Using SD or HD Cams: Poll

Adam Grunseth · March 16th, 2007, 05:59 PM

I too am using the JVC HD-110, although I am using it mainly to shoot 16:9 SD. My other camera is a Sony PDX 10. I find the full rez 16:9 from the sony and the full rez 16:9 from the JVC work very well together, and although not HD, full rez 16:9 still looks pretty good on an HD tv. I do offer HD to my clients, but no one has wanted it yet. The JVC works great as an SD camera, and I figure when I go HD my cameras are ready.

Bruce S. Yarock · March 17th, 2007, 03:24 AM

After 2 years with a Canon XL2, I added an FX1 to my arsenal. A few months back, I was lucky enough to get a GREAT deal on a clean used XLH1. Sold the XL2, sold the unpredictable FS4 firestore drives, and picked up the canon HV10.
So now we have three great hdv cameras, which can also shoot in sd when needed. I try to shoot primarily in hdv, unless the customer won't accept 16:9. For low light situatioons in weddings,etc., I'm having to crank the gain on my H1 to 12. But the image still looks good. I love the look of the Sony, but it's tough to get a real good match with the canons.If our busines gets better, I'd considr selling the FX1 and getting a Canon A1 for easier matching looks. The HV10 is fantastic, as long as you use astabilizer and watch exposure.
Now if I could just get Premier Pro, Cineform and the new Dell hot rod PC to work together editing HDV......
Bruce S. Yarock
www.yarock.com

Michael Y Wong · March 17th, 2007, 11:31 PM

XH-A1 + HDR-HC1.

Been able to fool almost everyone (surprisingly even some very talented videographers on this forum) that my HC1 is an FX1, provided the footage is carefullly shot & colour corrected.

XH-A1 primary cam
HDR-HC1 2ndary/backup/outdoor steadicam cam.

In this day and age I say 16:9 is a must, regardless if the client has a 16:9 TV or not, same goes for some sorta HDV authoring provided how tech-savvy your clients are.

Peter Jefferson · March 18th, 2007, 04:45 AM

ive gone through too many to even count..
worst decision was ditchign the DSR570 and getting 2 Z1's ... this was purely an SD 16:9 decision... worked out OK, but i was lucky...
knocked those of recently and now looking at another alternative.. i personally despise HDV... everything about the format is a compromise... fair enough its USABLE, and in controlled environments it can be rather nice, but IMO the compression noise is low ambient environments just cannto be compared to SD..
however as mentioned by someone else, weddings really dont justify certain costs.. so i sold off the Z1's... as most of my corporate stuff is already established, they dont care what camera i use and most of the deliveries arenow web/intranet based.. not DVD, or HD..
More than likely my opinion on the HDV format is stemmed from the sheer lack of tweakbility of this unit.. in addiiton to the noise levels and image quality (or lack of) compared to an SD DVX100/a

Im considering an XLH1 and an A1 as second unit, as i also have a canon5d and throwing one of these lenses on an H1 would be ideal for what i want to do.
720p or 1080p is also the 2 formats i would consider, i wouldnt even bother with interlaced... if i my clients want interlaced, they'd go hire a handycam and shoot their own wedding..

One thing i should point out..
I have shot several weddings with the JVC HD101... i like the camera.. i like the form factor, i like the focus peak.. i HATE the lense (flaring and CA is abysmal) BUT ive used DVX100'''s as B-roll.. when scaling DVX to 720p to match.. i have to say.. youd be VERY hard presed to notice the difference between the 2 save from some sharpness.. what you will notice however is the motion and image smoothness, and more importantly, cleanliness of the scaled footage vs the native HDV footage.
In addition.. many brides prefer the softer look because even though skin detail is visible, its not as "shocking" as native

IMO if you can shoot SD and scale to HD res and STILL make it look good, then theres no point in bothering with cameras unless your clients are demanding a change.

At this time, here in Aus, australian clients hardly understand what Widescreen is about.. let alone what HD topns are available, let alone the differences within these options.. Even with SD, they dont understand the differences of progressive scan, and when you show them.. its only THEN that they realise how important this element can be when theyre tossing up between production houses..

