Making the switch? at DVinfo.net

Alex Sprinkle · September 11th, 2007, 12:51 PM

I've been using SD for a couple of years now, but I'm really considering selling my 2 SD cameras and trying out my hand at HD. But I remember back when I bought my GL2 in 2003 that HD was pretty much "of the future" even though it was already there. The guy was trying to convince me to go HD (and I'm glad I didn't, as Mandy, my GL2, has served me well), but I was going to have to buy convertor boxes, extra cables and an HD editor (I was on an old version of Premiere).

Fast Forward to September 2007.

I'm now running Final Cut Studio, which handle HD, right? So I guess my question is this: What components do I need to really start in HD, other than the camera? I mean, can I just get a camera and pick up exactly where I am? I honestly know NOTHING about HD. I don't even know the difference between HD and HDV. Please don't stone me ...

Chris Barcellos · September 11th, 2007, 01:19 PM

Basic Lesson 1:

HD is general reference to High Definition which can mean anything higher in definition than the Standard Definition you are using now.

Simplified, HDV refers to a variety of HD that uses the mpeg codec to produce an HD picture. Mpeg files are based on GOP (group of pictures) that share information that is interpreted to produce the individual frames at play back. There might be one full frame in 15, with the other 14 just substituting changed pixels, as interpreted by information received from the camera. The benefit of that is you can record HD in the same amount of space you have for SD, on the same type of tape. In most current HDV systems, HDV is captured, depending on your camera system, in either 1280 x 720 (720p) or 1440 x 1080 interlaced (1080i), with an elongated pixel that will produce a 1920 x 1080 picture.

Purists decry HDV, claiming it does not accurately reproduce the images. They prefer methods of capture to obtain frame accurate recording. All come at higher prices because more complex systems may be required to capture. Tape capture appears to be impracticalfor the amount of informmation that needs to be layed down. So media card, optical disk, and hard drive capturing has been developed, and continues to be developed.

If you want to start small, pick up a Canon HV20, for less that $1000, and you will get into HDV right away. You haven't indicated what system resources are, so it is hard to say whether you need to upgrade that, but HDV does require more processing power. A lot of us actually shoot HDV, then capture with Cineform NeoHDV. That process provides many benefits, and produces a file that is more easily edited, albeit, larger. I understand NeoHDV is available in the Apple platform, now...

Alex Sprinkle · September 11th, 2007, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

Basic Lesson 1:

HD is general reference to High Definition which can mean anything higher in definition than the Standard Definition you are using now.

Simplified, HDV refers to a variety of HD that uses the mpeg codec to produce an HD picture. Mpeg files are based on GOP (group of pictures) that share information that is interpreted to produce the individual frames at play back. There might be one full frame in 15, with the other 14 just substituting changed pixels, as interpreted by information received from the camera. The benefit of that is you can record HD in the same amount of space you have for SD, on the same type of tape. In most current HDV systems, HDV is captured, depending on your camera system, in either 1280 x 720 (720p) or 1440 x 1080 interlaced (1080i), with an elongated pixel that will produce a 1920 x 1080 picture.

Purists decry HDV, claiming it does not accurately reproduce the images. They prefer methods of capture to obtain frame accurate recording. All come at higher prices because more complex systems may be required to capture. Tape capture appears to be impracticalfor the amount of informmation that needs to be layed down. So media card, optical disk, and hard drive capturing has been developed, and continues to be developed.

If you want to start small, pick up a Canon HV20, for less that $1000, and you will get into HDV right away. You haven't indicated what system resources are, so it is hard to say whether you need to upgrade that, but HDV does require more processing power. A lot of us actually shoot HDV, then capture with Cineform NeoHDV. That process provides many benefits, and produces a file that is more easily edited, albeit, larger. I understand NeoHDV is available in the Apple platform, now...

Model Name: Mac Pro
Processor Name: Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Processor Speed: 2.66 GHz
Number Of Processors: 2
Total Number Of Cores: 4
L2 Cache (per processor): 4 MB
Memory: 2 GB
Bus Speed: 1.33 GHzmac pro

Does that help? What is Cineform NeoHD? I'm also not looking at an HD camera to get by with. I know it'll cost, but I want something I'll be happy wtih. I'm looking at the XHA1 as of right now until someone tells me differently. That's just what I'm liking as of now, though.

Kevin Shaw · September 11th, 2007, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Sprinkle

What components do I need to really start in HD, other than the camera?

You'll want to make sure your editing software is up to date and find out if it's fully compatible with the camera you want to buy, which isn't as simple as with DV because a single camera may have several different recording modes - and not all modes are supported by every editing program. You may also want to upgrade your computer video card and monitor so you can view your footage at full resolution while editing, and you'll probably want a consumer HDTV for checking how things look on that. And you'll probably want some way to save and play your finished HD projects on the HDTV, which could be done by recording back to the camera or using something like an Apple TV or Sony Playstation 3. Eventually you may want a Blu-ray burner once Apple supports those in DVD Studio Pro, or if you want to make a Blu-ray disc now you'll have to get some other software capable of doing that.

