I have heard that SD video shot by an HDV camera is much better than SD video shot by an SD-only camera. Is this generally true, and if so, why? I now shoot only SD, and will eventually move up to HD/HDV, but I am wondering if I could vastly improve my SD quality now by shooting with an HDV camera. Thanks.

My Sony HDR-HC1 (inexpensive?) can make DV recordings. But if you can edit the HDV, why would you do SD? I capture and edit in HDV2 (1080x1440 30i), make a Blu-Ray for myself and make down rezed DVDs for everyone else. I find I get stunning output, vastly better than my old consumer DV camera. I just am careful to output SD NTSC at 30 PROGRESSIVE or PAL 25P. If you don't, the output is so sharp that the interlace jaggies are "square edged" on fast pans. If HDV teaches you anything, it is to pan very slowly and really limit zooming.

About 99% of everyone I've talked to on the subject claim by basic theory and math of the technical aspect of HDV is that:

If you shoot HDV/HD, down convert on import and edit = Similar and often better/sharper images Due to the ability to get a lot of information/pixels and shot it into smaller, more manageable pixels etc. (if you get the analogy)

If you Shoot HDV/HD edit, then export to SD = Better/sharper quality hands down.

But then, I've yet to hear it from someone in the feild who can make a claim, and call it the word of the Mr video god... thing.

I have to shoot 4:3 SD on my HC-1 sometimes, and I'm always very impressed at how sharp it looks.

While I don't have any first hand experience with this, I would think it's obvious that an HD camera would shoot better SD than an SD only camera.

To see this you only have to watch on an SD screen the highest definition source footage you can get -- just watch a movie. Anything you've seen on an SD TV that was shot on film appears to be sharper and have much higher resolution than an SD camera... I think everyone could agree on that. The resolution of film and SD video may be the same when you get to see it on the TV, but fine detail doesn't become "cluttered" from the film source, if you get what I'm trying to say, and that makes all the difference.

If you record to DV format on an HDV camera it won't necessarily look any better than a comparable quality DV camera, and in some cases it might be worse. (It partly depends what cameras you're comparing.) But in general HDV cameras shoot better *widescreen* DV footage than most DV cameras, which aren't typically designed to record good widescreen material.

In my case I consider the DV footage from my Sony FX1s to be at least as good or better than what I got from my Canon GL1/GL2, but then the FX1 is a technically better camera. And good HDV footage compared to DV on an HDTV is noticeably clearer, which is where HDV really shines.

The reason I don't want to output HD is that most of the work I do right now involves shooting and selling DVDs for high school sports events, so there is the issue of customer demand and duplication. But, since I will certainly be transitioning to some format of HD over the next year or two, I am considering purchasing an HDV camera for my current SD work (as long as there would be a significant payoff in terms of video quality). From the posts above, it does seem like that is the case as long as I edit HD, and then downrez.

We've been using JVC HD100 in the SD mode alongside with Sony PD-150. The former has been a world of difference in terms of image quality - sharpness, colour, motion (we shot in 50p).

HD cameras give you usually more options for getting a look that you want to achieve, more control.

This is not universally true. The SDX900 will shoot better SD than any of the 1/3" CCD HDV cameras. Also not that the Canon XL2 has chips that are 960X480 and also uses pixel shift as well, it has a clean, crisp SD image as good as any of the HDV cameras for SD.



ash =o)

This is not universally true. The SDX900 will shoot better SD than any of the 1/3" CCD HDV cameras.

Ash, thats a terrible comparrison. You are talking about 2/3" chips here AND a pro camera. the HDV cameras out now are half the size, have half the features, and half the price.

Ha! I knew that'd get some attention!

We're in the process of "evaluating" the disadvantages and advantages of shooting/editing HDV vs SD. We've come to the following conclusion after RETURNING to SD from trying to do some test projects in HDV :

1. If you have a significant investment in good SD equipment (cameras, lens controllers, plugins/software, etc.) ...and....
2. If you don't have high-powered, dual/quad-core, Opteron beaters for editing :) ... and...
3. If you are outputting to standard DVD...and...
4. If you don't have blue-ray or equivalent storage for HDV projects...then

Stick with SD for now.

