HDV Vs DV when mastering to DVCAM
 

Hi, another thing I've been curious about is whether there's any benefit of recording in HDV when I've to ultimately master to DVCAM. Wouldn't it be just another generation loss in downconverting in post? What are the benefits and disadvantages?

never used HDV mode!
 

Okay, this might come as a shock to some but I've had my FX1E for about three years now and never recorded anything in the HDV mode! I've always stuck to DV since I don't have a HDV deck and have to make DVCAM masters anyway. I'd like to know if I'm really missing out here.

If you're not shooting in HDV mode you're missing out on the opportunity to start building up an HD demo reel, regardless of what current projects require for output. And if you're still shooting everything in 4:3 aspect ratio you're missing out on learning how to get the most from widescreen recording.

At the risk of stating the obvious, why not just take your camera and go shoot something. The difference will be fairly clear....

I'm pretty sure you're shooting SD in the 16:9 mode in your FX1 aren't you Ali? If that's all your clients need, then keep on keeping on. I shoot a lot of my weddings in the DV mode for speed but my own footage is always shot in HDV.

tom.

If you are just shooting for others, and they only want SD, then fine, stick with it.

If it is stuff for yourself and you don't have a NLE capable of dealing with HD now, then shoot in HD now because sooner or later you will be able to use it (assuming you don't record over the tapes), and appreciate the difference.

You won't lose anything by shooting HD, and in the long term, you'll probably gain. I wish HD had been available at a consumer price when I started seriously with video.

I always shoot in HDV mode but 90% of my work ends up as regular widescreen DV. But I think the image looks better if you shoot in HDV and then use the camera to downconvert as you capture. You could also downconvert in post, but that requires computer time for rendering and also uses twice as much disk space (for both HDV and DV copies).

Shoot a little test and see for yourself if you like it. Shoot some regular DVCAM footage, then shoot the same thing in HDV and set the camera i.LINK CONV when you capture. BTW - I have merged your two threads Ali, since they're basically about the same thing.

Thanks all :) I just want to add that I'll probably never be mastering anything in HDV, at least not for this country - so the "future-proofing" benefit isn't really there for me. So unless shooting in HDV and then downconverting to DV really adds value and picture quality I guess I'll probably be sticking to DV, which is a shame considering that I've basically paid for an HDV camera.

I shoot both SD & HD with the Z1 depending on the client. If i'm shooting for someone else and they need the tape afterwards or dont have a HD player to capture then it's SD all the way, otherwise shoot HD always then you have a choice with SD,HD in capture and the NLE. Seeing your footage in HD on a nice widescreen is choice in my opion.
Simon

If you know that you will never need high-def, you should record in SD DV - the video compression etc is identical to DVCAM which means there's no conversion needed. DV and HDV have the same bit rate - getting that high-def into the same shoe size comes at a cost - namely motion artifacts that are there forever. DV doesn't have that problem.

I'm not so sure this is the case with an HDV camera John. The chips are native 16:9 1440 x 1080 and the downconversion has to happen somewhere, someplace.

You either downconvert between chips and tape (shooting in DV) or you downconvert between camera and PC (camcorder set to do the conversion) or you downconvert using hardware or software on your computer after the edit - and this of course has been shown to give the best results.

tom.

I agree the image has to be downconverted but there's a difference between when it occurs.

Going directly to DV means the image is rescaled and then compressed on a true I-frame only basis.

Capturing to HDV first requires compressing to MPEG2 (introducing the motion artifacts) and then decompressing before resizing. These artifacts are what bother most.

I think I might set up two HDVs side by side to record a scene with one set to HDV and the other DV - if I get the chance!

John,

That would be an interesting experiment. My guess is that the result will depend a lot on what you are shooting. With a lot of motion, I can see the DV format emerge as the winner. Without it, I can definitely see advantages to an HDV recording: even after you downconvert it to SD resolution, you may still have better color resolution than if you recorded plain DV in the first place. Of course, this requires the downconvert to be done in the computer, not the camera, otherwise it's kind of the worst of both worlds (HDV recording and DV transfer from the camera to the computer).

- Martin

Downconvert software or hardware?
 

martin, please also specify whether the downconvert is software based or hardware. I've had huge problems trying to downconvert 1920x1080p HD footage to standard definition 4:3 using software alone. I believe there are some hardware cards that do a better (and quicker) job. Please do comment.

Ali, I don't know where your 1920x1080 video came from but my Sony SR11 1920x1080 AVCHD can be converted to Canopus HQ in just over realtime ( 1 hour and 9 mins transfered to PC by Sony Motion Browser and then converted by Canopus AVCHD converter to Canopus HQ total time 1 hour and 15 mins) and from the HQ file in Edius can output a 4x3 crop in realtime to DV if that is what you want. PC is a Quad core Q9450, 8G RAM, 250G boot, 250G temp and preview, two 750G storage running Vista 64.

Ron Evans