I have recently been looking to purchase a high quality camera, and have been primarily looking at the GL2, Vx2100 and FX7. My concern with buying a standard definition camera is whether or not within a a few years it will not be able to keep up with Hi-Def footage. I film sporting events, and am often asked to make recruiting videos for potential D-1 players, so as you can imagine, image quality and clarity is paramount. Then again, by purchasing a SD camera, I can spend more money on accessories (tripod, UV filter etc.)

I guess what I am asking is.... will I be making a bad choice if I choose a standard definition camera? Will the footage become outdated within a few years? Or if I buy a SD camera, will I be all set to film for at least 4-5 years?

Brennan:

I love my VX2000. My first prosumer camera. Problem is I haven't used it in a year and half since I got my FX1, and then followed up with the Canon HV20.

I'm afraid HD and 16:9 is the end of it for those SD camera, and with HD sets becoming common place, I think its time to move on.

No, I don’t believe standard definition is outdated. Sure, a change is coming but standard televisions are still the overwhelming majority of televisions in America. I don’t think there’s going to be an overwhelming change anytime soon, especially with the HD vs. Blu-Ray war making people hesitant, fearing they’ll choose the wrong format.

As for your camera… If image quality is that important, certainly go Hi-Def. I wouldn’t buy old technology (GL2) just to save money for accessories. Accessories to what? An inferior image?

Go Hi-Def. Buy accessories over time, a little at a time. Besides, it will take you a while to get used to Hi-Def anyway. Don’t forget, you can always down convert the image to standard DV. A standard DV image from HD is superior to a standard DV image shot in standard DV.

As for technology five years from now, I wouldn’t worry about it. For all we know, our computers could be outdated by then. According to computer makers, they already are.

At the moment, HD is not very viable for distribution aside from TV.

Soon, blu ray and/or hd dvd (hopefully just one will win out) will be available for the general population, but for now the burners and discs are expensive and really not able to play for many viewers. Given a few years, it'll probably catch on like DVDs did.

If you shoot SD now, you will never have an HD copy of that footage. That's the downside.

I'd guess that in 3-5 years, HD will have a place in the real world, not just TV and a few people with blu ray / HD DVD players.

...Don’t forget, you can always down convert the image to standard DV. A standard DV image from HD is superior to a standard DV image shot in standard DV...

Brian, is this correct? I have the FX7 and, so far, I only shoot in DV because none of my customers want HD at this time. Why, as you say, when you shoot with a HD camera in DV mode the image is superior?

Stelios

ABSOLUTELY! Think of it this way - shooting HD from the start gives you roughly 4x the "information" - even if your final delivery is SD on DVD, preserve the HD as long as you can in the workflow. You'll see a better end result.

Yeah, whenever you down-size an image the quality becomes better. Not only that but you'll have more flexibility when it comes to colour correction and you won't have to worry about grainyness because after you down-size, the grainyness goes away.

Well, a really good SD camera will still look better than a cheap HD camera.
Generally, though, true.

Most importantly, even though it is very true that HD isn't really doing much right now for distribution (I have yet to hear a convincing argument, regardless of what should happen, etc.), every day brings more and more people closer to having a bluray player, etc. Soon...

I don't think SD is completely dead, dispite the format war between HD DVD and Blu-Ray disk, it will be a long time until the DVD format is discontinued because it's been given an extended life with new DVD Players that can upconvert a 480i signal to 1080pHD

Also, set to go into effect in 2009 a new broadcast standard that will replace NTSC. It's called ATSC and it is said that it will broadcast full 480p. They already have SD, ED, and HDTVs on the market that will execpt ATSC already.

The answer all depends on what you shoot and for whom. SD has a lot of life left in it in corporate work, etc.

well, as I said, I shoot sports and put together DVD's for colleges. If I were to guess, I would say that most of my work will be viewed on a CRT screen in a coaches office...

I am shooting with a Canon ZR65 (I know.... I know...) and luckily I can color correct etc. in post to make the footage usable. I have worked with a PD170, GL2 and XL1 and understand manual features.

P.S. Before you all start making recommendations for the HV20, please note that I want a camera with weight to it, a focus ring and a steady build. The HV20 has none of these attributes.

Thank you all who have responded.

