In the interest of discussing the DVCPROHD codec, I wanted to show everyone a few examples of how amazing the codec can in fact be.

I have a few DVCPROHD 1080p QT single frames from a film that was shot in 24p HDCAM.

The entire nearly 40 hours of footage was captured to a 2 TB RAID through FCP 5 and a Decklink HD card via SDI from a portable HDCAM player-only deck. (ain't that a mouthful!) The card captured the footage flawlessly at 23.98 fps without any pulldown removal. (Decklink recognized the 23.98 frame rate)

These are single still frames of twice compressed HD material (HDCAM 144mbs/DVCPRO 80 mbs, approx). The data rate of the material is 11.4 MBs according to FCP. Unfortunately, you will need the DVCPRO HD components of QT to view these frames. I have converted one of the frames to a Tiff, but it's bothersome because something within QT player adds a little aliasing to the 1920x1080 frame upon export, and I'm not exactly sure why. The actual frame from the codec looks appropriate from within QT as a DVCPRO HD clip. If anyone knows how to properly export this frame without adding artifacts, please let me know.

This is the level of quality that we are working with in order to compress an HD h.264 and WMV trailer.

As those who are able to view the frames can see, DVCPRO HD is pretty phenomenal overall. It is my desire that the HVX will produce 1080 res footage at this level of compression cleanliness. I know there are all sorts of issues with just how much res you get from the CCD and at what level of noisiness (disregarding aesthetic issues of DOF with 1/3 chips amongst other items), but I think Panasonic can do it.

Just wanted to show what can be acquired through SDI in that codec.

www.homepage.mac.com/mrbarlowelton

Excellent examples. Here are more examples from the Varicam as well.

http://www.holyzoo.com/content/hvx200/images/Varicam_Example01.jpg
http://www.holyzoo.com/content/hvx200/images/Varicam_Example02.jpg
http://www.holyzoo.com/content/hvx200/images/Varicam_Example03.jpg
http://www.holyzoo.com/content/hvx200/images/Varicam_Example04.jpg
http://www.holyzoo.com/content/hvx200/images/Varicam_Example05.jpg
http://www.holyzoo.com/content/hvx200/images/Varicam_Example06.jpg

Hopefully the HVX200 yields similar results.

-steeV

Excellent examples. Here are more examples from the Varicam as well.

Hopefully the HVX200 yields similar results.-steeV

I think it will, I just hope the signal processing is on a par with the Varicam.
This will likely determine whether the camera can produce a superior 1080p image, at least in comparison to the H1. Obviously, the codec is capable, it's just a matter of how it's massaged.

I think alot of indie movies are going to be made with both.

The footage posted yesterday from the HVX200 is plenty good to tweak away on:

http://www.holyzoo.com/content/hvx200/images/Freak1.jpg

:)

Lay off the drugs, son. ;-)

Varicam? Dont expect that quality. The bigger chips do more than just give you DOF....



ash =o)

Varicam? Dont expect that quality. The bigger chips do more than just give you DOF)

By "yields similar results", I mean something *resembling* the quality seen in that camera. What it really needs to compete with is the XL-H1. We shall see soon. Regarding shallow depth of field, I'll be using a 35mm imager. ;)

Recently, I've worked with the DVX100, the XL2, the XLH1, and the Z1u. all have lovely pics, but some outperform others. On the DV side, I much prefer the DVX. The XL2 just didn't do it for me. the native 16:9 was nice, but no matter what I did, I couldn't get the image I wanted.

on the HDV side, the Z1 has some qualities I like over the H1, but being a shoulder mount, the H1 wins out. The picture is a little XL2ish in rendition, but resolution wise looks great. Plus, you can't beat the HDSDI output. Personally, I'd like to try this cam recording to an SRW1 recorder, just to see what it can do.

Now enter the HVX200. I think this is where the war for HD Domination will end.

HDV is good. In fact, it's better than many of us have seen in a recording format. But, HDV (in the 1080i flavor) is only recording at 25Mbps. The DVCProHD format records at 4 times that rate. that means four times the information, and instead of MPEG-2 compression, it uses a DCT compression scheme just like the other DV formats. In other words, INTRAFRAME compression, which means each frame stands on its own without referring to other frames for information. This DCT compression (unlike DV) is variable up to 7:1 depending on what's in the frame.

What it boils down to is that there is no lag in the image. HDV can, in some situations, soften during a pan, or on a subject with alot of movement, and when that movement stops, the picture "snaps" back into clarity. Not with DVCProHD.

HDV isn't dead yet, but I think it's quaking in it's boots as this PitBull from Panny begins stalking the market.

Rob

Marketing hype. Seriously aggressive marketing hype.

We've been subjected to specs, features and theory with the HVX, but still haven't seen anything substantial that really shows the superiority of this camera. Until the model ships, all I can really infer is that there is a good chance this camera will be fairly noisy in comparison to the others, based on the released footage (masked by the ambiguity of h.264/WMV encoding, and the problematic compression/signal processing of the prerelease raw footage from DVExpo). Also, when you shoot 1080 24p, you're wasting roughly 20% of the bit rate because you have to encode those extra pulldown frames as I frames and they're just taking up valuable bits that'll be thrown out when you work with a native 1080p timeline. Consider also that 720 24p is only giving you roughly 40 megabits of the 100 megabits that are theoretically possible with the format. You can't lavish any of those extra bits on the 24 frames, just extracting what is allotted to 24 out of a possible 60 fps. Also, with this 40 megabits you're also sampling 4.2.2 color, but compressing to a considerably higher compression ratio than even DV! That's really not that much more data for a high-def image!

Are you aware that the H1's 24f mode only compresses 24 frames and then encodes repeat frames to be 60i compatible? It saves the 25 mbs for less frames, and progressive ones at that. This is highly efficient and smart. Considering that the best of current MPEG2 encoding can be roughly 4x more efficient than DVCPROHD, it's not necessarily the bastard format that one might presume at first blush. Good signal processing (DIGIC), a good lens (at least in terms of optical quality) and a high res (oversampled) CCD all add up to a pretty damn fine image coming from the H1. This camera should not be lumped in with the rest of the HDV products. It's truly in it's own league, and don't be surprised if the HVX doesn't quite measure up in the 1080p realm.

These two cameras are neck and neck. They have their virtues and compromises, but I think the H1 is proving that you can't just automatically assume that it's an inferior camera for acquisition, just because it's, at a base level, an HDV camcorder.

There's a very good likelihood that you will get a superior DVCPRO HD image from the H1 (SDI) then you could get from the Pany...and maybe just a better image overall.

HDV isn't dead yet, but I think it's quaking in it's boots as this PitBull from Panny begins stalking the market.

I wouldn't count on that... Sony is selling their new HDR-HC1/A1 consumer camcorder like hotcakes. I'm guilty, I even bought one myself because Ikelite has a nice underwater enclosure for it.

But also keep in mind that HDV is an evolving standard and there are currently considerations within the HDV consortium for variants that record to solid-state or other media besides DV tape that can handle higher bitrates. The only constant with HDV seems to be that Sony is firmly committed to 1080i and has no real interest in 720p, nor do they really have any interest in 1080p or anything 24p, at least not on the lower end of their product lines.

