HDV, what's the point at the moment?

Daymon Hoffman · October 9th, 2004, 07:24 AM

I don think anyone is claiming it cant do a job. I say again... i'm not saying (and i dont think any one else thats noted there concern for lack of quality) that it cant be some good or do some good. But at the end of the day a 128kbit MP3 file has flaws... and my HANDS ON experience tells me a 384kbit one thats been run thru a few re-encodes does to.

Something tells me its just going ot be a manufacturer driven product. they creat it regardless of its quality and just force it onto the majority of none learnered consumers that dont know any different - then a "standard" is born. bleh.

I'm excited about (as i always have been) about HDV. Or maybe i shoudl say i'm excited that its HD and disapointed that its turned into HDV becuase at least it gives me a chance to get something of greater quality. I dont want ot hear crap about "if you're not a pro you have no right to quality equipment/needs". Thats just rubbish.

I'm a prosumer and i expect quality soi expect to provide it or possess it if i do something. I do NOT feel it is a must for me to spend millions to simply have some quality and useability. i work in manufacturing... for our customers we must have greater designs and create much greater quality for much cheaper and much faster then the day before. So why cant they? So Enough of "its cool/desirable lets up the price"!

/end rant :P

Chris Hurd · October 9th, 2004, 07:34 AM

Good points Daymon, but HDV isn't being "forced" onto the majority. In the long run, the buyer decides what he or she wants to buy. HDV is one of a number of choices offered. It's not being "foisted" upon the market because the market can simply choose not to buy it. If HDV doesn't look good to you (I've seen it and it looks great to me) then you could choose to rent HDCAM or DVCPro HD for your production, or shoot very good quality 16:9 SD (and there are several great options for this).

Daymon Hoffman · October 9th, 2004, 07:39 AM

hi Chris,

But you see it is being forced. There is NO other optoin to buy HD. I want HD... i'm not going to spend amillion dollars to do so (why should i?). So i have no choice but to buy HDV. Does this explain my angle a bit clearer? (i'm rushed.. should be in bed! hehe)

Is there a higher quality camera (on the horizon even) that will shoot HD but in less lossy (lol) format? nope = no choice :(

Kinda like check mate. We dontbuy.. we dont get anything. We buy and at least get something.. but its not what we really want. Enter "ARGH GGRRR" feelings. hehe

Graeme Nattress · October 9th, 2004, 08:14 AM

I think the problem is that all the current HD options are really quite heavily compressed. There is currently no "perfect" option, even on the horizon, short of the highly expensive HDCAM SR option from Sony. DVCProHD from the Varicam is very compressed. It's compressed more so than DV even! I don't think that normal HDCAM is much better, and both are very expensive. However both of these pro formats come with superb cameras, and you can put great pictures with them.

So far a lot of us have seen HDV only on the little JVC camera, the HD1 or HD10, and that's no way to judge a tape format! Remember when DV came out?? We thought that DV stood for "Dreadful Video", but then, as better cameras came out, and firewire editing solutions matured, it's now the affordable format of choice, and we know, that as a tape format, it's superior to BetaSP!

HDV has a long way to go. As MPEG2 encoders improve, the picture from future cameras will also improve - that's an open-ended technology. The 50i on the FX-1 will allow a better picture as less frames are recorded per second, and that will also help. Better cameras from JVC and Sony are also on their way out. It's an exciting time, and yes, I know that a lot of people, including myself, were dissapointed with the intitial offerings, but then again, I didn't buy a first gen DV camera either....

Personally, I'd love to see an H.264 (MPEG4) based camera that records direct to P2 type memory, and a nice XDCAM based HD mastering solution, but that's just me living in cloud cuckoo land.

Graeme

Simon Wyndham · October 9th, 2004, 08:23 AM

Daymon, that's how I feel. It's been established to me that the picture compression is on par with DV, which isn't perfect, but for low budget programme and filmmaking it's okay.

But now I am a bit annoyed at the 960 lines upconversion of the FX1. What we need is a full HD spec camera with square pixels. 16:9 pixels are good for shooting anamorphic on a 4:3 format. But I thought the point of HD was to have full 16:9 resolution?

Some company like Panasonic is sure to come up with something soon making the interpolation of the Sony look like the frame mode of the Canon cameras when the DVX came along.

Graeme Nattress · October 9th, 2004, 08:27 AM

The 960 pixels is a non-issue:

1) it uses pixel shift to validly create the 1440 resolution needed by the HDV format. Remember the HDCAm used by Lucas for SW II, was 1440 horiz rez.

