POLL v2: Does HDV actually suck or not?

"And you haven't answered my question on the other thread. So now you owe me."

Sorry, I missed that one. What was the question?

You are right, I didnt vote. I'm a "still not sure".

I would use it for weddings, EPKs and news magazines, but not for feature docs or narrative features.

Oh, and it makes really really nice SD. And with frame blending and down rezzing, 60i becomes really nice 30p SD at that. So that is of value.

- Christopher S. Johnson

Haven't worked on HDV yet, and not that i'm keen on it. The long GOP is always going to be an issue. The funny thing is that i always associate DVDs (and its problems) with the GOP, being unable to faithfully reproduce with frame for frame accuracy. Frankly, imagine if years ago the guys at SONY created DV25 running a long GOP- that would effectively make VHS a more trustworthy investment.

I'd rather go on dvcprohd any day than HDV, just like i'd go on dvcpro over dv (i'm in a PAL country, so dvcpro is actually a different format).

Vote no- it sounds like it's going to create more post problems.

AND...only if you capture as ProRes and avoid the HDV codec in post.

Shane do you capture it as Pro Res through AJA IO ?

---------------------------------
A Day late & a Dollar-short Productions

In FCP 6, why not just RENDER in ProRes but keep other footage native?

Christopher SJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In FCP 6, why not just RENDER in ProRes but keep
> other footage native?


I believe it is to remove the long GOP as soon as possible to avoid complications later on. In Pro Res, you'll effectively be in all "I" frames, resulting in better calculation for effects, etc... a 'B' or a 'P' frame is a non-editable frame, when you make a cut at a point, Final Cut will create an 'I' frame at that point from the previous 'I' frame or else you'll simply not have pictures, as a 'B' or a 'P' frame is basically useless without its intraframe.

I believe it is to remove the long GOP as soon as possible to avoid complications later on. In Pro Res, you'll effectively be in all "I" frames, resulting in better calculation for effects, etc... a 'B' or a 'P' frame is a non-editable frame, when you make a cut at a point, Final Cut will create an 'I' frame at that point from the previous 'I' frame or else you'll simply not have pictures, as a 'B' or a 'P' frame is basically useless without its intraframe.

What? Not have pictures? I've edited many many packages in HDV and never had any sort of problem like that. The worst thing about it (and this is also true of XDCam HD) is doing any dissolves, effects or color correction. I have set Pro Res as my render codec for that reason (thanks Andy) and that works better.

I voted Yes because it doesn't matter what anyone votes IF you're an editor or shooter for hire. If the customer wants HDV, why say no? If you're doing your own projects, that's a different story but the cost savings can mean the difference between getting to do a project and not.

The McDonalds of LA are littered with esthetes who won't compromise on their "vision". OK, that may be a bit dramatic but really, if someone else is willing to pay you to shoot/edit HDV, would people here really say no?

HDV's not perfect. Far from it but I'd rather be the guy who can make it work than the guy who doesn't get the job because he thinks HDV is beneath his dignity.

The picture is stored in the intraframe, the B and P frames are calculations on differences between that and the preceeding frame. It's always the pixelation and the artifacts that I hate about the GOP. Therefore, if you replace all those frames with I frames, it would allow for more calculation space.

Would I work on HDV, if there isn't a better option. Does it suck? Yes. Will i work on it if i'm given that format and i like the job? yes.

you're right Christopher
if you're working with HDV in FCP6+ then there's no benefit to getting out of Long GOP unless you are actually altering the raw pictures. in that regard, choosing ProRes as the render codec is the way to go. raw footage that is untreated will remain pristine. rendered footage will be stored in the ProRes (I-frame) codec. its like having your cake and eating it

One thing that has not been mentioned is audio. So...how is the audio coming out of an HDV cam? Same as any other consumer cam? MP1?

Michael Horton
-------------------

I've added one of our new real Polls in another thread, for those who want to vote and see results better than me counting on my fingers and toes and adding guesses.