At this time, even though there is a means to deliver what we create in HD, it still a toss up between how much these additions will cost and how much clients are willing to pay..
At this time, i can tell you clients are NOT willing to pay extra for HD.. not here in aus anyway.. whether it be shot or delivered in HD, they dont care.. they just want a DVD that looks good..

Matt Davis · March 18th, 2007, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Allen Rosenberger

keep them coming!

I went from PD150 to Z1 for my corporate event video business.

For me, HDV is about doing SD right, and the Z1 enables me to do a shoot at 16:9 HDV, ingest 4:3 DV for on-site edits, then later re-ingest at 16:9 for versions used on plasma screens.

Corporate events can finish with a candid, wich is usually shown on the same screen as the PowerPoint - hence 4:3. However, I'm seeing more and more use of plasmas at events, causing problems for PPT, but the video looks great.

A 4:3 video on a 16:9 TV or widescreen laptop is really 'don't go there'. OTOH, a 16:9 video on a 4:3 laptop or TV is 'filmic' in the eyes of my clients. I reckon 25% of my work this year will be exclusively 16:9 (last year was 10% - but a lucrative and important 10%).

The Z1 shooting HDV also gives me underscan monitoring, which for projection - where the whole area is considered 'safe' - is really important to me.

However, I really wanted the JVC HD100 as the pictures are gorgeous and the stock lens, whilst flawed, works with the format to create what looks like sharper yet filmic images. It doesn't do in-camera downconvert, and didn't work with FCP at the time, so I had to pass. I also really coveted the HVX200 as an HD camera, but a single 8GB P2 doesn't suit our industry, and I don't need HD yet.

But I DO need HDV so I can downsample it to SD at 4:2:2 to get better than DV at standard definition.

I'll be shopping for another camera next year (this year's toy budget will go on a steadicam flyer). It will probably be an F330 (though I want a F350). I thought about RED, but there's a telecine process - not good on-site. I thought about second hand 570s, but it's still tape and needs realtime ingest.

XDCAM-HD seems to be the best logical step up which will be to true HD - which, may I point out, is a domain that my niche should adopt better than most as almost all outputs are either 1280x720 plasmas or data-rez projectors. Drop a 1280x720 WMV into PowerPoint or 1280x720 PhotoJPEG QT into KeyNote, project, and admire.

Edward Slonaker · March 18th, 2007, 10:16 AM

I'm using 2 FX1's and a Sony single-chip, smaller camera for the more "portable" shots. I'm currently shooting all SD until I get more fluent with the HDV requirements. I also shoot all 16:9 and really enjoy that wide-screen format. Customers really seem to like it, too.

Peter Jefferson · March 18th, 2007, 10:20 AM

"But I DO need HDV so I can downsample it to SD at 4:2:2 to get better than DV at standard definition"

Aye? whered u get this number from?
HDV is only 4:2:0... no matter what u do with it it will alwyas remain 4:2:0

Adam Grunseth · March 18th, 2007, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Jefferson

"But I DO need HDV so I can downsample it to SD at 4:2:2 to get better than DV at standard definition"

Aye? whered u get this number from?
HDV is only 4:2:0... no matter what u do with it it will alwyas remain 4:2:0

HDV 720p is 720 by 1280 pixels, with 4:2:0 color sampling that means your chromatic resolution for HDV video is 360 by 640. If you transcode this HDV to a SD 4:2:2 condec such as DVCpro 50 you can maintain the higher chromatic resolution. Standard 4:1:1 DV at 480 by 720 has a chomatic resolution of 720 by 180. Converting HDV to 4:2:2 SD you can maintain the chromatic resolution of 360 by 640, which when conformed to 4:2:2 you get a chromatic resolution 360 by 360. Now true, this is not quite as good as 4:2:2 video, true 4:2:2 SD would give you a chromatic resolution of 480 by 360. However you end up with alot more color information that you would if you shot 4:1:1 DV. If you converted your HDV to SD 4:4:4 (which would use alot of bandwidth) you would be able to maintain the full chromatic resolution of HDV.... you would get something that actually has more chromatic resolution than 4:2:2 video, but laid out in a different pattern.