Funny thing I'm looking at it from the opposite side. I spent extra money on an HD camera because of the same concern as you, but I haven't done one project using HD and I've had the camera for a year. I don't regret getting my camera because there are many features that are just as important as HD, like good color, low noise, etc.

I shoot dance recitals, education documentaries, and a few weddings. Not many ppl own a HD TV and almost no one owns an HD DVD player. Since I only out put my movies to dvd I no use for HD until clients start asking for it.

"Is standard definition outdated?" is like asking "Is this piece of string long enough?"... the answer of course, is "It all depends on what you use it for."

Standard Def is still the dominant format for broadcast and distribution and viewing at home. It is likely to remain so for at least another two or three years. (I'm ready to conceed that it looses it's 'dominance' when the majority of material is shot, distributed and VIEWED in HD.)

HiDef in some form or fashion is definitely on the way, but its not a given as to what that 'flavor' will be.

Ask yourself "IS MY CONTENT LIKELY TO BE OUTDATED"... in other words, is your content 'perishible'... of limited life-cycle. You see this all the time with web-content, (which need not be standard def anyway) or industrial material that is meant to have a limited lifetime and distribution.

Ask yourself DO I/MY CLIENTS NEED HI DEF now, or 'in the future'... in which case you fall into the 'future proofing' logic that most people use to justify a purchase now. "I can always reacapture/re-edit at the HD level" is a good justification for shooting now.(Though to be certain, shooting on film is the only known 'future proof' image capturing technology PROVEN to last at least one hundred years.)

Saying "I can always re-edit as HD" is much more logical than "No one will watch SD in the future" - which is as silly as saying "No one watches old black and white movies shot in 4:3 anymore... they are 'outdated'." - Note, that the technology (arguably) might be, but the content is not. (I never get tired of watching Noir Films)

And finally, no one can answer your specific budget work flow issues. Obviously, it's time for you to buy a new camera. HOW MUCH do you have to spend? What are your needs? (interchangeable lenses? Low light? Small form factor???). Can you spend the money on USED instead of new, to stretch your budget? Get the projects done NOW, and move UP later, when the clientel calls for it, and you will definitely get more bang for your buck, the longer you wait.

Being on the 'bleeding edge' of technology has it's perks and pains. "The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese..." is one way to look at it.

For my part, I will upgrade to HD (in some flavor) when my projects call for it. I'm currently looking at shooting a doc in Ireland next year. It's not clear if I'll need to go SD, HD, PAL/NTSC since the client hasn't determined the final distribution model yet, OR the final budget. At the moment, I'm working quite well with my XL2, which I purchased on the 'bleeding edge' of the HDV revolution, months before the XLH1 came out. The XL2 has more than paid for itself, and is making me money now. I could sell it for a couple of grand, keeping the lenses and FU-1000 and move up to the XL-H1 and never feel like I was 'too late' to the game.

But that's just me. Only you can answer all the inside questions.

But I'll make the simple call. "NO. SD is not out of date."

Got to disagree with Richard a bit. I think the question here was in buying new equipment today, should he buy a high definition FX7, or stick with a GL2 or VX2100. Looking at the difference in price, which I peg at around $500.00, there is likely no question that he should go to the FX7. In addition, hearing about his use for sports shooting, my recollection is that the FX7 has 20x zoom, with a 30 enhanced electronic zoom (I assume it has same feature there as V1U). When V1u first came out, I saw the 30x footage and you could not tell that it was done with an electronic zoom.

Now, here is the kicker. FX7 will not have as good a low light capability. VX2100 would be king over the other two cameras there. You should be aware of that issue and satisfy yourself that FX7 will work in the conditions you will be shooting before jumping.

My US$.02 ... Both are viable options, the driving factor is your intended release vectors. If you intend to do nothing bigger than DVD + internet + broadcast TV, SD is just fine.

If you're looking to do HD-DVD (whatever flavor), filmout or direct projection/HD internet distro, your decision is made for you.

SD is still very relevant. HD is becoming more popular...remember, DVD's took 10ish years to catch on. New equipment needs to be purchased on the viewing end to make new media technology usable and "accepted".