I wouldn't put it past Sony to announce a 50~100 Mbps upgrade to the FX1/Z1 at NAB. It will probably record to internal 2.5" HDD and/or a new flavor of their MemoryStick. If Sony does show up with something like this, you can still bet it will be 1080i only and something like CF24 will be the closest thing it will offer to what us progressive video guys would want.

Are you aware that the H1's 24f mode only compresses 24 frames and then encodes repeat frames to be 60i compatible? It saves the 25 mbs for less frames, and progressive ones at that. This is highly efficient and smart.

As you've said yourself, "marketing hype". Saying the H1 captures a progressive image is stretching the truth a bit. It has an interlaced CCD which scans at 60Hz. The internal DSP takes the two fields and de-interlaces them in-camera to produce a "progressive" frame, which is then processed and compressed. Arguably more efficeint than doing a de-interlace on the footage after it's been processed, but still by no means truly progressive and unlike the footage from the HD100 or what little we have seen from the HVX thus far, the H1 does exhibit some interlace issues which are clearly visible on fast motion and pans when viewed on a monitor that can display the full 1440x1080 resolution. As you have also said, the H1 "encodes repeat frames to be 60i compatible", well duh... You do realize that by encoding these repeat frames, that those (even though they are a repeat) still count within that 25Mbps allotment on tape.

The 1080p encoding on the HVX works the same way, (but better because it's truly progressive). True progressive frames are captured from the CCD and are encoded as fields along with duplicates in order to fit within the 60i specification for DVCPROHD 1080i.

Considering that the best of current MPEG2 encoding can be roughly 4x more efficient than DVCPROHD, it's not necessarily the bastard format that one might presume at first blush.

You're really reaching with that statement.... Yes, MPEG2 can be that efficeint under circumstances where the compression is hand-tuned and undergoes multipass encoding as we would do for output to DVD. I have yet to see any indication from any HDV camera, H1 and HD100 included that their on-the-fly, one-size-fits-all MPEG2 encoding really has that much to offer over any of the intraframe/DCT formats.

Good signal processing (DIGIC), a good lens (at least in terms of optical quality) and a high res (oversampled) CCD all add up to a pretty damn fine image coming from the H1. This camera should not be lumped in with the rest of the HDV products. It's truly in it's own league, and don't be surprised if the HVX doesn't quite measure up in the 1080p realm.

I will agree with that. The H1 is a very impressive camera and for some it may fit the bill just perfectly. I still miss my XL1 that I sold when I bought my DVX100 and the extra flexibility the interchangeable lenses offered. I also like it's compact, shoulder mount form factor a lot better than the chunky brick approach of the DVX/HVX. But let's look at it this way... I can buy the HVX w/3x4GB P2 cars, a really nice tripod, bag, rain slicker, extra batteries, etc.. For *LESS* than what I can buy a bare H1 for. I'm not broke or a seriously penny-pinching miser, but I think the HVX200 will fit the bill perfectly for a camera I own. If I need better for a specific project, I'll rent. If I'm going to start considering $9K for just a camera with a stock lens that really only offers 1080i (although repackaged a few different ways) at 25Mbps, then I may as well just suck it up and spend $22K and get the Sony XDCAM system with an even nicer stock lens. ....Yeah, I priced out that option too. IMO, Canon has a real nice unit, but they have priced themselves out of their own market. Sure, they'll still sell a handful of them, but they would probably sell more and generate more revenue if they dropped the price by $2500 or so. Instead, they're trying to convince everyone (and probably themselves) of their own superiority by inflating the price.

These two cameras are neck and neck. They have their virtues and compromises, but I think the H1 is proving that you can't just automatically assume that it's an inferior camera for acquisition, just because it's, at a base level, an HDV camcorder.

True, but I don't see too many people doing that. If everyone did, then nobody would spend $9K to buy one.

There's a very good likelihood that you will get a superior DVCPRO HD image from the H1 (SDI) then you could get from the Pany...and maybe just a better image overall.

I doubt that about a superior DVCPRO HD image... Or at least not in any sensible manner. You wouldn't in your right mind use the H1 combined with a $16K DVCPROHD deck in the field and if you were to capture from its SDI interface in-studio direct to a PC/Mac, DVCPROHD would be the wrong format to use. I would capture direct to one of the DVCAM variants that supports the native 1440x1080 resolution, or if the system is powerful enough go direct to uncompressed or a relatively lossless codec like the ones from Avid or Cineform. It's cool that Canon put an SDI interface right on the camera, but let's be realistic about it for a minute and acknowledge what it is. It's not this magical connection giving us raw 1080 line HD in pure digital glory. The video is still processed and has undergone all the same treatment that the HDV video in this camera has, with the exception of skipping the MPEG2 compression. The HVX200 offers the same level of pre-compressed video out of its D4 component out. Unfortunately, Panny made the total bonehead move of giving us an analog interface... Why??? If they didn't want to provide SDI, fine... They should have at least given us DVI, or better yet, HDMI and we would have had all 4 audio channels on the same connector. Total bonehead move by panny with the component out - they give us an all digital, tapeless workflow and then pull something like that. And the rationale of it being more friendly for field monitor connections is a bunch of BS... Any decent newer prosumer, even consumer monitor/display is DVI compliant these days. Going higher-end, all the new stuff is DVI and/or SDI. So I'm still shaking my head over the component connection...

But for me, the HVX200 is still where its at. I may be able to squeeze a better image from the H1 under the right conditions and the H1 is probably a hands-down better camera for in-studio or TV work. But the HVX200 still wins out for me with the multiple format support DVCPRO50 is a huge deal for those still working with SD and need an option to compete with or compliment digibeta. Tapeless workflow? Hell yeah! Variable frame rates? Wooohooo! Not to mention the price... An HVX with a CinePorter or FireStore will still cost less than a bare H1.

HDV isn't dead yet, but I think it's quaking in it's boots as this PitBull from Panny begins stalking the market.

On the contrary, I don't see the Panasonic P2 format threatening HDV as a viable option for at least a good five years or more. It's tough to beat the practicality and affordability of HDV, and when all is said and done the most common solutions for distributing HD content will be at HDV or lower bit rates. Not that P2 footage won't look good and be sought after by many, but it's simply not going to replace HDV given current pricing and workflow considerations. As I've said before, P2 will make sense when I can buy a 32+ GB P2 card at Walmart for under $100, and that isn't going to happen any time soon.

Most customers are barely willing to pay for HDV right now, and for the few who want something better I can always rent something like the HVX200. Maybe I'll pick one up used when the HVX200B comes out. ;-)

Marketing hype. Seriously aggressive marketing hype.
Also, when you shoot 1080 24p, you're wasting roughly 20% of the bit rate because you have to encode those extra pulldown frames as I frames and they're just taking up valuable bits that'll be thrown out when you work with a native 1080p timeline. Consider also that 720 24p is only giving you roughly 40 megabits of the 100 megabits that are theoretically possible with the format.



1080p aside... (since I'm only going to shoot 720p) If you closely look at DVCProHD, you'll see that the camera supports a native 24p mode that only records data at the framerate set in the camera. There is no pull down, or "I" frames in this mode. each frame is encoded as a discrete frame (unlike MPEG2), with each frame having it's own variable compression applied, that doesn't exceed a 7:1 ratio. In other words, the camera also records a true 24p stream. The only way to get the variable framrates in the 720p mode without the need for a framerate convertor, is to record a true 12p,24p, 30p, 60p, stream. Basically the cam is the DVX, and although the DVX can be noisy in some situations, the majority of the visible noise is due to the DV compression.

