HDV = BETAMAX ??? i WILL be shutting up soon...

ok, maybe my metaphor is wrong (given that beta was a better quality format than vhs), but let's not get hung up on metaphorical minutiae...

above and beyond all my HDV debate, i still have yet to see ANYONE say that they have produced a proper, multi-device, consumer viable stand-alone deliverable from an HDV source. (and if anyone has, id happily pay shipping for you to send me your dvd, etc...)

i read three back issues of DV magazine this evening and one thing that ALL three articles said (one on HDV in general, one on the z1, and one comparing the z1 to the xl2) is that if you are doing compositing or any graphic overlay (as my own tests will support) HDV is NOT the way to go. i saw crazy half-screen artifacting on all motion text.

again, from what ive seen, my personal conclusion is if you have an extra 3 to 6 grand laying about for an extra shooting option (or you are delivering your work on the web OR are planning to uprez to film mostly), get an HDV camera. if you are going to choose a single format for your all-round work in the next 3 to 5 years - blow off hdv, read, pay atention and adopt real hd as it innevitably becomes more financially viable.

and aside from all this, the advance footage i saw from the canon xl h1 has all the same motion issues as does its lower priced competitors and i cant believe that anyone other than crash-cam HD shooters are even considering it - welcome to betamax of our generation my friends!

or maybe i should have compared HDV to 8track tape... yeah, that probably made more sense... as its a format that takes into consideration a couple benefits and ignores a host of its shortcomings...

I can understand using HDV if you were making short films or whatever but I would not waste the time or money for web stuff but it is interesting to hear from someone who has definately had a bad time with HDV. It is obvious that in the USA you are ahead of the game than us Brits - this is film/digi beta land. I know hire companies knock out HDV players and cameras but I know NOBODY! who has used them.

I remember getting my first VHS recorder in the early 80s. After taping something off the BBC, and playing it back, I just couldn't tell the difference - the recording was perfect!

Now, of course, I can see the difference as plain as day and night.

It's similar with Digital Broadasting - wow that's perfect, but oh dear, what are those artifacts.

And HDV - looks amazing when you first see it, but after a while you start to see what's wrong with it as your eye and brain learns.

This happens with ALL video formats. It's natural. And everyone's eye is different.

My major issues with HDV are:

1) it's 4 mostly incompatible formats:

a) JVC 720p30
b) JVC 720p24
c) Sony 1080i
d) Canon 24F

2) No pro decks. No SDI inputs or outputs, only converter boxes - ouch.

3) not WYSIWYG - you can't see the compression problems (the major, temporal ones) in the viewfinder, so you only know that you've got issues when you play the tape back

4) can't play off the timeline through the deck or camera for monitoring

Graeme



[www.nattress.com] - Plugins for FCP-X

> I remember getting my first VHS recorder in the early 80s. After taping
> something off the BBC, and playing it back, I just couldn't tell the difference
> - the recording was perfect!

Ha ha ha...excellent point, Graeme. It's in the eye of the beholder.
We judge things by what we're used to seeing.
And then there's always that "X-Factor" -- an intangible "something" (probably familiarity) similar to why lots of people still want to record sound on analog tape. Or why I still like looking at Beta footage much more than DV, though I've been told by the experts on here that DV is a better format.

4:2:0 (1/4 the Luma Samples)
The zero in 4:2:0 means that Cb and Cr are sampled at half the vertical resolution of Y. MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 use 4:2:0, but the samples are taken at different intervals. By the time MPEG-2 came along, it was known that 4:2:2 coding was often converted to 4:2:0, which is why MPEG-2 sampling more closely lines up with the 4:2:2 pattern. H.261/263 also uses 4:2:0

From the Computer Desktop Encyclopedia

There is a prime time show in New Zealand shooting a series on HDV. Plays in Austrailia and no one has a clue that it is HDV. You can get more info by listening to Philip and me talk to Roger Grant on the Digital Production Buzz pod cast

Look in the archives under Nov 3

[www.digitalproductionbuzz.com]

Is the lack of issues of HDV on broadcast more down to how heavily compressed HD broadcast is, masking any quality differences in the programme, or just that, quite frankly, even many video experts are utterly uncritical of major issues in video quality??

And that most HD viewing gear really isn't up to the task?

Graeme



[www.nattress.com] - Plugins for FCP-X

OK. Here's the deal - whether HD/HDV succeeds will depend on what the consumer buys. So far, the only thing we have to base our judgement on is what is being broadcast, which, so far as I've been able to determine, is considerably inferior to HDV - and so-called HD sets are selling very well.

