I'm not convinced, can you convince me?
 

I am not convinced by HDV.
Please, could you convince me?

There is no doubt that HDV has more rez. I know that, I'm convinced about that. My problem resides elsewhere.

I’ve been using a PD-150 for years, then I switched to a DVX100a.
I have the money to buy a HDV cam, and I'm actually toying with the idea to wait until one of those RED cam is ready.

Right now I'm not convinced with the possibilities offered by HDV.
I want to be sure I’m hesitating because I don’t have all the information If I turn out to be ignorant and misinformed, please correct me. I want to be convinced that I should embrace HDV TODAY!

OK, so HDV has more resolution. But what do you do with it?
We can’t burn HDV DVD, correct? and DVD from the DVX100 on 30p mode looks great, I think. How better could HDV look projected from a DVD source onto a 46 inch TV screen? But we can't do that right now, correct?

For aspiring movie makers transfer to film is still problematic, correct?
If I was going to submit footage shot in HDV to some lab supposed to transferred it to 35mm for me:
What is my digital master going to be? I can’tplay
back out to HDV, correct? . It’s either going to be a HDCam tape (for the Z1 or HD100), a DVCPro100 tape (for panasonic) or files (TIFF) or an uncompressed Quicktime.
Am I correct on those?
So for somebody who has limited budget and wants to transfer to film, is HDV really that great?
And if you don’t want to transfer to film, since we can’t burn HDV DVD yet, what do you do with the footage? If you want to shoot a doc that will be seen on TV why use HDV instead of the DVX100b?

For a little guy like me doing shorts and hoping to film something longer soon, and maybe a few docs the sound provided by the DVX 100 is amazing. I don’t need to have a separated sound recording device. I certainly could, but I don't feel the need. It’s not going to be the case with one of those HDV cam, right? From what I understand the sound is a little inferior because of the compression format.
So really, what’s the heck? More rez, but for what usage?

I’ve heard that down converted footage from HDV to SD looks great, but I’ve also heard people say that it's by no way superior to footage originated on SD cam?

Am I hopeless? can I be convinced?
Thanks
Phil

frankly if you do not know what to do with the extra resolution given by HDV, why should you bother for a camera that shoot in 4K ?

You know Phil after reading what you posted I absolutely agree with you. I am a rookie at this stuff so I'm just learning. I infact went to a Nebraska Cornhusker game this last weekend and will be attending another home game this weekend. They have just finished putting in 3 brand new HD screens in the stadium. I believe the biggest one is 33’ 7 3/16" high by 117’ 7 1/8’ wide (nearly 40 yards). At any rate it's an awesome screen, but all it is, is a higher resolution kind of like watching the TV while you're at the game. Until I read your post I was in awwwe of the new HD perfomances, but now that I think about it the only advantage is a better look!

Soon 4:3 SD video will look very outdated.

One of my problem with the HDV cams is that they have defects. I mean, what is that codec? When you look at the reviews from the Texas shoot out you realize that they all have a problem! I'm not expecting the rez of a 50,000 cam in a 5000 one, but at least it should not have any artifact? I expect a so-so lens, some buttons not at the right place, not great resolution but I don't expect defect? When you buy a $ 12,000 car, does it have defects? No! It's less powerful than a $ 30,000 car, less room, less option, less luxury, but it doesn't have defects? It works well at its own level. It's not the case with those HDV cams. Not only they don't have the rez of the HD cams, but in addition to that they have problems. All they should have is providing a lesser image quality than their big brothers, but they should not have PROBLEMS!

Other than lower rez, what kind of artifact does DV has? Adam Wilt reports some bad effect on the HD 100 on the edge of the frames, he says some foliage freezes? I mean, what? Why? It looks to me that somebody came with a cheap way to give us higher rez than DV, but the cons are kind of bothersome! Also, we can't edit in that particular codec, we need an intermediary and we can't use that codec to burn DVD. I mean, come on! All those problems to have more resolution? And resolution for what? Does any of the subject that have been filmed and reported on this forum at the HD 100 finished project deserved higher resolution? Higher rez to film that stuff?
OK, fine.

As one who has switched from an XL1s to an XL H1, the difference is dramatic.

I was very concerned about having "HDV" problems, but so far I have not had any, and some of my shots are true torture tests for HDV. For example, fast moving water, waterfalls, and professional drag boat racing which involves fast pans.

Watching the video, at normal speeds, I have not noticed a single defect. Maybe I have been lucky, maybe they are there and I can not see them.

I have converted some of the drag boat racing footage, into slow motion that is just unbelievable. Some is at 10% of actual speed, others at 1% of actual speed. To this day I have a hard time understanding how I can obtain fairly smooth slow motion at 1% of actual speed when I start with 1080i footage! But this 1% slow motion footage has been very useful to our racing team!

Now, there are many HDV cameras out there and all HDV is not the same.

However, I recommend that you research what suits you best and then attempt to test the camera.

I have been extremely pleased with the XL H1, you may be pleased with another model. The images that these cameras can produce are stunning.

Yes, it is difficult and/or expensive at this time to deliver full HD. But even if you are going to deliver a standard DVD, using HDV footage to start with can help you produce very good DVD's.

