives or recordable discs for the HVX200, how is that any different than doing the same thing with any HDV camera? Problem solved: stop using tapes for transferring data!

Finally how many of us hand off 24p tapes to our clients anyways? .

we do very frequently...sometimes we get booked for the shoot and not the edit, sometimes we subcontract with a larger shop to shoot off location no editing...

Problem solved: stop using tapes for transferring data!
That's what I said earlier -- almost all of the HDV incompatibility goes away if you just don't use the tape. HDV is at its most compatible when it's on a hard disk. Only 720/24p seems to provide problems at that point, although I guess it's possible that the Canon 24f/30f footage may not necessarily be supported yet either.

For handing footage over to a client, obviously the HDV tape solution is extremely far from ideal, and handing over a P2 card is obviously not going to happen either (unless the client brings them with them? I don't see that happening though -- maybe the client will rent 'em? Eh... we'll see.) Handing over the footage at the end of the day is a gaping hole in the workflow -- and it's the main reason I bought an HD100, to use for those times when the HVX/P2 is not the appropriate solution. However, the HD100/HDV solution is not now a workable solution by any stretch of the imagination for that purpose, and I sent it back. Maybe six months or a year from now the bleeding edge will have sorted itself out, but right now it's completely not practical or workable for what I wanted. The only way to make it viable would be to transfer the footage over to a hard disk, to avoid the incompatibilities. And if you're going to do that, why not start with the HVX in the first place, sidestep the HDV issues entirely, and work with a cam that supports dubbing to a hard disk directly?

Maybe nNovia will come along with an ejectable-disk recorder that could be used for the purpose of handing footage over. Hopefully with a device that supports all three HDV formats and all the HVX formats as well.

Some of this is what makes Sony's HD XDCam interesting. Yes, clients would need the deck, but it is a disk based media that has affordable media...comparable to tape, I think.

Coming soon...this Spring I think.

Kevin

You can't just hand a HDV tape to someone and except them to play it. To claim yourself as "HDV ready" or "HDV Compliant" post house or film festival, you would need to own the current batch of cams.

Secondly, if you want to uprez to HDCam or DVCPro-HD, your post house will all the cams again to transfer off the tape. Or use some other convoluted route to get there.

Either Canon/JVC/Sony need to promptly release a universal, affordable HDV deck or just split the format to avoid confusion.

Or many will end up shooting Firestore which add much cost as well as weight to the HDV production plan though there are still glitches with NLE support as well.

So HDV - as originally devised - has to wear the disgust of those who demanded it give them far more than it ever claimed?!

The whole concept that many of the 'Johnny come latelies' to the HDV soap opera have no idea of; is that the HDV spec was devised to provide HDTV owners with a low-cost HD image for viewing on their HDTVs.

As HD broadcast doesn't have one truly recognised size, frame rate, bitrate etc, etc... but a whole slew of variations around a theme - it was only natural that HDV inherit the same loose structure.

Of course the possibility of HD level video sent some Indie wannabies and high tech hippie refugees into mind bending overdrive mode... but their grandiose visions weren't matched by the reality of JVC's early HDV releases. So, requests were made of the manufacturers - who, being ever ready to make a buck where possible - saw the opportunity to exploit the flexibility of HDV's range of specification with appetite whetting (if somewhat 'out-of-strict-spec') inclusions.

Some of the things mentioned as "breaking HDV" were nothing more than what some of these forums requested of the manufacturers. If it wasn't for the bleating, then HDV would very likely be 720p 25/30 and 1080i 50/60! People get what they ask for - but they still want more.

Was HDV designed specifically for production houses? For Indie productions or broadcast? So, if HDV comes up a little short of expectations that are way beyond what it was originally intended to provide; is it broken - or is the expectation flawed?

Human inventiveness being what it is... solutions for the 'flaws' in HDV are coming along at a rate that will make a pronouncement about it's useability redundant almost as soon as that pronouncement is made.

I seriously doubt that interoperability will require ownership of every HD/HDV camcorder...

It seems more likely that a computer will form the hub of any reasonable HDV based system. It's easy and cheap enough to ingest HD/HDV material via computer from any source, and output it to the relevant one for distribution. If the latest and greatest variation of what you've been asking for doesn't have immediate computer support - it's bound to appear faster than the hernia you'll give yourself from worrying about the "broken" nature of HDV!!