I work with video people daily. I see their work in various stages of production, and I hear a lot of opinions. I also mess around with video technology as a hobbyist, and had quite a few film classes in college (in another millenium), which means I have a bit more knowlege of entertainment media than the average guy on the street, but I think I still see images from the perspective of a non professional - which is where the primary audience for most media is - they are the customer. I have to say, if I compare what I see from an HDV originated source shown on HD with a good-quality NTSC source, HDV/HD wins - big time!

Every medium has "artifacts" even film - blow up your old 35mm pictures - you'll see what I mean. Take a look at ANY NTSC image - hey, try and get a still - it'll look terrible - stair stepping, jaggies, and NTSC has lots of temporal problems-watch any basketball game.

For that matter, check out some stills taken at an MCA-I (ITVA) Meeting in September.

[www.OneBigZoo.com]

The event was at the closed Tustin air station which currently has no electricity. The generator folks showed up, but the people with the lights got a last-minute gig and had to cancel - a lot of these were lit with flashlights. These stills were captured from the regular .m2t tape from my FX-1 with no special processing or even de-interlacing. We had't even considered stills when we were shooting it. Try to get pics like this from ANY NTSC camera!

Several of my clients have reluctantly bought Z1s because of some sort of client request. In each case, they became converts - one even has decided to shoot EVERYTHING from now, on in HDV.

Yeah, a $3000.00 camera isn't going to do what a $100,000 camera can do - or a film camera, but what I've seen done with the Sony cameras is far superior to anything I've seen on standard definition. It's easier to watch, far fewer artifacts (If you consider scan-lines and stair stepping artifacts) and looks MUCH better when shown on any screen over 19 inches.



Post Edited (11-18-05 19:02)

Travis
VoiceOver Guy and Entertainment Technology Enthusiast
[www.VOTalent.com]

I don't do straignt editing with HDV so I agree with Travis's last paragraph. The HDV picture from the HVR-Z1U is much nicer (IMHO) than our professional ENG DVCAMs and with a small amount of After Effects treatment, looks just like a film shoot. Colors are cleanly separated with NO BLEED / STAIRSTEPPING WHATSOEVER (you ever shoot a lot of red objects in regular DV?). The ftg reacts superbly to plug-in FX / Image Adjustments.

I am requesting all our '06 shoots are done with HDV. The files are smaller and the archived files are higher rez...and I just enjoy effecting the ftg.

It's a WIN-WIN in my shop!

(cut to JOEY -2 thumbs up w/big smile)

- Joey



When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Unless one needs many hours of continuous record time, I can't help but think the HVX-200 with Focus Enhancement drive is a better way to go.

The ability to shoot DVCPro50 and DVCProHD with 4:2:2 has to help with compositing and keying. The ability to input without a deck, Pass through a device for color correction on a monitor, the lack of fast motion artifacts make it a better tool for post. Dual layer BluRay or a data tape format may be a means of archival.

I wouldn't use "consumer" choice as a guide except to measure the growth of HDTV acceptance (and some form of playback). Content producers use what they need to get results the client feels happy to pay for. It's the deliverable that must be "compaitible."

Consumers are often faced with an either/or format choice for economic reasons. People don't want to buy 2 or more playback devices. I believe producers buy what they believe gives them best (efficiency, quality) workflow the client will pay for.

BTW, in some circles people are delivering with WMVHD (not to consumers though). I'm seeing this working it's way into the corporate world. WMVHD can be played from a computer to an HDTV or one can use JVC's ioData (a DVD player that can play a WMVHD file. At $350, it's an easy add on (maybe easier than a PC) to a corporate presentation room.



Craig Seeman
[thirdplanetvideo.com]

I don't know if anyone has seen this yet, but it looks cool for those dealing in HD content... an HDV to HD-SDI Bridge:

[www.miranda.com]

[www.miranda.com]

...worth looking into.

- Joey



When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

i just saw a local cable tv spot for a furniture store that was shot on HDV.
the whole thing was riddled with the same vertical panning jitters that ive seen in all the other hdv footage ive seen...

Although I've not used the Miranda boox, I've not heard good things about it from someone who I know has used it. Test with care....

But really, if they'd wanted pro adoption of HDV they'd have put SDI I/O on the deck.....

Graeme



[www.nattress.com] - Plugins for FCP-X

HDV is in it's infancy. As it gets adopted by more projects, I believe it's inevitable that a pro deck is coming. The new Canon HDV camera comes with Uncompressed SDI HD output. It's a start.