It also should be noted that interlaced HDV brakes up the 4:2:0 chromatic sampling to lend itself towards interlacing.... so you don't get quite the same benifits converting interlaced HDV as you do progressive scan HDV.

Matt Davis · March 18th, 2007, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Jefferson

"But I DO need HDV so I can downsample it to SD at 4:2:2 to get better than DV at standard definition"

Aye? whered u get this number from?
HDV is only 4:2:0... no matter what u do with it it will alwyas remain 4:2:0

Ah - here be the magic: (edit - with apologies to Adam for his fine answer - his reply beat mine)

It also works for downsampling HDV2 to uncompressed SD (or DV50 for that matter) and the 4:2:0 big blocky chroma pixels become shrunk to that closer to the 4:2:2 pixels of SD - hence you can shoot under strong coloured lighting used in theatrical and pop concert situations without that blocky look that gives away DV.

And interlacing is one thing that really bugs me about the Z1. IMHO, it's unnecessary for HD as almost all consumer HD displays are progressive (if it's Plasma or it's LCD, it's progressive by design - only CRTs of old *needed* interlace). I believe interlace is present on the Z1 as it doesn't have the compute power to do progressve - even the JVC had to split its 1280x720 into two blocks to do it.

Andy Harding · March 18th, 2007, 05:01 PM

Well I'm just starting out with XM1, XL1S and just bought a XL2 (we have some 3 camera shoots coming up) did not go for HDV due to the fact the way I will be delivering the content is just on DVD (for domestic market) and so do not need that quality for a while as yet (I'm in the UK).

Until most of the customers start all having HD TV's and HD players I just don't see the point of the expence, we do all our own burning in house as well so it's just not an investment in cameras but serious spending on Hardware as well.

I'm also doing a few in house projects that I'd like to shoot on HDCAM (was maybe thinking of buying in next year just one camera). But now wondering whether to leave it and jump the format and go for the Red at a later date.

Paul Nguyen · March 18th, 2007, 06:34 PM

Moved to new thread...

Monday Isa · March 19th, 2007, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Nguyen

Peter & Andy have both made alot of sense here.

When you're making a living from wedding video you just have to just ask yourself; Is buying 2 x HDV cams & new NLE going to give you a return on your investment or are you satifying a lusty desire for the latest toy?

Simply unjustifyable for us here in Aust. as very few of the couples we visit even know how to setup their TV/DVD to display 16:9 correctly. The wedding video budget for most couples in our district is between $2K to $3K (AUD) and can't see them paying another $500 to $1K to have it all done in HD.

If doing wedding video was a part-time hobby and I had very little financial commitment in it, I would have already gone HD.

No offense Paul, but this thread has absolutely nothing to do with HDV vs SD or whether or not it's a good or bad decision. It is only for the purpose of seeing what people are currently using. Please read the original post by Joe. Thank you

Monday

Joe Allen Rosenberger · March 19th, 2007, 11:39 AM

Thanks Monday.....and yes, LETS ALL STAY ON TOPIC HERE....or start another thread. This thread was started by me but is here for all of us to have a solid way of seeing what folks are using for cams around here, and if it keeps getting side tracked by comments on how HDV is this and SD is that, and this codec works better than this and the color sampling is better than that, the original idea gets lost in the rubble.

Cams ONLY!!!!! or start another thread.
thanks-joe

Paul Nguyen · March 19th, 2007, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Allen Rosenberger

Thanks Monday.....and yes, LETS ALL STAY ON TOPIC HERE....or start another thread. This thread was started by me but is here for all of us to have a solid way of seeing what folks are using for cams around here, and if it keeps getting side tracked by comments on how HDV is this and SD is that, and this codec works better than this and the color sampling is better than that, the original idea gets lost in the rubble.

Cams ONLY!!!!! or start another thread.
thanks-joe

No offence taken Monday.
He he, like Chinese whispers, this is what happens to threads when they go on for more than a couple of pages. If policing threads was a paying job we'd all be a millionaires today.
Questa La Vita!!

Moved topic to new thread...

