I had finally decided to go with an HDV camera, and then downconvert to SD until HDV distribution improves.

But I've been reading that because of HDV's GOP recording format, motion can cause bad artifacting that wouldn't be present in an SD recording.

Any opinions on the severity of the problem? Would I get "cleaner" video if I just stick with SD?

I had finally decided to go with an HDV camera, and then downconvert to SD until HDV distribution improves.

But I've been reading that because of HDV's GOP recording format, motion can cause bad artifacting that wouldn't be present in an SD recording.

Any opinions on the severity of the problem? Would I get "cleaner" video if I just stick with SD?


Sigh.....:-/

more BS from the web....
For the most part, GOP doesn't have motion artifacts unless you shoot incorrectly. MPEG acquisition in various forms has been used for broadcast for more than a dozen years, but you don't hear much about motion artifacts. SD can also be MPEG, and in many cases has been. And MPEG has LONG been used as an editing, storage, and broadcasting format.
There are manufacturers outside the HDV realm who make it their primary goal to sow the market with this sort of BS and hype. If you are shooting slow shutter speeds while sitting on the back of an ATV doing 40mph on a dirt road with no shock absorption for the camera and steady shot off, you indeed will experience motion artifacts. To the contrary, I just saw a bit of the raw footage Discovery Channel is using for a docco on Sturgis (a big motorcycle gathering) that was shot handheld on the back of a Honda Foreman, steady shot on, shooting at 1/60, no steady cam, nada. We saw it projected through a Sony Qualia 1920 x 1080 4k projector, projected to 24'. it was stunning. Oh, did I mention it was shot with the super cheap Sony A1u? And it's a Discovery piece?

Additionally, from the same cameraman on the same display, we saw simply amazing footage of a skydiving team practicing their sky ballet. Wind hitting the camera at 170 mph, steadyshot on, shutter at 1/120. Also for Discovery.

Look at the "Massacre" video from 50Cent. Shot in HDV. Extreme motion in that vid.

Forget the hype. Shoot, and look at the picture. It's in some manufacturer's best interest to make you confused and worried. But at the end of the day, there is one hell of a lot of HDV making it to television as both SD and HD.

HDV isn't the only tool in the box, but it is a seriously big and versatile tool. There simply isn't any better value in the broadcast world, bang for buck, right now.

Douglas,

Are you saying that the complete bashing of the HDV codec by some reps from a particular company - especially as compared to the DVCPRO HD codec) is nonsense?

Take care,
Mike

Douglas,

Are you saying that the complete bashing of the HDV codec by some reps from a particular company - especially as compared to the DVCPRO HD codec) is nonsense?

Take care,
Mike

More nonsense than it is factual, absolutely. Everybody's gotta eat, but to do so by spewing garbage isn't by any stretch integrous.
I think the ultimate test of motion artifacting I've seen is when Jesse James' "aero-BMW" was taking off and landing with a Z1 strapped to the tail section of the "plane." Looks pretty darn good both in motion and freeze framed. If you look at the blocks when fast forwarding, there isn't a single redundant area, but it still looks good.
Perhaps someone here was at the HDV course in Burbank this past weekend when we projected all this footage; that way you aren't hearing it from someone who owns a Canon XL-H1, JVC HD 100, 3 Sony Z1's, and 2 Sony A1U's. Who has also put them on motorcycles, ATVs, and other high-challenge places. (Horseback...)
Heath?

Any opinions on the severity of the problem? Would I get "cleaner" video if I just stick with SD?

The only time I've seen any problems in my own HDV footage is when the camera experiences a sharp jolt, and you're not likely to want the footage that produces from any camera. Plus if you're really worried about motion artifacts for some particular project you could run an HDV camera in DV mode, and be no worse off than with a DV-only camera. I'd trust DSE's comments on this issue, but if you really want to be sure try renting an HDV camera before you buy it and see for yourself.

the bad rap HDV has for motion artifacting is COMPLETELY bogus. i put my FX-1 through its paces, specifically to test for motion, and it handled motion beautifully.

here's a link to the link.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=52904&highlight=fx-1+footage

it is kind of a monster file and takes awhile to load, but the last part of the film is entitled "motion study," where i took the camera for a gondola ride, shot a bunch of mechanical gears in motion, and shot a fast-moving creek. see for yourself. (needs QT 7 H.264 to view).

i haven't shot anything with this cam in cineframe 30 or cineframe 24 (prefer to do that work in post with a filter, at least with this camera)--that's a whole different data set.

C'mon, Meryam, you really expect folks to believe this was shot with HDV? <wink>
We know for sure that HDV can't handle motion, because that's what one of the really big camera manufacturers tell us is so, and if a big company says it, and says it in print...it must be true.

Seriously, nice bit of footage, and it further demonstrates what myself and many, many others have shown and experienced. MOST of what is out there about HDV is a myth. But if you don't make HDV camcorders, it's an important myth to perpetuate and add to.

i personally have not seen any false or misleading anti-hdv statements by panasonic, or any other non-hdv camera company.

i think that companies that sell hdv products are doing everything they can to pimp the hdv standard, before it gets surpassed by the new technology that's out there right now.

i'd love to take an hdv camera out for some shot time at the track... we'll see how well the format holds up with simultaneous super-fast camera motion and full-speed zooming.

i personally have not seen any false or misleading anti-hdv statements by panasonic, or any other non-hdv camera company.

i think that companies that sell hdv products are doing everything they can to pimp the hdv standard, before it gets surpassed by the new technology that's out there right now.

i'd love to take an hdv camera out for some shot time at the track... we'll see how well the format holds up with simultaneous super-fast camera motion and full-speed zooming.


