I am not convinced by HDV.
Please, could you convince me?

There is no doubt that HDV has more rez. I know that, I'm convinced about that. My problem resides elsewhere.

I’ve been using a PD-150 for years, then I switched to a DVX100a.
I have the money to buy a HDV cam, and I'm actually toying with the idea to wait until one of those RED cam is ready.

Right now I'm not convinced with the possibilities offered by HDV.
I want to be sure I’m hesitating because I don’t have all the information If I turn out to be ignorant and misinformed, please correct me. I want to be convinced that I should embrace HDV TODAY!

OK, so HDV has more resolution. But what do you do with it?
We can’t burn HDV DVD, correct? and DVD from the DVX100 on 30p mode looks great, I think. How better could HDV look projected from a DVD source onto a 46 inch TV screen? But we can't do that right now, correct?

For aspiring movie makers transfer to film is still problematic, correct?
If I was going to submit footage shot in HDV to some lab supposed to transferred it to 35mm for me:
What is my digital master going to be? I can’tplay
back out to HDV, correct? . It’s either going to be a HDCam tape (for the Z1 or HD100), a DVCPro100 tape (for panasonic) or files (TIFF) or an uncompressed Quicktime.
Am I correct on those?
So for somebody who has limited budget and wants to transfer to film, is HDV really that great?
And if you don’t want to transfer to film, since we can’t burn HDV DVD yet, what do you do with the footage? If you want to shoot a doc that will be seen on TV why use HDV instead of the DVX100b?

For a little guy like me doing shorts and hoping to film something longer soon, and maybe a few docs the sound provided by the DVX 100 is amazing. I don’t need to have a separated sound recording device. I certainly could, but I don't feel the need. It’s not going to be the case with one of those HDV cam, right? From what I understand the sound is a little inferior because of the compression format.
So really, what’s the heck? More rez, but for what usage?

I’ve heard that down converted footage from HDV to SD looks great, but I’ve also heard people say that it's by no way superior to footage originated on SD cam?

Am I hopeless? can I be convinced?
Thanks
Phil

frankly if you do not know what to do with the extra resolution given by HDV, why should you bother for a camera that shoot in 4K ?

You know Phil after reading what you posted I absolutely agree with you. I am a rookie at this stuff so I'm just learning. I infact went to a Nebraska Cornhusker game this last weekend and will be attending another home game this weekend. They have just finished putting in 3 brand new HD screens in the stadium. I believe the biggest one is 33’ 7 3/16" high by 117’ 7 1/8’ wide (nearly 40 yards). At any rate it's an awesome screen, but all it is, is a higher resolution kind of like watching the TV while you're at the game. Until I read your post I was in awwwe of the new HD perfomances, but now that I think about it the only advantage is a better look!

Soon 4:3 SD video will look very outdated.

One of my problem with the HDV cams is that they have defects. I mean, what is that codec? When you look at the reviews from the Texas shoot out you realize that they all have a problem! I'm not expecting the rez of a 50,000 cam in a 5000 one, but at least it should not have any artifact? I expect a so-so lens, some buttons not at the right place, not great resolution but I don't expect defect? When you buy a $ 12,000 car, does it have defects? No! It's less powerful than a $ 30,000 car, less room, less option, less luxury, but it doesn't have defects? It works well at its own level. It's not the case with those HDV cams. Not only they don't have the rez of the HD cams, but in addition to that they have problems. All they should have is providing a lesser image quality than their big brothers, but they should not have PROBLEMS!

Other than lower rez, what kind of artifact does DV has? Adam Wilt reports some bad effect on the HD 100 on the edge of the frames, he says some foliage freezes? I mean, what? Why? It looks to me that somebody came with a cheap way to give us higher rez than DV, but the cons are kind of bothersome! Also, we can't edit in that particular codec, we need an intermediary and we can't use that codec to burn DVD. I mean, come on! All those problems to have more resolution? And resolution for what? Does any of the subject that have been filmed and reported on this forum at the HD 100 finished project deserved higher resolution? Higher rez to film that stuff?
OK, fine.

As one who has switched from an XL1s to an XL H1, the difference is dramatic.

I was very concerned about having "HDV" problems, but so far I have not had any, and some of my shots are true torture tests for HDV. For example, fast moving water, waterfalls, and professional drag boat racing which involves fast pans.