Granted, few have seen the HVX in action, and there are many unknowns, but from what I've seen, "Hype" doesn't belong in the description. Panasonic isn't stupid. they've waited on HD just for this reason. Provide a true brodcast proven format to the masses.

Rob

With the advent of a P2 compatable harddrive recorder, the issue of P2 cards becomes irrelevant. The Cineporter will put this cam in a competative arena with the HDV products, and also allow for the "average joe" to have access to a true broadcast format. To me, it's kinda like shooting with a consumer DV camera, vs. a DVCPro 50 Camera like the SDX900. They both look good in their own right, but one looks better, and is just that much more accepted. Since the majority of my clients will be producing "films", or programming for broadcast, I feel the HVX200 will give me an edge over the competition when it comes to format considerations.

Rob

Hey Jeff,

I love a good spirited debate! Just a few retorts:

As you've said yourself, "marketing hype". Saying the H1 captures a progressive image is stretching the truth a bit. It has an interlaced CCD which scans at 60Hz. The internal DSP takes the two fields and de-interlaces them in-camera to produce a "progressive" frame, which is then processed and compressed. Arguably more efficeint than doing a de-interlace on the footage after it's been processed, but still by no means truly progressive and unlike the footage from the HD100 or what little we have seen from the HVX thus far, the H1 does exhibit some interlace issues which are clearly visible on fast motion and pans when viewed on a monitor that can display the full 1440x1080 resolution. As you have also said, the H1 "encodes repeat frames to be 60i compatible", well duh... You do realize that by encoding these repeat frames, that those (even though they are a repeat) still count within that 25Mbps allotment on tape.

The 1080p encoding on the HVX works the same way, (but better because it's truly progressive). True progressive frames are captured from the CCD and are encoded as fields along with duplicates in order to fit within the 60i specification for DVCPROHD 1080i.

Actually, I believe the CCD scans at 48Hz in 24F mode. The CCD is reclocked for this mode. I'm pretty dang sure of this because you lose some sensitivity in 24F mode. And the repeat flags tell the encoder to output the 60i on the fly from 24 PROGRESSIVE frames on tape! That means the 25mbs are for the 24 frames. The downside of this, of course, is that it is a new format in it's native form, which is why you can't currently capture 24F through firewire with most NLE's. Again, I could be wrong because there is nothing official from Canon that confirms this, but I do know that the few Canon reps that I spoke to at DVExpo basically confirm this theory, at least as far as what is laid tape being 24P. How they arrive at the frames is still a mystery. Digging any further and they'll just respond with "DIGIC". I'm just connecting the dots as best as I can. Again, the results have been impressive to my eye, and anyone that says you can't make a good looking film from this mode has gotta have blinders on.


You're really reaching with that statement.... Yes, MPEG2 can be that efficeint under circumstances where the compression is hand-tuned and undergoes multipass encoding as we would do for output to DVD. I have yet to see any indication from any HDV camera, H1 and HD100 included that their on-the-fly, one-size-fits-all MPEG2 encoding really has that much to offer over any of the intraframe/DCT formats.

Have you seen Nick Hiltgen's posts about the H1? He tested it against an F900 and said material from the H1's HDV could intercut quite well with HDCAM. Look at his posts from the thread Shannon Rawls started entitled, I think "XLH1 meets F900".

"...and that's all she wrote." (guess the movie)


IMO, Canon has a real nice unit, but they have priced themselves out of their own market. Sure, they'll still sell a handful of them, but they would probably sell more and generate more revenue if they dropped the price by $2500 or so. Instead, they're trying to convince everyone (and probably themselves) of their own superiority by inflating the price.


I sure would like the camera to be $2500 cheaper, but I can't fault Canon for testing the market. Maybe the brightside to the price is it won't be the "oh, you have one too" camera. One thing I do expect is to see quite a bit of material from this camera on Discovery HD and HDNet. Yes, it's Discovery HD approved, believe it or not. Even the HDV.


I doubt that about a superior DVCPRO HD image... Or at least not in any sensible manner. You wouldn't in your right mind use the H1 combined with a $16K DVCPROHD deck in the field...

Actually, in a low-budget filmmaking sense, this is definitely a "in my right mind" option. The Watchmaker demo was recorded SDI into a 1200a deck.
Looks phenomenal. Damn close to HDCAM quality. Shown on a 1000 line Sony HD CRT. Shown at RESFEST on the big screen...reports say it was beautiful that way too. Not surprising at all. Cineform and other options are wonderful too. That's the beauty...options. And the HDV is no slouch either.



It's not this magical connection giving us raw 1080 line HD in pure digital glory. The video is still processed and has undergone all the same treatment that the HDV video in this camera has, with the exception of skipping the MPEG2 compression.

And this is insignifigant? Skipping MPEG2 compression is probably very important in a lot of applications. Yes, the signal goes through DIGIC, but then it's spitting out a raw, 10bit SDI compliant HD stream. Again, seeing is believing, and I definitely believe the DIGIC processing is doing some good things.


But for me, the HVX200 is still where its at. I may be able to squeeze a better image from the H1 under the right conditions and the H1 is probably a hands-down better camera for in-studio or TV work. But the HVX200 still wins out for me with the multiple format support DVCPRO50 is a huge deal for those still working with SD and need an option to compete with or compliment digibeta. Tapeless workflow? Hell yeah! Variable frame rates? Wooohooo! Not to mention the price... An HVX with a CinePorter or FireStore will still cost less than a bare H1.

Sure, and if the HVX gives you the image that best suits your purposes, awesome!

Please don't mistake me for a Canon fanboy, please, these are wonderful tools and they have overlapping applications.

You've gotta admit, Canon has been very low-key about the H1. They're letting it sell itself, and isn't that a refreshing approach?

Personally, I'm torn between the two contenders. I think the H1 will own the 1080p realm, but the HVX has so many other filmmaker friendly features.
When we see some nice raw images from the HVX (go Kaku!), we'll be able to nitpick and debate further.

Panasonic makes wonderful tools. I've recently cut a local PBS documentary that was mostly SDX900 24p DVCPRO50 stuff, with some sprinklings of DVX b-camera footage. DV50 is a fabulous SD format. I plan on testing our studio's SD93 Panny decks SDI in with downconverted H1 material. It'll be interesting to see if it intercuts well with the native DV50 widescreen material.

On the contrary, I don't see the Panasonic P2 format threatening HDV as a viable option for at least a good five years or more.

The end of next year or sooner. With 240-320GB hard drives such as CinePorter promises. You will be able to record 3-4 hours without a reel/tape change.

It's tough to beat the practicality and affordability of HDV

?????? You can't color correct HDV or view FX etc without buying a video card. HDV doesn't pass through firewire. DVCProHD passes right through firewire. If you're shooting significant hours of HDV you'll need to buy an HDV deck or wear your heads. No need to use a deck nor are there heads to wear at all in tapelss format. Less moving parts = lower maintenance costs.