Then you haven't been looking too hard.
The HDV format isn't being, nor going to be surpassed in it's price range for a long, long time. It *is* the new DV. DV was proclaimed by many as being a short term solution, and here we are almost exactly 10 years later finally looking at a new standard to replace it. I don't believe HDV will last for 10 years, but it will last for at least the next 6-7 as a strong standard.

Not that it matters much, but bottom line is, HDV in many situations is very good. But like anything else, it's not for everything. You'll likely do better, for instance, with an intra-frame camera mounted on a highly active race car body, the constant vibration isn't a problem for the Z1 in a NASCAR that a friend shot, but I don't know that his situation is the same as everyone else' as it's his job, along with his brother, to mount cams and archive/document NASCAR events. He's got a lot of cool mounting toys, and the steady-shot in the Z1 set to soft is pretty good.

DSE, is that 50 cent video online anywhere? I'd love to check that out.

Also, do you know of many other high profile clips, video footage or movies shot with HC1's, or A1's? I'm always interested in checking out what others are doing with the same gear I'm using myself. I don't have cable tv by the way, so no Discovery channel here. But anything online would be good.

Apart from my first HC1 becoming faulty after just 6 days and eventually being replaced with another, I think these cameras are brilliant. So far I've not noticed any compression artifacts in any footage I've shot either.

Glenn, I don't know if it's online or not. I've got a copy of the DVD, given to me by the guy who edited it (in Sony Vegas). I've been showing it on the HDV tour, minus audio because of the explicit lyrics.

As far as high profile with the A1, the only two things I'm aware of besides the Jesse James/Monster Garage shots, are a docco about Sturgis, and a skydiving piece that Discovery hired out.

Ahh, so it was edited in Vegas too, every clip on the DVD? Considering 50 Cent's quite a popular artist (platinum selling?), it's nice to know his video clips are being put together using some decent affordable tools, and not the usual overrated FCP, Avid, Digibeta, film or whatever. Plus the fact that Vegas' output is only 8 bit. I know guys in Australia who are still getting their clips shot using 35mm film. I can't see the point myself. A HDV camera with a 35mm adapter would be a much better option.

As for FCP which I had a look at it on my cousin's Mac, I honestly can't see how people can use that? Such a slow and awkward interface. Nothing can touch Vegas for speedy video and audio editng. Sorry, probably the wrong forum to be bagging FCP ;-)

By the way, who's the editor of the clip who gave you the DVD?

The guy that did the Massacre piece also does Notorious BIG VMixes, and edits/creates/generates/produces pieces for other major hip hop and rap stars. He's also got a weekly segment on VIBE, and other shows.
Scary talented guy, and smart as hell. Aundre Oldacre is his name, but goes by "DJ Deelux."
http://www.vmix.tv/portfolio.html

his studio is a fun place, surrounded by awesomely talented young guys. Fun to hang with. The Eminem Da Club piece is super. All done in Vegas and Sony Acid.

Cheers for the link. I'll have a look.

Edit: Looks great. He's done some nice work. I like the Weekend Vibe promo. Tight editing, nice transistions etc. A few of the transitions look very familiar actually, but work really well.

I had finally decided to go with an HDV camera, and then downconvert to SD until HDV distribution improves.

But I've been reading that because of HDV's GOP recording format, motion can cause bad artifacting that wouldn't be present in an SD recording.

Any opinions on the severity of the problem? Would I get "cleaner" video if I just stick with SD?

Too put it more correctly, it is a problem with too much motion, on too much of the screen. I have seen people that say it is not a problem, say things like, you have to turn not faster than a certain rate, and other evasive tactics. This is alright for controlled positions, but I have a mate that wants to do a film on a nationally famous local character, that will probably involve scenes chasing him through the jungle (I think dropping back to SD mode or the 25p mode for a HC1). Also shooting the scenery/road close by through an fast moving car window (without moving the camera) is said to produce the problem (so I guess we just forget those shoots). But apart from that, I have read that once you blow up a HD10 picture to a very big/projected screen at full resolution the compression artifacts become obvious.

I have seen sample shoots over at some Sony user forum (I thinking Spotted might even have done them). They were called a success, but upon closer examination there turned out to be fine blocking. But they did come up with some techniques. The technique was to raise the shutter up very fast (might have had something to do with one of the shooting modes to) to reduce blur. Something else, that I can't confirm, is that the 25p mode in PAL, that halves the vertical resolution to 540 lines, might present half the compression. You could always drop back to SD as well. But depending on what you are shooting, 90% of the time this maybe an unnoticed non issue.

All told, the only other professional mpeg based shooting scheme that I have heard motion artifact problems on, had very low bandwidth. The trick is to get that bit extra bandwidth that makes the problems largely go away, which might be the 35-50Mb/s HDV2 stuff we keep hearing about.

But being an imperfect world we are stuck with what we have, and have to work around the issues. I'm sure spotted will agree, it's worth it going to HDV and sticking with whatever headaches might turn up.