I would say, however, if looking to purchase, look ahead...but don't throw out the SD camera because the bleeding edge folks frown upon your SDishness. :)

Any camera which isn't capable of at least shooting proper widescreen video is definitely outdated, and that means most DV cameras. Anyone with any money is watching their videos on widescreen HDTVs, so you might as well start planning for shooting and delivering in widescreen/HD format. Plus the price difference between decent DV cameras and HDV ones is negligible in the grand scheme of things, so buy an HDV camera and be done with it. If you get nostalgic you can set such cameras to record 4:3 DV, so you don't lose anything in that sense, and you gain compatibility with one of the biggest technological changes of the past several decades. The main reason we're still even talking about SD is because some people are trying to stretch the value of their old cameras in the face of this historic change.

"The main reason we're still even talking about SD is because some people are trying to stretch the value of their old cameras in the face of this historic change."

Interesting assertion. One might counter with "The Main reason we're still even talking about SD is because some people are trying to justify their purchase of their new technologies in the face of persistent SD distribution models, and quickly changing formats."


Both assertions would be equally ridiculous.

HD is the wave of the future... in SOME form. (Not necessarily the form being hyped right now.) SD is still a viable acquisition/distribution format that might enable a business model to get up and running, or stretch aquisition dollars to get more bang for the buck.

The choice is not clear cut... or the question would not continue to be asked.

"Anyone with any money is watching their videos on widescreen HDTVs," - would imply that only 'people without any money' are watching standard def... another rediculous assertion.

The main reason we're still even talking about SD is because some people are trying to stretch the value of their old cameras in the face of this historic change.

I don't think that is the main reason. The delivery of HDV is not in place, mostly in players for TV. How many people are springing for Blu Ray or HD-DVD players ? Sure, it's getting there, but not until these devices are in the sub $100 range.

You have to actually own a Sony Blu-Ray player to understand that just waiting for the machine to ejecting a disk will burn a lot of time. I'd almost say that the player is broken if you push the button and the machine needs 30 seconds to decide if it should eject or not. My personal gauge on HD technological readiness is that such a player will start up and eject a disk as fast as current players. Chuckle.

I'd just like to reiterate that I definitely believe in HD as the coming 'thing'... but that the decision on when/what equipment to buy is a very personal decision. A LOT of factors come into play.

My philosophy on buying ANY new technology is "IF I can make money with it NOW... buy it now. The cost of acquisition is amortized over the life of the gear and income anyway. If not, then wait before upgrading." By waiting, I know that I will get more bang for my given buck for any technology. Either the toy I want will be available at a lower price, or a newer toy, with more features will be available for the same price at a later date.

But there are plenty of people who just enjoying being the first with the latest, and that's okay too. Understanding your needs is the important part.

"Film is dead"... everyone proclaimed after "The Phantom Menace" was shot in 1999. Eight years later, more than ninety percent of feature films are shot with film, and virtually none of them in 16:9 ratio. These things take time.

Meanwhile, YOUTUBE puts up crappy flash files, that millions of people watch on tiny little screens... go figure.

Like I said, there is no simple answer for everyone's needs.

I know that many of you have argued against the value of HD because of the amount of money involved in a HD-DVD burner. Isn't the general consensus amongst HD owners that even on regular DVDs the picture quality is still better with HD?

There are TWO angles here...

First, delivery/presentation... HDTV's are becoming the norm - can you even buy a "SDTV" with the upcoming mandatory changeover in the US? I've still got a couple SDTV's and most everyone I know does too... so installed base is SD, but changing. Even my kids think SD looks "yucky"... they shoulda seen B&W!! An apt analogy BTW, if the internet had existed way back "in the day" the question would be posed "is Black and White TV outdated..."? Any questions?

BluRay and HD-DVD are locked in a format war, and until there's a compromise or a clear "winner", I know I won't be investing in a player or a burner! And I like new toys... what I don't like is paying a bunch of money only to have the price drop to "reasonable" (half or less what I paid), or worse the tech goes completely obsolete... Neither format has "critical mass", and I doubt either will achieve it until they can drop the price so everyone is willing to take a chance on the player ($30 DVD players may stink, but they killed off the VCR), or one prevails. So that leaves DVD for delivery for the forseeable future...

DVD produced from an HDV source looks way better (much more like a commercial DVD) than from an SD source in general (I intermixed SD and HD when I was starting the switchover... to me the difference was noticeable and not acceptable, but I got no complaints - the "end user" has different expectations), DVD is only 480, but if you shoot HD and post it right you actually GET 480 lines, so you've got a sharper final product, probably with LESS post work than if you shot SD. So the answer here is shoot HDV, deliver on DVD, look like a pro production!



