Amazing Camera. I can now understand what I've read on this cam and the HDV codec on many forums.

I'm shooting a film with it and the quality of the image blows me away...as long as there is plenty of light and no complex motion.

At one point in the story I have a woman running on a background of trees, it's windy and the leaves are very agitated. The shot is :woman running+ panning+moving leaves on tree.
No way to film this. The HDV codec fails miserably. There is absolutely no way to film this in a decent way.

The project was started a few months ago with a 2/3 CCD Sony Dx 50 with a DSR1 Back. Standard def. Since then we've decided to re-shoot everything with the A1.
The difference between what we used to do in low light with the Sony and what we have to compromise with the A1 is frustrating.

In one scene I have a conversation between a couple. The scene was filmed with the Sony with only simulated moonlight coming from the window. On a 1920x1200 monitor it looks beautiful. No grain, you really believe that moonlight is the light source. Only the couple is lit and the room around them is bath by a weak, subtle but sufficient light. Object can be guessed but everything is free of grain.

With the A1 we had to give up that scene. The couple is now lit by a light source that had to be brought in the the story. Good by subtle moonlight.

It's been a learning process, I'm grateful to what the HDV codec allows me to do in a package that costs less than 3500 bucks, and I've adapted to it and I had to re-write some of the scenes to work with the HDV codec. Honestly I do hope somebody is actively working to make the HDV codec history. I hope this codec is for now and won't stay with us too long.

Of course I could/should recreate moonlight in post, I know how to do that, but still.
Right now, for a story that will NOT have any transfer to film and goes to DVD only I would advise anybody to go with a DVX100 B instead of a A1. Night scenes will be better and easier to create and the only artifact to watch will be the one linked to the shooting at 24P.

I might be wrong, but this is what I think.
Larry.

unfortunately I have to agree concerning the HDV codec breakdown in complex motion scenes. I used the A1 on a 360 motor to capture surround landscapes with swaying phragmites, grasses, leaves. So constant panning with lots of micro and macro motions. Result is a pixel fest, from up close its blocks rather than individual discrete grains. I thought in a way that was to be expected, the compression of HDV must kick in somewhere, but still to call it high def is a stretch. After all its a motion camera, not a still camera.

Kurt

Interesting. I haven't had that kind of issue with the codec and I tend to shoot very detailed and, many times, fast detail without any issue.

Any chance you can post the shot that failed?

Larry...

Are you going to give us any details on what settings you used
on the A1?

My camera is absolutely NOT defective.
I think you misread me.
I am blown away by the quality of the picture produced by the A1.
I shoot our project in 24F at shutter 1/48 with a preset emulating a Kodak film I like. I have only great footage for our project.
What I said is:

1-The HDV codec, whether out of a JVC, Canon or V1 is NOT can't shoot all what DV can shoot. PERIOD and I will challenge anybody on that. I know because I started a project in DV, the cam became unavailable and I re-shot the same scene with the A1. The A1 looks FAR SUPERIOR to a 2/3 CCD sony cam for anything outside or inside as a matter of fact as long as you submerge the room with light. As for a composition rich in motion and particularly rich in complex motion the A1 is crap. I suspect it's not the A1 but the HDV codec.
What I used to be able to do with the DSR500 can't be done with the A1. Again, I did the following with both cam. I filmed an actress running perpendicular to the cam, about 50 yards away against a background of moving leaves agitated by wind. The HDV codec just breakdown.
As for the moonlight scene I mentioned before, forget about it. If I lit the subject correctly the surroundering is suddenly grainy, and that's with the gain set on low.

As long as you know what you're going to film and how to film you can use HDV, it's going to be beautiful. A Woody Allen film can take HDV. A Western with horse chases ? I don't think so.
That's all. Now I know that this increase of resolution in a sub $ 4000 package comes at a price. It's fine for now, but again, I hope the HDV CODEC is not here to stay.
Larry

Larry,
Is it possible that the problem with motion is related to the 24f and 1/48th shutter speed? Can you post an example? Maybe there's a solution out there that can help you.

