deep concerns about hdv vs "high end" formats at DVinfo.net

Richard Miller · September 12th, 2010, 02:36 PM

I first want to apologize if this is scattered brained. My mind is reeling now.

The feeling I get is to only invest in high definition recording. SD is dead. Now I see that most ( not all) videographers who shoot in hd give the client a DVD anyways.

Why is this? Is Bluray not saturated enough for market share yet?

I have not seen raw footage from a hdv camera yet. Although my former broadcast tech days I did have exposure to pro hd content. After reading that most networks do not allow hdv content how does this translate to a home viewer? Will a client who has been watching the latest blockbuster on bluray going to see a hdv shot bluray and think "wtf" .

That is my primary concern for this thread. Has the Hollywood budget and production set an unrealistic bar for the small guy tring to do local gigs and weddings? To put into the ever popular car metaphor, If the client is expecting a Mercedes and showing up in a Ford going to cause raised eyebrows.

footnote: I am starting out in a small market. In some ways I think that a 2/3 chip dvc pro or dvcam camera would shoot a better image than a 1/3 chip hdv downrezzed to sd.

Brian Luce · September 12th, 2010, 03:14 PM

I shoot a lot of 720p (archaic) HDV downrezzed to SD DVD (Paleolithic) and all I ever hear from clients is how great it looks. ymmv.

My concern is actually the opposite, that is, my new Droid phone shoots HD and looks pretty good. As do the $400 consumer HD cams. So I don't worry as much as the big guys running away with it as much as the little guys catching up too fast.

Steve Phillipps · September 12th, 2010, 03:50 PM

Not sure there's any definitive answer to you question, but I think broadcast vs DVD does make a difference. It's in broadcast transmission AFAIK where low bitrate codecs cause some problem, they "fall to pieces" I've heard many techies say. This is why you hear time and again folks shooting HDV saying "my footage looks as sharp as anything I've ever seen on TV, why is not good enough for broadcast" - straight out of the camera it's not gone through any transcoding, grading etc., and no broadcast codec compression either. We had a massive debate in early HD days about Super 16 film with most of use shooters saying how fabulous it has always looked and Kodak bringing in tests and statistics showing that it had masses more resolution than required for HD - it was purely the grain playing havoc with the coders on transmission where the problem lay.

Sorry for the rambling and not massively conclusive answer!

Steve

Richard Miller · September 12th, 2010, 04:12 PM

this brings in another aspect of the consumer mind.

Joe buys a hdtv from a leading retailer. Has no plans to buy into Bluray as he has invested so much into DVD this last decade. Joe also subcribes to a satellite service that has sd that is so over compressed and poorly scalled that it is in my opinion, garbage.

The HD feed off of the satellite looks fine until the motion kicks up. then it looks worse than an upcoverted DVD.

and Joe just loves his HDTV.

Yes, the little guy with his hd cell phone can get some images. But I would suspect that the guy who would use his phone or high end consumer camera would have been the samy guy 15 years ago who would be running around with a consumer s-vhs camera. Back to the car analogy. I wrech my own cars because I enjoy it, and it is not in my budget to pay a mechanic. People whom are more successful than my self may bring the car to the shop to have service done. This may be a lack of experecnce in auto repair to just not wanting to be bothered with it at all.

Peter Manojlovic · September 12th, 2010, 05:23 PM

Quote:

That is my primary concern for this thread. Has the Hollywood budget and production set an unrealistic bar for the small guy tring to do local gigs and weddings? To put into the ever popular car metaphor, If the client is expecting a Mercedes and showing up in a Ford.

Don't worry Richard...

The fact of the matter is, broadcast has a different standard, and so does film..
Hand in HDV footage to a broadcast company, and they'll laugh..Hand in VHS footage dubbed onto Digital Betacam or DigiBeta and they'll take you seriously..

You need not worry about the local gigs and wedding market. In fact, those big cumbersome pieces of expensive machinery aren't practical for the market you're aiming for.

Most clients expecting a Mercedes already have their preferred clients anyways.....

Let your final product dictate your needs..Don't worry too much about perceptions...You've got other things to worry about..Search the forums...