Find it here

[www.lafcpug.org]

Hi Christopher:

Yes, with those rolling shutter artifacts [dvxuser.com] and the vignetting defects [www.dvinfo.net]
that new Sony PMW-EX-1 sure does "blow the doors off of every single under $10,000.00 camera" Too bad that the first batches are being re-called and repaired or replaced. Way to go Sony. Keep pushing that long GOP format, everyone loves it! ;-)

Dan

Dan,

I'm just telling you what I saw with my own eyes on HD monitors at the LAFCPUG meeting, and talking to and reading DP reports. And the vignetting problem is gone now as I understand it. The few that got out with it are getting fixed.

I'm telling you, as a documentary editor of ten years who has worked with the Sony, Panasonic, and JVC under $10,000 camera's footage many times, this was demonstrably better than the others.

I'm not saying it was a Varicam or an F900, its not, but I do stick by my original claim and will re-emphasize that much of this debate around the cheap end of HD and between blocky HDV and the soft HVX-200 is moot now that this camera is out.

Christopher S. Johnson

VOTE NO -
I am Arod and I approve this message -

Guys this is so so simple: imagine someone gives you two choices:

you can choose the just ok format or you can choose the one that is Good. which one would you choose.? -
Obviously the good one -
so why even debate the obvious.
GOP is great, but only if you're a consumer. When you want the same quality you shoot to be the same quality you deliver and a format that handles low light and lots of editing workflows?

here's my analogy: VHS does the job, but why use a VHS when you can have a DVD?

HVD does the job, but why use HDV when you can use HD? not that GOP crap

I think because a lot of people can't use HD for budget reasons, and also a lot of people don't need HD in the first place. Not defending the format itself, just the reasoning for using it.

Right. And guys... Geez I know this is an old topic, but man, can we use the term "HD" properly.

"High Definition" is a container word that holds the whole spectrum of quality, from the low end to the high end. I watch HD podcasts on iTunes. I look at HDV tapes that are HD, ect.

You couldn't broadcast full signal from a little HDV camera over an SD broadcast tower antenna. You would need an HD broadcast signal.

Can we call the higher end formats "high end HD"? That would be more accurate.

Of course I'm aware of the limits of HDV. Duh. I keep a screen capture of a worse case scenario for HDV on my iDisk at all times just to show producers in pre-production meetings.

But, like others here, I see great stuff come from HDV as well. And 60i interlace without a lot of motion is sharper on many HDV cameras than the HVX-200. I see that all of the time.

And then there is news gathering. HDV is great for news and news magazine style reports.

And honestly, when down-rezzed to SD, an FX-1 can look like a $20,000 SD camera easily. And many of the macro-blocking artifacts just disappear.

The fact is, we are in here chomping away like Yaks while some BBC reporter is out in Darfur or Baghdad getting good shots with HDV, and some well lit stage performance is getting on local HD television via HDV, and some little fat girl in Ohio is making her narrative drama on HDV.

Of course I would rather have a Varicam or F-900 for Christmas! Send me one.

I just left a pre-production meeting with a producer who was going to shoot interviews in the occupied territories in Israel. Israel doesn't really do Panasonic at rental houses there. Its either HDV or HDCAM Sony F-900. No middle ground like the newer XDCAM-HDs. We discussed the needs of the project and agreed that if it was for a news magazine we would have gone with HDV, but this was for a feature doc and with a possible film-out. So the bullet was bit and they rented the F-900. Ouch.

This is why I was talking up XDCAM-HD EX, or even a sharper HVX-200 (when it comes around). I'm optimistic about these middle-formats in "under $10,000" cameras taking the sting out of these decisions this poll is really about. And its already started.

-Christopher

Quote

And honestly, when down-rezzed to SD, an FX-1 can look like a $20,000 SD camera easily. And many of the macro-blocking artifacts just disappear.

Exactly the main reason why I love it. My little Sony HDR-HC1 single CMOS chip HDV camera (1080i) takes phenomenal pictures and they hold up really well when they are loaded into SD comps in After Effects.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

I guess this threads all dried up but heres my vote anyway.
A definite yes from me. I have the Canon XHA1 and love it. Wayne nearly talked me into getting the HVX but it would have cost me double the money and i'm happy with my choice i made. If i was buying again now i'd go with the sony EX without a doubt. In the meantime the A1 will do me fine until such a time as Canon, Panasonic, and JVC make new models to compete with the sony and the price of the cards comes down.