We decided that for the near future, the cost-benefit is NOT worth the change. However.....let me qualify that:

When we can afford to go TOTALLY to HD, we'll make the change and not look back! I love the quality, but the TCO is pretty high for many of us. There are LOTS of not-so-hidden costs, especially for those that sweat to buy what they have and need...

OH....BTW......I don't think there'll ever be a good substitute for good lenses on the front and these little HDV are lacking in that dept. Pretty hard to compare little HDV cams recording SD, with high quality lensed SD cams.

______________________
Stephen Richard Armour
ABE-Brazil

Ash, thats a terrible comparrison. You are talking about 2/3" chips here AND a pro camera. the HDV cameras out now are half the size, have half the features, and half the price.


Not terrible at all... you would be SHOCKED how many people that think HD universally looks better than SD. Truth is, they have only ever seen crappy SD cameras.



ash =o)

Hi Ash, any opinions on how the XL2 fitted with your old LetusXL 35mm adapter would fair against say an A1 or other HDV type camera stock?

This is assuming that you uprezzed the XL2/LetusXL footage using something like InstantHD? I'm sure the A1 would have the edge in terms of strictly crispness, et. all; but I'd hope that the XL2 shot progressive then converted might be comparable enough to get by for the time being.

I'm currently debating swapping over to the A1 or just keeping my XL2 and buying the LetusXL, while I look for a used H1 to upgrade to in the next few months or what not.

I'm specifically looking to use the LetusXL/XL2/InstantHD triad for a feature-length film my friend has coming up for San Diego/San Francisco in mid-December/January. I would like to upgrade to the A1 right now, but then I'd need to get a new production monitor, motion/jib/dolly shots, et. all, etc., and I'd rather just stick with what I have for right now if this trio could get close to something like what an A1 might produce...the whole turnover thing, just got to many other things on my mind right now to want to go through that given the proximity.

Thanks for any opinions.

In my opinion the Sony Z1, FX1 and Canon XLH1 all beat the XL2 and PD170 hands down for SD... with one exception... low light. Most HD camcorders require more light than SD camcorders. The HDV cams have much cleaner pictures. The lenses on the HDV cameras have to be better quality to cope with HD and this translates to a good improvement in SD performance.

Stephen.. why do you belive you need Blu-ray etc for HDV storage? The data rates and file sizes are excatly the same as for DV. Also you don't need a mega PC to edit HDV. A correctly configured dual core PC with 2 gig of ram, a core duo laptop or macbook will all handle HDV without issue. These are all pretty standard spec machines these days.

I have a 512mb PC ... and it's definitely not dual-core.

... you would be SHOCKED how many people that think HD universally looks better than SD. Truth is, they have only ever seen crappy SD cameras.

Fair enough, but if you're going to bring $20+K SD cameras into the comparison it's only fair to also consider $20+K HD cameras. HD may not _always_ look better than SD, but given an equal chance it should.

HD lens's seem to carry a large price premium over an SD lens so it is hard to factor in an equal comparison on price alone.

Hi Ash, any opinions on how the XL2 fitted with your old LetusXL 35mm adapter would fair against say an A1 or other HDV type camera stock?

This is assuming that you uprezzed the XL2/LetusXL footage using something like InstantHD? I'm sure the A1 would have the edge in terms of strictly crispness, et. all; but I'd hope that the XL2 shot progressive then converted might be comparable enough to get by for the time being.

I'm currently debating swapping over to the A1 or just keeping my XL2 and buying the LetusXL, while I look for a used H1 to upgrade to in the next few months or what not.

I'm specifically looking to use the LetusXL/XL2/InstantHD triad for a feature-length film my friend has coming up for San Diego/San Francisco in mid-December/January. I would like to upgrade to the A1 right now, but then I'd need to get a new production monitor, motion/jib/dolly shots, et. all, etc., and I'd rather just stick with what I have for right now if this trio could get close to something like what an A1 might produce...the whole turnover thing, just got to many other things on my mind right now to want to go through that given the proximity.

