HDV motion artifiacts

Dan Euritt · December 20th, 2005, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

DV was proclaimed by many as being a short term solution, and here we are almost exactly 10 years later finally looking at a new standard to replace it.

i do remember the nay-saying when dv hit the market... the computers didn't have the horsepower to handle editing it, similar to what we have now with hdv.

however, back then there was no really superior codec alternative to dv... various proprietary mjpeg formats were the standard that dv was competing against, so when several manufacturers presented a united front behind dv, it took off.

things are totally different now, because there are multiple codec alternatives that are far more efficient than the ancient hdv mpeg2 codec... and with panasonic selling a far superior format at a price point that matches hdv, the market is fragmented before there is even a delivery method for hdv content.

on top of that, we now have h.264 silicon for video cameras... so the technology will not be denied... the situation with hdv today is nothing like what it was with dv back then, so the hdv format will have a short shelf life.

Douglas Spotted Eagle · December 20th, 2005, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

i
things are totally different now, because there are multiple codec alternatives that are far more efficient than the ancient hdv mpeg2 codec... and with panasonic selling a far superior format at a price point that matches hdv, the market is fragmented before there is even a delivery method for hdv content.

on top of that, we now have h.264 silicon for video cameras... so the technology will not be denied... the situation with hdv today is nothing like what it was with dv back then, so the hdv format will have a short shelf life.

Coupla comments....
First, no one has demonstrated the "far superior" of Panasonic's new cam. I was really excited to see "far superior" back in even June. In theory, it's better, and in practice it may also be. So what? BetaCAM and BetaSX both stayed very stable, and likely will continue to be so for a couple more years.
h.264, J2K, and all sorts of other formats will continue to be developed. So will HDV. HDV is already making it's way to mid level cameras as well.
Either way, my assertions that HDV will have a long shelf life are no less powerful or accurate than your assertion that it won't. Only time will tell. And even then, what does it matter? Both are viable formats, both will continue to be purchased, HDV is already being broadcast daily, and I expect the Panny format will enjoy the same soon.
That said, you've made your position on HDV clear.

Shannon Rawls · January 20th, 2006, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

i personally have not seen any false or misleading anti-hdv statements by panasonic, or any other non-hdv camera company.

http://dvestore.com/theatre/
Watch "NAB 2005 - Panasonic AG-HVX200 (extended version)"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

i'd love to take an hdv camera out for some shot time at the track... we'll see how well the format holds up with simultaneous super-fast camera motion and full-speed zooming.

Hey Dan, if you're ever in L.A. hit me up. We can go shoot some stuff with the Z1U & a H1. 'Cause honestly, I'd be interested in that test too as I have never done it or seen anybody do it before. I wonder strong HDV would hold up as well.

- ShannonRawls.com

Peter Jefferson · January 20th, 2006, 01:12 AM

hmm..

alot of ppl are expecting the same kind of performance from HDV as they do from an SD encode for DVD..
one thing to remember abocve all else, is the HDV format is running at 25mps, not your average 6... this is where alot of misconceptions fall into play, as at 6mps, artefacting IS prevalent... and with that, obviously the notion that HDV, being a similar if not the same format, will also have the same kind of nuances. .

Close but no cigar..

Both formats will have their uses.. I personally dont like HDV simply for the fact that the audio is encoded at such a low bitrate. i know that every broadcast or Dolby Digital delivery job i do with the Z1 needs a seperate recording device. Not that HDV audio sucks.. it doesnt.. for bread and butter stuff, it does what it says it does...
BUT it barely scrapes through the DD standards, and offers no headroom for native tweaking as raw pcm would.
bascially i dont like the idea of editing mp3 audio (which is essentially what this is), UNLESS its at somethign like 512kbps ... at 384, it just doesnt have the bandwidth to pass the DD Standard.. well it does but JUST...

As for artefacting, i have seen some slight beahvioural problems, but you know what, ive seen this kind of thing on almost every camera Ive sold.. so its not a new thing..

Its not as bad as its tainted to be, else if it WAS that bad, i can guarantee you that the format would not have lived as long as it has...

