A technologists view of HDV

Darrell Essex · January 19th, 2005, 05:24 PM

what you would need is to have your computer on location so you could swap cards every few minutes.
? if you just had firewire external hard drives, you would still be able to transfer the uncompressed video on to them wouldn't you?
then when you get to your main system with a fast raid, you could move the files over.
does this sound like it would work?

Kevin Dooley · January 19th, 2005, 05:27 PM

Could, it's just one more person to have on hand to transfer files all day... but possible.

David Kennett · January 20th, 2005, 08:08 PM

My guess is that JVC held the data rate low to make the TS fully compatable with the broadcast ATSC stream (19.6 Mb/s maximum I think).

I used to be a 1080i fan, but I am being converted to 720p. No problem converting frame rates - stills look great - etc. With Fox going 720p, the big 4 networks are now split.

Also - it's tough to evaluate interlaced material on a progressive monitor (motion-wise). Things just don't look the same.

Interesting discussion though!

Bob Costa · January 20th, 2005, 09:23 PM

Cranking up the speed on a DV tape might solve many problems, Tapes are still cheap, but only 30 minute capacity for that totally lightweight-mobile solution. Wireless-G can handle 54MBps (maybe??), which would allow a wireless cam-to-computer link for direct storage and no capture before editing. Could easily be the preferred mode for studio work.. And a portable 1TB disk smaller than a battery pack (or including a battery pack) is just over the next horizon, which would give 30-40 hours of record time and no capture/transfer, while being more mobile than a computer. Sony could go to a 4-6 GOB, and JVC could go to 1080p with capacity to spare. Maybe even have room for a better audio compression mode too.

I think thats gonna be my prediction for next generation HDV. LOL :)

Steven White · January 20th, 2005, 11:01 PM

Personally, I hope the HD broadcasting favours 1080i... I don't really care about interlaced video, but I do want the standard for film transfers to be to 1080 @ 24p. I'd be really sad to see the industry favour a 720p format in the long term.

While I bought an FX1, I consider it an intermediate camera until a true 1920x1080 24p camera with minimal or no compression comes out.

-Steve

Kevin Dooley · January 21st, 2005, 02:50 AM

So, you don't really favor 1080i then...you're in favor of a 1080p standard... Which, hey, if we could have the best of both worlds (progressive scan with the temporal motion characteristics of both 24fps and 60fps plus 1920x1080), who wouldn't be for that? But now you're talking a whole crap load (that's a technical term of course) of information for our computers to choke down

Davi Dortas · January 21st, 2005, 03:07 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Steven White : While I bought an FX1, I consider it an intermediate camera until a true 1920x1080 24p camera with minimal or no compression comes out.>>>

Expect to wait a decade, at least.

Toke Lahti · January 21st, 2005, 03:25 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by John Galt: Cranking up the speed on a DV tape might solve many problems, Tapes are still cheap, but only 30 minute capacity for that totally lightweight-mobile solution. -->>>

If you use 80min tapes, you get 40 minits and that seems to be enaough for digibeta and hdcam cameras, so what's the problem?

Toke Lahti · January 21st, 2005, 03:28 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Davi Dortas : <<<-- Originally posted by Steven White : While I bought an FX1, I consider it an intermediate camera until a true 1920x1080 24p camera with minimal or no compression comes out.>>> Expect to wait a decade, at least. -->>>

Or untill March. Sumix with Altasens should be out then. Then all we need is someone like Decklink to manufacture portable hard disks with hd-sdi and that's it...

Bob Costa · January 21st, 2005, 05:22 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Toke Lahti :
If you use 80min tapes, you get 40 minits and that seems to be enaough for digibeta and hdcam cameras, so what's the problem? -->>>

It works for me. Thats why I think that will be generation HDV2 (along with a direct-capture of some sort).

Kevin Shaw · January 21st, 2005, 09:01 AM

From a pure technology perspective HDV is pushing the limits of what should work well, but most accounts from people who have actually bought an FX1 are that they're very pleased with the results. This reminds me of the claim that according to our best aerodynamic theories, bees shouldn't be able to fly...but son of a gun if theren't aren't billions of them flying happily around every single day!

There are rumors that Panasonic is planning a prosumer-priced video camera which records full DVCProHD quality, and if they can deliver on that this will surely be the camera of choice for people who aren't happy with HDV. But with HDV already fairly well established and Panasonic apparently planning to use expensive solid-state recording, this poses no threat to HDV as the "poor man's HD" for at least the next few years. So we could have a split develop where low-priced videographers use HDV and premium videographers use DVCProHD, but the latter will definitely need to charge more.