Andrew Smith · September 12th, 2010, 05:57 PM

Reminds me in the same way about DV recordings.

Hand over a Mini-DV tape recorded in DV format and you get sneered at. Give them the very same recording in DVCAM and they respect you.

Either way it's the same 25 Mbps video codec. Only the speed/pitch of the tape is different.

Andrew

Chris Hurd · September 12th, 2010, 07:46 PM

Peter and Andrew are quite right. If you're handing over an HDCAM master -- and I hope you are -- then how are they to know on what format you shot the camera original? Think of it as a "don't ask, don't tell" kind of deal. Meanwhile, consider that HDV-originated material is approved for broadcast all the time... Deadliest Catch, Ice Road Truckers, etc. We're at the point now where HDV is getting a bit long in the tooth anyway.

Rick L. Allen · September 13th, 2010, 03:16 AM

To answer your last question; My Sony Z1U HDV camera looks much better (downrezzed to SD) than my Sony D35WS with a DSR-1 DVCAM back ever did. But as others have pointed out, HDV is fast losing ground to tapeless cameras and will most likely not be around in 5 years or so if not sooner.

Andrew Smith · September 13th, 2010, 05:18 AM

According to my sales guy: 2 or 3 months ago there was a distinct changeover in sales of camers, with the movement away from purchasing tape based and over towards solid state media.

So whilst HDV is on its way out in terms of cameras being purchased, I'd be quite sure that DV and HDV tape will be around for a good long time.

Can anyone imagine using a spool of 1/4 inch tape for their audio or even being able to order media? You can here .... Stanley Productions

Umatic is another format from yesteryear which is truly obsolete .... and you can buy tape media at VTTV - umatic

Hopefully we'll be good for a while, especially with the huge user base out there.

Andrew

Brian Drysdale · September 13th, 2010, 06:01 AM

Given that Nagras could have a professional working life of 20 years, it's good to know that you can still buy the tape. However, the last production I worked on that used 1/4" involved a lot of transferring onto DAT for the post house. Although, that would be no different to doing the transfer to sep mag - magnetic coated 16mm or 35mm film.

Mike Marriage · September 13th, 2010, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick L. Allen

To answer your last question; My Sony Z1U HDV camera looks much better (downrezzed to SD) than my Sony D35WS with a DSR-1 DVCAM back ever did.

Never used the D35WS but IMO the DSR500/570 and especially 450 knock any HDV camera for six for SD delivery. Far less noise, a lot more sensitivity, better latitude, better control of DoF, proper manual controls, better audio etc..

September 12th, 2010, 02:36 PM	#1
Richard Miller New Boot Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Moses Lake, WA Posts: 22	deep concerns about hdv vs "high end" formats I first want to apologize if this is scattered brained. My mind is reeling now. The feeling I get is to only invest in high definition recording. SD is dead. Now I see that most ( not all) videographers who shoot in hd give the client a DVD anyways. Why is this? Is Bluray not saturated enough for market share yet? I have not seen raw footage from a hdv camera yet. Although my former broadcast tech days I did have exposure to pro hd content. After reading that most networks do not allow hdv content how does this translate to a home viewer? Will a client who has been watching the latest blockbuster on bluray going to see a hdv shot bluray and think "wtf" . That is my primary concern for this thread. Has the Hollywood budget and production set an unrealistic bar for the small guy tring to do local gigs and weddings? To put into the ever popular car metaphor, If the client is expecting a Mercedes and showing up in a Ford going to cause raised eyebrows. footnote: I am starting out in a small market. In some ways I think that a 2/3 chip dvc pro or dvcam camera would shoot a better image than a 1/3 chip hdv downrezzed to sd. Last edited by Richard Miller; September 12th, 2010 at 05:29 PM.

