HDV Cameras

Hello everyone,

I am starting to shop for a HDV cam but before I get too excited about any particular model I wanted to ask you guys what works well with Final Cut 5.1-6 and is accepted by the suits as HD?

Gratefully,
John

The first question you need to ask yourself is; what do I PLAN TO DO WITH THIS CAMERA OUTPUT?

You do realize that the format used by HDV is really worse than DV. don't you? In video, color space is EVERYTHING! HDV is 4:2:0 and DV is 4:1:1. You can barely green screen DV, but HDV is worse. Many people try to call HDV Hi Definition. but only the presented frame size is close to HD.

Sorry but this comes from a person who started out with HDV and finally switched to real HD with a Panasonic HVX200.

Depends on who the suits are? If it is for TV then sometimes a Z1U or a HVX-200 will do but for many you will need a 2/3" chip camera for fit the minimum requirements for submitting material. It really depends on your clientele.

If you are jumping into it from DV you may wish to outline your production gear. If you are doing the editing, the equipment you have around Final Cut will dictate what you can do with your HDV material. You're gonna need a RAID setup and a MacPro or a G5 computer with probably a card to up-rez your (ingested) material. And the list goes on.

You are going to get lots of people crapping on the Z1U. The camera works fine for its intended market segment. The HVX has large problems as well but there are many attractive things about the camera.

If you are just getting into this the Z1U is a good practical camera if you are going to be capturing footage for the lower end of the market. You won't have the storage issue that the HVX has. There are many DPs with decades of experience that have the Z1U as their freelance backup camera and use higher end units when the gig & budget dictates. That's what rental houses are for.

-Andrew

boy, who here bet id be jumpin in on this topic ; )

there arent a ton times when foley and i agree on things but this IS one of them. i put HDV through the ringer with the Z1, HD100 and XLH1 (top end HDV at that time and still so more or less) about 18 months or so ago and they ALL had the same problems. cant deal with motion worth a CRAP. and this has been evident in ALL HDV footage ive ever seen FROM ANY HDV camera! and it doesnt hold up well with graphic overlays either...

i bought a panasonic HVX (dvcproHD) a week after demo-ing it. lovely, gorgeous! and once you get over adjusting to the P2 storage paradigm - its CAKE. no convoluted work arounds or anything out of the norm. and you dont really "NEED" new hardware to work with it. get a second internal sata drive and youre fine - though i do recommend some kind of external esata or firewire raid for best performance. this of course assumes that you have a relatively recent adequately equipped g5

the only people who like HDV are either shooting watersports (where the jitters are hidden in all the rapid movement of everything) or feature type work where the camera is locked down.

dont be fooled by the marketing hype

There are a lot of HDV cameras now. They are a good choice if you don't want to spend $75,000 for a full HD camera like the Sony 900.

The Sony HVR Z1U camera is selling for about $4,000 now. I've been able to use it professionally with excellent results.

The Z1 works well with FCP5 and the G5. You can edit HDV natively or you can convert the HDV format to some other SD format if your output is going to be SD DVD for example.

If you need to produce full HD movies, you can record your movie after editing back to the Z1 and take the tape to a post house for up-rezing and enhancement if you choose to do it.

"You're gonna need a RAID setup"

-You dont really need a RAID setup for HDV.
The data rate is ever lower than DV so you will not need the extra drive speed you get from RAID, nor will you need the extra storage unless you shoot a lot.

I have used Sony's ZIP HDV and Panasonics HVX202 and I am never under any circumstances using HDV again. Ever.

The HVX uses the DVCPRO HD codec which is not really that good to be honest but if you compare it to the HDV codec it is fantastic.
And you can green screen with the HVX.
Its impossible to do reach a good key result with a HDV camera.

Get yourself a HVX202 if you can afford it.
If not, get a DV CAM from Canon.

Johan Polhem
Motion Graphics
www.johanpolhem.com

wayne granzin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> there arent a ton times when foley and i agree on
> things but this IS one of them.