No, I'm not talking about the strobing effect of the 24F 1/48 setting. I'm aware how to film in 24, I've used the DVX100B before and done three shorts in 16mm.
I'm talking about something else that appeared ONLY ONCE, when I try to pan filming a woman running in front of moving leaves. This is just too much for the HDV codec and I believe I'd have this problem with a V1, JVC etc... which makes me say that NOT everything can be filmed with the HDV codec. I never met anything I could NOT film with my Aaton film camera or my DVX100B.
I'll say it again, the increased resolution offered by the HDV codec at the expense of being able to film scenes with complex motion is worth it but I do hope that the HDV codec is a transitionary codec and that we'll have something better soon. THere are so many things to worry about when you shoot a film, having to worry whether of not the codec can handle a particular kind of motion is a pain. I guess it's just a matter of avoiding writing certain scenes. No big deal for now.

unfortunately I have to agree concerning the HDV codec breakdown in complex motion scenes. I used the A1 on a 360 motor to capture surround landscapes with swaying phragmites, grasses, leaves. So constant panning with lots of micro and macro motions. Result is a pixel fest, from up close its blocks rather than individual discrete grains. I thought in a way that was to be expected, the compression of HDV must kick in somewhere, but still to call it high def is a stretch. After all its a motion camera, not a still camera.

Kurt


I agree with you Kurt, the HDV is kind of fake HD that the "defected motion" is so obvious that when you pan on short (even slowly pan) that you have large object moving (don't need to move fast too), or small object move fast will give you some kind of ghosting effect too.

kind of disappointing in buying a motion recording camera to shoot still photo..

Some of these comments really worry me. We are looking at making the jump to HD for filming high speed sporting events...I tried a little HD this summer when we filmed a jetboat race and the issues mentioned above were exactly my concern. Cameras we tested were the sony z1U and canon HV20. The sony did not perform as I expected and we ended up shooting in SD DV with decent results. When we are filming the subject often goes by our cameras at 80-120 mph and around 10-40ft away. The boat is moving the water is moving and than add a 180 degree pan in a second and we were losing quality when in HD mode.
I really want to get rid of my Xl1s and get a canon A1 and H1.....

I tried a little HD this summer when we filmed a jetboat race and the issues mentioned above were exactly my concern.
Funny because I just edited a speedboat video for a big manufacturer that was shot with Sony HDV Cams and it turned out great. It was all plane jane 60i hdv with some uv filters slapped on the front. looked great to me.

Vince, if you are on a budget and want to shoot high speed sports in HD then I would recommend you go with the HVX200....a non-HDV camera that should have no problem. It also sounds like a more suitable camera because you have the option to use variable frame rates.

I am just curious-- has anybody reporting the problem considered it might be play back issues involving decoding by your video card/monitor combinations ?

One way to check is to convert the HD footage into something like Cineform, that doesn't require a lot of processor work to display the image.

Larry:

You are so correct on the HDV format just falling apart in lots of motion situations. Im totally surprised some senior posters on here even question it. And obviously, the low light noise needs more work.

I think the sharpness of XH video also makes the motion artifacts/anaomalies more apparent than on some other HDV cameras.

Sadly, we are going to be stuck with HDV for awhile longer.

Also, I just sold my two XH-A1s. Yeah, it's one of the better prosumer HDVs currently available, but it still really needs improvement. Better to sell early before the 2nd generation XHs arrive. Now that Canon is producing it's own sensors, they should advance a little more quickly and the next AHs should have a little better sensors.

Back to the torture of ENG cameras for now.

You are so correct on the HDV format just falling apart in lots of motion situations. Im totally surprised some senior posters on here even question it. And obviously, the low light noise needs more work.


I see it too. Whenever there's too much action it blocks up. Some people just don't notice it. 3 MB/s is just too little bandwidth for some scenes.

Here's a thought...get an HV20 and an Intensity card...film those complex scenes solely with the Intensity card's HDMI input...totally bypassing the HDV codec and your problems are history. Still a heck of lot cheaper than an HVX with all of its accessories.

By the way...I never had those types of problem with my HV20..but maybe I need to start analyzing my pictures more closely.

Question: Why call HDV a fake HD? Is it bandwidth that makes HD HD...or the pixels in the picture or resolution? I mean...compression is one thing...but to say it's fake HD because of compression artifacts...I don't get it.