DV was proclaimed by many as being a short term solution, and here we are almost exactly 10 years later finally looking at a new standard to replace it.

i do remember the nay-saying when dv hit the market... the computers didn't have the horsepower to handle editing it, similar to what we have now with hdv.

however, back then there was no really superior codec alternative to dv... various proprietary mjpeg formats were the standard that dv was competing against, so when several manufacturers presented a united front behind dv, it took off.

things are totally different now, because there are multiple codec alternatives that are far more efficient than the ancient hdv mpeg2 codec... and with panasonic selling a far superior format at a price point that matches hdv, the market is fragmented before there is even a delivery method for hdv content.

on top of that, we now have h.264 silicon for video cameras... so the technology will not be denied... the situation with hdv today is nothing like what it was with dv back then, so the hdv format will have a short shelf life.

i
things are totally different now, because there are multiple codec alternatives that are far more efficient than the ancient hdv mpeg2 codec... and with panasonic selling a far superior format at a price point that matches hdv, the market is fragmented before there is even a delivery method for hdv content.

on top of that, we now have h.264 silicon for video cameras... so the technology will not be denied... the situation with hdv today is nothing like what it was with dv back then, so the hdv format will have a short shelf life.

Coupla comments....
First, no one has demonstrated the "far superior" of Panasonic's new cam. I was really excited to see "far superior" back in even June. In theory, it's better, and in practice it may also be. So what? BetaCAM and BetaSX both stayed very stable, and likely will continue to be so for a couple more years.
h.264, J2K, and all sorts of other formats will continue to be developed. So will HDV. HDV is already making it's way to mid level cameras as well.
Either way, my assertions that HDV will have a long shelf life are no less powerful or accurate than your assertion that it won't. Only time will tell. And even then, what does it matter? Both are viable formats, both will continue to be purchased, HDV is already being broadcast daily, and I expect the Panny format will enjoy the same soon.
That said, you've made your position on HDV clear.

i personally have not seen any false or misleading anti-hdv statements by panasonic, or any other non-hdv camera company.
http://dvestore.com/theatre/
Watch "NAB 2005 - Panasonic AG-HVX200 (extended version)"

i'd love to take an hdv camera out for some shot time at the track... we'll see how well the format holds up with simultaneous super-fast camera motion and full-speed zooming.
Hey Dan, if you're ever in L.A. hit me up. We can go shoot some stuff with the Z1U & a H1. 'Cause honestly, I'd be interested in that test too as I have never done it or seen anybody do it before. I wonder strong HDV would hold up as well.

- ShannonRawls.com

hmm..

alot of ppl are expecting the same kind of performance from HDV as they do from an SD encode for DVD..
one thing to remember abocve all else, is the HDV format is running at 25mps, not your average 6... this is where alot of misconceptions fall into play, as at 6mps, artefacting IS prevalent... and with that, obviously the notion that HDV, being a similar if not the same format, will also have the same kind of nuances. .

Close but no cigar..

Both formats will have their uses.. I personally dont like HDV simply for the fact that the audio is encoded at such a low bitrate. i know that every broadcast or Dolby Digital delivery job i do with the Z1 needs a seperate recording device. Not that HDV audio sucks.. it doesnt.. for bread and butter stuff, it does what it says it does...
BUT it barely scrapes through the DD standards, and offers no headroom for native tweaking as raw pcm would.
bascially i dont like the idea of editing mp3 audio (which is essentially what this is), UNLESS its at somethign like 512kbps ... at 384, it just doesnt have the bandwidth to pass the DD Standard.. well it does but JUST...

As for artefacting, i have seen some slight beahvioural problems, but you know what, ive seen this kind of thing on almost every camera Ive sold.. so its not a new thing..

Its not as bad as its tainted to be, else if it WAS that bad, i can guarantee you that the format would not have lived as long as it has...

2million odd HDVers cant be wrong...
Theoretically DVCProHD100 is a better format, and who knows, in the real world side by side it may well be.. .BUT if the camera that utilises this format doesnt perform, then whats the point?
Personally id be looking at teh cameras performance and waht it can do for your business before you decide whther the format is workable or not.

HDV is beautiful in the sense that not much needs to be done to work in that format (ie setting up, educating yourself, and working out delivery options)
P2 is also a nice streamlined process which IMO is the way of teh future (solid state recording that is) BUT costs are just too high for the average joe who runs a small one man band production company, and that will be its downfall i think.

As dse said, RIGHT NOW, HDV is the most versatile and workable format, and results vs costs are a no brainer.

Theyre both good they both have their uses.. but i really dont see someone shooting a wedding with a HVX anytime soon.. simply because cost for the system (and editing) doesnt justify the $$ youll make as a return.
then again, you have P2.... and if your working with a corporate client and you have a deadline IE SDE as in most corp cases (well in my books they are..), p2 sure beats the crap out of capturing, then converting to intermediate

Time will tell...

as an aside to HDVs shelf life, to tell u the truth, i dont see Sony or Canon ditching it anytime soon..
In fact, im expecting afew shoulder mounted variations with larger CCD's
Same thing with the PD150... we saw the DSr250, DSR 300 blah blah...

Eiter way these 2 major companies will dictate whether the format lives or dies, and with the amount of RD put into these cameras themselves (not juet the format) i dont seee them throwing in the towel any time soon..

in fact more likely well be seeing much more of this format as consumer cameras evolve to HD within the next 18 months... Why?? Coz its easy for joe blogs to manage and its cheap... the RD is already done so theres really not much more to add to the equation...

What happens to Panasonic's consumer range of cameras once everyone takes HD on board??
Who knows, but Sony have already started with the H1 and A1, canon will soon follow with the HDV equivalent of the XM2 and Panasonic... well.. who knows... but i tel u what, i dont see a consumer going out and upgrading their PC to a dual dual core and a new tower with 2TB of storage to edit their baby videos shot on DVCProHD...