LMAO

i thought you'd get a chuckle from that one ; )

The answer to this question, like so many others is "It depends". For instance, I'm really happy with my FX1. (Can be bought for under $3.5K) I'm also happy with my HC3 (Can be bought for under $1K) I use FC studio 5 on a Mac Mini and Sony Vegas.

For the kind of work I do and the results I need, it works! However, I am, by choice, an amateur (You can't pay me enough to do video/film for money.) My budget keeps me in HDV-land, but it's certainly good enough for and the kind of work I do. A piece I put together recently can be viewed at: http://www.VOTalent.com/filmoc . --Quite a few video and film professionals have seen this piece and have expressed surpirse at how good the HDV footage looks. (Note that this has been converted to 24 FPS for web display - 1080i motion is much smoother.)

In my opinion HDV is good enough for most corporate video. However there are compromises that you'll have to deal with. If your budget is small, a Sony HC3 may be good enough. If you can afford it a Sony Z1 (Around $5k) is better.

Got ten grand? - The Cannon XL-H1 has interchangable lenses, and a lot of people I work with have given it good reviews. I just talked to one of my clients who bought two Panasonic AG-HVX200s and is extremely happy-They were using Z1s before. - They bought the cameras and are renting the memory for storage.

Best advice I've heard - rent some the the cameras to see if they will work for your application.

Although I think HDV is "good enough" for a lot of work, I believe that HDV will be considered obsolete in about three years.

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

wait the hvx202 is pal and asian specific and not ntsc. right or wrong?

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

That was beautiful quality, Travis. Your narration is excellent too.

HDV jumps noticeably on pans - END of discussion

Not the end of discussion.

I have an HVX200 and am getting the A1, I post produce both HDV and DVCProHD with a digital intermediate codec and you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference.

i can tell

Thanks Filmman!

---

Wayne is correct (Wayne just HATES HDV) if you pan too quickly, the picture may get "jumpy". If fact, if there is too much motion in a scene, the picture can disintegrate completely. When I first bought my FX1, I put it through a few paces to determine its limitations. First, the pictures it creates are beautiful. (I've always hated SD almost as much as Wayne hates HDV).

The reason HDV has problems with too much motion is that it uses MPEG compression. When too much stuff moves in a scene, you will begin to see "artifacts". These artifacts will much more obvious to an editor than a typical viewer. MPEG uses sleight of hand to work its magic - it removes things from the picture that you probably won't miss, and covers up the fact that things are missing by emphasising the things you will notice.

It's like working backstage with a performance magician. As an editor, you can see all the trap doors, the mirrors and the wire. If you're the type of person who needs to shout out "Wait, it's a trick! The pretty girl that the magician transported from one side of the stage to the other is really twins!" then you probably are not well suited to work with any kind of video compression. On the other hand, if you believe that the audience doesn't care that they're being "tricked" and would prefer to be amazed and entertained, then HDV is probably suitable for most of your applications.

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

the one thing that bothers me about HDV may be something that only some people are ABLE to see. its like the rainbow effect that some projector formats (dlp, lcd, im not sure which) are prone to. some of you may know what i mean. youre watching a projected presentation and when you blink, you can see seemingly random rainbows. some people will have no idea what im talking about but other will go "YEAH!" i have been told by a number of tech folks that its something that some people arent physically able to see. blessing or curse? dunno..

similarly, there are some HDV issues that everyone can see and others that may not be as obvious. but i personally see them. and that ONE is the "plodding thud" - thats the only way i can describe it. i saw a collection of clips somewhere recently, there was panning across a shingled roof and a slow pan of cars on a street at night. and every two seconds or so there was a dull, though very slight pause. and THAT is the one thing ive seen in all HDV footage. based on what ive gathered it likely due to some part of the long GOP siutation. the mpeg part would explain the artifacting but NOT the "thuds"

maybe im just nuts, but i see it. and ive seen it in all HDV footage that ive looked at. even in a manufacturer demo, i asked the presenter why the footage was jerky and he kind of waffled, but surprisingly it was the other attendees who chimed in and tried to tell me "it was the NLEs fault" - i called bull and just sat down - as the room was clearly all too willing to buy in to the marketing BS.

another poster here steven gladney was there at that event and he can attest to this. he by the way, tried his darnedest to go HDV, but eventually wound up with an HVX...

there's a slight whiff of emporer's new clothes in all that ... very interesting tho.
any links to more reading on this wayne?

cheers
Andy

weve discussed it at reasonably length in the forum here and some of the heavier "nuts and bolts" types have chimed in - just search HDV and im sure you'll unearth a good bit.

but no. i dont have links to specific content. ill try to dig up some of the sample links ive looked at in the past later in the day...