If I captured my "live" HDMI footage with Cineforms codec (at any of its rates) would you still say its not real HD?

Question: Why call HDV a fake HD? Is it bandwidth that makes HD HD...or the pixels in the picture or resolution? I mean...compression is one thing...but to say it's fake HD because of compression artifacts...I don't get it.

Agreed. Sounds like an uneducated comment to me. I have encountered many people (not from here) who do the say the same things over and over again though they can't really explain why its fake except they heard it from someone someone.

It is a horribly uneducated and misinformed comment, which is never welcomed here. On this site, HDV is considered as real an HD format as any other HD format... including AVCHD up to HDCAM SR. While it has its limitations just like every other format, there is nothing "fake" about HDV.

Funny because I just edited a speedboat video for a big manufacturer that was shot with Sony HDV Cams and it turned out great. It was all plane jane 60i hdv with some uv filters slapped on the front. looked great to me.Would love to host a sample clip of one of those shots, Will!

The way that I've been able to make dark shots look better is to keep the gain at -3 and slightly overlight the shot, then darken it in post. It works for me. If I try to accomedate a dark scene by turning up the gain I always get grain.

I am a bit surprised that some people here do not see the compression artifacts, because they are clearly visible on some subjects. And all digital cameras have them. For example, I remember posting similar remarks when I first got my Sony hc1, a few years ago.

Sorry, but you'll have to live with artifacts. All compressed codecs have some. Even DV is not exempt, try filming pebbles.

This being said not all cameras are created equal. When I compare the Sony HC1 with the Canon A1, the A1 is noticeably better. Not that the Sony is bad, but the difference is indeed visible on difficult subjects.


So what are the artifacts and on which common subjects do they appear?

1: mpeg high frequency artefacts appear on detailled subjects with lots of repetitive details. DV also exhibits them. Typical subjects are:
-plants: trees from the distance, grass from a few meters away, etc. (not leaves close-up). This is the most annoying problems: plants are common.
-human artefacts: brick walls, oriental carpets, some fabrics, printed material
-pebbles
2: mpeg motion artefacts will appear when the moving subject is tiny compared to the picture, and there is lots of details in the picture. You can film someone in the distance with a uniform background, not in front of plants...
3: chroma subsampling artifacts will appear when you have saturated colors, especially reds, in front of a white or light grey background. Try filming a red car to see it, for example.

I'm sorry, but you'll have to live with it. And that may be more a good thing than you think because whatever you film will end up distributed in mepg2 or mpeg4 format starved for bits anyway, be it DVD, cable TV blue-ray, or anything else. Only film avoids them (or rather replace them with other artifacts), and if you are shooting for film, you should consider Kodak and not Canon...

Besides even film ends up on DVD. And I suspect that some filmmakers know about the problem. For example, if you watch Stanley Kubrick's "Eyes wide shut", there are some scenes that look as if they were especially designed to crash mpeg-2 compression (and they do). Knowing that Stanley Kubrick was generally very interested in technology, I would imagine that he did that on purpose.

I don't think anyone here is denying not seeing any compression artifacts. Who gave you that idea?

Who gave you that idea?

The first page of this thread.

The way that I've been able to make dark shots look better is to keep the gain at -3 and slightly overlight the shot, then darken it in post. It works for me. If I try to accomedate a dark scene by turning up the gain I always get grain.
This is exactly what I do and it is perfect everytime. I'm telling you this cam can take "perfect" no grain shots in dark scenery. If one were to leave the cam in auto with these types of shots then they would be disappointed. But thank God for the workaround.

Overlight the shot? Some people don't light shots. They have to work with what light is there. Not everyone here are producing movies.

The way that I've been able to make dark shots look better is to keep the gain at -3 and slightly overlight the shot, then darken it in post. It works for me. If I try to accomedate a dark scene by turning up the gain I always get grain.

Here's a thought...get an HV20 and an Intensity card...film those complex scenes solely with the Intensity card's HDMI input...totally bypassing the HDV codec and your problems are history. Still a heck of lot cheaper than an HVX with all of its accessories.

By the way...I never had those types of problem with my HV20..but maybe I need to start analyzing my pictures more closely.