- Joey



When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

WHen I last spoke to Sony, that wasn't what they told me! They didn't even care that the deck didn't take big tapes. They're gearing up to sell you XDCAM HD - they hardly care about HDV, IMHO.

Graeme



[www.nattress.com] - Plugins for FCP-X

Wouldnt say they hardly care Graeme. HDV has done a lot for Sony's bottom line I would think. Its a HUGE seller. Of course the Professional Broadcast Division of Sony could hardly care as XDCAM HD is indeed the next "big" thing now that the camera has come down in price.

I doubt they're making much on an HDV sale compared to a broadcast camera sale. Anyway, I'm just picking up what I got from the HDV sales thing they did in Ottawa earlier in the year, when they really seemed to be saying that HDV is just the transition from DV to HD, and that XDCAM is there next big thing etc. They rapidly dismissed complaints that the deck was poor, didn't take big tapes, no SDI etc. and would not confirm that they're developing any model to address these issues. It all seemed to be buy HDV now and buy XDCAM next year.

Graeme



[www.nattress.com] - Plugins for FCP-X

<<It all seemed to be buy HDV now and buy XDCAM next year.>>

and this is exactly what ive been saying about HDV from the start...

The XDCam at 20K is still a rental for most folks in the indy world. Plus getting your head around a disc that costs $30.00 a pop and holds 23 gigs might prove to be as problematic as selling the folks the notion of a P2 card.

Could be Mike, could be tricky indeed. But I guess a XDCAM camcorder rather than a big broadcast camera would be a lot more affordable.

Graeme



[www.nattress.com] - Plugins for FCP-X

"...WHen I last spoke to Sony, that wasn't what they told me! They didn't even care that the deck didn't take big tapes."

Gee, G... didn't know you were so tight with Sony... wait, it was RESELLERS you spoke to? They'll sell their Mother's good china to buy tires for their Hummers. I doubt very much that they told you specifically "they don't care if the deck only takes small tapes". In my small market (Central Florida), these Sony HDV cameras are popping up all over the place. We must be in the minority.

As strong as your opinion is... and it is your OPINION... HDV (as Mike said) is a HUGE SELLER for Sony right now - like it or not (maybe not in Ottawa - definitely is in the US). Being that it's 1/4 the price of the XDCAM, I betcha it'll get even STRONGER once XDCAM is fully released.

- Joey



When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

hey joe, could i convice you to post 2 or 3 of your successful HDV source clips on an ftp server or something? something with at least some camera panning motion? i have still yet to se ANY HDV footage with reasonably swift camera panning where vertical objects in the background didnt jitter like mad...

wayne Granzin wrote:
i have still yet to se
> ANY HDV footage with reasonably swift camera panning where
> vertical objects in the background didnt jitter like mad...

I dont think I've seen ANY pro-sumer cam do this without some sort of jitter, smearing or artifacts.

Sony Canada product Manager for HDV is who I spoke to, at the local Sony dealer's HDV event.

I'm sure HDV is everywhere, it's cheap and it's "HD". What more could you want? It's got the pixels per dollar working in it's favour.

Graeme



[www.nattress.com] - Plugins for FCP-X

<<some sort>>
is subjective.

ive posted my bad results... i have yet to see anyone post their "acceptable" results... and i strongly doubt i will...

<<some sort of jitter>>

ive been shooting DV for years now, and i have yet to see a well tracked object that DV cant pan follow reaonably smoothly... yet EVERYTHING ive shot in various states of HDV is jittery as PHOQ.

maybe im just demanding, or maybe im just less subject to "reality distortion"

Oh dear I've seen excellent results from a HDV Cam. We've played several clips at lafcpug meetings on a 25 ft screen Granted there were no whip pans, but picture looked delicious. I've also seen excellent results from keying HDV. Like any pro-sumer cam you got to know its limitations and just don't do what you know it can't do, such as keep those shimmering leaves and telephone lines out of the shot, no whip pans, keep away from RED shirts and learn how to fake DOF

:-)

that is nuts, ive yet to see ANY DV project that CANT accept a good animation+alpha overlay. and ive worked about 6 HDV projects and they ALL left tons of artifacts.

i am totally wiling to lose this argumnet if anyone can tell me their workflow that resulted in as good as or better results as DV, and i have yet to see that...

Stuff I saw was turn the camera on and shoot.

:-)