I think you get performance in regard to thud with short GOP video. I guess you have to learn to shoot and direct for the medium you're working in.

Personally I HATE, loathe beyond possible description, panning in films. 24p makes the most horrible motion, yet it seems to be acceptable. Personally I would never want to shoot in 24p because of that. It looks great when you crank it with a super fast shutter speed and get the "Private Ryan" look. Great special effect. The rest of the time, garbage. Personally this is far, far more loathsome to me than the thud. Don't like the thud, don't do slow pans across things. Slow pans suck anyway. It's bad direction and bad camera work most of the time. Pointless, aimless wandering, hard to cut, and usually just grinds the scene to a thudding halt.

Travis Wrote:
> The reason HDV has problems with too much motion
> is that it uses MPEG compression. When too much
> stuff moves in a scene, you will begin to see
> "artifacts". These artifacts will much more
> obvious to an editor than a typical viewer. MPEG
> uses sleight of hand to work its magic - it
> removes things from the picture that you probably
> won't miss, and covers up the fact that things are
> missing by emphasising the things you will
> notice.

Technically, HDV removes everything that it thinks didn't change from the second frame to the 15th frame and then starts over. (Long GOP) No doubt, if you used a good quality Sony HDV camera on a tripod without pannning it, you have a very nice picture. Just don't try tricking it into trying to use the content for effects editing.

But real video doesn't stay still and Sony is trying to convince everyone that MPEG-2 is GOOD Enough, when formerly they were the pristine 4:2:2 king of cameras. What changed in Sony land? The whole point of good usable video is to capture it at the HIGHEST quality possible, first. Then use whatever editor and effects you need to output it to MPEG2-4, whatever display codec comes around next. That's why it's called Pro Video!

Frankly, I really didn't get Panasonic for quite some time with their own codecs and hardware, but since Sony has gone schizophrenic on us, now I get panasonics stand on quality video.

I never used Super 8 but it's probably better than any video camera ever was invented or will be invented.

No compression or artifacts to worry about and one doesn't have to spend $150,000 for plugins to make it look like film; it's already film. LOL

john, thats exactly my point. and one that nobody seems to get. HDV doesnt handle motion well, and in video - THINGS MOVE. and sometimes they move in unpredictable (and sometimes unpleasant) ways.

toms point also goes to defend my point. HDV is fine for locked down feature type work where you have a lot of control of the scene. but it BLOWS for run and gun type work. and i personally do a wide variety of work and i expect my camera to have as much latitude as possible.

ive said this before, to me a video camera that doesnt handle motion well is called a STILL CAMERA!

Quote

I never used Super 8 but it's probably better than any video camera ever was invented or will be invented.

Ok lets not get silly again - I'm not in the mood for madness today...

Ben



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

Now, we're actually getting to the most important and valid part of this discussion: To me the issue is not "Is HDV a bad format?" but rather "What sort of projects is HDV suitable for and what kinds of projects are not?"

HDV does have some important advantages over all of the "competing" formats - the most obvious one being cost. For about a thousand dollars, I can now purchase a camera which can (with some extra special care taken) deliver images that appear to the average viewer to equal those shot on 35mm film.

I saw two documentaries recently, which were shot on HDV and transferred to 35mm - It took me almost three minutes to determine that the footage was not shot on 35mm film - and that was only because I knew what to look for. Most of the rest of the audience didn't care - they perferred to simply be informed or entertained.