Question: Why call HDV a fake HD? Is it bandwidth that makes HD HD...or the pixels in the picture or resolution? I mean...compression is one thing...but to say it's fake HD because of compression artifacts...I don't get it.

If I captured my "live" HDMI footage with Cineforms codec (at any of its rates) would you still say its not real HD?

I agree with this post. First of all, going with HD-SDI or HDMI with the HV20 would be your solution in those "special" complex scenes.

To call HDV a fraud or a fake HD is absurd because the only definition of HD is resolution. And as the original post mentioned, the cameras can and do produce many fantastic and beautifull HD content. I use two Sony FX1's and I've shot some footage that I thought was better than what I see many broadcast companies sending in HD to my television. In the end, whenever any compression is used, there is going to be a "breakdown" point where the lack of performance of a codec will be exploited. HDV was built and targeted at the prosumer market and frankly, I'm still blown away this codec can deliver this image quality and resolution inside the same 25Mb/sec as standard DV.

If you want more resolution and a better recording Codec, the HVX200 might be the ticket or maybe you should start considering RED, Silicon Imaging, or Sony's new XDCAM EX. Ahhh.. but then again, those camera's cost 3x - 6x more than a solid HDV cam like the A1. Something's got to give.. Calling out HDV as a fake almost feels disrespectfull...

Jon

Maybe fake is not a good word to use, but HDV is definitely a compromised form of HD. It has limitations that we need to be aware of, rather than deny, but for me it's an acceptable way to get high definition at a reasonable price.

Saying that HD is only about resolution is an oversimplification that is normally best left to marketing people. (e.g. "CD Quality" or "DVD Quality" to sell dubious recordings that happen to share the same sampling rate or video codec as something else). Footage that has HD resolution but with codec artifacts on moving fine details is obviously not the same as clean HD footage. Also, video with a data rate of 100Mbps is obviously going to be better quality (all other things being equal) than video at 20Mbps. HDV is impressive at being able to squeeze so much into the available bandwidth, but in the end it does have limitations.

And on a related issue, I also think it is fair that footage that obtains its HD resolution by upsampling from lower-resolution sensor blocks is considered by some to be not true HD. You can call it pixel shift or whatever you like, but it's not the same as having discrete sensor points for each pixel.

Richard

Strange. I've seen a lot of motion breaking up with the hc1, but the canon hv20 has held up extremely well even with high motion stuff (except for the rolling shutter). I would presume that the 24f mode in the xh a1 would be so good that the artifacts would be minimal. Atleast 25p on the hv20 is awesome in regards to motion artifacting.

I've worked with the Sony HDR3, A1 and Z1 (my baby) filming adventure videography. I took the A1 underwater, down ziplines, filmed from the roof of boats 30 miles offshore (with that sort of rocking motion of 3 foot waves, LOTS of attempts to break the codec).

I've generally been disappointed with the A1's abilities to properly capture in varying light scenarios.... and I really didn't like the HDR3 (no external control of my iris?!) But all-in-all, after filming a season of fast paced, fast motion video for international broadcast using the HDV codec, I've been happy. I've never had to give up a shot because the codec failed me, and that includes filming from a zipline. Those trees fly by pretty fast, and it still looked good! Most of the episodes got a kudos from the art department AND the tech department... and I personally think that speaks well for the flexibility of shooting with HDV cameras, as long as you tweak your settings dependent on the environment you are in.

Carl

HDV is definitely a compromised form of HD. All HD formats are compromised in one way or another. For example, the best one of all, HDCAM SR, is compromised in terms of its cost: it's incredibly expensive; in fact, prohibitively expensive for most folks.

footage that obtains its HD resolution by upsampling from lower-resolution sensor blocks is considered by some to be not true HD.And yet HDCAM, the single most widely accepted format in the world for broadcast HD masters, is 1440 x 1080. So-called "true HD" is an effective marketing term for single-chip consumer camcorders which can't reap the benefits of Pixel Shift which are afforded to professional three-chip designs, but it's still just that: a marketing term.

Once the pro industry follows the lead established by most Digital Cinema UHD camera manufacturers out of three-chip systems into single-chip designs, all of this will be a non-issue anyway. As far as I'm concerned, it's a non-issue right now. The only question is, "is it good enough?" and the obvious answer is yes, 1440 x 1080 certainly is good enough, judging by the broad acceptance of HDCAM.