If you're getting paid for your work you have to take into account the render time you'll need if you work in HDV native or the render time to uprez to DVCProHD. Time is money.

We'll need to see about BluRay burners/disks archival for tapeless DVCProHD but when everything is factored in HDV is not less expensive than tapeless DVCProHD.

, and when all is said and done the most common solutions for distributing HD content will be at HDV or lower bit rates.

No one accepts or distributes HDV. Even when HDV is used in broadcast it's bumped up. If you're thinking HDDVD or BluRay discs for playback, compressing an MPEG2 source to yet another lossy format is NOT a good thing at all.

Not that P2 footage won't look good and be sought after by many, but it's simply not going to replace HDV given current pricing and workflow considerations. As I've said before, P2 will make sense when I can buy a 32+ GB P2 card at Walmart for under $100, and that isn't going to happen any time soon.

Firestore, CinePorter, CitiDisk. The portable hard drive recorder companies are already making their announcements.

With 4GB P2 dropping to $650 as QC and production improves, you'll likely see 16GB cards sometime next year. A pair will match the record time found on the typical BetaSP camera (30 minutes) and one will be able to offload. That workflow is certainly viable for shooting TV spots or professional features were there is time between scenes and setups to dump the cards to a disk.

HDV's only advantage is in docs where one may need to record for hours and days away from typical computer amenities. Even then it better not include fast action (like trees blowing in the wind!) unless one can live with the image going soft.

Others may be making their low budget "feature" on HDV but they'll still be faced with the expensive pass through cards for color correction and FX and a TV monitor and the LOOONG render times to reconstruct the GOP for output.

Most customers are barely willing to pay for HDV right now, and for the few who want something better I can always rent something like the HVX200. Maybe I'll pick one up used when the HVX200B comes out. ;-)

If customers aren't willing to pay for HDV than those customers will cost you money. Given the expense of time on rendering, costs of gear for color correction you'll make less money than shooting DV. If customers can't pay for the extra time and the additional gear you'll need than you shouldn't give away HD. It's a bad business model.

I'm not shooting HD because my customers won't pay for it either, yet. When they will pay then, dollar for dollar, it makes more sense to go tapeless DVCProHD. It'll be awhile before that demand happens depending on your market/clients but when it happens the storage and archival solutions for tapeless DVCProHD will match the cost of a Professional HDV workflow. I suspect we'll see that in 12 months or less . . . not 5 years.

My own hunch is that by that time Sony will see the impact the HVX is having and will be looking at making a 1/3" 3 Chip XDCAMHD camera. I suspect by NAB 2007 (16 months) Tapelss DVCProHD will be a strong competitor to HDV and by NAB 2008 (28 months) HDV will be fading.

HDV is ok if you can get a full return on your investment in 12 months but it won't be a long term desirable format.

By the end of next year I'll have a solution for my corporate clients with HDTVs in their conference rooms, for local TV spots that will need to air on premium HD channels as well as local movie theaters (some already allow advertising). From a tapeless source (don't forget DVCPro50 too!) I'll be able to turnaround a corporate VNR much faster too.

Hey Jeff,

I love a good spirited debate! Just a few retorts:

:-)

Actually, I believe the CCD scans at 48Hz in 24F mode. The CCD is reclocked for this mode. I'm pretty dang sure of this because you lose some sensitivity in 24F mode. And the repeat flags tell the encoder to output the 60i on the fly from 24 PROGRESSIVE frames on tape! That means the 25mbs are for the 24 frames. The downside of this, of course, is that it is a new format in it's native form, which is why you can't currently capture 24F through firewire with most NLE's.

Yep. You're right about the 48Hz. I just wasn't that specific and didn't mention that in my last post. The CCD in the H1 is able to be clocked accordingly... They don't have variable frame rates and it is always an interlaced scan, but it does scan the CCD at 48Hz for 24F mode.

As for what you're saying about the 24fps being encoded with repeat flags instead to true additional frames, I guess that could be so I have seen reports of this, but haven't got any direct confirmation... Canon's own information/specs on 24F mode is pretty vague. It shouldn't be treated as a new format though and any NLE that properly supports MPEG2 transport streams will decode this. Several people have reported that 24F footage imports into Vegas just fine. You load up the clip and set the drop frame timecode settings to 23.97 and there you go. I think Shannon Rawls can confirm this. But yeah, with HDV's GOP style MPEG2, this is a no-brainer, it simply encodes the same frames, but with fewer interpolation steps in between. So yeah, much better and more efficeint use of the 25Mbps stream.

Again, the results have been impressive to my eye, and anyone that says you can't make a good looking film from this mode has gotta have blinders on.

I'll agree with that. Like I said, I have seen some interlace issues with 24F footage in high-motion clips, but I don't think there's any way to avoid this due to the interlace CCD... When objects move fast enough where there's enough difference to offset information between the two fields, the human eye will see it. However, this is nothing more than a trait or limitation of the camera that an experienced operator will be able to cope with. And when shooting in a 24fps format, we all know that pans and fast motion present different issues than with 60i video... In most situations, I would say that the blur threshold would be crossed before the interlace combing becomes an issue and there's plenty of room for good lighting and choosing the right exposure/shutter settings to get the desired results.

Have you seen Nick Hiltgen's posts about the H1? He tested it against an F900 and said material from the H1's HDV could intercut quite well with HDCAM. Look at his posts from the thread Shannon Rawls started entitled, I think "XLH1 meets F900".

I'll have to check it out... I suppose its subjective and a lot depends on the final delivery format and what types of displays the footage is being viewed on. But I bet a good DP who knows his way around an H1 could probably conjure up some video that could rival some F900 stuff. I've seen some great work with DV25 and the DVX100 that holds up great when scaled up and cut in with HD. I've never been able to pull it off, but I've seen examples where it has worked.

I sure would like the camera to be $2500 cheaper, but I can't fault Canon for testing the market. Maybe the brightside to the price is it won't be the "oh, you have one too" camera. One thing I do expect is to see quite a bit of material from this camera on Discovery HD and HDNet. Yes, it's Discovery HD approved, believe it or not. Even the HDV.

Yeah, I know it's Discovery HD approved... But I'm also expecting the HVX200 to be. I guess we'll see what happens. Not that I really do work for Discovery, but you never know. ...I'm a 3D animation guy who's working more into video just because I can and I find it complimenting to my 3D work.

And this is insignifigant? Skipping MPEG2 compression is probably very important in a lot of applications. Yes, the signal goes through DIGIC, but then it's spitting out a raw, 10bit SDI compliant HD stream. Again, seeing is believing, and I definitely believe the DIGIC processing is doing some good things.

I never said skipping the MPEG2 was insignificant... But it's also not huge. This is how the component out on the HVX200, HD100, FX1/Z1, etc.. all work. The outs are after internal processing, but *before* compression to HDV/DVCPRO. Where Canon is unique is they keep the signal in the digital domain and send it out via SDI. Everyone else dumps back to analog before sending it out via component. Component out, or that extra digital to analog conversion is no more cost effective (possibly less) in terms of camera construction and yields more room for error and quality loss on recapture. If we capture component from the outputs of an HVX or HD100, the video is going from the processed, uncompressed digital source to an analog conversion then it gets converted back to digital when captured into an NLE. Out of the H1, the digital signal passes straight over SDI with no conversion and room to introduce analog issues like noise, ghosting, etc..

