Even when FCP supports HDV, should I edit in it?

[Steve Connor]

That's true DVD Studio Pro 3 is outstanding, much better than Encore.

[Betsy Moore]

So now that Final Cut Pro HDV has come out what do we all think? Is HDV editing better with Apple or is it still better to convert to HD? Or are PCs still the way to go?

[Kevin Shaw]

Sounds to me like Apple has done a respectable job of implementing native HDV editing, but as predicted that's limited by the inherent problems of using HDV as an editing codec. In particular, you need a lot of processing power to edit HDV directly without rendering or compromising preview quality, and I've already seen at least one report of visible editing artifacts. So if you have a fast G5 Mac then the new FCP solution is definitely worth a look, but if you have a PC you have a wider range of HDV solutions which should suit most people's needs just fine. Nothing's really changed much, except Apple can finally say they have a decent HDV solution.

[Steve Crisdale]

Originally Posted by Rhett Allen

The difference is that HD is a much better format and HDV is a step down from that (wheras there wasn't this step for DV).

Huh?!! So; you're saying that 1080 60i/50i/30p/29.7p/25p aren't up to HD standard? Have you even bothered to check what resolutions and frame rates are defined as being HD compliant?

HDV is a 'sub-set' of HD.

So much confusing stuff for people who really do want to discern the truth about what they face with this 'new' video format, it doesn't help to muddy the waters even further. Don't confuse the codecs used for the carriage of the digital data for the standard itself.

MPEG2 is used for HD transport and transmission. Are you suggesting that the current 'Over-the-Air' broadcasters are providing sub-standard HD because they too use MPEG2; just like HDV does? Sometimes gotta wonder how much HD/HDV material people who make such sweeping statements of condemnation have actually seen on true HD capable equipment.

[Betsy Moore]

Well, Kevin in answer to your question, I got a new credit card just to buy an editing computer and I'm trying to decide between Mac an PC for HD/HDV editing with my FX1. Even though I hate how expensive Apples are I'm slightly leaning to them so that I can get good at a marketable skill like Final Cut.

[Bryan McCullough]

Originally Posted by Betsy Moore

Well, Kevin in answer to your question, I got a new credit card just to buy an editing computer and I'm trying to decide between Mac an PC for HD/HDV editing with my FX1. Even though I hate how expensive Apples are I'm slightly leaning to them so that I can get good at a marketable skill like Final Cut.

Betsy, I'd wait another few weeks if you can until we're actually able to use FCP5 and see what it can do with HDV.

Until then we're just speculating and going by 'reports we've heard'.

[Rhett Allen]

Originally Posted by Steve Crisdale

Huh?!! So; you're saying that 1080 60i/50i/30p/29.7p/25p aren't up to HD standard? Have you even bothered to check what resolutions and frame rates are defined as being HD compliant?

HDV is a 'sub-set' of HD.

So much confusing stuff for people who really do want to discern the truth about what they face with this 'new' video format, it doesn't help to muddy the waters even further. Don't confuse the codecs used for the carriage of the digital data for the standard itself.

MPEG2 is used for HD transport and transmission. Are you suggesting that the current 'Over-the-Air' broadcasters are providing sub-standard HD because they too use MPEG2; just like HDV does? Sometimes gotta wonder how much HD/HDV material people who make such sweeping statements of condemnation have actually seen on true HD capable equipment.

You are taking quite a bit out of context. While HDV may be a "sub-set" of HD it's the long GOP that makes it so undesirable. And yes I have seen the artifacting that can happen in long GOP formats and it looks like crap. The same thing happens with lots of compressed digital formats, from cell phones to satellite TV. You either have a signal, or you don't. At least with analog formats you still got "something". I can't tell you how irritating it is to lose a phone call or the TV image completely because one little data packet got side-tracked. That's what happens with long GOP. "Broadcasting" a long GOP is exactly what it was designed for, NOT for acquisition and editing (same for the 4:2:0 color space). My point was that when DV was being adopted there really wasn't a similar (and affordable) format to compete with it and it had many benefits compared to the drawbacks. HDV has worse color space, long GOP and compressed audio, the only thing it has going for it is a bigger picture. Now we have HDV and HD, of the two I'd rather have HD. Now that there is promise of this new Panny camera, I can't wait. Why would I buy a long GOP format that taxes my hardware more for less quality? I can run DVCProHD with less headache and a much better image for not much more money. That's where I was coming from. (and all of this without even having a distribution method other than broadcast)

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Betsy Moore

Well, Kevin in answer to your question, I got a new credit card just to buy an editing computer and I'm trying to decide between Mac an PC for HD/HDV editing with my FX1. Even though I hate how expensive Apples are I'm slightly leaning to them so that I can get good at a marketable skill like Final Cut.

Betsy: I personally think there are more and better options for HDV editing on the PC platform, but the latest FCP5 solution looks decent enough. If you want to develop marketable skills, make sure you know what's used in your area for the type of video work you plan to do. Depending on that, either Avid or Premiere may make as much sense as FCP.

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Rhett Allen

Why would I buy a long GOP format that taxes my hardware more for less quality?

I did a cost analysis for the DVX200 compared to Sony HDV and came up with these figures:

The FX1 costs about $3000 and can record one hour of 1080i video on a $3 miniDV tape.

The HVX200 will cost $6000 and can record eight minutes of 720p video on a $1700 memory card, plus you need some way to offload the data from those cards to a more affordable storage device and someone to manage that process while another person runs the camera.

Clearly these are not comparable in terms of either price or workflow. And although most of us here will probably be able to spot the difference between HDV and DVCProHD, that difference won't be as noticeable to most people as the difference between HDV and DV on a good HDTV display. So HDV will definitely have a place for affordable high-definition videography, and people who can afford $1700 memory cards will enjoy using the Panny. Which is more desirable depends on your budget and intended audience.