Watching the video, at normal speeds, I have not noticed a single defect. Maybe I have been lucky, maybe they are there and I can not see them.

I have converted some of the drag boat racing footage, into slow motion that is just unbelievable. Some is at 10% of actual speed, others at 1% of actual speed. To this day I have a hard time understanding how I can obtain fairly smooth slow motion at 1% of actual speed when I start with 1080i footage! But this 1% slow motion footage has been very useful to our racing team!

Now, there are many HDV cameras out there and all HDV is not the same.

However, I recommend that you research what suits you best and then attempt to test the camera.

I have been extremely pleased with the XL H1, you may be pleased with another model. The images that these cameras can produce are stunning.

Yes, it is difficult and/or expensive at this time to deliver full HD. But even if you are going to deliver a standard DVD, using HDV footage to start with can help you produce very good DVD's.

Hey Phil. It sounds to me like you're a late adapter, meaning that you're going to be one of the last people to jump on board new technology, certainly not one of the first. I'm the same way, so my opinion of HDV is biased. I see it as a way of spanning the gap between SD and true High Def. I think that in the next 5 years, affordable, true "High Def" will be available, and that HDV may be remember as that quirky format that was neither SD nor HD. The weird thing with HD in general right now is it seems much more important to get the letters "HD" in the name than the actual picture quality. I have seen many friends and relatives buy HD sets, and have never seen one where they watch images at the correct aspect ratio. They always use "zoom to fit" options that distort the picture. i had a buddy invite me over to watch NFL, and he insisted on watching the game all stretched out and went on about the great picture quality. Now they are talking about "HD" radio and "HD" sunglasses... so I sometimes just how much the buying public understands or cares about HD.
Affordable HD is coming, and I really hope that HD will ultimately surplant SD as a format. HD and HDV have a purpose and function for many people out there, and I'm more than happy to see them move the technology forward. For myself, I'm just not getting the demand for HDV or HD. I haven't had a client ask for it yet. But I'm doing smaller, corporate video production where my Canon XL2 more than suffices for image quality. We do however, work pretty much exclusively in 16x9. I think if you're not sold on the benefits of HDV, then just keep shooting with what you have. Look at all the Beta SP shooters out there, they're not lining up to ditch their cameras. I know of one videographer in particular who still totes his 15 year old Betacam package as the best in the city, and says that Mini DV is simply "not professional" (ie, not suitable for ANY kind of paid work).
If you've got the money ready, that's awesome. Just keep tabs on it, and when you feel like not having HDV or HD is costing you money, make the switch then. You're options are only going to improve.

Phil, you need to spend some time checking out the cameras yourself with a proper HD display, and less time reading about them on the net.

There is NO substitute for real experience with gear, to know what you're dealing with. HDV is not perfect, but it's not defective. If you spend some real time with the gear, you'd not have such an extreme view of the situation.

There's hundreds of people here more or less happy with their HDV purchases.

Anyone heard of Super HD?

Phil: two words, "widescreen TVs." Most cameras with 4:3 sensors are effectively obsolete in the HD era because they can't produce decent widescreen SD output, which is the best delivery compromise for now until HD players become more commonplace. If you're not comfortable with the HDV codec you can run the cameras in widescreen DV mode and be better off than running 4:3 cameras in pseudo-widescreen mode, or cropping 4:3 footage to widescreen in post. Plus if you really want to you can run HDV cameras in 4:3 DV mode for those situations which require it, so you've lost nothing and gained a lot.

The only real concern I see in comparing HDV cameras to DV ones is in terms of low-light sensitivity, and that's not necessarily a big deal. In my tests I've gotten post-adjusted footage from a Sony FX1 to look about as good as unmodified footage from a DVX100A using the light of a single candle, and the DVX100 won't do decent widescreen without an anamorphic lens adapter.

By the way, there are ways for independent producers to deliver HD content to viewers today with quality noticeably better than you can get on SD DVDs. As this situation continues to improve and mainstream HD players plus HD TV broadcasts become more popular, it won't make much sense to shoot any professional video content in anything but HD, or in very high quality widescreen SD. The usefulness of 4:3 SD cameras is dwindling rapidly: my advice would be to sell them while you still can.

I am not convinced by HDV.

What is my digital master going to be? I can’tplay
back out to HDV, correct? . Phil

Phil, I have no reason to try and convince you, but if I read your above statement correctly I will have to say - WRONG!