You've gotta admit, Canon has been very low-key about the H1. They're letting it sell itself, and isn't that a refreshing approach?

I suppose Canon is always low key compared to Sony, but the H1 marketing has been rather dry, even for Canon. What impresses me more is how Canon is notorious for dragging their feet with new products - look at the XL1 to XL1s to XL2 product cycle... Ugh. Then one day they announce an HDV addition to the XL1 line and my initial reaction was, yeah whatver, wake me in 3 years when it ships. But then, bang Canon just drops it on the market as a real product and it's a damn nice product too.

Personally, I'm torn between the two contenders. I think the H1 will own the 1080p realm, but the HVX has so many other filmmaker friendly features.
When we see some nice raw images from the HVX (go Kaku!), we'll be able to nitpick and debate further.

Yeah, I'm eagerly awaiting more footage. Although, I have the nagging issue of not being able to view the raw video with my current systems. I'm a PC guy and I use Vegas, so I don't have a way of viewing native DVCPRO at the moment. But I don't want to drop $1300 on Avid Xpress just yet.

In the end, I'll still evaluate the footage and features and will go with the best solution. So far, reports from Barry Green, Jarred Land and others who have actually got their hands on an HVX are reporting superior resolution, even in 1080 modes. There's been some discussion of shooting resolution charts over at dvxuser.com and I'll have to see if anything is online just yet. In the end, after the dust settles in mid-january, I'll buy what I perceive to be the best unit. And if it happens to be the H1, so be it. I'm also very interested to see if the video from these two cameras can be cut together well. Because I'm the kind of sicko that would sell both my DVX's in favor of owning both an H1 and an HVX if I can make the budget work. :)

reports from Barry Green, Jarred Land and others who have actually got their hands on an HVX

Jarred just posted a 60p clip in DVCPRO HD QuickTime that looks simply stunning. More to come. I'm sold. I was sold at NAB, drifted back and forth when the XL-H1 came out, and I'm sold again on the HVX200 big time. And now I can sleep better, uh.. since I had already placed the order in Oct with BHphoto :O

Jarred just posted a 60p clip in DVCPRO HD QuickTime that looks simply stunning. More to come. I'm sold. I was sold at NAB, drifted back and forth when the XL-H1 came out, and I'm sold again on the HVX200 big time. And now I can sleep better, uh.. since I had already placed the order in Oct with BHphoto :O

Cool. I'll go download it... Not that it will help me just yet. :-( I have got to find a way to view these DVCPRO clips. Aaaargh! I've got a friend with an Avid Xpress Studio HD setup who lives about 75 miles away. I may just have to go, uh, visit him for the holidays. :)

I know we've been over the cost comparisons before, so I'll try to summarize:

Entry level cost for a decent HDV camcorder with unlimited recording capacity: about $3200.

Entry level cost for an HVX200 with two DTE drives (so you can keep recording as needed): about $8000-9500.

Cost per hour of HDV recording capacity: $3-15.
Availability: pretty much any supermarket, electronics store, etc.

Cost per hour of DVCProHD recording capacity (100 Mbps): $600 (DTE) to $12,000 (P2 cards). Availability: if you didn't bring enough storage of some sort for the entire shoot, you're screwed unless you can figure out a way to offload some of your data.

Cost per hour of HDV archiving: none, just keep the tape. If the tape breaks, pay $20 to get it fixed and lose a few seconds of footage. Alternative: store on inexpensive hard drives at a cost of about $5-7.50/hour.

Cost per hour of DVCProHD archiving: $20-30 on inexpensive hard drives, times two if you want a redundant backup. If you only keep one copy and the hard drive dies, say goodbye to your master footage or mortgage your house to get the data retrieved. Alternative: spend all your free time burning your master footage to DVDs at four minutes per disc, or use tape-based recording or future HD DVDs at about the same cost per hour as using hard drives. In a few years archiving will get more affordable, but not as convenient as putting an HDV tape in a drawer.

On every point above HDV clearly wins in terms of both cost and convenience, and will continue to do so for at least the next few years. If you're not satisfied with HDV than of course that won't matter, and the HVX200 offers a reasonably affordable way to capture higher-bandwidth HD video. But price competitive? Not any time soon.

Entry level cost for a decent HDV camcorder with unlimited recording capacity: about $3200.

What camera are you thinking of? Entry level is the Sony HDR-HC1 with a street price of $1695 or the JVC HD1U (yep, there still out there and for less than the HC1). My local Best Buy carries the FX1 for $2899 and with current holiday coupons, like the 10% off that's been floating around lately that can be stacked with $50 off, etc.. we're looking at ~$2500+tax.

Entry level cost for an HVX200 with two DTE drives (so you can keep recording as needed): about $8000-9500.

Entry level cost, perhaps... But the HVX200 is not entry level and I fail to see the relationship between the HVX200 and your entry level HDV camera reference above. IMO, the only other <$20K camera on the market that competes with the HVX200 is the XLH1 with a base price of $8995.

HVX200 + 3 4GB P2 cards + P2 Store = $9250 roughly. So yeah, I guess. And instead of the P2 store, you could go with a decent notebook PC and 500GB external hard drive and have a lot more record time instead of just 60GB, you just trade off the compact mobility.

Cost per hour of HDV recording capacity: $3-15.
Availability: pretty much any supermarket, electronics store, etc.

Cost per hour of DVCProHD recording capacity (100 Mbps): $600 (DTE) to $12,000 (P2 cards). Availability: if you didn't bring enough storage of some sort for the entire shoot, you're screwed unless you can figure out a way to offload some of your data.

Let's just say $4.50 for a top quality 63 minute DV tape like the Panny MQ. Are you really going to pay up to $15 for DV tapes or use cheap supermarket tapes?

$12,000 for P2 cards? You're missing the boat somewhere... There's plenty of solutions to offload and manage video shot on P2. Even long-event recording can be handled via a decent notebook PC and high capacity HDD. Firewire cables can be 50ft in length and still meet the standard, not to mention longer runs are available with boosters. You'll be fine if you don't mind dragging a cord around or if you'll be somewhat stationary throughout the event. If not, chances are you can hold off another couple months for Firestore or Cineporter.

Cost per hour of HDV archiving: none, just keep the tape. If the tape breaks, pay $20 to get it fixed and lose a few seconds of footage. Alternative: store on inexpensive hard drives at a cost of about $5-7.50/hour.

Sure, but what about your time to manage and capture that video and re-caputre it on a later occasion if you have it moved offline? I'd rather be doing other things, and would prefer to leave a tape workflow in the past. Lets copy the video off DLT or DVD (and soon blu ray) instead of waiting for real-time capture to creep along. That in itself is worth a bit of a premium or at least it is to me.

Cost per hour of DVCProHD archiving: $20-30 on inexpensive hard drives, times two if you want a redundant backup. If you only keep one copy and the hard drive dies, say goodbye to your master footage or mortgage your house to get the data retrieved. Alternative: spend all your free time burning your master footage to DVDs at four minutes per disc, or use tape-based recording or future HD DVDs at about the same cost per hour as using hard drives. In a few years archiving will get more affordable, but not as convenient as putting an HDV tape in a drawer.