Thanks for any opinions.


The Letus, as all 35mm adapters do, will soften the image a little, as the XL2 is generallly very sharp it is not that big a deal. You might look into renting an XLH, it is terrific with the Letus. I have moved up to a different set-up now and use an SDX900 with adapter for SD 35mm DOF work and an HVX with adapter for 355mm DOF work (when a Vari is out of the budget)



ash =o)

Stephen.. why do you belive you need Blu-ray etc for HDV storage? The data rates and file sizes are excatly the same as for DV. Also you don't need a mega PC to edit HDV. A correctly configured dual core PC with 2 gig of ram, a core duo laptop or macbook will all handle HDV without issue. These are all pretty standard spec machines these days.

I guess having the "blu-ray" backup was really just "wishlist thinking" on my part, Alister. You're right, as things can be backed up on HDD's or streaming tapes. The issues are really the same. Backing up ANY DV (or HDV) projects for longer term storage is always a pain, especially if you want to include everything (except preview files of course) to correct or use again later!

As to the dual core machine, you'd be surprised at how many people on this forum DON'T HAVE dual core machines yet! My old dual XEON (3.06Ghz) editor has 2 GB of memory and two RAID's (one a 10K Cheetah 320 SCSI array, the other a fast SATA RAID). I have to use Cineform Aspect to even be able to edit HDV. The issue for decently editing HDV boils down to needing at least a fast dualcore machine, really. Anything less is pretty much a joke.

The question I was addressing was the cost-benefit for going to HDV from existing DV investment. The bottom line is, DV done in letterbox format looks pretty much the same as HDV on non-HD TV, or even "panned and scanned" output.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_and_scan).

In many other (non-European/North American) countries, it will be a very long time (if every?) before HD TV takes over. The cost for upgrading existing facilities is astronomical, and many people just don't care to make the jump. Since this forum addresses users in many countries, it would seem appropriate to consider their reality as well.

I stand by what I said (minus the blu-ray part).

Stephen Armour - Brazil

you would be SHOCKED how many people that think HD universally looks better than SD.

I've been shot down in flames or at least 'backed up the bus' because of my preference for editing DSR570 DVCAM with quality glass over HDV that's edited HDV and post processed to SD, but it's true - the glass is where it's at.

I'll say that I still prefer HDV/Black Stretch/Underscan over my old PD150 footage, and that I can get faux 16mm footage from HDV that's edited natively, exported to a far less lossy codec, deinterlaced and made into SD.

I'll also say that most camera folks will spot HDV->SD simply because of lens artifacts (DoF, sharpening, etc).

I love my Z1 and I love HDV for what it's done for my business, but I'm switching to XDCAM-HD, 35mbps, and good glass as soon as my business can square the numbers. Right now, a DSR-570 with a 13k Fujinon continues to 'express water' all over my Z1's footage, HDV or not. I won't debate the fact that a DSR-570 may not get Z1 footage because it's big, heavy, obvious,

It's the lens.

PS: Acutally, it's also the format - I've been shooting chromakey at HDV then scaling down the composite to SD, which gives me really clean DigiBeta style keys, and it has to be said: PD150 chromakey sucks. DSR-570 chromakey with DoP lighting isn't bad so long as you've got top-of-the-line plug ins. But HDV via KeyLight to SD is in-the-zone. Awesome.

PS: Actually, it's also the format - I've been shooting chromakey at HDV then scaling down the composite to SD, which gives me really clean DigiBeta style keys, and it has to be said: PD150 chromakey sucks. DSR-570 chromakey with DoP lighting isn't bad so long as you've got top-of-the-line plug ins. But HDV via KeyLight to SD is in-the-zone. Awesome.

Thanks Matt, you just answered a question we've had and haven't had time to test: does HDV give better chroma (especially when using something like Ultra 2) when downscaling to SD? Though we've decided to stay for a bit with SD for the most part, I've been debating using the HDV cams for chromakey and wondered if it was worth the hassle.

What do you use for your chromakey work?

Stephen Armour
Lion Cub Productions (ABE - Brazil)