THIS is the kicker.... If Pana were smart, theyd go jump on the HDV train and offer HDV and DVCProHD variants of the HVX... HDV could easily be recorded to P2, or (shock horror) Tape...
If the HVX fails.. its not coz of the camera.. its coz of the format...

I Know for a fact that many companies are jumping ship away from Pana simply for the fact that longform work just doesnt go well with P2... sure there are options available like the P2Store.. but the costs involved just dont justify the difference in supposed "quality" of the format, and to be honest, i dont think the average viewer will notice the differences... trully....

Dont get me wrong, im not bagging the HVX, hell im a Pana fiend...but im also a realist.
Sadly, it looks like Panasonic may have nailed their own coffin with this one.. I honestly dont think the world was prepared for this type of camera or the format itself...

whats this got to do with artefacts.. well who knows.. i jsut thought considering we were talking about the lifespan of the format and reasons why, i thought id add my 2c

I don't think that many consumers edit DV either. They may have the ability with the current systems, but there are not that many who are willing to take the time..... So I don't think the need for heftier systems will make a difference. HD is a selling point. and just that for most...

Chris Barcellos

Hey Dan, if you're ever in L.A. hit me up. We can go shoot some stuff with the Z1U & a H1. 'Cause honestly, I'd be interested in that test too as I have never done it or seen anybody do it before. I wonder strong HDV would hold up as well.

that would be way cool!!

my latest nightmare shooting scenario has been surfing... tight shots are turning out to be some of the worst subjects for compression that i've ever seen... the entire frame is constantly in motion, worse than the drag racing i think.

i've been walking out onto this jetty at low tide, shooting from both sides of it, which allows me to get pretty close to the action.

peter, do the calcs on the hdv video bitrate, vs. the various hdv frame sizes... per square inch of picture area, there is less bitrate available for hdv than there is for sd dvd mpeg2, at all hdv frame sizes... you'll be shocked to see how low the hdv bitrate really is.

"hdv video bitrate, vs. the various hdv frame sizes... per square inch of picture area, there is less bitrate available for hdv than there is for sd dvd mpeg2, at all hdv frame sizes... you'll be shocked to see how low the hdv bitrate really is"

i dont doubt that in some instances artefacting would be an issue, but i have a boating client here whos very particualr, so we go out on their cruisers and shoot with the Z1.
Apart from the bodgy lens abherations (and despite what anyone says, the Leica absolutely POOS on the Zeis) the footage motion comes out quite nice. Its not perfect, but for the cost of the camera, it works.
Obviously you wont have this issue with the HVX.
We shoot models up cose and personal as "they relax on the million dollar yacht" (yeah aussie chicks.. damn fine... ) and the only time motion artefacts arise is when were compressing for DVD and only in the slow moving out of focus backgrounds.
The actual M2t is pretty clean. Not as sharp or "crystallene" (as i call it) as id like it, it just doesnt boost or punch out the reflectiveness of th elight bouncing off the water for some reason. I dont know if this is a CCD thing, lens thing or a foramt thing, but i know the DVX gives me nice clear flares bouncing in the background while the Z1 keeps them flat.

Either way, there will be uses for each tool, and if cost isnt a factor then the HVX running at DVCProHD100 1080p would be a tough one to beat. At almost half the Price, i think the Z1 stands up quite well.

Thanks Dan for pointing out the true situation with these cameras. Obviously the problem is huge motion movements in your frame and lots of water turbulence. As I mentioned before, somebody over at the Sony board found out that raising shutter and changing the shooting mode, helped with compression, and if your Ntsc camera has the ability to halve the vertical frame rate and do 30fps (like the Pal ones do at 25fps) that might help. Did these things help?

We shoot models up cose and personal as "they relax on the million dollar yacht" (yeah aussie chicks.. damn fine... ) and the only time motion artefacts arise is when were compressing for DVD and only in the slow moving out of focus backgrounds.

that's the problem with using super low bitrate mpeg2 as an acquisition format... there isn't any delivery format for it yet, so it hasn't been tested... those artifacts you are seeing is just the tip of the iceberg.

anytime that you cut the framerate, it frees up bitrate to be assigned to the existing frames... i do it all the time for web video... but it's clearly not a situation that you should have to deal with because the acquisition format isn't up to par.

sony has nearly 150 mpeg2 patents, so they were motivated to create a format that they could make money off of.

the latest issue of tvtechnology had an interesting quote from john ford, in an article on the jackson hole wildlife film festival: "our hd channel has to stand above the crowd, so hdv can't be the backbone of an hd show."

deja vu... dv wasn't good enuf for ntsc broadcast, and now hdv isn't good enuf for hd broadcast... what a wonderful way for sony to keep on protecting it's high-end formats.

that's the problem with using super low bitrate mpeg2 as an acquisition format... there isn't any delivery format for it yet, so it hasn't been tested.

sony has nearly 150 mpeg2 patents, so they were motivated to create a format that they could make money off of.

deja vu... dv wasn't good enuf for ntsc broadcast, and neither is hdv... what a wonderful way for sony to keep on protecting it's high-end formats.

OK, I'll confess being lost in this post.
HDV doesn't have a delivery format? HDCAM, D5, and diskbased delivery to a media server such as MediaBase or Matrox Media server aren't delivery formats? That aside, NHK has been broadcasting HDV from HDV tape since the cameras came out. In the US it might not be a standard tape delivery format, and potentially never will be, but that doesn't mean there is no delivery. Additionally, HDV is the same format as broadcast is using for delivery, except at a significantly higher bitrate. How again is there not delivery for this format?