The second angle is of course "aquisition" - that's the question at hand - do you stick with a SD camera, in a world moving towards HD... I drove a "vintage" (polite word for OLD) car because it was cheaper to drive and got me there. Nothing wrong with that!

HD cameras (at least in the prosumer format/price range like the FX7 or the Canon A1) are going to set one back between 2-3K plus or minus, not an insignificant investment. For that you get better resolution, better color, and the potential to deliver a better quality end result (ignoring for a moment that shooting HD requires some skills as it's less forgiving of bad camera work than SD). While yes there might be SOME "SD" cameras out there that would look "better", I'm going to guess they aren't going to be in the same price range... or as portable?? Apples to apples, right?

SO, presuming the camera isn't abused, and will last a while, the likelyhood that an SD camera will "oulive" the transition to HD (2009?) is getting smaller... and fast, SD realistically IS fading away, even if it's perfectly viable today.

I had some friends who do some "corporate" work - the prior vendor was still delivering on VHS... they shot HDV, delivered on DVD (and I think VHS too...!), and well, the prior vendor is "prior" now - the end results stunned the client... if you're delivering product shot in SD, it's a matter of time before a similar scenario happens.



Brennan, the FX7 is a great camera (underrated IMO, but thanks to that, it's available well under "retail"). Find a deal and jump, just be aware there's a learning curve, and editing takes horsepower, but the results will knock you out.

If you're on the fence and shooting a small consumer cam right now, save a BUNDLE and buy a similar "consumer" grade HDV cam to "test"... Used HC3's and HC5's are practicaly being given away, HC1's are a bargain, HV20's are coming up in the used market at reasonable prices, I personally love the HC7... ALL can be had under the 1K mark used, sometimes WELL under! If you try it and are hooked, you can sell the thing for what you bought it for or close to it, and upgrade!

Hope this helps your thought process... if it were me I'd tend towads an HDV cam and let SD slip away...

I know that many of you have argued against the value of HD because of the amount of money involved in a HD-DVD burner. Isn't the general consensus amongst HD owners that even on regular DVDs the picture quality is still better with HD?

Blu-ray burners are selling for under $500 now and short HD-DVD projects can be put on red-laser discs without buying a new burner, so production cost isn't a big issue in that regard. As far as regular DVDs are concerned, most HD camera owners are finding that their SD DVDs have improved noticeably compared to using DV cameras. This is particularly true for widescreen output, where most DV cameras can't measure up because they're not designed for widescreen production.

As some have said you can still make a case for doing SD production today, but that will inherently become less and less useful in the future while HD will become more and more desirable. If you already have SD cameras you might as well get the most use you can out of them, but the question under discussion here is whether buying an SD camera makes sense for the next several years. There's no logical reason to think it will, other than saving a few bucks up front - which you'd lose if/when you upgrade to HD later.

Ah yes, don't forget to factor in not only camera cost, but computer and associated equipment upgrades as well on the way to HD. If you are looking to purchase from scratch...go HD. If you are looking to add a camera to your arsenal, question whether you plan to intercut with your current cameras...if replacing cameras, it's straight cost.

These are all above and beyond your release format expectations.

Budget and Purpose play in here as well. I'm currently a hobbyist/amateur looking to move slowly and ploddingly toward a career in cinema. My needs for cameras as a learning tool/agent of career progress is much lower than if you are producing commercials or doing industrial video work. I'm still working on a pre 16x9 camera...and believe it or not, it still captures video! I then matte it to 16x9 to get my widescreen aspect. The resulting images still light up the pixels on my big SD television through my expensive SD dvd player...bringing my big 5.1 sound through my expensive sound system.

I, as a viewer who has spent (splurged) a bunch off money buying a then top of the line system to view SD footage off of DVD as clearly as possible, am not quite ready to respend all that money to replace the majority of my entertainment center...I'm sure I'm not alone.

"There's no logical reason to think it will, other than saving a few bucks up front (which you'd lose if/when you upgrade to HD later)."