Yikes.... You would actually consider archiving to hard drive??? Repeat after me: D-L-T D-L-T D-L-T

Much cheaper than hard drive, especially as those tapes stack up and a lot faster and easier to manage and use than DV archives.

On every point above HDV clearly wins in terms of both cost and convenience, and will continue to do so for at least the next few years.

If you only look at it the way you have summarized it, then yes.

If you're not satisfied with HDV than of course that won't matter, and the HVX200 offers a reasonably affordable way to capture higher-bandwidth HD video. But price competitive? Not any time soon.

Price competitive is in the eye of the beholder. Don't assume that everyone's workflow is the same. I already have an extensive graphics and animation workflow that made the transition to HD some time ago as a means to future-proof my work. I still only distribute in SD, primarily on DVD. But I have been using DLT for my backups for years so my archival system is already in place. A system/workflow like the HVX200 is a blessing to me. Hours spent capturing video from tapes shot on my DVX will be reduced to minutes. Not having to spend another $4.50 for each new hour of video I shoot will translate into a savings of at least $36 per week as I shoot about 8 to 10 hours of video each week and don't re-use my DV tapes since they are kept for archival purposes even though I back up all my captured video to DLT. $36/week savings will pay for three 4GB P2 cards in exactly one year. The cost of the few additional DLT tapes for archiving the larger video footage is minimal, probably an extra 8 to 10 tapes per year... 2 months of savings on tape will cover my additional DLT costs for this coming year. Video I shoot with the HVX200 should be more marketable as it's HD instead of SD. SD video in the form of DVCPRO-50 will provide higher quality SD and should help me reach new customers.

The HVX200 either works for you or it doesn't... It looks like it will work just great for me, hence I have placed my pre-order. I have to suck it up and replace Vegas with Avid it seems, but even considering that, it's still worth it... For me.

A system/workflow like the HVX200 is a blessing to me. Hours spent capturing video from tapes shot on my DVX will be reduced to minutes. Not having to spend another $4.50 for each new hour of video I shoot will translate into a savings of at least $36 per week as I shoot about 8 to 10 hours of video each week and don't re-use my DV tapes since they are kept for archival purposes even though I back up all my captured video to DLT. $36/week savings will pay for three 4GB P2 cards in exactly one year. The cost of the few additional DLT tapes for archiving the larger video footage is minimal, probably an extra 8 to 10 tapes per year... 2 months of savings on tape will cover my additional DLT costs for this coming year.

I see DLT tapes selling for $66 for 200 GB, which by my calculations works out to about $20 per hour of 100 Mbps video. (Not including the cost of the tape deck itself.) And the HVX200 combined with DTE recording drives offers no workflow or cost savings advantages compared to an HDV camera with the same equipment, plus the HDV camera gets four times the recording time on a same-capacity DTE drive. No matter how you slice it, it costs four times as much per hour to record and archive full-quality DVCProHD data compared to HDV, and it always will.

So let's see: I can spend close to $10K for an HVX200 setup and record my master footage on unreliable DTE drives with no tape backup, then copy that footage afterwards to a DLT tape for archival purposes because tape is cheaper and more reliable? Or I can spend $3-4K for an HDV camera with a DTE drive with simultaneous tape-based recording, and have all the workflow advantages of DTE with no time required to backup my footage to tape and every hour of shooting costs me 1/4 the cost of DVCProHD? Wait a minute, that's a significant reliability advantage for HDV unless you plan to record your P2 data to both DTE and P2 memory cards, which isn't realistic for most people because of the cost and limited recording time.

See, this is where the practicality of the HDV format wins hands down over P2, and why HDV is going to be a hugely successful format well into the foreseeable future. It's just not possible for now to beat the convenience and cost advantage of being able to record an hour of HD data on a $5 miniDV tape, or record to a DTE drive if you prefer. And yes, in a pinch I have relied on supermarket miniDV tapes when I ended up needing more recording time than I expected for an event, something you simply can't do (in HD) if you run out of recording capacity and backup drives for your P2 camera.

I agree that if you want the advantages of DVCProHD recording then the HVX200 is an exciting and reasonably cost-effective solution for that purpose. But no way it's going to be cost-competive with HDV any time soon, so it poses no significant threat for now to the HDV format.

Regarding HD delivery options, Sony has made it clear that they will support direct playback of HDV files on blu-ray discs, and will essentially use the HDV format (but not by that name) for initial distribution of commercial HD movies. In fact HDV (HD MPEG2) is about to become one of the most common methods of distributing HD content, possibly setting the standard for the next several years. I would hope that good DVCProHD footage downsampled to MPEG2 at above-HDV data rates will look better than typical HDV source footage, but HDV will once again have a practical advantage as an end-to-end recording, editing and distribution solution -- with the end user discs serving as a convenient full-quality backup of the finished project. Dang if this silly HDV format isn't just turning out to be useful. Who'd have thunk it?

I see DLT tapes selling for $66 for 200 GB, which by my calculations works out to about $20 per hour of 100 Mbps video. (Not including the cost of the tape deck itself.) And the HVX200 combined with DTE recording drives offers no workflow or cost savings advantages compared to an HDV camera with the same equipment, plus the HDV camera gets four times the recording time on a same-capacity DTE drive. No matter how you slice it, it costs four times as much per hour to record and archive full-quality DVCProHD data compared to HDV, and it always will.

The cost of the DLT drive is a non-issue for myself and may others as it has already been an established part of our workflow. Video is only a portion of what I do and only a part of some of my projects. But I archive gigabytes upon gigabytes of images, artwork and code, adding the HVX200 into my workflow is trivial. All it will do is inflate my archival of video clips by a factor of no more than 4X. In most cases it won't even do that since much of my captured S is already archived along with project data in an up-converted format.

Cost of DLT tapes? I usually do a bulk buy once in a great while. It's been over a year since I last purchased and I haven't checked up on the pricing. But pulling up the pricing sheet from one of my suppliers, I can buy a carton of Maxell 200/400(compressed) LTO tapes for $2,752.50 plus about $15 to ship. That's several years worth of tape at my current rate and I already own them and I pay a lot less than $66 for 200GB. That's $27.68 each. That's cheaper than HDD storage by less than half. And like I said, this is already part of my workflow. Which was a huge point I was trying to make with my last post. The HVX200 and its affordability are subjective.

So let's see: I can spend close to $10K for an HVX200 setup and record my master footage on unreliable DTE drives with no tape backup, then copy that footage afterwards to a DLT tape for archival purposes because tape is cheaper and more reliable? Or I can spend $3-4K for an HDV camera with a DTE drive with simultaneous tape-based recording,

First of all, if a $3~4K HDV camera fits your needs, then you obviously don't need the HVX200. You're comparing apples to oranges. You're also griping about a $10K for an "HVX200 setup" vs. $3-4K for an "HDV camera". Which is it that you really need? Just reading this, I get the impression that the HVX200 is overkill for you and makes no sense within your workflow, and would indeed cost you a lot more money than necessary. But like I said, this is all subjective and the HVX200 is not a one-size-fits-all camera.