It's asinine to say "Sony was motivated because of their patents." It's ignorant of how the industry and revenues work. The amount of revenue generated by HDV camcorders or MPEG 2 camcorders isn't even a fizzle of spittle in a bucket of water compared to the licensing and encoding technologies. It's not even on the radar of their marketing or engineering team in that regard.

Your comment about DV not being good enough for broadcast and now HDV isn't either must be a tongue in cheek comment from a person who doesn't like HDV, or at least appears to be. HDV so far, has broadcast hundreds of hours, and DV has been broadcast in the billions of channel hours, so I'm not clear on what your point is.

Folks are using it, doing just fine with it. If you don't care for it, that's OK for you. Work with what you have.
But understand that others are being exceptionally successful with the low-cost HD solutions that are out there. This week there is a lot of HDV-aquired media being shown at Sundance, and what's funny is I've yet to hear anyone say "well, coulda been better if it was shot on the XXXXX camera or format. Folks have what they have, and they're making great media with it, and making good money in the process. Every format has its weakness. The difference between a pro and a hack are how they work around and with those weaknesses.

HDV is bridge technology, very rarely does a new format birth on old media and stay around. Digital8, VCD, etc. etc. We are simpling waiting for an affordable storage medium. I suspect that Sony will come out with a MiniXDCAM in the next few years and burnable BR discs will replace miniHDV. BUUUUUUUT... all that being said, HDV is THE most affordable solution right now.

I personally am not a huge fan because the weak spot of the format is where a lot of my work comes (live music with lights, smoke, etc.) but I have seen tons of GREAT HDV stuff... and for the record every compressed format has artifacts... If you need HD now and you have under $10k... it is the only choice.



ash =o)

HDV is bridge technology, very rarely does a new format birth on old media and stay around. Digital8, VCD, etc. etc. ash =o)

What about Betamax, Betacam, BetacamSP, BetacamSX, Digital Betacam, HDCAM, HDCAM SR.. all using essentially the same media, yet quite posssibly the most widely used broadcast formats ever. Failing that, Umatic, Hi-Band Umatic, Hi-Band SP, nearly all still in use somewhere today. HDV has already been around for nearly 3 years already. Maybe it is a bridge like DV was a bridge between analog and HD?
As for mini XDCAM well XDCAM uses exactly the same compression as HDV only at a higher bit rate for the entire stream, which with XDCAM includes 4 channels of uncompressed audio and a whole bunch of metadata, so the video stream is only getting an extra 20% more headroom, which will certainly help but isn't going to be a a cure-all.

If panasonic can squeeze 50Mb DVCPRO 50 onto DV type tape then why can't Sony, Canon or JVC. I would not be surprised to see a 30 or 35Mb HDV tape based camcorder in the near future.

As HDV hardware and software codecs improve users will squeeze more and more quality from HDV in the same way as happened with DV. If you compare the quality of first generation DV codecs to todays DV codecs you will see that there has been a significant improvement in quality even though the "standard" itself hasn't changed.

This week there is a lot of HDV-aquired media being shown at Sundance, and what's funny is I've yet to hear anyone say "well, coulda been better if it was shot on the XXXXX camera or format.
LOL. That's an interesting thought.
2005 Sundance....HDV Camera is introduced to the filmmakers
2006 Sundance....HDV movies are in the festival.

sweet.

- ShannonRawls.com

Tonight I found a little bit of time to do something I've always wanted to do: to study how HDV compression works in reality. The results presented here are at a stadium before preliminary.

I took 2 .m2t files I had lying around and measured how many bytes each frame took. To do this I used a tool I wrote when I was looking for timecode in .m2t transport streams. Since I have no access to any MPEG 2 documentation, my tools are very crude, buggy and not for public consumption.

1 file came from my camera, a "PAL" Sony FX1. The scene shot was a walnut lying on a table. No motion. The background is completely unsharp, basically black. The third file is called goldentree.4.m2t. It's a file I downloaded from the net about a year ago. It shows a handheld movement across a tree in autumn colors. It's shot with a Z1 (I think) in 1080i60. No wind.

I took measurements across 2 GOPs of each file - goldentree is only 2 GOPs long. These were the average number of bytes per frame (I/P/B): 195,457, 183,488, 99,017 and the other set: 350,620, 159,941, 69,471. Can you guess which one is which?

Question Douglas...I've been spending a good deal of time the last few weeks trying to make the decision on which system to use transitioning our studios to HD.

I've got XL2s now and have had the range of the XL series over the years. So I like Canon, the build and glass and form factor (especially now that they came back to their senses and returned to a logical iris wheel on the H1).
I've got a lot lenses etc., so a couple of XL-H1s would make sense.
Even an HD-100 could be a nice third camera (like to see how they cut together).

I've liked working with the Panasonic on location and in post as well, but HDV looks very nice. My one true reservation coming from my background as a music producer is the audio compression. Everything we produce goes out of FCP to MOTU in audio post and I'm used to working at 48k and 96k 24 bit.

Is the audio a compromise in your opinion?

EDITING MY OWN POST HERE.