If HDV seems 'broken' to some folks who are maybe considering it as an alternative... don't buy into it! Steer clear, go too an alternative format and hardware... If nothing is available, wait for however long it's going to take to fulfill your wish list.

Wise words, Steve.

The only way to make it viable would be to transfer the footage over to a hard disk, to avoid the incompatibilities. And if you're going to do that, why not start with the HVX in the first place, sidestep the HDV issues entirely, and work with a cam that supports dubbing to a hard disk directly?

But HDV does support direct dubbing to hard drive recorders, and can record four times as long on a given size drive (compared to full-bandwidth DVCProHD). Plus with the HVX200 it costs four times as much to transfer and archive a given amount of footage, which could start to add up if you do long-form recording. So both options can have their place using an identical workflow, and then it's just a question of whether you want lower cost or higher bandwidth footage. No workflow difference provided your editing system can handle whatever footage you give to it.

Face it people we are now entering the world of HD which as much as we want it to be will never be as easy to deal with as DV was. This is a whole new beast and we need to get used to starting all over again in terms of workflow and editing performance. In a few years everything will get caught up again. (I hope)

The cheapest way to archive HDV material is not with hard drives but rather with Data DVD discs. An hours worth of HDV can be stored on 2 Data DVD discs for a cost of less than 1 dollar. These Data DVD discs will work on most Windows XP computers with the appropriate software downloaded. Thus the computer becomes the universal HDV deck.

Thus the computer becomes the universal HDV deck.

From my perspective, the fact that with HDV,the computer is more than an option - it's integral to the HDV workflow... may prove to be too big a paradigm shift for those used to working without the necessity of computer skills.

Because of HDV's attraction to more than those just wishing to move on from the previous generation of 'affordably priced' video technology - it seems that there's a number of detractors and some of the undecideds, failing to account for the importance of computing technology in the HDV experience... so they seldom refer to it and the solutions it offers (and when they do it's because they've found some "quote somewhere" that spooks 'em like horses getting spooked at the gate...).

With the power of computer technology so tightly knit into the HDV workflow, the inherent specification flexibility HDV has, seems to provide greater opportunities for those clever enough to recognise and exploit them.

For those who can neither recognise, nor have any wish to exploit what others may see - that's fine, and they don't have to buy into 'it'... but; failure to see something others can doesn't mean HDV is "broken".

From my perspective, the fact that with HDV,the computer is more than an option - it's integral to the HDV workflow... may prove to be too big a paradigm shift for those used to working without the necessity of computer skills.

Steve, I agree with you whole heartedly, but interestingly enough, the computer is also the most flexible, and least important component in some circles.
You need a cam
You need a display device

Any computer can be successfully used for HDV editing, you just have to decide whether you want to edit proxies on a slow machine, edit native HDV on a very fast machine (and still drop frames), edit with a DI, or edit 4:2:2 YUV on a monster system with a fast RAID and hardware card for I/O. So, the camera and display become the primary tools/stay the primary tools, and you can then use anything from a PIII laptop to a dual dual-core system with an 8-drive Raptor array or similar.

As far as cost per hour, DVDs marginally beat HDD for HDV storage, but only just....And given that you can put nearly 24 hours of HDV on a 300GB drive at a cost of 100.00, and have fast seek/access times....I'll stick with hard drives.
But for general data distribution, you're right, DVD is quite useful and easily shared between all platforms

So HDV - as originally devised - has to wear the disgust of those who demanded it give them far more than it ever claimed?!

The whole concept that many of the 'Johnny come latelies' to the HDV soap opera have no idea of; is that the HDV spec was devised to provide HDTV owners with a low-cost HD image for viewing on their HDTVs.

I don't think you are accurately responding to my issue. HDV is called a "format". HDV is defined as HD MPEG-2 written to tape. The file on the hard-drive is not "the format". "The format" is the tape speed, type, size datarate etc in the recording medium the format defines. Every HDV camera has a HDV tape deck. Otherwise, it would not be HDV but a MPEG-2 camera...

Your points about low-cost HD and forum feature demand are all well-stated, but they don't really address the issue other than confirming my point that HDV is now more a "multi-format standard" like "HD" and not a "format" like "DVCPro-HD:"

From my perspective, the fact that with HDV,the computer is more than an option - it's integral to the HDV workflow... may prove to be too big a paradigm shift for those used to working without the necessity of computer skills.