If I really want to, I can now shoot and complete a feature film with a total investment for image capturing and editing of under $10,000. That's important! Now, of course if someone forced me to produce a feature film (ugh!) I would not consider HDV, since I'd end up wasting a lot more money dealing with the limitations of the format - but for an awful lot of people HDV is going to be good enough.

Wedding videos? Yeah! Low-to-medium budget corporate videos? Yeah! Low-to-medium budget documentaries? Yeah! Motocross racing special for ESPN -- well, now we've got to consider the medium's limitations.

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

Why is it that anytime HDV is in the title of a thread people come out of the woodwork to carp on it.

Actually, I do get it really, many of you don't like HDV, then DON'T use it. But please stop trying to talk anyone else out of researching it.

I hate to put it this way but the debate is over, there is currently only ONE HD camcorder, the HVX200 that is NOT HDV, every other pro-sumer cHD amera on the planet IS HDV.

HDV probably out sells DVCProHD cameras 10 to 1. That doesn't mean you have to like it or use it, but at some point if you edit enough programs you'll probably have to deal with it. And if that day comes wouldn't it have been better if there was constructive dialog on this forum on the best ways to work with HDV rather than continually expressing how much you don't like it?

Funny how its not only Sony who has put a lot of effort and money into this format but Apple, Matrox, Avid and a really long list of other companies who have developed tools to work efficiently with HDV. But hey, what do they know. I guess they just don't SEE it?

> Why is it that anytime HDV is in the title of a thread people come out of the woodwork to
> carp on it.

Well, that's what a forum is for, isn't it? When somebody comes on here asking for advice, there are bound to be people who say "X is good", and some who say "X is bad".

I also hate the look of HDV. I hate how unresponsive it was when I was trying to edit it for two projects. I also hate that the director and producer chose the format without doing the research, without the right knowledgeable personnel to set up the project, thus screwing us for the entire span of the post-production process and making my job difficult.

But Chuck, if you disagree, say it! People who ask for recommendation will get more sides to the story, and nobody can say it's a bad thing.

If this were a forum specifically dedicated to HDV, then yes, people who hate the format should just stay away. But this is a Final Cut Pro forum. People are free to give different opinions.

And why do HDV cameras outsell DVCPro HD cameras? Because they're cheap. And the difference in price for the stock is even more dramatic, $10 per tape for HDV and $700 for a P2 card, or $125 for a DVCPro HD tape, last I checked. Consumers always consider price above quality (eg. DVDs vs. LDs, MP3s vs. MiniDiscs). So when somebody asks "What is the best
format to shoot on", we may not necessarily always recommend the cheapest option.

But by all means, continue to offer arguments in favour of shooting HDV. Disagreements are healthy and informative as long as all parties involved give informed opinions.


www.derekmok.com

Chuck,

I tend to agree with you and I think Derek hit it right on the head. I'm not an HDV fan, but everytime I see a post regarding HDV I see the same people jumping on and start harping on it. Hardly ever do I see anyone coming to the defense of it. I really wish if there are more people out there shooting and editing HDV that they would provide there input as to "what type of workflow have they established?", "what type of problems they have run into and how they have compensated?", "are the "jitters" and "thuds" as prevailing as everyone seems to mention?", etc, etc...

But the fact of the matter is (as far as this forum is concerned) people don't. Part of me wonders if it's out of fear of being bombarded by the HDV "Haters" on this forum or if it's that no one can really can disagree with all the things being said. I for one am not afraid to admit that part of the reason I got an HVX200 and not an HDV camera was because of all of the negative pub it has received from this forum (again, that is only in part. More prevailing reasons were because I got out there and rented one of the HDV cameras and loved the look and feel, but wasn't a big fan of editing the format). I opted for the HVX mainly because of all of the different formats it could shoot (including DVCPro 50 for SD and overcrank 60P HD footage) and more so the tapeless workflow. Never have been or will be a fan of the overall look and feel of the HVX (as opposed to loving the JCV-GYHD100's look and feel) or the fact you can only shoot 8-20 mins of HD footage before having to change out the card, but I found those things to be acceptable compromises.