This is another assertion, that simply cannot be proven. Purchasing SD now, and saving money to place elsewhere, perhaps in lighting or editing gear, might GROW your business. When you upgrade to HD later, the same money you would have spent on HD NOW will buy you MORE HD later.

Simply put, the answer is not always HD NOW - it really depends on the individuals business model, client needs, delivery options and final content.

I work constantly in SD every week, delivering content to be aired on cable television locally. I get paid for it. The clients are happy with it. The programs air immediately. They are archived to disc on DVD for storage at a later point. HD is not onl not needed, it's not a viable option for delivery right now. A three camera SD shoot is more important for most of my needs. The choice might be 'obtain two used gl2's' or 'one new HDV model'... which option can meet the needs of the station at the moment, and make money.

As I mentioned, I am preparing for my eventual move into HD(V). I am watching and waiting for the 'right moment for ME.' It might be with the upcomming doc I am planning in Ireland. IF so, then I will plan the aquisition, and change over with all the necessary purchases. But by waiting untill I know, and NEED it, I can see that newer versions of software come available, newer cameras come available, (and older ones are cheaper), I might simply RENT the necessary camera, and wait for purchase untill later.

There simply is no single right answer for everyone. THe original poster had two questions really. IS SD outdated, and is HD the right choice for me now? Most of us were trying to help him determine what his immediate and near future needs were... again, low light? interchangeable lenses? etc. etc. But the answer to the topic question "IS SD outdated is still 'no'."

...if I buy a SD camera, will I be all set to film for at least 4-5 years?

If you miss even one job during that period because you can't offer HD you'll have loss any money you save by not buying an HD camera today. 'Nuff said.

As I've said in each post I made... "IF a job requires HD, then BUY IT"... nuff said.

Whew... first off I really want to thank Richard and Dave for their excellent reality speeches.... they definitely helped.

Dave- You recommended buying consumer HD camera such as an HV20 and see how I like the HD format. Quite simply, that is not an option. Whichever camera I buy will be the one I have for a while, and I don't want to be selling a camera I have bought for half of its original price.

Richard- As I film sporting events, I won't really need the option of an interchangeable lens system, nor am I worried about low light capabilities - if I shoot at night it will be under the lights of the field

Whichever camera I buy will be the one I have for a while, and I don't want to be selling a camera I have bought for half of its original price.

That's a good reason to go HD now if you're shopping for a camera, and then you don't have to worry about this until something better than HD becomes the norm...which should be at least a couple of decades or so.

Brennan,
Since you are shooting sports, are you close to the action (Sideline) or do you have to shoot at the long end of the lens a lot? IF you are up in the stands, shooting at the long end of your telephoto, then a really good smooth tripod is a must.

What is your current situation regarding post production? Are you set up to deliver HD right now? What will it take to get you up to speed if not? Is this a hobby/avocation or are you building a business around this? That is, can you write off your purchases, amortize costs etc? The camera is just one part of the whole delivery process. What other income streams can be generated by this purchase?

Selling a camera for half of it's original purchase price, AFTER IT'S PAID FOR ITSELF SEVERAL TIMES OVER is an excellent deal by the way, don't knock it.

Shoot HD for master/archive. If client asks for SD, then it's not dead for that paycheck. Don't matter what everyone else thinks.

Richard,
1. I am on the sidelines filming, and with my ZR65 I have a 20x optical zoom that has been perfect. I will purchase a new tripod with my camera, although its level of quality will depend on whether or not I go HD.

2. I have FCE HD, so I have the ability to work with HD footage.

3. Prior to this year, I had really only been filming as a hobby, but with a recent influx of frantic parents trying to scrounge together a recruiting video and willing to pay good money, it has become more of a business. My talent someway, somehow was discovered (:D)

4. I will also use the camera to begin assembling a personal portfolio of work that I can use for applications etc.

Just saw an example of a short shot for HD TV on Sunday Night football. I'm watching on my $700.00 32" HD TV bought a year ago on the local over the air broadcast. The short was obviously shot with a prosumer level HDV camcorder in 24p, and it was a very nice short piece about local football in Montana. It was very cool. Whoever shot it, obviously new how to use the medium. How can anyone say that HD TV is still years away ? Especially when every new improvement in videography is being applied to the HDV and HD cameras. You don't really see manufaturers developing new SD cameras still for professional use do you ?? Every SD only model that I can think of has been in manufacture for 3 to four years now.