2) Practically no HD monitoring gear shows full 1920 horizontal rez anyway. Practically nobody at home can see that rez.

Graeme

Simon Wyndham · October 9th, 2004, 08:38 AM

Surely pixel shift is the same method Canon used for frame mode, except in the case of the FX 1 used horizontally?

Even still, although the resolutions are impressive (though not deinterlaced!) I think waiting for the second gen might be better. I don't think that HDV is fully there for filmmakers yet.

I'm being told constantly that I shouldn't judge on figures and specifications. But by the same token a lot of people are jumping on the HDV bandwagon as if there are no problems at all and that it is a total saviour that will render everything else totally obsolete really quickly.

I don't like hype. There's always a catch. And while I am told I should see the picture for myself, I would also like to see it side by side next to an ENG SD camera with broadcast optics.

The way I see it, if the FX1 really does have such a superior picture all in all, then why haven't Sony reduced the price of their XDCAMs, and even the DSR-570 down to $2000? Those cameras do not come with lenses, so this isn't about how much the lenses cost. If those cameras produce a less good picture than the FX1 then there is no reason why the camera bodies shouldn't cost less than the FX1.

That's why I think there's a catch. After all, what kind of organisation is going to consider an XDCAM or a DSR570 when they can get a better picture from something costing less than a quarter of the price? Sony might as well take those cameras off the market right now if that is the case.

Do you see why i am slightly sceptical of the overall real world quality?

Chris Hurd · October 9th, 2004, 08:48 AM

Pixel shift technology belongs to Panasonic, not Canon. Panasonic has been using pixel shift for about a decade before Canon started using it.

<< what kind of organisation is going to consider an XDCAM or a DSR570 when they can get a better picture from something costing less than a quarter of the price? >>

The difference in image quality is going to be so subtle that most people won't be able to spot it. The vast number of other practical advantages in professional cameras recording in XDCAM (or DVCPro 50 or whatever) far, far outweigh any subtle improvement that HDV may have.

There's so much more to the equation than pixels.

Simon Wyndham · October 9th, 2004, 08:51 AM

Chris, you have hit the nail on the head there. And this your comments on the broadcast cameras are exactly what I have been trying to say to some HDV supporters who have been telling me that the FX1 produces a much better picture than the XDCAM. thank you. Someone finally understands!

October 9th, 2004, 07:24 AM	#31
Daymon Hoffman Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 267	I don think anyone is claiming it cant do a job. I say again... i'm not saying (and i dont think any one else thats noted there concern for lack of quality) that it cant be some good or do some good. But at the end of the day a 128kbit MP3 file has flaws... and my HANDS ON experience tells me a 384kbit one thats been run thru a few re-encodes does to. Something tells me its just going ot be a manufacturer driven product. they creat it regardless of its quality and just force it onto the majority of none learnered consumers that dont know any different - then a "standard" is born. bleh. I'm excited about (as i always have been) about HDV. Or maybe i shoudl say i'm excited that its HD and disapointed that its turned into HDV becuase at least it gives me a chance to get something of greater quality. I dont want ot hear crap about "if you're not a pro you have no right to quality equipment/needs". Thats just rubbish. I'm a prosumer and i expect quality soi expect to provide it or possess it if i do something. I do NOT feel it is a must for me to spend millions to simply have some quality and useability. i work in manufacturing... for our customers we must have greater designs and create much greater quality for much cheaper and much faster then the day before. So why cant they? So Enough of "its cool/desirable lets up the price"! /end rant :P __________________ Welcome... to the real world!

October 9th, 2004, 07:34 AM	#32
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Good points Daymon, but HDV isn't being "forced" onto the majority. In the long run, the buyer decides what he or she wants to buy. HDV is one of a number of choices offered. It's not being "foisted" upon the market because the market can simply choose not to buy it. If HDV doesn't look good to you (I've seen it and it looks great to me) then you could choose to rent HDCAM or DVCPro HD for your production, or shoot very good quality 16:9 SD (and there are several great options for this). __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

October 9th, 2004, 07:39 AM	#33
Daymon Hoffman Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 267	hi Chris, But you see it is being forced. There is NO other optoin to buy HD. I want HD... i'm not going to spend amillion dollars to do so (why should i?). So i have no choice but to buy HDV. Does this explain my angle a bit clearer? (i'm rushed.. should be in bed! hehe) Is there a higher quality camera (on the horizon even) that will shoot HD but in less lossy (lol) format? nope = no choice :( Kinda like check mate. We dontbuy.. we dont get anything. We buy and at least get something.. but its not what we really want. Enter "ARGH GGRRR" feelings. hehe __________________ Welcome... to the real world!