You can call it pixel shift or whatever you like, but it's not the same as having discrete sensor points for each pixel.Pixel Shift is actually *better* than discrete sensor points for each pixel. Certainly not any worse.

Pixel Shift is actually *better* than discrete sensor points for each pixel. Certainly not any worse.

Hi Chris. I'd be interested to know why you think so.

Richard

Sure. Here's the easy part first:

All things being equal -- say we have two 3-chip systems, pixel counts on the chips are identical in each, chip size is identical in each, one system uses Pixel Shift and the other doesn't. Obviously the advantage goes to the system using Pixel Shift because of the inherent resolution boost it provides by delivering more sampling points per pixel to the camera's A/D converter. But that's academic.

Now let's complicate things a bit:

All things *not* being equal -- say we we have two 3-chip systems, pixel counts on the chips are *not* identical in each. One system has chips with a lower pixel count than the other. Chip size is identical in each, but the system with fewer pixels on the chips also uses Pixel Shift. Let's say the resolution boost provided by Pixel Shift equals the native resolution of the other system. The advantage still goes to the system using Pixel Shift, this time because of greater sensitivity and better low light performance. Fewer pixels on the chip means the pixels are physically larger and therefore gather more light than a chip of equal size containing more pixels.

And yet another advantage for the system using Pixel Shift: fewer pixels means not only greater sensitivity, but reduced cost as well. For any two sensors of equal size, the one with more pixels is more expensive. Pixel Shift negates any loss of resolution, provides for greater light sensitivity and allows for a lower cost to the end user.

However, the main advantage of Pixel Shift as a resolution booster is the primary reason why it's incorporated in one form (H-axis only) or another (H-axis and V-axis) into almost every single three-chip camcorder currently available; especially within the affordable HD acquisition arena which the Canon XH series camcorders fall into. In fact there is only one popular three-chip HD camera system that does *not* use Pixel Shift, and that's the JVC Pro HD series; their reasoning for this is that Pixel Shift is not needed for 720p nearly as much as it is for 1080i. That said, every three-chip HD 1080i camera on the market today uses some form of Pixel Shift (to include Sony's ClearVid sensors in the HVR-V1U; these chips aren't using a traditional form of Pixel Shift but the resolution boost they get from diagonally offset pixels is practically the same concept for discussion purposes) -- just as most all three-chip standard definition camcorders always have, and with very good reason. Hope this helps,

And still the hv20 looks noticeably better than the z1. :)

can I see some of this footage? I own an A1, and don't think I see what you folks are looking at.... and I have been looking at video professionally for years.

Granted, it's always in a cinematic setting, so nice slow pans, dollies, some hand held stuff... but I see no breakup in complex scenes.

I did a fight scene last week with the hc1 & hv20 and both held up compression wise very nicely. It seems strange that even panning would completely break up the compression on the a1. Maybe something else??

All things *not* being equal -- say we we have two 3-chip systems, pixel counts on the chips are *not* identical in each. One system has chips with a lower pixel count than the other. Chip size is identical in each, but the system with fewer pixels on the chips also uses Pixel Shift. Let's say the resolution boost provided by Pixel Shift equals the native resolution of the other system. The advantage still goes to the system using Pixel Shift, this time because of greater sensitivity and better low light performance. Fewer pixels on the chip means the pixels are physically larger and therefore gather more light than a chip of equal size containing more pixels.


Hi Chris, thanks for the detailed reply. The problem I have in accepting this is that from other things I have read, and also what I have seen for myself, some of this is not borne out in real life cameras.

I have no experience with HDCAM and UHD, so let's take a couple of examples based on the XL1S that I know you are very familiar with. Maybe you can explain where I am going wrong with this.

First, there's sensitivity. The sensor block on the XL1S has a lower sensor count than that on a VX2000, and performs pixel shift to increase the resolution. Yet the VX2000 which is also 1/3" performs so much better in low light. If pixel shift really has the sensitivity advantages mentioned, this should not be the case.

Second, image sharpness. When the XL-2 was introduced, with its higher count sensor block, one of the big improvements over the XL1S was the sharpness of the image. It seems to me that while pixel shift can allow a lower resolution sensor block to create the same number of data samples as a native resolution sensor block, it does not necessarily produce an equally sharp image.