Point is, we are all working with this new medium, learning the craft of editing and working with HDV and HD. This is invaluable training that will carry into the future. This is not something you learn just for a new job someone hires you for coming up. As you learned with DV, there are certain ways of doing things, ways of editing peculiar to your NLE. Anything you do in HD, will tranlate beautifully to a nicer DV.

About your comment on the HV20. If you haven't shot it, then you don't know what it has to offer. Its obviously designed for the consumer, but it shoots a better image the GL2 and the VX2000, period. In many situations, it can outshoot my FX1. So don't be foolish and dismiss it. At $ 900.00, its a hell of a tool. It shoots 60i, or 24p, and has some interesting adjustments to give you the ability to control it image. Problem with it is the short 10x zoom that will require an extender for your purposes.

For those purposes, except maybe the reel which would still likely be fine at SD, you would have no trouble using SD. I assume the parents wouldn't know to ask for HD in most cases anyway.

So.... you have to ask yourself-- do YOU need HD for anything that will come up in the near future?

It's a pretty simple question and absolutely not something we can answer. The current situation has been very well explained by a lot of people in the discussion.

I'd say, sure, go for HD if you can. It certainly won't hurt. Perhaps get a camera that can switch, and just use it in SD mode until you want HD.

Will it hurt to have just SD? Maybe.
Will it hurt to have access to HD? Nope. (Except a bit more expensive)

If you're planning to make money from anything and succeed, it'll pay for itself, as well.

If you have SD, that is not a hugely limiting thing and you can still make movies, sell them, and learn, get hired for your skills (if you can point and shoot a SD camera, no reason you can't get hired to point and shoot an HD cam). However, you will not have HD in that case. Plain and simple.


Imagine you're buying a car. Do you want the cheaper one with 4/5 seats or do you want to pay a bit more for the extra row so you can hold up to 8 people?

I feel your pain Brennan as i own a Sony PD170 SD 4.3 camera and the results i get out of this thing are great but.........
Most households now have a wide screen 16.9 TV and now some with HDV.

As much as i dont want to buy a new camera (I love my Sony PD170 ) i will have to at some point as most pepole are using 16.9 HDV cameras and you need to remain competive in regards to getting work, I would hate to loose a job because i did'nt up grade if only for the 16.9 image.
At the moment i'm getting away with SD 4.3 but when it's stretched on a wide screen it looks crap.

I am looking at the Sony Z1 here in Australia and waiting for the price to drop hopefully early next year as i think this will be great for all the applications i need, hey and i will still have the PD170 for great looking SD 4.3.

Cheers
Simon

Whew... first off I really want to thank Richard and Dave for their excellent reality speeches.... they definitely helped.

Dave- You recommended buying consumer HD camera such as an HV20 and see how I like the HD format. Quite simply, that is not an option. Whichever camera I buy will be the one I have for a while, and I don't want to be selling a camera I have bought for half of its original price.

Richard- As I film sporting events, I won't really need the option of an interchangeable lens system, nor am I worried about low light capabilities - if I shoot at night it will be under the lights of the field

Hi Brennan,
I'm WAY too cheap to suggest you buy something that might lose half it's value <wink>! All my suggestions are in the $500-1K range used, as opposed to 2200 for a comparable FX7. The HC3 and 5 aren't as thrilling as the others, but they are still OK.

The idea was to pick up a slightly used small cam to try out HD - something that won't set you back too much, and should have decent resale value for at least a year. The HV20 and HC7 are no slouches once you learn them (and Sony STILL sells a "pro" version of the HC1...) - quite a bit of manual control there, in a small package. Also if you're getting "serious" about doing video, a "b" cam and/or backup is definitely good insurance if you're getting paid to shoot.

Meanwhile, the "higher end" cameras might come down or have new "must have" features so if the small cam falls by half, the high end should fall SOME too, making it more affordable... or "this years model" will be "last years model" and on the blowout aisle... economics sometimes works in our favor!

I know the suggestion sounds goofy at first, but saving 1500 up front to get your feet wet in HD is worth considering... and if you're getting away with the little Canon now, I'm guessing you're not dealing with too much "image envy" where a "big cam" is a requirement!

You might check another thread where we knocked around the question of economics and different cams for different purposes - it's in the FX7 area here. I compared the various Sony cams as did others - it might help you in deciding.

