Lou - you've got to ask yourself one question - will you and your clients be watching on 16:9 TVs and projectors? If the answer's yes, then the DVX is a no-no (unless you're happy to use an anamorphic).

People have been watching SD signal on 16:9 TVs for years. Nothing new there. Certainly not ideal, but common. HDV is about as far from ideal in HD as you can get.

I'm certainly not talking HDV Perrone, only aspect ratios.

Agreed on aspect ratios. I mentioned HDV because the camera he is considering is HDV. It would take a HECK of a deal for me to jump into HDV at this point. And $1199 on a used camera isn't it.

I was just asking, because i'm in the same boat as the other guy. Looking for something to get me through the year, and upgrade next year.

I can get either, used, for 1200.

I appreciate the advice.

What are the relative downsides of HDV? What is better than HDV right now? For the HD cameras out there that are decent for event/wedding videographers, what do you see as better or more useful formats? AVCHD? This is an interesting subject and I am curious to hear more about it.

Thanks.

Relative downsides to HDV?

1. Poor bitrate leading to codec breakup on action.
2. Long GOP structure leading to same problem as #1.
3. No PCM audio reducing audio fidelity.
4. Interframe codec.
5. Poor color structure.
6. Non-Full Raster recording.
7. Tape based when the world is moving away from tape.
8. Real time capture required since tape has to be played back.
9. Codec falls apart in post (grading and effects) unless transcode takes place.
10. Incompatibility forces purchase of expensive decks or to wear out camera heads to dump footage.

What's better??

AVCHD (Full Raster, better compression algorithm)
AVC-Intra (higher end codec)
XDCam HD (Better bit rate, more robust codec)
XDCam EX (Better bit rate, more robust codec)
DVCProHD (100 Mbps, but not full raster)

Improvements have been made in HDV over the years, but the structure of it limits how far things can go.

Well I will look into this a little further but I can discount no. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 off hand
I shoot HDV/DV/DVCAM so this is firsthand experience.

3. I find I get very high fidelity sound, often better than the sound on my PD170 in DVCAM mode, when I shoot in HDV.
5. In addition to better resolution, my experience is rich colors.
7. varies by camera model, there are consumer HDV cams with internal HDD and in the pro line there is Firestore, Sony MRC, Sony HVR-DR60, Edirol f-1, etc all compatible with HDV
8. see 7 above
9. never had any issues with codec "falling apart" and I don't transcode
10. new decks are expensive regardless of format and since HDV is a new format those decks are pricey but I don't see what this has to do with HDV.

yes there are better options out there but I don't see XDCAM HD or XDCAM EX in the $2000 price range...HDV is a midline solution to the HD problem. If you can afford XDCAM go XDCAM btu HDV bridges the prosumer gap.

Just my $.02

I really appreciate everyones responses and advice.
The main power switch on my HD1 had started coming loose about a month ago, I took it into a local repair shop for repair. It was supposed to be ready on Wednesday but the part is on backorder. I got it back from the shop to use for the video I had booked for tonight but the switch completely came off.
So in the end I ended up buying the GL2. One out of necessity and 2 because I think it will suit my needs for this year. I ended up paying $1000 for it and he threw in a glidecam 2000 pro also.
I used the GL2 tonight to shoot a wedding and it is far better than my DVC7 and HD1. I was actually pretty impressed with the low light capabilities.
So I've got till the end of this season to save and research which HD cams I want to buy.

thanks again everybody.

Congrats on your new purchase, may it serve you well!

Your "experiences" notwithstanding, the facts are what the are.

Fact: HDV does not record PCM based audio.

"For audio, HDV uses MPEG-1 Layer 2 compression to reduce the audio bitrate to 384 kbit/s, compared to 1536 kbit/s for DV video and 1411 kbit/s for audio CDs. This makes HDV audio less desirable for situations where sound quality is critical, but MPEG-1 audio at 384 kbit/s is considered 'perceptually lossless.' For general video recording with an on-camera microphone, HDV audio is not a significant limiting factor."

Fact: HDV Uses 4:2:0 color sampling on a less than full raster image. It has more color than DV, but is poor by broadcast standards.

Fact: The HDV spec is tape based. Yes you can record with the HDV codec to other media. I have two such devices (Firestore and SxS), but it doesn't change the spec.

Fact: Long GOP 4:2:0 is awful in the edit suite when critical color work is needed. Frankly, just because you have no issue, doesn't mean there isn't one.

Fact: HDV is not a new codec. The first shipping camera models appeared in 2004. HDV is being quickly phased out in favor of the superior AVCHD in the consumer camera market. In the mid-range pro-sumer market, HDV never really took hold and has all but disappeared in favor of DVCProHD,XDCamHD/EX, AVC variants, etc.

HDV was a nice bridge into HD, but technology is moving on quickly, and it's had a year run.

Perrone
As far as choosing a PC for editing do you need a faster one for editing AVCHD than HDV?
I have a Pentium 4CPU 3.2GHz and I do straggle to edit HDV, so I always use DV with my FX7 instead of HDV; besides most of my customers do not have HDV players or TVs yet.

Stelios

I think I'd like to put in a good word for HDV. Perrone's technically correct and Bryan's practically correct, but the most amazing thing about HDV is the way camcorders hardly had to change at all to suddenly start recording hugely sharper pictures.

Go back and read the test reviews of the just announced FX1 in 2004. Just look how gob-smacked the world was to learn that the camcorders used the same tape deck mechanism that had been around for years, the same tape even, and yet were still able to record for an hour at the same tape speed.

Back then 1 gb of flash memory probably cost as much as 100 Mini DV tapes, so AVCHD was just a pipe dream. I give HDV a big thumbs up, and marvel at the ingenuity of the engineers that brought it all together while at the same time making it backwards compatible. These new HDV cameras would play back all the tapes you'd recorded since 1995 - amazing.

So I discount Perrone's list of negatives. In the real world HDV has enabled hundreds of us here to gather in beautifully detailed pictures on bog-cheap tape using cameras no heavier, bulkier or more expensive than the DV cameras that went before them.

tom.

Yes,

AVCHD requires MUCH more power to decode. Nature of the game. When everyone had machines suited to DV, HDV was a killer for the machines to work with. It's the same technical challenge 5 years later.

There's nothing technically difficult about compressing the heck out of an image by reducing both color and luma samples, going to interframe rather than intraframe, and having it write to tape. VHS had dome the same thing 15 years prior. When you throw away more than half the HD signal you can do fit it in a lot of places. The genius of AVCHD is that they throw away less of the signal, and still manage to fit it into a smaller space; To me, that is far more impressive.


Yes, in the "real world" i.e. consumer space, HDV has enabled many to dabble in the world hf HD. For those who had aspirations of getting their work broadcast, it was a heartbreaker. Depends on your needs.

Don't get me wrong, HDV has many uses. I still record my long form stuff with it because my clients don't care, the material is headed to the web, and there is nothing more than a couple of quick edits and basic color correction to be done. But I couldn't hand that footage to the local PBS station.