See, this is where the practicality of the HDV format wins hands down over P2, and why HDV is going to be a hugely successful format well into the foreseeable future. It's just not possible for now to beat the convenience and cost advantage of being able to record an hour of HD data on a $5

OK, for YOU it lacks practicality. Bummer. Supermarket or cheap DV tapes? Call me a jerk for saying it or whatever you want, but you should come prepared. Any time I go on a shoot I usually have plenty of tape or means to record... It's not uncommon for me to have a box of 50 to 100 unopened DV tapes with my camera at any given time.

I agree that if you want the advantages of DVCProHD recording then the HVX200 is an exciting and reasonably cost-effective solution for that purpose. But no way it's going to be cost-competive with HDV any time soon, so it poses no significant threat for now to the HDV format.

There's more to the HVX200 than just having DVCPROHD recording and more issues that make it cost effective. I never said it poses a threat to HDV, nothing poses a threat to HDV.

Regarding HD delivery options, Sony has made it clear that they will support direct playback of HDV files on blu-ray discs,

Well, duh, it only makes sense. Besides HDV is an MPEG2-TS. If you took HDV compliant video at 480i and simply changed the file header to be VOB compliant it would play in a standard DVD player.

and will essentially use the HDV format (but not by that name) for initial distribution of commercial HD movies. []In fact HDV (HD MPEG2) is about to become one of the most common methods of distributing HD content, possibly setting the standard for the next several years.

Sony Pictures will be distributing all HD feature films in MPEG2 or MPEG4 variants with a minimum bitrate of 50Mbps. You can check out the official statement online. HDV files will be directly playable from Blu Ray discs as well, but you won't see 25Mbps HDV being used for commercial distribution. And this isn't about to become one of the most common methods for distributing HD, it already is the most common method. Current cable and satellite providers use MPEG2 delivery for most SD and for all HD content. DirecTV is converting to MPEG4 beginning in January and the change-over is expected to take 3 to 4 years to finally upgrade all receivers nationwide and bring SD over to MPEG4 as well. WMV-HD is MPEG4 based as well and will also be supported by both Blu Ray and HD-DVD.

I would hope that good DVCProHD footage downsampled to MPEG2 at above-HDV data rates will look better than typical HDV source footage, but HDV will once again have a practical advantage as an end-to-end recording, editing and distribution solution

I'm really starting to question your motives here. There's been plenty of discussion as to the shortcomings of HDV editing, namely color correction and the recompression of MPEG2. HDV is only worth a crap if it's transcoded to a true editing format first if you're going to do any serious editing or compositing. You can't do comp work worth beans with a long-GOP interpolated source. It doesn't matter if it's 25Mbps HDV or 1Gbps MPEG4, it's a physical limitaton of the process. Once again, I suppose it's an issue of what fits your needs, but I'm wondering if you're nothing more than an
HVX200 detractor.

If the HVX200 doesn't work for you, your budget and your workflow, that's fine... I respect that. This is expensive kit... But don't go around preaching about how it's entirely impractical compared to a $3-4K HDV solution. Obviously my workflow is very different from yours and the HVX200 looks extremely practical to me. Panasonic must feel there's enough people out there with similar workflows (I know I'm not unique, I have several colleagues and competitors with similar operations). I'm buying a whole new camera setup in January and if I run the numbers that work for me, here's what I come up with...

To buy and operate an XLH1 within my workflow for 2006 it will cost me $13,650. The HVX200 setup will be $11,314. For 2007, the XLH1 will be approximately $2250 for annual tape costs plus all the capture time and camera wear, the HVX200 will be approximately $360. I already have plenty of external drives, storage, archival solutions in place. For *MY WORKFLOW* the HVX200 is very practical and makes sense. If you want to read a summarized version of all the numbers I've run, read on.


XLH1 Camera - $8,995
New tripod - $1000
Mic - $650
Case/Bag - $275
Extra batteries - $225
Extra charger - $80
Filters - $175
Tape media - $2,250 (my estimate for the next year, avg. 10hrs/week @ 50 weeks).
Not to mention 500 hours of wear on the camera to capture all that into the NLE and the time it takes to do this.
Video archived as shot to DV tape - included in price
Video archived as captured and as edited at various stages and complet to DLT - Already a part of my workflow, video work accounts for about 10% of data volume at 25Mbps acquisition and up-rezed to 720p or 1080p for various project elements. Same requirements for HDV as my current DVX100 workflow.

XLH1 Solution Price: $13,650 plus some tax/shipping


HVX200 Solution...
HVX200 Camera $5,599
3 x 4GB P2 cards $1,860
New tripod - $1000
Mic - $650
Case/Bag - $275
Extra batteries - Uses my DVX batteries
Extra charger - $75
Filters - $195
AVID Xpress Pro HD - $1,300
Video transfers at 4X record speed or faster to NLE, no additional wear on camera.
Cost for additional DLT tapes: $360

Total HVX200 package cost: $11,314
Video shot with P2 or direct to notebook/HDD is wiped after logged into NLE and dumped to DLT. No more continued DV tape storage requirement.
Video is backed up as recorded, to DLT at the expense of 4X current data volume as worst-case scenario. Intermediate and final footage has no aimpact as my workflow is already HD using up-rezed SD video elements.
Of my 10% volume of video data, I would say that about 20% of that is archived video as captured.. So worst case would bring my volume of video data to be archived from 10% total volume to about 13.5%. But I'll just double (plus some)that for grins since I'd like to do more and figure my video requirement next year will be 30%.
My archival load right now is about 180GB/month... Let's say with the 30% HD fudge factor it balloons to 220GB/month (here I go inflating the number again). I use 200GB tapes and while my drive rotates daily backups automatically, I actually archive monthly tapes to storage. I will have to adjust my backup period to accommodate the load, perhaps every 20 days or something. Let's say I just end up going twice monthly to the archive vault. That's 12 additional tapes per year and we'll just round off to $30/each for a total additional cost of DLT tapes of $360 next year.

Have a nice day.

Okay folks. I've been following this conversation closely, and although it's a pretty good debate for the most part, it is starting to bear the signs of a platform war... which of course as you already know, we simply don't do here.

This is our P2 forum. It is not a place to extoll the virtues of the HDV tape format. We have HDV boards for that purpose. The last thing I want to see happening here is for somebody using "Format X" to come into the "Format Y" board and saying well you know, Format X is better. It may be better for you for whatever reason, but it's certainly not better for everybody.

Plus, I strongly dislike superlatives like "better," "best" and "superior" because everything, and I mean everything is relative and what is best for one person using one application in one situation may NOT be best for other people, other applications and other situations. Thankfully we have a wealthy diversity of technology, formats and digital media content creation products to choose from (with dedicated discussion groups for each).

P2 poses no threat to HDV at all, so there's no reason to come in here to defend HDV. And honestly I don't consider the HVX200 and XL H1 to compete with each other, despite their similar price points (and if you're trying to decide between the two, I suggest choosing your workflow first... then the format... then the camera). What the HVX200 represents, is the single least expensive, single most affordable way to shoot in the DVCPRO HD format, and that way is through tapeless aquisition via flash memory. That's what this forum is about; so please, let's focus on that.

HDV proponents, you're already on the largest site on the planet for HDV discussion... it's over in the next room. No format or platform wars here please, *this is the P2 forum.* Thanks in advance,

I must say this...