I'll also note the frightening trend (and I thought I was the only one afflicted) of having one "big" relatively professional camera for those times when "image" (perception, not picture quality) counts, and a smaller cam for family, fun, casual everyday, drag it with you everywhere (and incidently "b" cam/backup) type usage. Sadly I think many large cams are languishing in their cases/bags while these little monsters get run about by crazy videographers who refuse to accept they "have" to have a big camera to take great shots...

There's a bit of method to my suggestion, beneath all the madness <wink>!

DB>)

Even if you shoot SD you must now have good quality 16:9 widescreen output. No cheap SD cam has decent (native) widescreen, vertical resolution is seriously uprezzed in camera, or if you shoot 4:3 you have to do it in post with more or less the same end result. Even though some cams look ok in widescreen mode (like DVX100) they pale in comparason with HDV cams like Canon XH-A1 even when the output of the later is converted to SD or used in SD format. Somebody asked why downrezzed HDV is sharper than SD? Because most SD cams have less pixels on their sensor than the SD resolution. Even a cheap HDV cam has twice as many pixels on the sensor than SD resolution, also in widescreen output. Downrezzing an oversharp picture (HDV putting out SD) is bound to produce a better picture than uprezzing an underpixelled picture (SD producing widescreen SD).

Another thing is that HDV cams are now almost the same price as same level SD cams. Same level means here only features, not quality, on which front HDV clearly leads even used as SD. For that reason alone I would not buy a SD cam anymore. I have XH-A1 and sold my DVX100, and I miss only some audio features of the later, not the (superb for SD) picture quality.

I do some commercial shooting also (we have 2 XH-A1:s) and so far we have been shooting only widescreen SD for clients, which looks just about as good as it can be, with a <$4000 cam!!! The only time we shoot HDV is with greenscreen, where the extra resolution really pays off. Really clean separation, then conversion to SD: never so good!
-----

One more + for HDV: family movies... We made a 3 week China-Tibet trip with 5 kids shooting 11 hours of HDV. The quality of the video watched on a true HD display is alone worth the investment.

The Canon ZR600 for around $200 has decent anamorphic (regardless of overall image quality).

Asserting that you must have widescreen is just the same as asserting that you must have HD. It all depends on the use, audience and output format.

For a local SD TV station it would be just fine to not have 16:9.
Or for a project primarily for families of children who mostly have SD TVs.... like the sporting events mentioned above.

Widescreen is nice, and so is HD, but neither is explicitly required.

For a local SD TV station it would be just fine to not have 16:9. Or for a project primarily for families of children who mostly have SD TVs.... like the sporting events mentioned above.

Consumers are buying HDTVs by the millions, with roughly 1/3 of U.S. households expected to have one by the end of this year. Buying an HD camera allows you to produce suitable output for both HD and SD viewers; buying an SD camera limits you to a dying production and viewing format. It's an easy choice, really: go HD.

Standard definition is not outdated yet, but 4:3 is. 4:3 TV sets are passe -- at last. 42" plasmas and LCDs can be purchased for less than $1K. HD television is here.

But HD home video is not quite here yet, and the battle between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray is still going on. Widescreen standard definition will stay around for another couple of years until the dust settles. High-bitrate DVDs, either originally produced this way, or remastered and overhyped like Sony's Superbit series, produce very nice image. Switching from an HD TV channel to a DVD movie I don't feel the urge to run and buy an HD disk player right away.

Widescreen rules. Stick with widescreen, unless you shoot for iPods, they are 4:3. Apple slows the progress down, who would have imagined that?

For a local SD TV station it would be just fine to not have 16:9. Or for a project primarily for families of children who mostly have SD TVs.... like the sporting events mentioned above.

Widescreen is nice, and so is HD, but neither is explicitly required.
People with widescreen TVs tend to turn off from 4:3 stuff, me included. Big networks shoot sports in widescreen now at increasing rate, and center-cut for 4:3 broadcast. Have you watched tennis, golf, NASCAR or Formula One lately? Reorientation to widescreen allows bringing more production from Europe and Australia where they switched to widescreen almost a decade ago.

ABSOLUTELY! Think of it this way - shooting HD from the start gives you roughly 4x the "information" - even if your final delivery is SD on DVD, preserve the HD as long as you can in the workflow. You'll see a better end result.