Steven White · January 21st, 2005, 12:06 PM

>>But now you're talking a whole crap load (that's a technical term of course) of information for our computers to choke down<<

I'm not talking about today's computers. I'm talking about tomorrows computers... and I fully expect my FX1 to last me at least 5 years.

What we're talking about is storage and bandwidth limitations - which are still growing quite happily. The fact of the matter is that I process most of the footage coming out of my camera as if it was 1440x1080p uncompressed video, using DV proxies for a lot of the interrum work, as I don't have enough cash to upgrade my editing and FX system.

It's slow - it's painful - but it's possible. In time it will all get easier.

For that matter - I don't so much care about 1080 @ 60p standard. I'm perfectly happy letting the data rate per frame drop to 540 @ 60p for the higher temporal resolution.

-Steve

Fred Foronda · February 8th, 2005, 03:03 PM

as someone stated in an earlier post...this ain't making it any easy to choose. One thing I am for the fx1 is the native is 16:9

Kevin Dooley · February 8th, 2005, 04:44 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Steven White : >>For that matter - I don't so much care about 1080 @ 60p standard. I'm perfectly happy letting the data rate per frame drop to 540 @ 60p for the higher temporal resolution.
-Steve -->>>

I almost agree with you... I just don't think we need to drop down to 540, when there's already a standard for 720 @ 60p. I'll go for that standard, once a camera actually does it...

Steven White · February 9th, 2005, 09:12 AM

1920x540 = 1037k
1280x720 = 922k

So @ 60 fps, a 1080i signal still has more information per frame - it just ends up in the horizontal dimension. I'd be pretty sad if the industry adopts the 1280x720 standard. And just think, for 30p material the 1920x1080 standard offers more than twice the resolution.

Fortunately, I think the introduction of 1440x1080i camcorders like the FX1 will make a push towards higher resolution displays.

-Steve

January 19th, 2005, 05:24 PM	#31
Darrell Essex Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: kelseyville, ca Posts: 123	what you would need is to have your computer on location so you could swap cards every few minutes. ? if you just had firewire external hard drives, you would still be able to transfer the uncompressed video on to them wouldn't you? then when you get to your main system with a fast raid, you could move the files over. does this sound like it would work? __________________ darrell

January 19th, 2005, 05:27 PM	#32
Kevin Dooley Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 414	Could, it's just one more person to have on hand to transfer files all day... but possible. __________________ Kevin Dooley Media Director, Pantego Bible Church

January 20th, 2005, 08:08 PM	#33
David Kennett Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Ridgeville, Ohio Posts: 407	My guess is that JVC held the data rate low to make the TS fully compatable with the broadcast ATSC stream (19.6 Mb/s maximum I think). I used to be a 1080i fan, but I am being converted to 720p. No problem converting frame rates - stills look great - etc. With Fox going 720p, the big 4 networks are now split. Also - it's tough to evaluate interlaced material on a progressive monitor (motion-wise). Things just don't look the same. Interesting discussion though! __________________ Dave

January 20th, 2005, 09:23 PM	#34
Bob Costa Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Venice, FL Posts: 850	Cranking up the speed on a DV tape might solve many problems, Tapes are still cheap, but only 30 minute capacity for that totally lightweight-mobile solution. Wireless-G can handle 54MBps (maybe??), which would allow a wireless cam-to-computer link for direct storage and no capture before editing. Could easily be the preferred mode for studio work.. And a portable 1TB disk smaller than a battery pack (or including a battery pack) is just over the next horizon, which would give 30-40 hours of record time and no capture/transfer, while being more mobile than a computer. Sony could go to a 4-6 GOB, and JVC could go to 1080p with capacity to spare. Maybe even have room for a better audio compression mode too. I think thats gonna be my prediction for next generation HDV. LOL :) __________________ You are either growing or dying.

January 21st, 2005, 02:50 AM	#36
Kevin Dooley Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 414	So, you don't really favor 1080i then...you're in favor of a 1080p standard... Which, hey, if we could have the best of both worlds (progressive scan with the temporal motion characteristics of both 24fps and 60fps plus 1920x1080), who wouldn't be for that? But now you're talking a whole crap load (that's a technical term of course) of information for our computers to choke down __________________ Kevin Dooley Media Director, Pantego Bible Church

January 20th, 2005, 11:01 PM	#35
Steven White Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 547	Personally, I hope the HD broadcasting favours 1080i... I don't really care about interlaced video, but I do want the standard for film transfers to be to 1080 @ 24p. I'd be really sad to see the industry favour a 720p format in the long term. While I bought an FX1, I consider it an intermediate camera until a true 1920x1080 24p camera with minimal or no compression comes out. -Steve

January 21st, 2005, 03:07 AM	#37
Davi Dortas Membership Suspended Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Brazil Posts: 78	<<<-- Originally posted by Steven White : While I bought an FX1, I consider it an intermediate camera until a true 1920x1080 24p camera with minimal or no compression comes out.>>> Expect to wait a decade, at least.