October 9th, 2004, 08:14 AM	#34
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	I think the problem is that all the current HD options are really quite heavily compressed. There is currently no "perfect" option, even on the horizon, short of the highly expensive HDCAM SR option from Sony. DVCProHD from the Varicam is very compressed. It's compressed more so than DV even! I don't think that normal HDCAM is much better, and both are very expensive. However both of these pro formats come with superb cameras, and you can put great pictures with them. So far a lot of us have seen HDV only on the little JVC camera, the HD1 or HD10, and that's no way to judge a tape format! Remember when DV came out?? We thought that DV stood for "Dreadful Video", but then, as better cameras came out, and firewire editing solutions matured, it's now the affordable format of choice, and we know, that as a tape format, it's superior to BetaSP! HDV has a long way to go. As MPEG2 encoders improve, the picture from future cameras will also improve - that's an open-ended technology. The 50i on the FX-1 will allow a better picture as less frames are recorded per second, and that will also help. Better cameras from JVC and Sony are also on their way out. It's an exciting time, and yes, I know that a lot of people, including myself, were dissapointed with the intitial offerings, but then again, I didn't buy a first gen DV camera either.... Personally, I'd love to see an H.264 (MPEG4) based camera that records direct to P2 type memory, and a nice XDCAM based HD mastering solution, but that's just me living in cloud cuckoo land. Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

October 9th, 2004, 08:27 AM	#36
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	The 960 pixels is a non-issue: 1) it uses pixel shift to validly create the 1440 resolution needed by the HDV format. Remember the HDCAm used by Lucas for SW II, was 1440 horiz rez. 2) Practically no HD monitoring gear shows full 1920 horizontal rez anyway. Practically nobody at home can see that rez. Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

October 9th, 2004, 08:23 AM	#35
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	Daymon, that's how I feel. It's been established to me that the picture compression is on par with DV, which isn't perfect, but for low budget programme and filmmaking it's okay. But now I am a bit annoyed at the 960 lines upconversion of the FX1. What we need is a full HD spec camera with square pixels. 16:9 pixels are good for shooting anamorphic on a 4:3 format. But I thought the point of HD was to have full 16:9 resolution? Some company like Panasonic is sure to come up with something soon making the interpolation of the Sony look like the frame mode of the Canon cameras when the DVX came along.

October 9th, 2004, 08:38 AM	#37
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	Surely pixel shift is the same method Canon used for frame mode, except in the case of the FX 1 used horizontally? Even still, although the resolutions are impressive (though not deinterlaced!) I think waiting for the second gen might be better. I don't think that HDV is fully there for filmmakers yet. I'm being told constantly that I shouldn't judge on figures and specifications. But by the same token a lot of people are jumping on the HDV bandwagon as if there are no problems at all and that it is a total saviour that will render everything else totally obsolete really quickly. I don't like hype. There's always a catch. And while I am told I should see the picture for myself, I would also like to see it side by side next to an ENG SD camera with broadcast optics. The way I see it, if the FX1 really does have such a superior picture all in all, then why haven't Sony reduced the price of their XDCAMs, and even the DSR-570 down to $2000? Those cameras do not come with lenses, so this isn't about how much the lenses cost. If those cameras produce a less good picture than the FX1 then there is no reason why the camera bodies shouldn't cost less than the FX1. That's why I think there's a catch. After all, what kind of organisation is going to consider an XDCAM or a DSR570 when they can get a better picture from something costing less than a quarter of the price? Sony might as well take those cameras off the market right now if that is the case. Do you see why i am slightly sceptical of the overall real world quality?

October 9th, 2004, 08:48 AM	#38
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Pixel shift technology belongs to Panasonic, not Canon. Panasonic has been using pixel shift for about a decade before Canon started using it. << what kind of organisation is going to consider an XDCAM or a DSR570 when they can get a better picture from something costing less than a quarter of the price? >> The difference in image quality is going to be so subtle that most people won't be able to spot it. The vast number of other practical advantages in professional cameras recording in XDCAM (or DVCPro 50 or whatever) far, far outweigh any subtle improvement that HDV may have. There's so much more to the equation than pixels. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

October 9th, 2004, 08:51 AM	#39
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	Chris, you have hit the nail on the head there. And this your comments on the broadcast cameras are exactly what I have been trying to say to some HDV supporters who have been telling me that the FX1 produces a much better picture than the XDCAM. thank you. Someone finally understands!