Jim Fields · March 21st, 2007, 03:15 PM

I use a JVC HD110U
I shoot my weddings 720P 30, only because 24 frame is pretty new to me, and I get alot od smear.

I like the camera's feel, I hate the lack of an auto focus. I came from a Sony Z1U and truth be told, I only went with the JVC because I wanted progressive, and the ability to change the lens.
Well, 10,000.00 later (for the entire camera kit I purchased) I wish I would have just bought 2 Z1U's and forgot about progressive. Even now I am thinking of either buying a small form factor camera like the Z1U, or buying a glidecam, 6 hors of holding that big camera kills me.

I still have yet to achive the look and feel I wanted with this camera, whivh makes me even more regretive of buying it.

Takes a good picture though.

March 17th, 2007, 11:31 PM	#33
Michael Y Wong Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Toronto Ontario Canada! Posts: 353	XH-A1 + HDR-HC1. Been able to fool almost everyone (surprisingly even some very talented videographers on this forum) that my HC1 is an FX1, provided the footage is carefullly shot & colour corrected. XH-A1 primary cam HDR-HC1 2ndary/backup/outdoor steadicam cam. In this day and age I say 16:9 is a must, regardless if the client has a 16:9 TV or not, same goes for some sorta HDV authoring provided how tech-savvy your clients are. __________________ dreaming hobbyist + storyteller www.michaelywong.com

March 18th, 2007, 10:16 AM	#36
Edward Slonaker Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Hell's 6 acres in S. Texas Posts: 203	I'm using 2 FX1's and a Sony single-chip, smaller camera for the more "portable" shots. I'm currently shooting all SD until I get more fluent with the HDV requirements. I also shoot all 16:9 and really enjoy that wide-screen format. Customers really seem to like it, too. __________________ Edward Slonaker El Pilon Productions San Patricio, Texas www.elpilon.com

March 18th, 2007, 06:34 PM	#41
Paul Nguyen Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Fairfield, NSW Australia Posts: 31	Moved to new thread... Last edited by Paul Nguyen; March 19th, 2007 at 05:29 PM. Reason: Moved to new thread...

March 16th, 2007, 05:59 PM	#31
Adam Grunseth Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Location: Eugene Oregon Posts: 393	I too am using the JVC HD-110, although I am using it mainly to shoot 16:9 SD. My other camera is a Sony PDX 10. I find the full rez 16:9 from the sony and the full rez 16:9 from the JVC work very well together, and although not HD, full rez 16:9 still looks pretty good on an HD tv. I do offer HD to my clients, but no one has wanted it yet. The JVC works great as an SD camera, and I figure when I go HD my cameras are ready.

March 17th, 2007, 03:24 AM	#32
Bruce S. Yarock Trustee Join Date: May 2004 Location: Pembroke Pines, Fl. Posts: 1,842	After 2 years with a Canon XL2, I added an FX1 to my arsenal. A few months back, I was lucky enough to get a GREAT deal on a clean used XLH1. Sold the XL2, sold the unpredictable FS4 firestore drives, and picked up the canon HV10. So now we have three great hdv cameras, which can also shoot in sd when needed. I try to shoot primarily in hdv, unless the customer won't accept 16:9. For low light situatioons in weddings,etc., I'm having to crank the gain on my H1 to 12. But the image still looks good. I love the look of the Sony, but it's tough to get a real good match with the canons.If our busines gets better, I'd considr selling the FX1 and getting a Canon A1 for easier matching looks. The HV10 is fantastic, as long as you use astabilizer and watch exposure. Now if I could just get Premier Pro, Cineform and the new Dell hot rod PC to work together editing HDV...... Bruce S. Yarock www.yarock.com

