Hdv? at DVinfo.net

Mike Tesh · April 12th, 2006, 01:33 AM

When the HVX200 was first announced I remember asking somewhere (not here) if HDV was an option. Just out of curiousity. At the time the HDV format was still looked down on quite a bit by a lot of people(myself included) who had never used it, and many people said something like "why would you want that xxxxx format on this camera?" Seems in that time the HDV format has grown on people a little bit more. High end cameras like the XL-H1 might have given it a little more credibility. And the FX1 at it's low price is becoming pretty popular.

Do you think the HVX200 would have benefit at all by allowing HDV recording to tape rather then just DV? And why do you think Panasonic decided to not support that format? Wouldn't more format options be better?

Pete Tews · April 12th, 2006, 02:46 AM

I don't have the sony hdv or the panasonic hvx...(so my opinion does not really count) but, I was interested in the sony z1 at first, but when I did more research and viewed more footage examples, the dvx seemed like the better way for me. Probably because I want to use video as a way to tell stories.
One example is "David Lynch's (Room to Dream)" he shot this using the sony (not sure what mode) but the short movie looks like a weird mix between 30fps and 24fps. Its just weird looking, maybe the 24p emulation?. Maybe he picked that camera's look to stand out of the pack or lead the way, -who knows- I like his short anyway. But the "behind the scenes" footage was probably shot with a dvx100 and looks much more organic to me. So it really comes down to opinion. If I had the cash, I would get both, but after NAB I'm probably going to get the hvx200a.

-p

Dylan Couper · April 12th, 2006, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete Tews

If I had the cash, I would get both, but after NAB I'm probably going to get the hvx200a.

You mean NAB 2007, right?

(sorry, just a joke about how long it took the HVX200 to hit stores after NAB2005) :)

Craig Seeman · April 12th, 2006, 07:27 AM

The problam I have with HDV is motion artifacts when shooting fast action (sports, camera pans etc.). Haven't used the cameras but have seen/dealt with the video as a compressionist.

What I like about HVX (DVCProHD) is the ability to "overcrank" for nice clean slow motion.

Both formats do have other downsides (workflow on HDV, archival on HVX) though.

Shane Ross · April 12th, 2006, 11:42 AM

The HVX-200 never did HDV, and never will. DVCPRO HD is a much superior codec...why would they muck about with HDV?

Eeww.

Kevin Shaw · April 12th, 2006, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Tesh

Do you think the HVX200 would have benefit at all by allowing HDV recording to tape rather then just DV? And why do you think Panasonic decided to not support that format? Wouldn't more format options be better?

They asked some of us at the WEVA Expo last year if we might like an HDV option on the HVX200, and my response was that if I want HDV I'll just buy an HDV camera. (Which I've already done.) HDV might have been a useful option until P2 memory costs come down, but it would probably have added to the cost of the camera without improving sales much.

A better question would be whether/when Panasonic might redesign the HVX200 to work with standard flash memory cards, some of which already meet the performance requirements for capturing DVCProHD reliably. If they do that in the next version of the camera that would help a lot with the memory cost issues, but it would probably piss off people who invest heavily in P2 technology.

Chris Hurd · April 12th, 2006, 12:05 PM

Quote:

why would they muck about with HDV?

Let's not allow this to devolve into a format war, folks, because that's how threads disappear. Instead of mulling over why this or that feature was or wasn't included, why not discuss what *is* there and *how* to put it to work for you. Which is a much more productive conversation, often resulting in real information that you can take into your day and apply in real life (and thank you Kevin for that useful reply).

Robert Lane · April 13th, 2006, 07:43 PM

What Chris said. Don't make me get Godzilla involved... (^_^)

Don Donatello · April 13th, 2006, 10:34 PM

IMO there is less HDV artifacts then what most persons post on it.. i have found that most LCD monitors ( especially the dell 24) have their own artifacts when trying to show motion and persons viewing thinks it's the HDV format ...
the HVX gets allot of bad rap about noise ..well it may have some but again allot of the bad rap is based on viewing on LCD monitors that are themselves producing some noise or the down conversion is so so ...
i find all HD formats/camera's are much more difficult to judge because we are viewing on non true HD monitors or LCD monitors that are NOT really a video monitor but a computer monitor.

all images go a little soft on pans & tilts and where there is motion in persons/objects doesn't matter what is it is recorded to ...even FILM

Jeff Morrissette · April 22nd, 2006, 08:58 PM

I ended up going with the JVC but it's only because I dont trust the p2 cards and they don't last long. If panasonic had the camera recording to tape and the p2 I would have felt more comfortable with it. Although I'm sure you cannot capture dvcprohd to the card and record hdv at the same time.

Everything has trade offs, however I feel the artifacting in 720p in hdv is less than 1080i. There is probably a little more room to breath on the tape.

I'm eagar to see what future panny cameras will have to offer. The 200 does look great however...love the slo mo.

Steven Thomas · April 23rd, 2006, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Donatello

well it may have some but again allot of the bad rap is based on viewing on LCD monitors that are themselves producing some noise or the down conversion is so so ...

This was our original thought until we actually bought a different brand LCD (1280x720) monitor and compared it to the Dell 2405.

They both showed the same amount of noise.
As far as scaling, the 2405 can be set to not scale. This does not change the amount of noise. The 1280x720 monitor did not need to scale since this was what the native footage was shot in.