2million odd HDVers cant be wrong...
Theoretically DVCProHD100 is a better format, and who knows, in the real world side by side it may well be.. .BUT if the camera that utilises this format doesnt perform, then whats the point?
Personally id be looking at teh cameras performance and waht it can do for your business before you decide whther the format is workable or not.

HDV is beautiful in the sense that not much needs to be done to work in that format (ie setting up, educating yourself, and working out delivery options)
P2 is also a nice streamlined process which IMO is the way of teh future (solid state recording that is) BUT costs are just too high for the average joe who runs a small one man band production company, and that will be its downfall i think.

As dse said, RIGHT NOW, HDV is the most versatile and workable format, and results vs costs are a no brainer.

Theyre both good they both have their uses.. but i really dont see someone shooting a wedding with a HVX anytime soon.. simply because cost for the system (and editing) doesnt justify the $$ youll make as a return.
then again, you have P2.... and if your working with a corporate client and you have a deadline IE SDE as in most corp cases (well in my books they are..), p2 sure beats the crap out of capturing, then converting to intermediate

Time will tell...

Peter Jefferson · January 20th, 2006, 01:24 AM

as an aside to HDVs shelf life, to tell u the truth, i dont see Sony or Canon ditching it anytime soon..
In fact, im expecting afew shoulder mounted variations with larger CCD's
Same thing with the PD150... we saw the DSr250, DSR 300 blah blah...

Eiter way these 2 major companies will dictate whether the format lives or dies, and with the amount of RD put into these cameras themselves (not juet the format) i dont seee them throwing in the towel any time soon..

in fact more likely well be seeing much more of this format as consumer cameras evolve to HD within the next 18 months... Why?? Coz its easy for joe blogs to manage and its cheap... the RD is already done so theres really not much more to add to the equation...

What happens to Panasonic's consumer range of cameras once everyone takes HD on board??
Who knows, but Sony have already started with the H1 and A1, canon will soon follow with the HDV equivalent of the XM2 and Panasonic... well.. who knows... but i tel u what, i dont see a consumer going out and upgrading their PC to a dual dual core and a new tower with 2TB of storage to edit their baby videos shot on DVCProHD...

THIS is the kicker.... If Pana were smart, theyd go jump on the HDV train and offer HDV and DVCProHD variants of the HVX... HDV could easily be recorded to P2, or (shock horror) Tape...
If the HVX fails.. its not coz of the camera.. its coz of the format...

I Know for a fact that many companies are jumping ship away from Pana simply for the fact that longform work just doesnt go well with P2... sure there are options available like the P2Store.. but the costs involved just dont justify the difference in supposed "quality" of the format, and to be honest, i dont think the average viewer will notice the differences... trully....

Dont get me wrong, im not bagging the HVX, hell im a Pana fiend...but im also a realist.
Sadly, it looks like Panasonic may have nailed their own coffin with this one.. I honestly dont think the world was prepared for this type of camera or the format itself...

whats this got to do with artefacts.. well who knows.. i jsut thought considering we were talking about the lifespan of the format and reasons why, i thought id add my 2c

Chris Barcellos · January 20th, 2006, 01:27 AM

I don't think that many consumers edit DV either. They may have the ability with the current systems, but there are not that many who are willing to take the time..... So I don't think the need for heftier systems will make a difference. HD is a selling point. and just that for most...

Chris Barcellos

Dan Euritt · January 20th, 2006, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shannon Rawls

Hey Dan, if you're ever in L.A. hit me up. We can go shoot some stuff with the Z1U & a H1. 'Cause honestly, I'd be interested in that test too as I have never done it or seen anybody do it before. I wonder strong HDV would hold up as well.

that would be way cool!!

my latest nightmare shooting scenario has been surfing... tight shots are turning out to be some of the worst subjects for compression that i've ever seen... the entire frame is constantly in motion, worse than the drag racing i think.

i've been walking out onto this jetty at low tide, shooting from both sides of it, which allows me to get pretty close to the action.

peter, do the calcs on the hdv video bitrate, vs. the various hdv frame sizes... per square inch of picture area, there is less bitrate available for hdv than there is for sd dvd mpeg2, at all hdv frame sizes... you'll be shocked to see how low the hdv bitrate really is.