March 18th, 2007, 04:45 AM	#34
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	ive gone through too many to even count.. worst decision was ditchign the DSR570 and getting 2 Z1's ... this was purely an SD 16:9 decision... worked out OK, but i was lucky... knocked those of recently and now looking at another alternative.. i personally despise HDV... everything about the format is a compromise... fair enough its USABLE, and in controlled environments it can be rather nice, but IMO the compression noise is low ambient environments just cannto be compared to SD.. however as mentioned by someone else, weddings really dont justify certain costs.. so i sold off the Z1's... as most of my corporate stuff is already established, they dont care what camera i use and most of the deliveries arenow web/intranet based.. not DVD, or HD.. More than likely my opinion on the HDV format is stemmed from the sheer lack of tweakbility of this unit.. in addiiton to the noise levels and image quality (or lack of) compared to an SD DVX100/a Im considering an XLH1 and an A1 as second unit, as i also have a canon5d and throwing one of these lenses on an H1 would be ideal for what i want to do. 720p or 1080p is also the 2 formats i would consider, i wouldnt even bother with interlaced... if i my clients want interlaced, they'd go hire a handycam and shoot their own wedding.. One thing i should point out.. I have shot several weddings with the JVC HD101... i like the camera.. i like the form factor, i like the focus peak.. i HATE the lense (flaring and CA is abysmal) BUT ive used DVX100'''s as B-roll.. when scaling DVX to 720p to match.. i have to say.. youd be VERY hard presed to notice the difference between the 2 save from some sharpness.. what you will notice however is the motion and image smoothness, and more importantly, cleanliness of the scaled footage vs the native HDV footage. In addition.. many brides prefer the softer look because even though skin detail is visible, its not as "shocking" as native IMO if you can shoot SD and scale to HD res and STILL make it look good, then theres no point in bothering with cameras unless your clients are demanding a change. At this time, here in Aus, australian clients hardly understand what Widescreen is about.. let alone what HD topns are available, let alone the differences within these options.. Even with SD, they dont understand the differences of progressive scan, and when you show them.. its only THEN that they realise how important this element can be when theyre tossing up between production houses.. At this time, even though there is a means to deliver what we create in HD, it still a toss up between how much these additions will cost and how much clients are willing to pay.. At this time, i can tell you clients are NOT willing to pay extra for HD.. not here in aus anyway.. whether it be shot or delivered in HD, they dont care.. they just want a DVD that looks good..

March 18th, 2007, 10:20 AM	#37
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	"But I DO need HDV so I can downsample it to SD at 4:2:2 to get better than DV at standard definition" Aye? whered u get this number from? HDV is only 4:2:0... no matter what u do with it it will alwyas remain 4:2:0

March 18th, 2007, 05:01 PM	#40
Andy Harding Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 82	Well I'm just starting out with XM1, XL1S and just bought a XL2 (we have some 3 camera shoots coming up) did not go for HDV due to the fact the way I will be delivering the content is just on DVD (for domestic market) and so do not need that quality for a while as yet (I'm in the UK). Until most of the customers start all having HD TV's and HD players I just don't see the point of the expence, we do all our own burning in house as well so it's just not an investment in cameras but serious spending on Hardware as well. I'm also doing a few in house projects that I'd like to shoot on HDCAM (was maybe thinking of buying in next year just one camera). But now wondering whether to leave it and jump the format and go for the Red at a later date.

March 19th, 2007, 11:39 AM	#43
Joe Allen Rosenberger Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: USA Posts: 419	Thanks Monday.....and yes, LETS ALL STAY ON TOPIC HERE....or start another thread. This thread was started by me but is here for all of us to have a solid way of seeing what folks are using for cams around here, and if it keeps getting side tracked by comments on how HDV is this and SD is that, and this codec works better than this and the color sampling is better than that, the original idea gets lost in the rubble. Cams ONLY!!!!! or start another thread. thanks-joe

March 21st, 2007, 03:15 PM	#45
Jim Fields Major Player Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Fort Worth Texas Posts: 247	I use a JVC HD110U I shoot my weddings 720P 30, only because 24 frame is pretty new to me, and I get alot od smear. I like the camera's feel, I hate the lack of an auto focus. I came from a Sony Z1U and truth be told, I only went with the JVC because I wanted progressive, and the ability to change the lens. Well, 10,000.00 later (for the entire camera kit I purchased) I wish I would have just bought 2 Z1U's and forgot about progressive. Even now I am thinking of either buying a small form factor camera like the Z1U, or buying a glidecam, 6 hors of holding that big camera kills me. I still have yet to achive the look and feel I wanted with this camera, whivh makes me even more regretive of buying it. Takes a good picture though.