I play back out to HDV (record to HD tape) everyday. After I edit my HDV I record the results out to my Sony HVR-M25 HDV deck. This is also possible with most HDV cameras too. At this point in time you can deliver your HD material on tape.

I have converted some of the drag boat racing footage, into slow motion that is just unbelievable. Some is at 10% of actual speed, others at 1% of actual speed. To this day I have a hard time understanding how I can obtain fairly smooth slow motion at 1% of actual speed when I start with 1080i footage! But this 1% slow motion footage has been very useful to our racing team!

Dan have you tried 'timewarp' in the new After Effects 7.0 Proffesional version ?

example >> http://www.adobe.com/products/vector/ProductionStudio/ProductionStudio.html?contentID=Timewarp


Lee

Phil- Take a breath and keep it nice. I go to Switzerland every 6 months for the last 5 years. I have family there. I know the Swiss. They are very smart and would only ask the obvious based on your initial statement.

Hopp Schwiitz!!!

Jim Martin

PS-Chris, This thead should be Xed

Douglas, are you saying I can give a HDV digital master tape to Swisseffect to be transfered to film ? Phil, I did not say that you can give an HDV digital master tape to Swisseffect......etc.

I said that I could record back to tape (as anyone else who has the equipment can also do) I was replying to your statement that "It was not possible to record back to HDV tape...."

If Swisseffect tell you you can't ...please believe them. I don't know them. So I can't argue for or against their statement.

Good luck!

We just finished upgrading our cameras, decks, editing, etc. to HDV. Some of the reasons for doing this are:
1) HDV acquired footage makes for beautiful 16x9 SD output, significantly superior to the PD 170s we had been using. We no longer use 4x3 format.
2) Even though all of our delivery is currently on SD DVD, at some point HD DVD will be commonplace. At that time we will have the option of rereleasing our HDV archived projects as HD.
3) If, for some reason, I needed to shoot a project in 4x3 DV, my HDV cameras will do that.
4) If HDV becomes an obsolete format in time, HDV archives can, one way or another, be converted into whatever is new, and we go out and buy new hardware, just like always.
I don't think that HDV is some kind of holy grail, but it is a definite leap upwards from what we had been doing. It's been fun and exciting for us to make that leap.

Why climb the highest mountain? Why go skydiving? Why explore the far corners of the world? It's human nature to do so; because it's there.

Your questions are legit alright -yes they read and appear to be real questions. However, it's not our job to convince you.

Why don't you do what I did and fork over $1400 on a prosumer cam, go through miles of tape and endless days of testing and then make an informed decision? You know, my HC1 is the worst camera I've every used. However, after breaking it and going back to cutting a few DV25 projects, I'm ready to shell out for another one.

Bottom line, why should I care if you dislike HDV? Now give me back the three minutes I've wasted posting this blunt truth.

Peter's right, of course, you can talk these things to death, and end up still unsure about any of it. But HDV is the new, inexpensive, fun, stuff, that holds out the promise of better images than we have been settling for. You have to actually check it out, see how you would use it, what it might actually do for you. I initially bought the inexpensive A-1 to get my feet wet with. After a period of playing with it, testing it, comparing to the PD 170, I went off to Italy and shot an entire project on it. The finished project is 30 min long. Friends, collegues, and random observers love the look of it, even shown on SD DVD. People who were on the shoot can't believe the the movie actually came out of that tiny camera. My overall impression is that this movie "looks" better than my prior ones. I'm more than satisfied and am not gonna go back to DV. Exploring this technology has been a fun adventure that is still unfolding. Another way to move ahead is to migrate to bigger chip SD cameras; they'll give you better images, but the cost is quite a bit more.

Dear Lee,

Thanks for the "Heads Up" concerning the "TimeWarp" feature in After Effects.

That certainly looks interesting.

I used Vegas 6.0d to create the 1% slow motion. I just created a velocity envelope and set the velocity to 1%. Ideally, I should have used 1.6666% percent but this level of grandularity is not avaiable
(1/60 = .0166666666666667) . In any case, it worked great with very little effort.

My suggestion would be to get the Panasonic HVX200 DVD which talks about the camera and how it compares to HDV. They actually have a shot of a DVX100B and an HDV Sony cam split screen. The Sony cam is blurry/faded and the colors is way off. The 100B the cameras a bright no motion blur. Plus, with the fact that HDV has to drop resolution to adjust for whats going on in the frame where as the HVX200 doesn't.