September 12th, 2010, 07:46 PM	#7
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Peter and Andrew are quite right. If you're handing over an HDCAM master -- and I hope you are -- then how are they to know on what format you shot the camera original? Think of it as a "don't ask, don't tell" kind of deal. Meanwhile, consider that HDV-originated material is approved for broadcast all the time... Deadliest Catch, Ice Road Truckers, etc. We're at the point now where HDV is getting a bit long in the tooth anyway. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

September 13th, 2010, 03:16 AM	#8
Rick L. Allen Major Player Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Fayetteville, NC Posts: 536	To answer your last question; My Sony Z1U HDV camera looks much better (downrezzed to SD) than my Sony D35WS with a DSR-1 DVCAM back ever did. But as others have pointed out, HDV is fast losing ground to tapeless cameras and will most likely not be around in 5 years or so if not sooner. __________________ "The good thing about science is that it's true whether you believe it or not." Neil deGrasse Tyson https://www.nautilusproductions.com/

September 12th, 2010, 03:14 PM	#2
Brian Luce Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 2,290	I shoot a lot of 720p (archaic) HDV downrezzed to SD DVD (Paleolithic) and all I ever hear from clients is how great it looks. ymmv. My concern is actually the opposite, that is, my new Droid phone shoots HD and looks pretty good. As do the $400 consumer HD cams. So I don't worry as much as the big guys running away with it as much as the little guys catching up too fast.

September 12th, 2010, 03:50 PM	#3
Steve Phillipps Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 2,130	Not sure there's any definitive answer to you question, but I think broadcast vs DVD does make a difference. It's in broadcast transmission AFAIK where low bitrate codecs cause some problem, they "fall to pieces" I've heard many techies say. This is why you hear time and again folks shooting HDV saying "my footage looks as sharp as anything I've ever seen on TV, why is not good enough for broadcast" - straight out of the camera it's not gone through any transcoding, grading etc., and no broadcast codec compression either. We had a massive debate in early HD days about Super 16 film with most of use shooters saying how fabulous it has always looked and Kodak bringing in tests and statistics showing that it had masses more resolution than required for HD - it was purely the grain playing havoc with the coders on transmission where the problem lay. Sorry for the rambling and not massively conclusive answer! Steve

September 12th, 2010, 04:12 PM	#4
Richard Miller New Boot Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Moses Lake, WA Posts: 22	this brings in another aspect of the consumer mind. Joe buys a hdtv from a leading retailer. Has no plans to buy into Bluray as he has invested so much into DVD this last decade. Joe also subcribes to a satellite service that has sd that is so over compressed and poorly scalled that it is in my opinion, garbage. The HD feed off of the satellite looks fine until the motion kicks up. then it looks worse than an upcoverted DVD. and Joe just loves his HDTV. Yes, the little guy with his hd cell phone can get some images. But I would suspect that the guy who would use his phone or high end consumer camera would have been the samy guy 15 years ago who would be running around with a consumer s-vhs camera. Back to the car analogy. I wrech my own cars because I enjoy it, and it is not in my budget to pay a mechanic. People whom are more successful than my self may bring the car to the shop to have service done. This may be a lack of experecnce in auto repair to just not wanting to be bothered with it at all.

September 12th, 2010, 05:57 PM	#6
Andrew Smith Equal Opportunity Offender Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 3,066	Reminds me in the same way about DV recordings. Hand over a Mini-DV tape recorded in DV format and you get sneered at. Give them the very same recording in DVCAM and they respect you. Either way it's the same 25 Mbps video codec. Only the speed/pitch of the tape is different. Andrew

September 13th, 2010, 05:18 AM	#9
Andrew Smith Equal Opportunity Offender Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 3,066	According to my sales guy: 2 or 3 months ago there was a distinct changeover in sales of camers, with the movement away from purchasing tape based and over towards solid state media. So whilst HDV is on its way out in terms of cameras being purchased, I'd be quite sure that DV and HDV tape will be around for a good long time. Can anyone imagine using a spool of 1/4 inch tape for their audio or even being able to order media? You can here .... Stanley Productions Umatic is another format from yesteryear which is truly obsolete .... and you can buy tape media at VTTV - umatic Hopefully we'll be good for a while, especially with the huge user base out there. Andrew

September 13th, 2010, 06:01 AM	#10
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,152	Given that Nagras could have a professional working life of 20 years, it's good to know that you can still buy the tape. However, the last production I worked on that used 1/4" involved a lot of transferring onto DAT for the post house. Although, that would be no different to doing the transfer to sep mag - magnetic coated 16mm or 35mm film.