Peter Jefferson · January 20th, 2006, 07:48 PM

"hdv video bitrate, vs. the various hdv frame sizes... per square inch of picture area, there is less bitrate available for hdv than there is for sd dvd mpeg2, at all hdv frame sizes... you'll be shocked to see how low the hdv bitrate really is"

i dont doubt that in some instances artefacting would be an issue, but i have a boating client here whos very particualr, so we go out on their cruisers and shoot with the Z1.
Apart from the bodgy lens abherations (and despite what anyone says, the Leica absolutely POOS on the Zeis) the footage motion comes out quite nice. Its not perfect, but for the cost of the camera, it works.
Obviously you wont have this issue with the HVX.
We shoot models up cose and personal as "they relax on the million dollar yacht" (yeah aussie chicks.. damn fine... ) and the only time motion artefacts arise is when were compressing for DVD and only in the slow moving out of focus backgrounds.
The actual M2t is pretty clean. Not as sharp or "crystallene" (as i call it) as id like it, it just doesnt boost or punch out the reflectiveness of th elight bouncing off the water for some reason. I dont know if this is a CCD thing, lens thing or a foramt thing, but i know the DVX gives me nice clear flares bouncing in the background while the Z1 keeps them flat.

Either way, there will be uses for each tool, and if cost isnt a factor then the HVX running at DVCProHD100 1080p would be a tough one to beat. At almost half the Price, i think the Z1 stands up quite well.

Wayne Morellini · January 20th, 2006, 10:07 PM

Thanks Dan for pointing out the true situation with these cameras. Obviously the problem is huge motion movements in your frame and lots of water turbulence. As I mentioned before, somebody over at the Sony board found out that raising shutter and changing the shooting mode, helped with compression, and if your Ntsc camera has the ability to halve the vertical frame rate and do 30fps (like the Pal ones do at 25fps) that might help. Did these things help?

Dan Euritt · January 21st, 2006, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Jefferson

We shoot models up cose and personal as "they relax on the million dollar yacht" (yeah aussie chicks.. damn fine... ) and the only time motion artefacts arise is when were compressing for DVD and only in the slow moving out of focus backgrounds.

that's the problem with using super low bitrate mpeg2 as an acquisition format... there isn't any delivery format for it yet, so it hasn't been tested... those artifacts you are seeing is just the tip of the iceberg.

anytime that you cut the framerate, it frees up bitrate to be assigned to the existing frames... i do it all the time for web video... but it's clearly not a situation that you should have to deal with because the acquisition format isn't up to par.

sony has nearly 150 mpeg2 patents, so they were motivated to create a format that they could make money off of.

the latest issue of tvtechnology had an interesting quote from john ford, in an article on the jackson hole wildlife film festival: "our hd channel has to stand above the crowd, so hdv can't be the backbone of an hd show."

deja vu... dv wasn't good enuf for ntsc broadcast, and now hdv isn't good enuf for hd broadcast... what a wonderful way for sony to keep on protecting it's high-end formats.

Douglas Spotted Eagle · January 21st, 2006, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Euritt

that's the problem with using super low bitrate mpeg2 as an acquisition format... there isn't any delivery format for it yet, so it hasn't been tested.

sony has nearly 150 mpeg2 patents, so they were motivated to create a format that they could make money off of.

deja vu... dv wasn't good enuf for ntsc broadcast, and neither is hdv... what a wonderful way for sony to keep on protecting it's high-end formats.

OK, I'll confess being lost in this post.
HDV doesn't have a delivery format? HDCAM, D5, and diskbased delivery to a media server such as MediaBase or Matrox Media server aren't delivery formats? That aside, NHK has been broadcasting HDV from HDV tape since the cameras came out. In the US it might not be a standard tape delivery format, and potentially never will be, but that doesn't mean there is no delivery. Additionally, HDV is the same format as broadcast is using for delivery, except at a significantly higher bitrate. How again is there not delivery for this format?

It's asinine to say "Sony was motivated because of their patents." It's ignorant of how the industry and revenues work. The amount of revenue generated by HDV camcorders or MPEG 2 camcorders isn't even a fizzle of spittle in a bucket of water compared to the licensing and encoding technologies. It's not even on the radar of their marketing or engineering team in that regard.