Having said that, I do believe that these LCDs do allow us to see noise easier. I don't believe it's ampifying the noise, but just makes it more visible.
My Pioneer 50" plasma looks cleaner. I'm not sure why it appears so much better. Also, the Pioneer appears to be even a sharper image.
I have the plasma setup well. Of course, I turned off any artificial sharpness enhancement on this set.

We have compared different camera's noise levels using the 2405 LCD monitor.
I won't go into this discussion, but as expected, we did notice a diffence in noise levels.

I do agree the 2405 does NOT make a good video monitor. Though, It does work well as PC monitor.

David Saraceno · April 23rd, 2006, 09:52 AM

I have a HVX200 and a Z1U.

We like both cameras. Workflow is different - - obviously.

For DVDs, the HVX200 is superior.

I do believe that the criticisms of HDV on fast pans and sports are over hyped, having shot both with the Sony

Scott Auerbach · April 23rd, 2006, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Lane

Don't make me get Godzilla involved... (^_^)

Leave it to Robert to find out that the HVX includes undercrank, stop-action... AND bad English dubbing mode!
<runs away, shrieking wildly, and moves to Engrish.com>

April 12th, 2006, 01:33 AM	#1
Mike Tesh Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Detroit MI Posts: 253	Hdv? When the HVX200 was first announced I remember asking somewhere (not here) if HDV was an option. Just out of curiousity. At the time the HDV format was still looked down on quite a bit by a lot of people(myself included) who had never used it, and many people said something like "why would you want that xxxxx format on this camera?" Seems in that time the HDV format has grown on people a little bit more. High end cameras like the XL-H1 might have given it a little more credibility. And the FX1 at it's low price is becoming pretty popular. Do you think the HVX200 would have benefit at all by allowing HDV recording to tape rather then just DV? And why do you think Panasonic decided to not support that format? Wouldn't more format options be better? __________________ ScapeFilms.com \| My Photography \| IMDB Profile

April 12th, 2006, 02:46 AM	#2
Pete Tews Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 40	I don't have the sony hdv or the panasonic hvx...(so my opinion does not really count) but, I was interested in the sony z1 at first, but when I did more research and viewed more footage examples, the dvx seemed like the better way for me. Probably because I want to use video as a way to tell stories. One example is "David Lynch's (Room to Dream)" he shot this using the sony (not sure what mode) but the short movie looks like a weird mix between 30fps and 24fps. Its just weird looking, maybe the 24p emulation?. Maybe he picked that camera's look to stand out of the pack or lead the way, -who knows- I like his short anyway. But the "behind the scenes" footage was probably shot with a dvx100 and looks much more organic to me. So it really comes down to opinion. If I had the cash, I would get both, but after NAB I'm probably going to get the hvx200a. -p Last edited by Pete Tews; April 12th, 2006 at 03:22 AM.

April 12th, 2006, 07:27 AM	#4
Craig Seeman Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA Posts: 3,841	The problam I have with HDV is motion artifacts when shooting fast action (sports, camera pans etc.). Haven't used the cameras but have seen/dealt with the video as a compressionist. What I like about HVX (DVCProHD) is the ability to "overcrank" for nice clean slow motion. Both formats do have other downsides (workflow on HDV, archival on HVX) though.

April 12th, 2006, 11:42 AM	#5
Shane Ross Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Los Angeles, USA Posts: 539	The HVX-200 never did HDV, and never will. DVCPRO HD is a much superior codec...why would they muck about with HDV? Eeww.

April 13th, 2006, 07:43 PM	#8
Robert Lane Go Go Godzilla Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA Posts: 2,823 Images: 15	What Chris said. Don't make me get Godzilla involved... (^_^)

April 13th, 2006, 10:34 PM	#9
Don Donatello Hawaiian Shirt Mogul Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: northern cailfornia Posts: 1,261	IMO there is less HDV artifacts then what most persons post on it.. i have found that most LCD monitors ( especially the dell 24) have their own artifacts when trying to show motion and persons viewing thinks it's the HDV format ... the HVX gets allot of bad rap about noise ..well it may have some but again allot of the bad rap is based on viewing on LCD monitors that are themselves producing some noise or the down conversion is so so ... i find all HD formats/camera's are much more difficult to judge because we are viewing on non true HD monitors or LCD monitors that are NOT really a video monitor but a computer monitor. all images go a little soft on pans & tilts and where there is motion in persons/objects doesn't matter what is it is recorded to ...even FILM

April 22nd, 2006, 08:58 PM	#10
Jeff Morrissette Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: venice, ca Posts: 83	I ended up going with the JVC but it's only because I dont trust the p2 cards and they don't last long. If panasonic had the camera recording to tape and the p2 I would have felt more comfortable with it. Although I'm sure you cannot capture dvcprohd to the card and record hdv at the same time. Everything has trade offs, however I feel the artifacting in 720p in hdv is less than 1080i. There is probably a little more room to breath on the tape. I'm eagar to see what future panny cameras will have to offer. The 200 does look great however...love the slo mo.

April 23rd, 2006, 09:52 AM	#12
David Saraceno Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Inland Northwest Posts: 490	I have a HVX200 and a Z1U. We like both cameras. Workflow is different - - obviously. For DVDs, the HVX200 is superior. I do believe that the criticisms of HDV on fast pans and sports are over hyped, having shot both with the Sony