I did a little more searching and found your detailed opinions on this so thanks.
It seems business as usual is the approach with HDV, fine for commercial and doc work, use a separate mixer and recorder for bigger narrative projects.
FWIW I really wish the "which camera, which work flow, FCP 24p, Mac Intel transition thing" would settle down quickly.
I'm spending way too much time researching and just want to get back to writing the upcoming projects ;)

Well I bet you were wrong :-)

I was surprised that the high I-rate, mid P-rate and low B-rate shot was goldentree. The locked off static walnut shot had about an even I and P rate with the B-frames about half of either I or P frames. The only explanation I can give for this is that the walnut shot contains so little information that it doesn't really matter how it's being compressed.

Now, to compare these results to DVCProHD, I formulated the hypothesis that an HDV codec implementor would strive for constant quality, that is, there should be no visible difference between I, P and B frames. That is, I pretented that HDV was an I frame codec only. So I took the results of the I frames in the two different shots and caculated an I-frame only bitrate. Goldentree comes out at about 67 Mbps, the walnut shot at 37 Mbps. This is a 6.6:1 to 12:1 compression ratio, compared to DVCProHD 5:1 compression ratio.

As I said, it's too early to call my results preliminary and the results are hardly significant. It will take a while before I can put some more time in it, that's why I posted it now.

HDV doesn't have a delivery format? HDCAM, D5, and diskbased delivery to a media server such as MediaBase or Matrox Media server aren't delivery formats?

yeah right... i'm going to run right down to blockbuster and pick up march of the penguins on hdcam... or perhaps those copies will all be checked out, and i'll have to settle for d5, lol.

maybe i can watch an hdv movie over the 'net? no... how about seeing hdv projected in hd at the local theatre? nope.

"people are using it", and "hundreds of hours", is idle speculation by someone selling hdv products... perhaps we need a factual list of just where hdv is being used, and just where it's being rejected.

make it a sticky for this forum... i already listed the initial hdv rejection, it's the national geographic hd channel, as reported by tvtechnology on 1/11/06, page 22.

and shannon... minidv was shown at sundance in 1998, perhaps even before that... they'll take anything :-)

http://dvestore.com/theatre/
Watch "NAB 2005 - Panasonic AG-HVX200 (extended version)"

i really liked the part where she said that "hdv was designed as a consumer format"... the national geographic hd channel sure proved that.

did you catch her line about "bit starved"? that's exactly what i stated in this thread, when i said that the per-pixel bitrate of hdv is far less than it is for dvd... prove it for yourself, the math is pretty simple.

how about the way that she pointed out how dropouts can destroy the entire hdv gop? here is another explanation of that, from someone who understands the hdv drawbacks, but still wants to buy into the format anyway: http://www.technologyevangelist.com/2005/12/hdv_why_i_hate_it_bu.html

Jan Crittenden is very smart, i remember her posts on the 'net from way back in, heck, the compuserv forum days? 10 years ago??

yeah right... i'm going to run right down to blockbuster and pick up march of the penguins on hdcam... or perhaps those copies will all be checked out, and i'll have to settle for d5, lol.
:-)

If that's your argument, then it's an argument for ALL forms of HD, period. There is no distribution to the end consumer at this very second for your beloved Panny cam, either. Look Dan, it's pretty clear you have an agenda against HDV. You're welcome to your opinion, but frankly, it's a little old at this point.

BTW, I DO have the ability right now, this second, to watch HD media on a DVD player, I spent about 4 hours today doing exactly that. From a shiny disk, not from a computer, not connected to a computer.

Curious, if Sundance will take "anything" when will we see one of your projects there? Having been a participant in the selection process, I'm wondering where that silly notion comes from?

Finally, whilst you suggest National Geo will not accept anything in HDV....they already have. (4 bull elk battling simultaneously) It was converted to 4:2:2 YUV, and delivered on HDCAM.
As far as a list, I think I've pointed out enough shows using HDV over the various fora.

What is your point? That you don't like HDV? I think the point has been well-taken. Probably a good time to move on.

Dan I think you arwe simplifying things in your head just a little too much.
What is the bit rate of you beloved Panny codec at 720p24?
Whats the HDV equivalent at 720p24?
How much more efficient is HDV's mpeg2 over DVCproHD?
So whats the mathematical differance that is so huge you are willing to stand up like a cock in a chicken coop and crow your head off?

I can confirm that National Geographic will accept HDV in HD programmes. Much of my footage was used in the recent programme "Tornado Chasers", don't believe me, then check the end credits. I will also bet that you can't pick out what's HDV and whats DVCPRO HD. The programme was shot on a mix of DVCPRO HD and HDV and delivered on HDCAM.

As HDV hardware and software codecs improve users will squeeze more and more quality from HDV in the same way as happened with DV. If you compare the quality of first generation DV codecs to todays DV codecs you will see that there has been a significant improvement in quality even though the "standard" itself hasn't changed.

The problem is that HDV is a mature technology, most of the improvements in mpeg2 performance have already happened in the last ten years and things have moved on, to improving h264, which has seen significant performance improvements in compression in the last year.

JVC has said they are moving to hard disk, I suspect they might even go to h264 as well (conjecture, they showed a HDV hard disk consumer camera last year).

Dan I think you arwe simplifying things in your head just a little too much.
What is the bit rate of you beloved Panny codec at 720p24?
Whats the HDV equivalent at 720p24?
How much more efficient is HDV's mpeg2 over DVCproHD?
So whats the mathematical differance that is so huge you are willing to stand up like a cock in a chicken coop and crow your head off?