Your comment about DV not being good enough for broadcast and now HDV isn't either must be a tongue in cheek comment from a person who doesn't like HDV, or at least appears to be. HDV so far, has broadcast hundreds of hours, and DV has been broadcast in the billions of channel hours, so I'm not clear on what your point is.

Folks are using it, doing just fine with it. If you don't care for it, that's OK for you. Work with what you have.
But understand that others are being exceptionally successful with the low-cost HD solutions that are out there. This week there is a lot of HDV-aquired media being shown at Sundance, and what's funny is I've yet to hear anyone say "well, coulda been better if it was shot on the XXXXX camera or format. Folks have what they have, and they're making great media with it, and making good money in the process. Every format has its weakness. The difference between a pro and a hack are how they work around and with those weaknesses.

Ash Greyson · January 21st, 2006, 01:46 PM

HDV is bridge technology, very rarely does a new format birth on old media and stay around. Digital8, VCD, etc. etc. We are simpling waiting for an affordable storage medium. I suspect that Sony will come out with a MiniXDCAM in the next few years and burnable BR discs will replace miniHDV. BUUUUUUUT... all that being said, HDV is THE most affordable solution right now.

I personally am not a huge fan because the weak spot of the format is where a lot of my work comes (live music with lights, smoke, etc.) but I have seen tons of GREAT HDV stuff... and for the record every compressed format has artifacts... If you need HD now and you have under $10k... it is the only choice.

ash =o)

Alister Chapman · January 21st, 2006, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ash Greyson

HDV is bridge technology, very rarely does a new format birth on old media and stay around. Digital8, VCD, etc. etc. ash =o)

What about Betamax, Betacam, BetacamSP, BetacamSX, Digital Betacam, HDCAM, HDCAM SR.. all using essentially the same media, yet quite posssibly the most widely used broadcast formats ever. Failing that, Umatic, Hi-Band Umatic, Hi-Band SP, nearly all still in use somewhere today. HDV has already been around for nearly 3 years already. Maybe it is a bridge like DV was a bridge between analog and HD?
As for mini XDCAM well XDCAM uses exactly the same compression as HDV only at a higher bit rate for the entire stream, which with XDCAM includes 4 channels of uncompressed audio and a whole bunch of metadata, so the video stream is only getting an extra 20% more headroom, which will certainly help but isn't going to be a a cure-all.

If panasonic can squeeze 50Mb DVCPRO 50 onto DV type tape then why can't Sony, Canon or JVC. I would not be surprised to see a 30 or 35Mb HDV tape based camcorder in the near future.

As HDV hardware and software codecs improve users will squeeze more and more quality from HDV in the same way as happened with DV. If you compare the quality of first generation DV codecs to todays DV codecs you will see that there has been a significant improvement in quality even though the "standard" itself hasn't changed.

Shannon Rawls · January 21st, 2006, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

This week there is a lot of HDV-aquired media being shown at Sundance, and what's funny is I've yet to hear anyone say "well, coulda been better if it was shot on the XXXXX camera or format.

LOL. That's an interesting thought.
2005 Sundance....HDV Camera is introduced to the filmmakers
2006 Sundance....HDV movies are in the festival.

sweet.

- ShannonRawls.com

Ben De Rydt · January 21st, 2006, 06:08 PM

Tonight I found a little bit of time to do something I've always wanted to do: to study how HDV compression works in reality. The results presented here are at a stadium before preliminary.

I took 2 .m2t files I had lying around and measured how many bytes each frame took. To do this I used a tool I wrote when I was looking for timecode in .m2t transport streams. Since I have no access to any MPEG 2 documentation, my tools are very crude, buggy and not for public consumption.

1 file came from my camera, a "PAL" Sony FX1. The scene shot was a walnut lying on a table. No motion. The background is completely unsharp, basically black. The third file is called goldentree.4.m2t. It's a file I downloaded from the net about a year ago. It shows a handheld movement across a tree in autumn colors. It's shot with a Z1 (I think) in 1080i60. No wind.

I took measurements across 2 GOPs of each file - goldentree is only 2 GOPs long. These were the average number of bytes per frame (I/P/B): 195,457, 183,488, 99,017 and the other set: 350,620, 159,941, 69,471. Can you guess which one is which?