By the way, as Chris noted HDV is a type of HD video, just as DV is type of SD video. Some purists will debate that point, but it would be tough to find a definition of HD which didn't include HDV.

Alex Sprinkle · September 11th, 2007, 03:06 PM

If I make a HD disc (do they have to be burned on special discs?), can I play it on a regular DVD play, but it'll just show up in SD? Is that even possible?

Graham Hickling · September 11th, 2007, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Sprinkle

If I make a HD disc (do they have to be burned on special discs?), can I play it on a regular DVD play, but it'll just show up in SD? Is that even possible?

1) Regular DVD players cannot play BluRay or HD-DVD disks, which is what commercial high definition content comes on.

2) High def players can play HD disks and also 'regular' DVDs. (Some can play both the BlueRay and HD-DVD formats, but most play either one or the other)

3) All commercial 'regular' DVDs carry standard definition MPEG2 footage.

4) Some folks have put high-definition MPEG2 material onto home-made 'regular' DVDs using a normal red-lazer DVD burner, and then been able to play these disks on some (but not all) of the high def players. However, the process is not altogether straightforward, and the disks only hold 20min or so of footage.

Hope that helped rather than confused you more.

Robert Ducon · September 12th, 2007, 12:03 AM

Video shot properly in HD will often look sharper than video from a regular SD camera when properly down-scaled to SD from HD. HDV can look very good when scaled down.

I often shoot HD (often HDV) for clients wishing SD final masters - gives greater resolution, and doesn't impact my work flow that much in the end (also a Mac Pro user) and I have more HD footage to show future clients that make the push to HD as well. Basically, I only shoot in the 1080i (or 1080P) HD spec, which is the higher quality of the two HD resolutions. The two 'standard' HD resolutions that camera's often shoot in are 1920x1080 and the less popular 1280x720.

Chris Soucy · September 12th, 2007, 01:51 AM

One thing that is continually overlooked with the upgrade from SD to HD (of any variety) is that the support systems used to actually capture the footage need (absolutely) to upgrade with it.

That "so so" tripod and head system which has been "OK' up till now will, in very short order, become such an embarrasment to you and your footage, you will have no choice but to upgrade to seriously Pro gear. This is NOT a cheap upgrade. A decent tripod and head suitable for HD (of any variety) is going to set you back anywhere from $1,000 to $7,000!

Ditto the editing system (if yours is more than 2 years old, it's basically cactus).

A decent HD screen to watch you video is not cheap. Yep, you can buy a Dell HD (computer monitor) screen pretty cheap, but it doesn't look anything like the picture on a "real" HDTV.

The fact that there is still (shame on the entire industry) not a viable delivery system for HD content (less you're REALLY playing with the big boys) is a disgrace, but an unfortunate fact of life.

I, luckily, am in the position where I can shoot HD every day, in the knowledge that the HD will (one day) be worth a mint, and thus don't rely on it as an income source.

Shooting HD and downressing to SD is seriously popular, tho' I cannot see that as an incentive neccessarily to make the switch.

In short, don't rush headlong into HD (V) less you are in the middle of an upgrade cycle and wish to do so (and have the readies to make the most of it).

I've just done it, and the figure so far (and still seriously counting) is heading skywards at a frightening rate (Think: What could I buy a new house for? - and you'd be close).

Just in case anyone takes this the wrong way - this is a "Pro" system I'm setting up from scratch, having ditched SD altogether. TheHDVCo is proving a very expensive little beast to get airborne!

Don't know if this has helped any, but being aware of some of the "we don't talk about that sort of thing here" issues is never a bad thing.

On a positive note - the images I'm archiveing from my A1 and HV20 are so absolutely stunning, it's worth every red cent it's cost to get here. But it isn't just the images, the sound had to go up - heck, everything had to go up to "Pro" standard, and that costs.

As always (especially with this post) it's IMPO, but just something to be aware of.

Good Luck!

CS

September 11th, 2007, 12:51 PM	#1
Alex Sprinkle Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Moore, Oklahoma Posts: 408	Making the switch? I've been using SD for a couple of years now, but I'm really considering selling my 2 SD cameras and trying out my hand at HD. But I remember back when I bought my GL2 in 2003 that HD was pretty much "of the future" even though it was already there. The guy was trying to convince me to go HD (and I'm glad I didn't, as Mandy, my GL2, has served me well), but I was going to have to buy convertor boxes, extra cables and an HD editor (I was on an old version of Premiere). Fast Forward to September 2007. I'm now running Final Cut Studio, which handle HD, right? So I guess my question is this: What components do I need to really start in HD, other than the camera? I mean, can I just get a camera and pick up exactly where I am? I honestly know NOTHING about HD. I don't even know the difference between HD and HDV. Please don't stone me ...