How do you arrive this conclusion? I fail to see any connection between contentment with HDV and computer skills....

How do you arrive this conclusion? I fail to see any connection between contentment with HDV and computer skills....

How?

Because those who are capable of extracting the most from such a new 'format' as HDV, are those willing to experiment with the software, rather than expecting an "out of the box" solution.

A HDV camcorder will provide playback functionality via it's tape deck with a HDTV. In that sense it fulfills it's major function of providing HD quality video to be viewed on an appropriate viewing device.

To get more out of HDV of any flavour, it's up to the capabilities of computer and software.

As for confirming that HDV is more a "mulit-format standard" like "HD" not a format like "DVCPro-HD", I'd imagine that would only be natural as HDV wasn't ever designed to be like "DVCPro-HD" or DV or Digi-Beta or...

If it truly was; as all the early HDV press releases stated, designed as a "format" to provide 'low-cost' HD level video suitable for viewing on HDTVs - which are all (or should all be) capable of 720p and 1080i playback either native or scaled, then surely it has lived up to it's original intention... Aberations such as JVC's 24p inclusion are sweeteners which the increasing sales momentum of Sony's HDV offerings have cajolled from the competition in order to be competitive.

Again. If you don't appreciate what's being offered with these camcorders... and the format known as HDV appears too convoluted and "broken" to you - don't buy into it, or wait until something comes along to change your mind.

BTW, HDV camcorders are actually very much MPEG2 cameras!! Each HDV spec'd camcorder has a Mini-DV tape deck capable of recording MPEG2 transport stream high level video of either 720p or 1080i. The deck was included purportedly to allow the use of cheap Mini-DV tape cassettes, and some degree of DV backward compatibility.

The cheapest way to archive HDV material is not with hard drives but rather with Data DVD discs. An hours worth of HDV can be stored on 2 Data DVD discs for a cost of less than 1 dollar.

HDV has the same data rate as DV, so about 13GB per hour or basically three standard-size DVDs. If it costs ~$5-6 to store that on a hard drive versus $1 or so on DVD, what's your time worth to split a one-hour project into three pieces, burn three discs and keep track of those when you need to retrieve the video in the future? Disc-based storage will make more sense when we can buy 15 GB HD DVDs at a reasonable price

How?

Because those who are capable of extracting the most from such a new 'format' as HDV, are those willing to experiment with the software, rather than expecting an "out of the box" solution.


Again, that point is fine, but that's not what this discussion is about. It's about the HDV format created by Sony, Canon, JVC is broken. Let me quote from the official site:

Tokyo, Japan, September 30, 2003 - Canon Inc., Sharp Corporation, Sony Corporation, and Victor Company of Japan, Limited (JVC) today announced that the specifications which realize the recording and playback of high-definition video on a DV cassette tape have been established as the “HDV” format.

I don't know how else I can make this point clear.

BTW, you are incorrect that I or probably many others "lack" the necessary computer skills to adopt HDV - I think there are many other reasons people have hesitated to buy the camera and/or adopt the format. I worked full-time in the computer field for ten years designing and managing networks for publishing companies. I currently still do some part-time IT consulting (pays bills better than video production in my neck of the woods).

But now I'm primarily a filmmaker and am currently working on a 1080p uncompressed HD experimental short for blow-up to 35mm and IMAX which is being created 2/3 in computer and the rest with composited DVX footage because I can't afford a CineAlta or Viper rental...I would say I probably push the computer digital video envelope just fine.

I have not bought a HDV camera because of the cameras (Sony are interlaced only and too many HDV artifacts, JVC and Canon have unappealing lens choices for my needs, JVC some glitches as well). I'm leaning to the HVX though still shopping and waiting to see what other options pop up.

The discussion here is not about any of these things though, it's about the wider pro, post and shooter markets that are going to run into issues with playback and transfer of tapes, and yes there are people there that lack computer expertise. However, as a former IT professional, I know the success of a format depends on ease of use for the non-expert.

"HDV" as a format is broken in this important area unless strong action is taken to clarify, re-integrate and move it forward.

Without a strong prosumer and pro base, Sony, Canon, JVC might not sell enough cameras (outside of some people on DVInfo and other niche area) for the format to sustain itself over the long haul.

And if people start getting a sour taste in their mouth with problems, that will be tough to market out of.

Given the rate of change, full HD recording with HDV-like compression may arrive soon enough to quickly obselete HDV, but then again, perhaps not.

