Hdv Or Hd at DVinfo.net

Hugh Mobley · May 7th, 2008, 06:41 PM

IF The V1 chip is actually 1920x1080 yet the hdv tape is 1440x1080 what is the most economical or easiest method to actually shoot hd, or is there one?

Justin Zimmerman · May 7th, 2008, 07:09 PM

If you want true HD, Sony has two new models in the VU1 size.

Craig Irving · May 8th, 2008, 07:38 AM

This topic has been discussed to death and yet I still get really annoyed when it comes up.

There is nothing "not HD" about HDV. Vasst published a great article recently about this "full HD" nonsense that has everyone confused and they also do a great job explaining it in their "How HDV Works" video.

If it's the resolution that leads you to believe it is "not HD" then you'll only have to look so far as the ATSC specifications to see that 1440x1080 is still considered "HD".

The horizontal resolution of 1440 vs 1920 is irrelevant to me. Sure, 1920 has more pixels, but it doesn’t necessarily make it better than a 1440x1080 camera. It’s just a different pixel aspect ratio. Camcorders that record in 1440x1080 record non-square pixels that have a ratio of 1.333:1. It’s not “upconverting” to 1920, it’s just stretching the pixels appropriately so that it displays correctly. DV uses a non-square pixel aspect ratio too. Your NLE will properly unsqueeze that signal.

You should know, that HDCAM is also 1440x1080. Just because you have AVCHD camcorders now that record 1920x1080 does not necessarily make the quality inferior to an HDV camcorder (whether consumer or prosumer) and certainly not inferior to something like HDCAM.

If it's the HDV compression that bothers you and makes you think your V1U is not "full HD" you should know that HD is broadcast at a compression MUCH greater than your HDV camcorder. Take a look at this video of Vasst's on YouTube. You'll see that HDV compression is actually very very good.

DSE's video on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N_Tg0PT9yc

I'm also not sure which two camcorders Justin is referring to that are "V1U size". If he meant the Z7U, and the S270 then he is mistaken because those follow the exact same HDV specifications as the V1U. I'll assume he means the PMW-EX1 and PMW-EX3 which is entirely different from HDV. Yes they are "full HD" as well... and yes, they are superior to HDV. They still record long-GOP (not a drawback in my opinion) and they record at a higher bitrate (VBR 35mbps). So there's a lot less compression than HDV, and they record 1920x1080.

My point is that it's all HD. There are too many myths about HDV not being HD. All HD is compressed. And 1920x1080 isn't the only HD resolution.

Chris Hurd · May 8th, 2008, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh Mobley

what is the most economical or easiest method to actually shoot hd?

HDV is the single most economical way to shoot HD.

Craig's reply above is an excellent read, and a great way to end this thread.

May 7th, 2008, 06:41 PM	#1
Hugh Mobley Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Placentia, Calif Posts: 549	Hdv Or Hd IF The V1 chip is actually 1920x1080 yet the hdv tape is 1440x1080 what is the most economical or easiest method to actually shoot hd, or is there one? __________________ Hugh Mobley www.petplanetvideos.com http://exposureroom.com/members/hmobley.aspx/

May 7th, 2008, 07:09 PM	#2
Justin Zimmerman Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 101	If you want true HD, Sony has two new models in the VU1 size.

May 8th, 2008, 07:38 AM	#3
Craig Irving Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Toronto Posts: 539	This topic has been discussed to death and yet I still get really annoyed when it comes up. There is nothing "not HD" about HDV. Vasst published a great article recently about this "full HD" nonsense that has everyone confused and they also do a great job explaining it in their "How HDV Works" video. If it's the resolution that leads you to believe it is "not HD" then you'll only have to look so far as the ATSC specifications to see that 1440x1080 is still considered "HD". The horizontal resolution of 1440 vs 1920 is irrelevant to me. Sure, 1920 has more pixels, but it doesn’t necessarily make it better than a 1440x1080 camera. It’s just a different pixel aspect ratio. Camcorders that record in 1440x1080 record non-square pixels that have a ratio of 1.333:1. It’s not “upconverting” to 1920, it’s just stretching the pixels appropriately so that it displays correctly. DV uses a non-square pixel aspect ratio too. Your NLE will properly unsqueeze that signal. You should know, that HDCAM is also 1440x1080. Just because you have AVCHD camcorders now that record 1920x1080 does not necessarily make the quality inferior to an HDV camcorder (whether consumer or prosumer) and certainly not inferior to something like HDCAM. If it's the HDV compression that bothers you and makes you think your V1U is not "full HD" you should know that HD is broadcast at a compression MUCH greater than your HDV camcorder. Take a look at this video of Vasst's on YouTube. You'll see that HDV compression is actually very very good. DSE's video on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N_Tg0PT9yc I'm also not sure which two camcorders Justin is referring to that are "V1U size". If he meant the Z7U, and the S270 then he is mistaken because those follow the exact same HDV specifications as the V1U. I'll assume he means the PMW-EX1 and PMW-EX3 which is entirely different from HDV. Yes they are "full HD" as well... and yes, they are superior to HDV. They still record long-GOP (not a drawback in my opinion) and they record at a higher bitrate (VBR 35mbps). So there's a lot less compression than HDV, and they record 1920x1080. My point is that it's all HD. There are too many myths about HDV not being HD. All HD is compressed. And 1920x1080 isn't the only HD resolution.