January 20th, 2006, 01:27 AM	#21
Chris Barcellos Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Elk Grove CA Posts: 6,838	How many consumers edit DV I don't think that many consumers edit DV either. They may have the ability with the current systems, but there are not that many who are willing to take the time..... So I don't think the need for heftier systems will make a difference. HD is a selling point. and just that for most... Chris Barcellos

January 21st, 2006, 06:08 PM	#30
Ben De Rydt Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Belgium Posts: 139	Tonight I found a little bit of time to do something I've always wanted to do: to study how HDV compression works in reality. The results presented here are at a stadium before preliminary. I took 2 .m2t files I had lying around and measured how many bytes each frame took. To do this I used a tool I wrote when I was looking for timecode in .m2t transport streams. Since I have no access to any MPEG 2 documentation, my tools are very crude, buggy and not for public consumption. 1 file came from my camera, a "PAL" Sony FX1. The scene shot was a walnut lying on a table. No motion. The background is completely unsharp, basically black. The third file is called goldentree.4.m2t. It's a file I downloaded from the net about a year ago. It shows a handheld movement across a tree in autumn colors. It's shot with a Z1 (I think) in 1080i60. No wind. I took measurements across 2 GOPs of each file - goldentree is only 2 GOPs long. These were the average number of bytes per frame (I/P/B): 195,457, 183,488, 99,017 and the other set: 350,620, 159,941, 69,471. Can you guess which one is which? __________________ Please keep in mind that English is not my native language.

January 20th, 2006, 01:12 AM	#19
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	hmm.. alot of ppl are expecting the same kind of performance from HDV as they do from an SD encode for DVD.. one thing to remember abocve all else, is the HDV format is running at 25mps, not your average 6... this is where alot of misconceptions fall into play, as at 6mps, artefacting IS prevalent... and with that, obviously the notion that HDV, being a similar if not the same format, will also have the same kind of nuances. . Close but no cigar.. Both formats will have their uses.. I personally dont like HDV simply for the fact that the audio is encoded at such a low bitrate. i know that every broadcast or Dolby Digital delivery job i do with the Z1 needs a seperate recording device. Not that HDV audio sucks.. it doesnt.. for bread and butter stuff, it does what it says it does... BUT it barely scrapes through the DD standards, and offers no headroom for native tweaking as raw pcm would. bascially i dont like the idea of editing mp3 audio (which is essentially what this is), UNLESS its at somethign like 512kbps ... at 384, it just doesnt have the bandwidth to pass the DD Standard.. well it does but JUST... As for artefacting, i have seen some slight beahvioural problems, but you know what, ive seen this kind of thing on almost every camera Ive sold.. so its not a new thing.. Its not as bad as its tainted to be, else if it WAS that bad, i can guarantee you that the format would not have lived as long as it has... 2million odd HDVers cant be wrong... Theoretically DVCProHD100 is a better format, and who knows, in the real world side by side it may well be.. .BUT if the camera that utilises this format doesnt perform, then whats the point? Personally id be looking at teh cameras performance and waht it can do for your business before you decide whther the format is workable or not. HDV is beautiful in the sense that not much needs to be done to work in that format (ie setting up, educating yourself, and working out delivery options) P2 is also a nice streamlined process which IMO is the way of teh future (solid state recording that is) BUT costs are just too high for the average joe who runs a small one man band production company, and that will be its downfall i think. As dse said, RIGHT NOW, HDV is the most versatile and workable format, and results vs costs are a no brainer. Theyre both good they both have their uses.. but i really dont see someone shooting a wedding with a HVX anytime soon.. simply because cost for the system (and editing) doesnt justify the $$ youll make as a return. then again, you have P2.... and if your working with a corporate client and you have a deadline IE SDE as in most corp cases (well in my books they are..), p2 sure beats the crap out of capturing, then converting to intermediate Time will tell...