September 11th, 2007, 01:19 PM	#2
Chris Barcellos Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Elk Grove CA Posts: 6,838	Basic Lesson 1: HD is general reference to High Definition which can mean anything higher in definition than the Standard Definition you are using now. Simplified, HDV refers to a variety of HD that uses the mpeg codec to produce an HD picture. Mpeg files are based on GOP (group of pictures) that share information that is interpreted to produce the individual frames at play back. There might be one full frame in 15, with the other 14 just substituting changed pixels, as interpreted by information received from the camera. The benefit of that is you can record HD in the same amount of space you have for SD, on the same type of tape. In most current HDV systems, HDV is captured, depending on your camera system, in either 1280 x 720 (720p) or 1440 x 1080 interlaced (1080i), with an elongated pixel that will produce a 1920 x 1080 picture. Purists decry HDV, claiming it does not accurately reproduce the images. They prefer methods of capture to obtain frame accurate recording. All come at higher prices because more complex systems may be required to capture. Tape capture appears to be impracticalfor the amount of informmation that needs to be layed down. So media card, optical disk, and hard drive capturing has been developed, and continues to be developed. If you want to start small, pick up a Canon HV20, for less that $1000, and you will get into HDV right away. You haven't indicated what system resources are, so it is hard to say whether you need to upgrade that, but HDV does require more processing power. A lot of us actually shoot HDV, then capture with Cineform NeoHDV. That process provides many benefits, and produces a file that is more easily edited, albeit, larger. I understand NeoHDV is available in the Apple platform, now... __________________ Chris J. Barcellos

September 12th, 2007, 12:03 AM	#7
Robert Ducon Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Victoria BC Posts: 400	Video shot properly in HD will often look sharper than video from a regular SD camera when properly down-scaled to SD from HD. HDV can look very good when scaled down. I often shoot HD (often HDV) for clients wishing SD final masters - gives greater resolution, and doesn't impact my work flow that much in the end (also a Mac Pro user) and I have more HD footage to show future clients that make the push to HD as well. Basically, I only shoot in the 1080i (or 1080P) HD spec, which is the higher quality of the two HD resolutions. The two 'standard' HD resolutions that camera's often shoot in are 1920x1080 and the less popular 1280x720. __________________ Mac + Canon HV20

September 12th, 2007, 01:51 AM	#8
Chris Soucy Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Fairfield, Dunedin, New Zealand Posts: 3,691 Images: 18	Hi Alex........... One thing that is continually overlooked with the upgrade from SD to HD (of any variety) is that the support systems used to actually capture the footage need (absolutely) to upgrade with it. That "so so" tripod and head system which has been "OK' up till now will, in very short order, become such an embarrasment to you and your footage, you will have no choice but to upgrade to seriously Pro gear. This is NOT a cheap upgrade. A decent tripod and head suitable for HD (of any variety) is going to set you back anywhere from $1,000 to $7,000! Ditto the editing system (if yours is more than 2 years old, it's basically cactus). A decent HD screen to watch you video is not cheap. Yep, you can buy a Dell HD (computer monitor) screen pretty cheap, but it doesn't look anything like the picture on a "real" HDTV. The fact that there is still (shame on the entire industry) not a viable delivery system for HD content (less you're REALLY playing with the big boys) is a disgrace, but an unfortunate fact of life. I, luckily, am in the position where I can shoot HD every day, in the knowledge that the HD will (one day) be worth a mint, and thus don't rely on it as an income source. Shooting HD and downressing to SD is seriously popular, tho' I cannot see that as an incentive neccessarily to make the switch. In short, don't rush headlong into HD (V) less you are in the middle of an upgrade cycle and wish to do so (and have the readies to make the most of it). I've just done it, and the figure so far (and still seriously counting) is heading skywards at a frightening rate (Think: What could I buy a new house for? - and you'd be close). Just in case anyone takes this the wrong way - this is a "Pro" system I'm setting up from scratch, having ditched SD altogether. TheHDVCo is proving a very expensive little beast to get airborne! Don't know if this has helped any, but being aware of some of the "we don't talk about that sort of thing here" issues is never a bad thing. On a positive note - the images I'm archiveing from my A1 and HV20 are so absolutely stunning, it's worth every red cent it's cost to get here. But it isn't just the images, the sound had to go up - heck, everything had to go up to "Pro" standard, and that costs. As always (especially with this post) it's IMPO, but just something to be aware of. Good Luck! CS

September 11th, 2007, 03:06 PM	#5
Alex Sprinkle Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Moore, Oklahoma Posts: 408	If I make a HD disc (do they have to be burned on special discs?), can I play it on a regular DVD play, but it'll just show up in SD? Is that even possible?