Hey Phil. It sounds to me like you're a late adapter, meaning that you're going to be one of the last people to jump on board new technology, certainly not one of the first. I'm the same way, so my opinion of HDV is biased. I see it as a way of spanning the gap between SD and true High Def. I think that in the next 5 years, affordable, true "High Def" will be available, and that HDV may be remember as that quirky format that was neither SD nor HD. The weird thing with HD in general right now is it seems much more important to get the letters "HD" in the name than the actual picture quality. I have seen many friends and relatives buy HD sets, and have never seen one where they watch images at the correct aspect ratio. They always use "zoom to fit" options that distort the picture. i had a buddy invite me over to watch NFL, and he insisted on watching the game all stretched out and went on about the great picture quality. Now they are talking about "HD" radio and "HD" sunglasses... so I sometimes just how much the buying public understands or cares about HD.
Affordable HD is coming, and I really hope that HD will ultimately surplant SD as a format. HD and HDV have a purpose and function for many people out there, and I'm more than happy to see them move the technology forward. For myself, I'm just not getting the demand for HDV or HD. I haven't had a client ask for it yet. But I'm doing smaller, corporate video production where my Canon XL2 more than suffices for image quality. We do however, work pretty much exclusively in 16x9. I think if you're not sold on the benefits of HDV, then just keep shooting with what you have. Look at all the Beta SP shooters out there, they're not lining up to ditch their cameras. I know of one videographer in particular who still totes his 15 year old Betacam package as the best in the city, and says that Mini DV is simply "not professional" (ie, not suitable for ANY kind of paid work).
If you've got the money ready, that's awesome. Just keep tabs on it, and when you feel like not having HDV or HD is costing you money, make the switch then. You're options are only going to improve.

Phil, you need to spend some time checking out the cameras yourself with a proper HD display, and less time reading about them on the net.

There is NO substitute for real experience with gear, to know what you're dealing with. HDV is not perfect, but it's not defective. If you spend some real time with the gear, you'd not have such an extreme view of the situation.

There's hundreds of people here more or less happy with their HDV purchases.

Anyone heard of Super HD?

Phil: two words, "widescreen TVs." Most cameras with 4:3 sensors are effectively obsolete in the HD era because they can't produce decent widescreen SD output, which is the best delivery compromise for now until HD players become more commonplace. If you're not comfortable with the HDV codec you can run the cameras in widescreen DV mode and be better off than running 4:3 cameras in pseudo-widescreen mode, or cropping 4:3 footage to widescreen in post. Plus if you really want to you can run HDV cameras in 4:3 DV mode for those situations which require it, so you've lost nothing and gained a lot.

The only real concern I see in comparing HDV cameras to DV ones is in terms of low-light sensitivity, and that's not necessarily a big deal. In my tests I've gotten post-adjusted footage from a Sony FX1 to look about as good as unmodified footage from a DVX100A using the light of a single candle, and the DVX100 won't do decent widescreen without an anamorphic lens adapter.

By the way, there are ways for independent producers to deliver HD content to viewers today with quality noticeably better than you can get on SD DVDs. As this situation continues to improve and mainstream HD players plus HD TV broadcasts become more popular, it won't make much sense to shoot any professional video content in anything but HD, or in very high quality widescreen SD. The usefulness of 4:3 SD cameras is dwindling rapidly: my advice would be to sell them while you still can.

Phil, I have no reason to try and convince you, but if I read your above statement correctly I will have to say - WRONG!

I play back out to HDV (record to HD tape) everyday. After I edit my HDV I record the results out to my Sony HVR-M25 HDV deck. This is also possible with most HDV cameras too. At this point in time you can deliver your HD material on tape.

Dan have you tried 'timewarp' in the new After Effects 7.0 Proffesional version ?

example >> http://www.adobe.com/products/vector...entID=Timewarp


Lee

Phil- Take a breath and keep it nice. I go to Switzerland every 6 months for the last 5 years. I have family there. I know the Swiss. They are very smart and would only ask the obvious based on your initial statement.

Hopp Schwiitz!!!

Jim Martin

PS-Chris, This thead should be Xed

Phil, I did not say that you can give an HDV digital master tape to Swisseffect......etc.

I said that I could record back to tape (as anyone else who has the equipment can also do) I was replying to your statement that "It was not possible to record back to HDV tape...."

If Swisseffect tell you you can't ...please believe them. I don't know them. So I can't argue for or against their statement.

Good luck!

We just finished upgrading our cameras, decks, editing, etc. to HDV. Some of the reasons for doing this are:
1) HDV acquired footage makes for beautiful 16x9 SD output, significantly superior to the PD 170s we had been using. We no longer use 4x3 format.
2) Even though all of our delivery is currently on SD DVD, at some point HD DVD will be commonplace. At that time we will have the option of rereleasing our HDV archived projects as HD.
3) If, for some reason, I needed to shoot a project in 4x3 DV, my HDV cameras will do that.
4) If HDV becomes an obsolete format in time, HDV archives can, one way or another, be converted into whatever is new, and we go out and buy new hardware, just like always.
I don't think that HDV is some kind of holy grail, but it is a definite leap upwards from what we had been doing. It's been fun and exciting for us to make that leap.