January 20th, 2006, 01:24 AM	#20
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	as an aside to HDVs shelf life, to tell u the truth, i dont see Sony or Canon ditching it anytime soon.. In fact, im expecting afew shoulder mounted variations with larger CCD's Same thing with the PD150... we saw the DSr250, DSR 300 blah blah... Eiter way these 2 major companies will dictate whether the format lives or dies, and with the amount of RD put into these cameras themselves (not juet the format) i dont seee them throwing in the towel any time soon.. in fact more likely well be seeing much more of this format as consumer cameras evolve to HD within the next 18 months... Why?? Coz its easy for joe blogs to manage and its cheap... the RD is already done so theres really not much more to add to the equation... What happens to Panasonic's consumer range of cameras once everyone takes HD on board?? Who knows, but Sony have already started with the H1 and A1, canon will soon follow with the HDV equivalent of the XM2 and Panasonic... well.. who knows... but i tel u what, i dont see a consumer going out and upgrading their PC to a dual dual core and a new tower with 2TB of storage to edit their baby videos shot on DVCProHD... THIS is the kicker.... If Pana were smart, theyd go jump on the HDV train and offer HDV and DVCProHD variants of the HVX... HDV could easily be recorded to P2, or (shock horror) Tape... If the HVX fails.. its not coz of the camera.. its coz of the format... I Know for a fact that many companies are jumping ship away from Pana simply for the fact that longform work just doesnt go well with P2... sure there are options available like the P2Store.. but the costs involved just dont justify the difference in supposed "quality" of the format, and to be honest, i dont think the average viewer will notice the differences... trully.... Dont get me wrong, im not bagging the HVX, hell im a Pana fiend...but im also a realist. Sadly, it looks like Panasonic may have nailed their own coffin with this one.. I honestly dont think the world was prepared for this type of camera or the format itself... whats this got to do with artefacts.. well who knows.. i jsut thought considering we were talking about the lifespan of the format and reasons why, i thought id add my 2c

January 20th, 2006, 07:48 PM	#23
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	"hdv video bitrate, vs. the various hdv frame sizes... per square inch of picture area, there is less bitrate available for hdv than there is for sd dvd mpeg2, at all hdv frame sizes... you'll be shocked to see how low the hdv bitrate really is" i dont doubt that in some instances artefacting would be an issue, but i have a boating client here whos very particualr, so we go out on their cruisers and shoot with the Z1. Apart from the bodgy lens abherations (and despite what anyone says, the Leica absolutely POOS on the Zeis) the footage motion comes out quite nice. Its not perfect, but for the cost of the camera, it works. Obviously you wont have this issue with the HVX. We shoot models up cose and personal as "they relax on the million dollar yacht" (yeah aussie chicks.. damn fine... ) and the only time motion artefacts arise is when were compressing for DVD and only in the slow moving out of focus backgrounds. The actual M2t is pretty clean. Not as sharp or "crystallene" (as i call it) as id like it, it just doesnt boost or punch out the reflectiveness of th elight bouncing off the water for some reason. I dont know if this is a CCD thing, lens thing or a foramt thing, but i know the DVX gives me nice clear flares bouncing in the background while the Z1 keeps them flat. Either way, there will be uses for each tool, and if cost isnt a factor then the HVX running at DVCProHD100 1080p would be a tough one to beat. At almost half the Price, i think the Z1 stands up quite well.

January 20th, 2006, 10:07 PM	#24
Wayne Morellini Inner Circle Join Date: May 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 2,762	Thanks Dan for pointing out the true situation with these cameras. Obviously the problem is huge motion movements in your frame and lots of water turbulence. As I mentioned before, somebody over at the Sony board found out that raising shutter and changing the shooting mode, helped with compression, and if your Ntsc camera has the ability to halve the vertical frame rate and do 30fps (like the Pal ones do at 25fps) that might help. Did these things help?

January 21st, 2006, 01:46 PM	#27
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	HDV is bridge technology, very rarely does a new format birth on old media and stay around. Digital8, VCD, etc. etc. We are simpling waiting for an affordable storage medium. I suspect that Sony will come out with a MiniXDCAM in the next few years and burnable BR discs will replace miniHDV. BUUUUUUUT... all that being said, HDV is THE most affordable solution right now. I personally am not a huge fan because the weak spot of the format is where a lot of my work comes (live music with lights, smoke, etc.) but I have seen tons of GREAT HDV stuff... and for the record every compressed format has artifacts... If you need HD now and you have under $10k... it is the only choice. ash =o)