I see what you mean Ken, but I have to say something in Dan's defence. There is an interesting thing I have determined about codecs, that (and I'm guessing this does not apply to inter-frame compression techniques) efficiency matters less the closer you get to lossless, and bandwidth wins when dealing with high movement/image change. So in the extremes, bandwidth matters. The solution has always been to put the bandwidth up of HDV (well without changing it to another) even that extra 20%+ is probably going to make a great difference to the number of places that HDV falls over. Codecs like h264, hopefully, has increased efficiency in dealing with movement that might also help.

Here is an interesting thread that shows some of the deficiencies on HDV.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=58485

did you catch her line about "bit starved"? that's exactly what i stated in this thread, when i said that the per-pixel bitrate of hdv is far less than it is for dvd... prove it for yourself, the math is pretty simple.

Okay, let's do that math just to get it over with.

SD DVD standard maximum video bit rate = 8 Mbps at a resolution of 720x480 = 345,600 pixels, which works out to 23 bits per pixel per second at 30 fps. Many DVDs are delivered at lower bit rates of 5-6 Mbps, or 14-17 bits per pixel per second, and generally look pretty good at that setting.

HDV 720p uses 19 Mbps at 1280x720 pixels for a rate of 20 bits per pixel per second. Hmmm, that's not bad compared to maximum DVD bit rates, let alone typical Hollywood DVDs. It's definitely not "far less than it is for DVD."

HDV 1080i uses 25 Mbps at 1440x1080 pixels for a rate of 16 bits per pixel per second. That would be considered a bit sparse for SD DVDs, but still within the range that commercial movies are delivered.

So yes, HDV is stretching the limits of technology, but as Wayne points out MPEG2 is a mature technology which we've learned a lot about how to get the most out of over the last ten years. It's considered good enough for HD television broadcasts and upcoming Blu-ray HD movies at HDV bit rates, so it can't be all that bad. As far as dropouts are concerned, I've had less trouble with them in HDV than I did in DV, so that no longer concerns me unless that situation deteriorates as the cameras get older.

If you shoot a lot of demanding high-motion scenes like Dan then maybe HDV recording isn't for you, so buy a Panasonic HVX200 and a stack of Firestore DTE drives and get on with your life. (Say, I wonder how well those Firestore drives will hold up in a race car or on a surfboard?) For some of us HDV is a technological marvel which allows beautiful high-definition recording at a bargain price which our customers enjoy, and it will continue to serve that role until something better comes along at a similar price. That could happen in as little as five years or so, but until then...

JVC has said they are moving to hard disk, I suspect they might even go to h264 as well (conjecture, they showed a HDV hard disk consumer camera last year).


A move to h264 would result in a whole new format. What gives you the impression JVC is going to break away from HDV to go it alone?

"they showed a HDV hard disk consumer camera last year"

No they didn't.
There is a HDD available for the HD100 that will record its HDV stream. But that is it.

Here is an interesting thread that shows some of the deficiencies on HDV.
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=58485

That thread shows the deficiencies of a compressed stream vs. a live uncompressed feed, which also happens to be at a higher resolution. Did you really think compressed HDV was going to look as good as uncompressed?

I have already addressed it over there, I am not surprised it is worse than uncompressed, but how much worse it is on the simple scene where the codec can render near it's fullest quality, it is a matter of context. I have followed up with an explanation over there.

I thought it might be interesting to examine the action and deficiencies of HDV on the scene which is what you guys are discussing (though, the chock scene is better place to check for motion artifacts which is what the thread, and Dan, was about). The best way to compare this is with an untouched/uncompressed frame. The frames were both recorded at 1440 resolution, and upscaled to 1920.

A move to h264 would result in a whole new format. What gives you the impression JVC is going to break away from HDV to go it alone?

"they showed a HDV hard disk consumer camera last year"

No they didn't.
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=52319


Here is talk about a bunch of h264 cameras coming out, Samsung's one has a bit rate of around 17-19Mb/s:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=58391


Kevin,

I've heard that TV/DVD movie companies have very expensive sophisticated compression setups and DVD movie companies can guide/vary the compression process through the dvd to maximise the look. So while a DVD might often still lack, because of the choices made they look good. On a camera though, it is good to have double that bandwidth of the consumer spec to star with. The extra bandwidth of XDCAM (often nicknamed HDV2 around the place) goes a long way to double HDTV bandwidth, and probably worked out to give just enough to give good results in most of the cases where HDV wouldn't, I would not be surprised if it has a broadcast quality Mpeg2 compression engine on board. But the problem with HDTV, I've looked at the channels and have never seen footage with that sheer volume of compression artifacts on Mini-DV/DVD, and I live in a 25p country. I think it is set to low to start with, and for a 19Mb/s stream I would much rather trust a h264 camera codec than a HDV camera codec. But then again most peoples TV's resolution is below the standard and hide artifacts through pixel combining.


Dan,

I'm with you in some ways. I often think about putting together a cheap low compression/no compression HD solution, but lack an engineer to do it with, and it includes parts of another confidential commercial oriented product that has to be done first, when I feel better. I've got a few things to get through before I can consider starting it though, and this Samsung camera might be good enough not to even worry about doing the HD solution.

What is your point? That you don't like HDV? I think the point has been well-taken. Probably a good time to move on.An excellent suggestion. For those who have been ranting and railing against HDV ad nauseum, please find something positive to talk about. HDV is very much here to stay, and I will not allow format wars on these boards... such negativity is an utterly pointless, useless waste of cyberspace and time which serves no worthwhile purpose here at all. Please find somewhere else to vent. Thanks in advance,

Wayne, that link for the Hard disk cam has no mention of HDV spec. In fact HDV is a tape only format. The side of the cam has clear HDD writen on it which means it uses a hard drive. No mention of HDV or HD anything except from other posters. No new HD cam has been showen from JVC yet, and there has been no statement from them either.