And in my opinion that is the key word, COMPROMISE! EVERY camera out there is going to require some type of compromise. Whether it's compromising on the compression type of HDV, the look and feel of the HVX, or the cost of a Varicam, there is always going to be some level of compromise. If you have the money to purchase an HDV camera, then you definitely have the money rent one. Try it out. See if you like it and if it works in your workflow. It didn't in mine and several of the other people here, but it doesn't mean that it won't in yours. It's OK to take other peoples opinions to help you form an educated guess about something, but the only way you'll ever really KNOW is from your own experiences.

What's your level of compromise?

Steven Gladney

Sometimes the obvious is hidden in plain view.

Quote

Why is it that anytime HDV is in the title of a thread people come out of the woodwork to carp on it.

Hey Chuck et al

I think you'll find its often the onliners and people who have to deal with FX or grading the awful HDV format into something useable (within budget constraints) for broadcast/film.

Now there are lengthy processes for making HDV look better but that adds to the online cost. Not to mention the limitations of shooting with it.

Also - until the major broadcasters allow HDV footage (other than archive or news) in major productions then steer clear of it for pro-use. One of the reasons for this is that to compress an HDV stream into another MPEG-2 stream for broadcast will cause many more unacceptable artifacts - think of compressing a DVD twice and you get the picture... (or not as the case may be).

It causes so many headaches when the tech reviews for HD ban outright HDV use in programmes. Usually you have to have its use agreed beforehand with the commissioners.

As directors, producers, cameramen & offliners you won't often think about the online until the end (Yes I know from experience you lot love to "fix it in post". At this point comes all the problems. With no budget to cover the necessary time/work that you need to do to cover up inherent HDV issues to try and get it past the tech review.



So to be "constructive" about HDV

? Its cheap

? You can record long format

? The cameras are small


Simple guidelines

? Don't use it unless there is absolutely no alternative.

? If you do use it - make sure you follow all the rules about shot movement speed, detailed objects, low light, etc.

? Use only high-quality DVCAM tapes as a bear minimum or better still use HDV specific tape stock.

? Make sure you have allowed enough time/budget for the online.

? Most importantly (and if appropriate), check the delivery guidelines for the channel you are or wish to broadcast it on and make very sure they allow HDV content. Otherwise you are saving money only to have your video unusable or cost more at the end.

? If you think you can fake it well enough to get it through a tech review - don't tell ANYONE that you are using/used HDV or you may have already shot yourself in both feet the other arm and finally the head...



Ben



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

Well i took the plunge and bought a canon XHA1 camcorder a few weeks ago.
Of course i was harangued by Wayne and co about the horrors of the format but decided to ignore their advice. I wouldn't say i regret my decision but i have to be honest and say i'm already taking considerable interest in the up and coming "affordable" sony xd cam 1/2 chip camcorder anonounced at NAB (is this one ok Wayne?).
I very nearly bought the HVX but it would have involved buying a laptop as well as the extortionately priced P2 cards. I think if i put my Canon on ebay early next year and buy the Sony i'll still be better off than if i'd gone the HVX route.
In the meantime i have a very nice camcorder with a perfectly nice SD image - and for the right projects an oustanding HDV picture - with a good lens and many other nice features.
Do i regret not going the Panasonic route? Not a bit. However if i'd splashed out considerably more for the H1 or the JVC, Z1 etc i might be kicking myself now.
As Steven said a couple of posts back its about compromise, so i took the cheapest option, and the A1 is a lot of camera for the money. Nonetheless i do think Wayne's advice makes sense in retrospect, and the up and coming Sony looks very appealing.

We can't igonore HDV, I guess most people will agree...

So how do we remove the artifacts?

I read on one of the two popular websites -- I don't remember if it was Larry Jordan or Ken Stone -- that artifacts can be removed through Compressor 2.

I'm going to try and do this as an experiment because I have the Z1 camera and I will post the results.

I hope the experts here will review my post. The last post I placed here got zero response (it was on gamma correction vs. contrast filter correction).