January 21st, 2005, 03:25 AM	#38
Toke Lahti Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 158	<<<-- Originally posted by John Galt: Cranking up the speed on a DV tape might solve many problems, Tapes are still cheap, but only 30 minute capacity for that totally lightweight-mobile solution. -->>> If you use 80min tapes, you get 40 minits and that seems to be enaough for digibeta and hdcam cameras, so what's the problem?

January 21st, 2005, 03:28 AM	#39
Toke Lahti Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 158	<<<-- Originally posted by Davi Dortas : <<<-- Originally posted by Steven White : While I bought an FX1, I consider it an intermediate camera until a true 1920x1080 24p camera with minimal or no compression comes out.>>> Expect to wait a decade, at least. -->>> Or untill March. Sumix with Altasens should be out then. Then all we need is someone like Decklink to manufacture portable hard disks with hd-sdi and that's it...

January 21st, 2005, 05:22 AM	#40
Bob Costa Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Venice, FL Posts: 850	<<<-- Originally posted by Toke Lahti : If you use 80min tapes, you get 40 minits and that seems to be enaough for digibeta and hdcam cameras, so what's the problem? -->>> It works for me. Thats why I think that will be generation HDV2 (along with a direct-capture of some sort). __________________ You are either growing or dying.

January 21st, 2005, 09:01 AM	#41
Kevin Shaw Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,488	From a pure technology perspective HDV is pushing the limits of what should work well, but most accounts from people who have actually bought an FX1 are that they're very pleased with the results. This reminds me of the claim that according to our best aerodynamic theories, bees shouldn't be able to fly...but son of a gun if theren't aren't billions of them flying happily around every single day! There are rumors that Panasonic is planning a prosumer-priced video camera which records full DVCProHD quality, and if they can deliver on that this will surely be the camera of choice for people who aren't happy with HDV. But with HDV already fairly well established and Panasonic apparently planning to use expensive solid-state recording, this poses no threat to HDV as the "poor man's HD" for at least the next few years. So we could have a split develop where low-priced videographers use HDV and premium videographers use DVCProHD, but the latter will definitely need to charge more.

January 21st, 2005, 12:06 PM	#42
Steven White Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 547	>>But now you're talking a whole crap load (that's a technical term of course) of information for our computers to choke down<< I'm not talking about today's computers. I'm talking about tomorrows computers... and I fully expect my FX1 to last me at least 5 years. What we're talking about is storage and bandwidth limitations - which are still growing quite happily. The fact of the matter is that I process most of the footage coming out of my camera as if it was 1440x1080p uncompressed video, using DV proxies for a lot of the interrum work, as I don't have enough cash to upgrade my editing and FX system. It's slow - it's painful - but it's possible. In time it will all get easier. For that matter - I don't so much care about 1080 @ 60p standard. I'm perfectly happy letting the data rate per frame drop to 540 @ 60p for the higher temporal resolution. -Steve

February 8th, 2005, 03:03 PM	#43
Fred Foronda Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Hawaii Posts: 337	as someone stated in an earlier post...this ain't making it any easy to choose. One thing I am for the fx1 is the native is 16:9

February 8th, 2005, 04:44 PM	#44
Kevin Dooley Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 414	<<<-- Originally posted by Steven White : >>For that matter - I don't so much care about 1080 @ 60p standard. I'm perfectly happy letting the data rate per frame drop to 540 @ 60p for the higher temporal resolution. -Steve -->>> I almost agree with you... I just don't think we need to drop down to 540, when there's already a standard for 720 @ 60p. I'll go for that standard, once a camera actually does it... __________________ Kevin Dooley Media Director, Pantego Bible Church

February 9th, 2005, 09:12 AM	#45
Steven White Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 547	1920x540 = 1037k 1280x720 = 922k So @ 60 fps, a 1080i signal still has more information per frame - it just ends up in the horizontal dimension. I'd be pretty sad if the industry adopts the 1280x720 standard. And just think, for 30p material the 1920x1080 standard offers more than twice the resolution. Fortunately, I think the introduction of 1440x1080i camcorders like the FX1 will make a push towards higher resolution displays. -Steve