I do understand that cramming more and more sensors onto small sensor blocks, such as is happening with small consumer cams, brings its own problems and does not always lead to improved video pictures just by having high pixel count. I also appreciate that pixel shifting allows us to get good results at more affordable prices. I just find it hard to accept that everything about pixel shift is as marvellous as the manufacturers would like us to believe.

Richard

The sensor block on the XL1S has a lower sensor count than that on a VX2000, and performs pixel shift to increase the resolution. Yet the VX2000 which is also 1/3" performs so much better in low light. If pixel shift really has the sensitivity advantages mentioned, this should not be the case.Well, not only the VX2000, but that entire Sony family of camcorders: the VX2000, VX2100, PD150, PD170 and DSR250. Here's my take on what's going on. First, I've never been able to determine for certain whether or not these Sony camcorders are using a pixel offset technology. There's no mention of it in their marketing material, but that doesn't mean it might not be there. However, there's a reason why these particular cameras are so darn good in low light situations: they utilize a DSP (that is, an image processor) that's newer, better and more efficient than the one in the Canon XL1 / XL1S and most other contemporary video cameras. There's some significant amplification going in on that DSP that's clean and pumps out a very bright image. That's why those cameras are so phenomenal in low light.

I certainly didn't intend to imply that Pixel Shift was the *only* way to increase sensitivity... the DSP plays an enormous role as well, as the VX/PD series of Sony camcorders readily bear out.


Second, image sharpness. When the XL-2 was introduced, with its higher count sensor block, one of the big improvements over the XL1S was the sharpness of the image. It seems to me that while pixel shift can allow a lower resolution sensor block to create the same number of data samples as a native resolution sensor block, it does not necessarily produce an equally sharp image.Sorry... not quite following you here. Both cameras, the XL2 and XL1 (also XL1S) are utilizing Pixel Shift technology. The XL1 / XL1S had to rely on double-axis Pixel Shift (that is, horizontal as well as vertical) to boost the resolution of its chips (250K effective pixels) to meet the spec for standard definition DV.

Meanwhile the XL2 uses H-axis Pixel Shift with 460.8K effective pixels in 16:9 mode and 345.6K effective pixels in 4:3 mode. Now without Pixel Shift, this would represent a 1:1 ratio of discrete sensor points for each pixel. But added to this is Pixel Shift in the horizontal axis, providing an increasing in resolution which is most helpful considering that the 16:9 DV mode on this camera (960 x 480) must be written to tape as 720 x 480.

Anyway, I think I lost your question. Basically the XL2 is considerably sharper than the XL1 / XL1S, because even though it uses Pixel Shift on only one axis, it still has substantially more pixels to start with than the older XL1 / XL1S.

I just find it hard to accept that everything about pixel shift is as marvelous as the manufacturers would like us to believe.

Pixel Shift is a perfectly legitimate, effective way to boost resolution on a three-chip camcorder. It is so widely and commonly used among all manufacturers that it's rare to find a three-chip camcorder not incorporating one form of pixel offset or another (as previously mentioned, the JVC Pro HD series seems to be the sole standout exception). With internet chit-chat full of measurebators (not you or me of course) that tend to fixate solely on the pixel count of an image sensor, the manufacturers pretty much have to make a point that they're using it. Double-axis for the old Canon XL and the recent Panasonic HVX and consumer JVC Everio; single-axis for the current Canon XL and XH as well as Sony 3-chip HDV camcorders, most likely single-axis for the older Sony VX & PD.

Again, it's in most every three-chip system ever made and it's there for a reason. Hope this helps,

Anyway, I think I lost your question. Basically the XL2 is considerably sharper than the XL1 / XL1S, because even though it uses Pixel Shift on only one axis, it still has substantially more pixels to start with than the older XL1 / XL1S.


Hi Chris. I think that IS my point, that more pixels should give a sharper image than fewer pixels plus pixel shift.

And thanks for the info on the XL2, didn't know it was pixel shifting too.

Richard

Richard...

Let's also not forget that the XL2 had a better processor (Digic II) and more refined sensor blocks than the XL1s

A pixel is not always a pixel.