I'm not so sure I'd give too much credence to the image from the Sony camera on a piece of Panasonic's promotional material, but that just may be me.

I'm not personally sold on the idea of getting a purely HDV camera myself.

What I'm likely to do is get either an HVX or one of the Canon cameras with SDI out connections (since these have options to bypass HDV compression) at some point next year.

The beauty of having HD-SDI out in an HDV camera allows one to use the internal tape mechanisam (HDV) whenever appropriate, and also having the luxury of much higher quality output via HD-SDI whenever necessary.

The number of available HD-SDI recording devices should increase in the future. But, for many applications, HDV does work well.

Andrew: the original question here is why anyone might want to shoot HD today when delivery options are somewhat problematic, and that would apply to the HVX200 as well as HDV cameras. In fact one of the problems with the HVX200 is that there's no practical way to deliver the full original image quality to viewers, so footage from that camera has to be compressed to the same delivery codecs as people shooting HDV. There may still be advantages to shooting DVCProHD in some situations, but HDV works fine for many of us and will look good to most viewers compared to SD DVDs. Plus as I noted before, you can run HDV cameras in widescreen DV mode for SD output and avoid any concerns about HDV compression issues.

Andrew: the original question here is why anyone might want to shoot HD today when delivery options are somewhat problematic...

...as I noted before, you can run HDV cameras in widescreen DV mode for SD output and avoid any concerns about HDV compression issues.

Bingo! Get an HDV camera and you can still work in DV.

Shoot, capture, and edit in HDV; output to HDV, DV, etc.

heath

My two cents : Yes, HDV gives a better picture than DV. Shooting in 16:9 is important today and will become more important. However, high compression results in loss of quality. Still frames of HDV are unacceptable in some situations. I have struggled with these concepts for about a year, and am going to go with the HVX-200 and DVCPRO HD. It is also difficult to deliver to users today, but at least the archived files will be less compressed and perhaps more useful in the future when higher data rate delivery becomes commonplace. I don't think that even HD-DVD or Blu-ray are going to be the answer, although they may be useful for archiving large files. They too rely on complex compression codecs to lower the data rate of the original video. They will undoubtedly be better than current DVD recordings, but compression reduces quality.

If you want to stay in a 4:3 world, shoot the 150. Its a great camera.

If you want to stay in the SD world, shoot the 150, Its a great camera.

If you want 16:9 and HDV resolution, you have to change. That's all. It's your issue not anyone elses.

I have VX2000, and the FX1. The VX2000 was great recently in a shoot of a musical, where lighting was an issue. It was 4:3, which I letterboxed to 16:9 with an overlay. I came out nice, but it was not HDV. It was for DVD delivery, so thats okay.

The Texas shootout pointed out that each camera tested had its pluses and its negatives. HDV was not condemned. You indicate that HDV is compressed, but even in compressed format, the resolution is far superior to your SD. Its a tool man ! One to use if you need it for your business or pleasure.

I looked at the white paper about the Z1 and FX1, and then I looked at the picture. The compression meant nothing to me when I saw that image. I just wish Panasonic would release their info on the HVX200 like Sony did with their flagship HDV cameras.

heath

Dear Mark,

For what its worth, I have been very pleased with the stills produced by the XH H1, as have been my film oriented friends.

Taking a still photo while you are recording or not, results in a ".JPG" of around 1,200KB. If you take a still from an HDV recording it results in a 483KB to 545KB file.

Have you seen or taken any stills with the XL H1?

While these stills are not comparable to a high end still camera, they do fit many user's needs.

The still capability of the XL H1 is very useful, in my opinion. No matter if you are recording or not, or playing back a tape, all you have to do is press the photo button. This process, while recording, does not interfere with the recording in any way. This is a major improvement over the Xl1s.

HDV downconverted to SD will give you more color info than native SD when you burn to dvd. also, that color info will allow you to pull better keys.

and the extra rez is great when you crop and zoom in post.

It's just better.

I agree completely with Brian.

With good HDV, you can crop and pan in post. You can simulate a camera move, or a zoom, in post that was not actually performed while shooting. As long as the final product is a SD DVD, then the resulting footage can be very nice.

If you want to compare stills, interlaced can't compare to 720p.

...Because your DVX100a image will look like it came from a freakin' webcam after you see the HDV footage!