So what's the Family Truckster worth?

[Steve Crisdale]

Originally Posted by Andrew Wills

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Steve Crisdale

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

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

Originally Posted by Steve Crisdale

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

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

Originally Posted by Steve Crisdale

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

It's not a problem for me as it's not a format I'm using. And REALLY, from the video's I've seen, both on-line and on TV, I'd rather see the manufacturers put their R & D into reducing the cost and size of cameras like the Panasonic SDX900 with three 2/3" 520,000 Progressive CCD imagers.

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

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Derek West

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

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

Kevin,

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

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

So that was 6x the normal quality?

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

...but then downloading from the internet isn't how most people watch their videos.

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

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

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

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Derek West

So that was 6x the normal quality?

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

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

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

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

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

Kevin,

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

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

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Derek West

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Yi Fong Yu]

kev,

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

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

Well,

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

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

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

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

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

[Patrick Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Yi Fong Yu

kev,

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

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

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

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

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

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

I really do like this camera so far.

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

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

This IS a great camera though.

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

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