Dave, No I mean if I shoot in SD from the start, with a HDV camera. Is the outcome better that using an SD camera?

Stelios

Yes. Almost all prosumer SD cameras shoot with less sensor pixels than the SD standard (espcially with widescreen), thus the image is slightly sub-standard. All HDV cams shoot with full HDV resolution and then downconvert to SD in-cam. This results in maximum SD resolution (at the cost of low light sensetivity).

Dave, No I mean if I shoot in SD from the start, with a HDV camera. Is the outcome better that using an SD camera?

Stelios

From my experience yes, the SD video looks better. As noted above, the sensor has better resolution, so SD looks better. I shot SD test footage in an HC1 and played it back in an SD cam, it looked noticeably sharper and better - I was surprised, but it was pretty obvious.

The question is WHY shoot in SD in the first place? Downres on capture from the cam, or better yet in final rendering.

Again, think of it this way - higher res sensor, higher res video, preserve it as far as possible in the chain and you'll get the best results.

Unless you have a very specific reason to shoot SD (like client demands?), not sure why you'd do it... but if you do you'll see sharper results!

Widescreen rules. Stick with widescreen, unless you shoot for iPods, they are 4:3. Apple slows the progress down, who would have imagined that?

The iPod Touch is 16:9 widescreen, isn't it?

The iPod Touch is 16:9 widescreen, isn't it?

Yes, and so is the iPhone.

...
The question is WHY shoot in SD in the first place? Downres on capture from the cam, or better yet in final rendering...


The reason is that my PC is not that up to date to handle the HDV yet, but it handles the SD quite well.

Stelios

Gotcha -
HDV can be a horsepower hog - shoot HDV, downconvert as you download is your best workflow - then when you upgrade the computer, HDV footage of anything important is available.

ALSO, you might look at software updates - vegas 6 for instance was pretty sluggish with HDV, 7 mucho improved, 8 looks even faster and smoother... seems as though it's taken a while for the software code to catch up with the new format.

The iPod Touch is 16:9 widescreen, isn't it?
Nope, it is not. iPod Touch appears to have screen with 1.5 AR. Apple's video presentation says: "tap the screen to see video in theatrical presentation". The screen grab below shows 2.35 AR in 'scope format. I suppose that if theatrical presentation were 1.78 AR, it would be shown properly too. In either case, it will be letterboxed because the display has 1.5 AR. Seems that Apple decided to borrow this stupid idea from Brits, who use 14:9 AR as a transitional format.

At least one good thing about Touch is that it CAN properly display widescreen content though in letterboxed format. Also seems that by default it does center cut. I bet that 95% of users won't even notice that something is wrong, but Apple lost me as a prospective client. Archos seems like a better choice.

P.S. Why this forum creates thumbnails despite that attached images are already pretty small? This is a bug.
Your images are actually very big... about 1200 pixels wide.

And the forum always creates thumbnails.

Your images are actually very big... about 1200 pixels wide.
Oops... fixed.

.......... Point is, we are all working with this new medium, learning the craft of editing and working with HDV and HD. This is invaluable training that will carry into the future. This is not something you learn just for a new job someone hires you for coming up. As you learned with DV, there are certain ways of doing things, ways of editing peculiar to your NLE. Anything you do in HD, will tranlate beautifully to a nicer DV.

About your comment on the HV20. If you haven't shot it, then you don't know what it has to offer. Its obviously designed for the consumer, but it shoots a better image the GL2 and the VX2000, period. ..... Problem with it is the short 10x zoom that will require an extender for your purposes.

Recently my wife using HV20 and I using XM2 (GL2) shot exactly the same sequence from steady tripods of a take-off, 2 landings & a 2 take-offs by griffon vultures at 70 yards both of us using about x 10 zoom. Lasting about 25 seconds the clips have to be seen to be believed; so I brought them to a TV store and viewed them repeatedly on 26" Walker screen via HDMI for HV20 & round 5-pin for XM2. The image sharpness from HV20 was IMO perfectly true all the time whether the birds were in flight or otherwise; from XM2 the background cliffs were sharp but whenever a bird moved the edges of the moving image showed the slightest bubbling for most of the sequence.

I am now in the market for an XLH1 or a lighter equivalent.