As for your other thread.
"The frames were both recorded at 1440 resolution, and upscaled to 1920."

The uncompressed frames are captured at the full 1920. The HDV frame was captured at 1440. Then as you state, was upscaled. This would account for some of the softness in comparison. As well it should be noted that HDV cams are not all the same. While the Sony's have recieved deserved praise for their image/price, they offer the softest least detailed image of the HDV cams. You can't really blanket a format based on one product.

Sorry, you must be looking at the wrong link on the thread. Most of the links that the posters over there are talking about do mention and show a picture of what is supposed to be the HD Everio, and even mention HDV and 720p recording, except the last link, the poster has seem to got the wrong camera (he is looking at a standard def version by mistake. There is a link there to a thread that has somebody that actually was at a JVC dealers meet were they mentioned the HD Everio version. Most of the links are from some JVC press release/meeting. The story goes, that they are not sure when they should release it and are delaying it (I think, probably until they sell most of the HD100's to early adopters).

As far as I understand, the HDSDi output of the Canon only transmits a version of the original 1440 image, we can probably ask Alister. The softness of the HDV footage is a lot wider than 1/3rd of the pixel, looks more than two pixels.

Sorry for the confusion Ken, but I don't think I'm misreading it, and I think that ends my conversation on this thread. I wish reviewers would get serious about reviewing cameras/codecs in-depth, they see and Iceberg and write about it usually, no in-depth Analysis of what is beneath what is easy to test (I have, at times, thought of even making my own test charts to test fro various things through out the whole colour/luminance scale). I think professional engineers at TV stations must have a good laugh at some of the testing that goes on some camera sites. If I had the full setup and cameras here, I would love to do very in-depth testing. As I've shown, just getting values and pointing the thing at a correctly lit test chart will only scientifically test the tip of the iceberg, you really need to get hold of footage (preferably using it yourself) to get an idea of/experience the rest. If such an opportunity comes up I would like to have an accurate knowledge of all compression schemes, their artifacts and characteristics (When and to what degree they happen where) first. So, if anybody has links to everything. technical about camera image and codec faults, please let me know, better that one man swallow the nat and strain the camera than every man have to. Sorry Chris, if I've been a bit annoying, but I think their is a need for analysis of the camera codec performance, to see how well things will come up in practice.

Thanks

Wayne.

The HDSDI output of the H1 is full 1920 resolution. The H1 CCD's are 1440x1080 BUT the camera uses pixel shift to get full frame resolution. Have not measured the actual resolution, but it is certainly higher over HDSDI than HDV. If you take a 1920 frame and downsample it to 1440 it certainly has a very similar look to an HDV frame. There is a cineform frame on the other thread that was created from the HDSDI stream, the 8 bit Cineform codec is only 1440x1080 and this frame has the same softer look. It should also be remembered that even HDCAM is downsampled to 1440 and I have yet to come across any domestic display that can actually resolve more than 1000 TVL. Most HD LCD's, Plasmas or CRT's can't resolve more than 700 TVL.
To my eye HDV is excellent, It is more than capable of pushing the limits of the playback/viewing equipment and artifacts really are not an issue in most situations. It's not perfect, but it is pretty damn good.

I think many of the issues people see are more down to the fact that it's an 8 bit codec and thus has only 256 grey levels, ie quantization and stair stepping on areas of nearly flat colour.

except for digibeta all SD tape formats are 8bit ...
all SD & HD tranmission/broadcast are 8bit ..
pretty much all HD is 8bit to tape except for the 24p camera's that are FILM camera types ( viper, panavision genisis, dalsa )
most 35mm film that is scanned to digital is 10bit files ( not 16, 24, 32) .. and then transferred back to film 10bit ...

it looks like we're stuck with 8 bit for awhile and i'm not seeing any sign of 10bit as a delivery format ( other then the transfer to film) ...

I have spent some time comparing that cineform HDSDi frame at magnification to the original and it has a little blur, but nowhere near that of the HDV one. I read, probably the Internet news compression FAQ, that the tables in Jpeg lack enough precision to be give a accurate result (in the lossless/jpeg section) so there precision is increased for lossless compression to the extent that the error will not effect pixel values. Maybe this is related to the problem?

So your saying it produces 1920 true res rather than 1440 upscaled to 1920, or 1440+pixel shift unprocessed upscaled. Interesting. I saw the original post on the Canon HDSDi, that talked about 1440 res, that's where I got the figure from, but I accept what you are saying, sorry Ken. It's hard to believe that they would get this right, but I'm happy that it turns out out be.

I'm curious, what ever happen to the plan to use the Z1/s CCD's in the Canon.

BetaSP being analog dosn't suffer from many of the stair stepping and quantisation problems that most of the digital formats suffer from. However I would not for one moment want to go back to analog. Transcoding to 10 bit or higher for post production is getting easier and can improve the final image.

Canon do not quote the image resolution anywhere, simply that the CCD's have 1,560,000 pixels which is just over 1440x1080 and that pixel shift is employed which normally increases the resolution. Stills taken with the camera are grabbed at 1920x1080 so I think it is reasonable to assume that the camera head is operating at 1920x1080.