At one point in the story I have a woman running on a background of trees, it's windy and the leaves are very agitated. The shot is :woman running+ panning+moving leaves on tree.
No way to film this. The HDV codec fails miserably. There is absolutely no way to film this in a decent way.
Larry.

I haven't noticed any breakdown, although my hi-speed footage has been limited to panning during a football game. Still, following the ball carrier with all the other players (and fans) moving in the background, the background does get very busy. I'll take a more critical look at it. Plus, I'm going to try a "torture test" with circumstances similar to what Larry was shooting.

I'll agree that the HDV codec is less than ideal. I'd love to have uncompressed HD, but my wallet is not that deep.

Thank you for the informative info here. I am curious why LCD/Plasma panels haven't been brought into the big picture. C'mon folks the output on these panels has to be mentioned. Compared with my Sony Wega, images at high def looks better on the LCD panel, the same footage panned will blur, fuzz, pixelate on plasma/lcd, but the CRT image looks great all the way across and into the bokeh of the moving image.
So I guess I am saying that the delivery method must be partly to blame, and not so much the codec if lit for the scene you wish to capture.
LCD must go... We've been fed a television that will not hold up; it's a throw away technology that has us buying into the next best thing. CRT worked well. I hope from what I see of new technology; combining HD and CRT, we get a standard output device that actually delivers what our camera's are able to produce; before we raise a bunch of shooters that are compromised by this inferior delivery system.
IMHO

Not sure if this question even fits in here but from the standpoint of a still photographer, would not opening the iris as much as possible, thus decreasing resolution of the background while panning action, decrease the problem? If still too much in focus BG then maybe use more zoom to isolate the subject/blur background more.

I do action shooting outside with BG of trees and grass with lots of fast pans. I've been working on ways of getting around the limitations of the HDV codec in these action shots while still shooting the way I want to, i.e., following the subject(s) framed tightly versus letting them move through or around in a still as possible field. It would seem to me that the less resolution the BG is given, the less trouble it causes in such situations. Then again, you all are probably all doing that to start with. I just didn't see it mentioned in this thread.

Your point is very good and valid, and I think most of us try to do that most of the time. I haven't had any of that artifacting problem some talk about, and I've shot waves in the water, trees blowing in the breeze, kids riding around on bicycles, etc. The only things I've shot that have been projected on a big theater screen are mainly interviews, and they look great. I may check out some of this footage with more and faster motion on a big screen to see what it looks like under theatrical projection conditions.

I would love to see footage of these artifacts. I've never had any pixelation or artifact problems with my A1. Unless the scene is improperly lit, I don't have any complaints. I understand HDV is limited, but so is my budget and I accept these limits. With price limitations you must accept compromises. If you don't want to compromise with imagine quality, you better not have budget restrictions. If you don't have budget restrictions build a Spielberg Ranch...

Just my two cents.

I would love to see footage of these artifacts.

To really illustrate the artifacts correctly, one must shoot the same footage with a comparison codec and Canon's compression simultaneously. Anyone with a AJA IO HD and a G1 could do it. Seeing the footage side-by-side removes as much subjectivity as possible.


I've never had any pixelation or artifact problems with my A1.


That's all that matters. It's all a sliding scale of circumstance and subjective preference. For some people and source material, 1 Mbps quicktime HD h.264 is good enough. For most of the viewing public, 8 Mbps Satellite HD is fine. For you, 25 Mbps HDV is sufficient. Others require 144 Mbps HDCAM.


I understand HDV is limited, but so is my budget and I accept these limits. With price limitations you must accept compromises.

I don't think anyone would argue with you there. I really dislike the many image quality compromises in my XH-A1, but it's the most I can afford, so I have to accept that. Until Scarlet is out, that is. :-)

I would love to see footage of these artifacts.

It is fairly easy to film subjects which will show the artifacts. Take your camera and go outside by daylight. Film trees moving in the wind. Zoom in and out slowly.

When the leaves have a certain size (not too big and not too small), the picture breaks down and the leaves look unnatural.

You will need a full HD screen to see the HDV artifacts.

Larry, I see you live in Bethesda. If you ever need someone with another A1 in the area, let me know and I may be able to help out.