The discussion here is not about any of these things though, it's about the wider pro, post and shooter markets that are going to run into issues with playback and transfer of tapes, and yes there are people there that lack computer expertise. However, as a former IT professional, I know the success of a format depends on ease of use for the non-expert.

"HDV" as a format is broken in this important area unless strong action is taken to clarify, re-integrate and move it forward.

Without a strong prosumer and pro base, Sony, Canon, JVC might not sell enough cameras (outside of some people on DVInfo and other niche area) for the format to sustain itself over the long haul.

And if people start getting a sour taste in their mouth with problems, that will be tough to market out of.

Given the rate of change, full HD recording with HDV-like compression may arrive soon enough to quickly obselete HDV, but then again, perhaps not.

I'll assume your not serious in believing that the prosumer/pro market is bigger than the consumer/prosumer market?

The pyramid of wealth distribution doesn't have such steep sides, and the steps at the base are very wide indeed. HDV (as executed in Sony's HDV camcorders) has very successfully tapped into that market. You may notice that Sony's releases haven't had to add competitive enhancements that extend or warp or pollute the HDV spec like JVC, Canon and Panasonic are having to do.

Those added enhancements - that in some cases mean the camera wouldn't be used as a HDV camcorder anyway, should have been thoroughly examined for ease of integration by anybody seeking to use these cameras in a more "professional" manner than was originally intended with the earliest HDV camera releases. If an individual espouses professionalism; and then proceeds to show little, if any, by buying into a new technology without thorough immersion in every possible permutation of viability in attaining a hoped for goal... they deserve to believe it's the equipments fault.

Those who know what they are dealing with - those with solutions, skill, the desire to succeed while others procrastinate, work-arounds and patience seem to be able to come to grips with what HDV has to offer to them... regardless of whether someone, anyone - whoever they are matters not a jot... has declared the format "broken".

Like I said, "if you don't like HDV - no one is forcing you to buy into it!!"

Hopefully the HVX will be exactly what you're after as it isn't a HDV camcorder.

Those added enhancements - that in some cases mean the camera wouldn't be used as a HDV camcorder anyway, should have been thoroughly examined for ease of integration by anybody seeking to use these cameras in a more "professional" manner than was originally intended with the earliest HDV camera releases. If an individual espouses professionalism; and then proceeds to show little, if any, by buying into a new technology without thorough immersion in every possible permutation of viability in attaining a hoped for goal... they deserve to believe it's the equipments fault.

Those who know what they are dealing with - those with solutions, skill, the desire to succeed while others procrastinate, work-arounds and patience seem to be able to come to grips with what HDV has to offer to them... regardless of whether someone, anyone - whoever they are matters not a jot... has declared the format "broken".


Probably one of the most astute comments I've read about any camera format in a long, long, time.

I'll assume your not serious in believing that the prosumer/pro market is bigger than the consumer/prosumer market?

HDV is not yet a "consumer" cam IMHO - you need $500 or less before it's that mass market.

Probably one of the most astute comments I've read about any camera format in a long, long, time.

I disagree completely - for some reason he's completely, although as pointed out eloquently, off-topic. The discussion here was never about the enterprising, astute, innovative, cutting edge or pushing the envelope here.

It's about the state of perception of the HDV format by people other than those pushing the HDV envelope.

But just like the vast majority of people are not going to build their own steadicams or mini35 rigs, if HDV continues to require a lot of "hassle" for broad adoption, it risks losing momentum.

The stated 2003 HDV format is broken and eloquence is unlikely to fix it :)

however, some quick engineering and PR by Canon, Sony and JVC would...

... if HDV continues to require a lot of "hassle" for broad adoption, it risks losing momentum...

According to one recently published survey, HDV has already surpassed all other HD formats combined in terms of percentage of video production companies using it. (I don't have the reference handy, but it shouldn't be too hard to find.) HDV is cheaper to record than other HD formats using tapes available almost anywhere in a pinch, is more widely supported by video editing programs, is already supported for playback on a handful of affordable players, and will be much more widely supported for archiving and playback in the future. So HDV has already taken over as the de facto low-cost HD production solution, and is in a position to maintain that role for at least the next several years. Not bad for a format with a few complications when using specialized variations of the standard specifications, but no one's requiring people to use those variations.

HDV is about to become very widely used, so might as well start understanding how to deal with its quirks and limitations.