DVCPROHD will be a real timesaver when it comes to outputting a timeline.
You can't get around the fact that HDV sucks when it comes to reconstructing GOP's on a timeline. DV100 (let's just call it that, much easier) scrubs better in FCP (at least on my dual 2.7) and certainly gives more real-time features, especially if you augment the system with a Decklink or Kona, and a RAID. With HDV, well, there's just a lot more the computer has to decode.

The HVX--at least as configed w/P2--is essentially a filmmaking workflow camera. In hd, it's strictly I.T. centric. The humongous timesaving feature is that you can edit the material instantly, on set, if you will. No tape process. Hands down, that is awesome.

The problem with the HVX is if you have clients that want you to hand over footage at the end of the day. This is essentially the dillemma of the typical, client-driven, working videographer. Yes, there are HDV incompatibilities currently, but will probably be solved in the near future. You can hand over 60i, i.e. "normal" video in HDV, and it will probably work with their system.

I think a lot of producers will be skittish with hard drive handoffs of precious footage. They also won't like needing to archive it right away, but the editors will certainly appreciate not having to "batch capture" anything. This will be the tradeoff of working in intra frame HD with an inexpensive camera.

The problem with the HVX is if you have clients that want you to hand over footage at the end of the day.No, that's not a problem at all. In fact handing over a drive instead of a tape has several advantages, the single most important of which is the no-capturing-required nature of the edit-ready files on the drive. Plus there's not much of a cost difference between a full-size DVCPRO HD cassette and a hard drive anyway. Frankly, I think the whole issue of "delicate hard drives" is blown way out of proportion. A hard drive in a properly protected, well-lined Pelican case is rather resistant to damage even when dropped, kicked or thrown. Hard drive failure is far less common than tape drop-outs ands glitches. Material on a hard drive is ingested into an editing system much faster than tapes and is also more quickly clonable. In fact, a tapeless workflow is a boon for the typical client-driven working videographer, not a dillemma.

As a Producer (which I am) who just paid major money for a project to be shot.....at the end of the day......I want a TAPE. I don't care if its a VHS, S-VIDEO, DV, HDV, DVCPRO-HD, or HDCAM project.....I want a TAPE of my movie when done.

I understand P2 expidites the editor and all that, but screw that. He ain't got nuthin' but time! Plus, I'm paying for it anyhow. Moreover, I'd rather my editor sit back and watch all the Takes as he captures anyhow. This will give him a better understanding of how the production went so he can make better decisions when cutting.

Currently, I keep entire projects on its own Hard Drive. Everyting is stored on there.....The raw DV footage, the EDL, the photos, the sounds, the music, everthing. But that's IN ADDITION to the wall of TAPES that accompany those drives. And one of my very first projects, "Stompercise", had a hard drive failure. We went to the drive to extract some stuff, and low and behold...the entire drive took a dive. it was OK tho...because I had "TAPES" to restore the project, bit by bit, timecode accurate. I keep all the EDL files in a 3rd location, so we had the EDL as well. All was well. Now had I only had Stompercise on the hard drive only....I wouldn't have no Stompercise today. it would just be "Gone".

"Uhhhhh John, where's the master tape for today? Please take that out the camera and toss it over to me please...thank you kindly."

There's something about saying that that gives me peace of mind rather then saying....

"Uhhhhh John, have you finished copying over the footage from the P2 cards yet? Ok, when you're done, please bring me the Hard Drive, and please be careful that you don't accidently trip over that C-Stand and watch out for those sand bags laying in the middle of the floor. Because if you drop it and we lose that footage, the whole day was a waste and that's $4000.00 worth of time, food, labor, and location costs down the drain." not to mention our schedule will be ruined.

- ShannonRawls.com

Sure, tape is the only way *for you.*

But it's not that way for *everybody.* Some people prefer tapeless.

THERE IS NO ONE SINGLE CORRECT WAY.

That's why we cover all of it here at DV Info Net -- tape, tapeless or whatever.

P2 is all about the tapeless environment. This is the P2 forum. This is where we talk about how great it is not to have to bother with tape. If you want to talk about how great it is to be using tape, our HDV boards are in the next room over. I'll see you there.

Ahhhhh Chris......So we can only talk about how "great" and "exciting" something is in that area? Can't talk about how un-great and un-exciting it is?

Personally, I'm in love with the tapeless workflow. I can't stand logging and digitizing. And with the "good take" marker you can use in the camera, or even just a script supervisior, I'll already know what I want. It's gonna speed up my process a ton!

As for handing a tape over. I'm not really in that position much so it doesn't affect me. And when it does it's mostly because someone just wants to watch dailies, and I can always give them a MiniDV tape that I've been simultaneously recording to throughout the day. Done.

As for people tripping and ruining a hard drive, I guess it could happen. But camera loaders also flash film cans and ruin footage. That's doesn't make film a lame format. And you can always copy the contents of the drive over to a duplicate drive. And that would take less time than making dub of your tape.

And with the "good take" marker you can use in the camera..... I'll already know what I want. It's gonna speed up my process a ton!

Whooooaaaa.. STOP THE PRESS! The HVX has a "Good Take" feature that wuill mark a take as good???? Oh wow...that's awesome. I didn't know that. So when the director screams "PRINT THAT ONE!" the camera Op can just tap a button and it's done???

Ahhhh man....that's GREAT!!

and I can always give them a MiniDV tape that I've been simultaneously recording to throughout the day. Done.

How are you going to do that?

- ShannonRawls.com

Ahhhhh Chris......So we can only talk about how "great" and "exciting" something is in that area? Can't talk about how un-great and un-exciting it is?Well, here's how I look at it.

This is a practical community focused on usability. In other words, DV Info Net is about sharing tips, tools, techniques and learning from each other with regard to this amazing digital content creation technology. It's about ideas and results and the hardware and software we use every day. Key focus here is in what we're using or in the pre-purchase stage, what we're planning to use. Many of our members are experts on the tools they're using.

I can think of no greater waste of time and effort than to spend energy talking about what you're not using. What's the point. It's just so much negativity. A person can't be an expert on something they choose not to use, therefore, what advice can they give? None. And who can learn from it? Nobody.

When a Ford owner posts in a Chevy forum about how un-great and un-exciting a Chevy is, all that does is upset the Chevy owners. That's called a platform war. As I've said before, we don't do platform wars here. DV Info Net isn't about making war, it's about peace and harmony and sharing with others and learning a thing or two while having fun along the way (now I remind myself of Bill Cosby). The way we keep the peace around here is by having the P2 folks stay on their turf and the HDV folks stay on their turf, or Canon vs. Nikon, or Panasonic vs. Sony, or Final Cut vs. Vegas, or PC vs. Mac, or whatever. Pick a brand, we've got a room for it here at DV Info Net.

So we've always had this rule, which goes like this... this is somebody else's description of it: "(regarding DV Info Net) the policy is that you aren't allowed to bash something that you neither own nor use. Only legitimate critisism from actual owner/users is allowed. This is to keep trolls from infesting the board and engaging in vendettas to destroy a product. Unfortunately that happens all to much around the net. He allows you to expresss your opinion once like 'I don't like this camera and won't buy it,' then move on. More than fair."

I want this place to attract serious people who are interested in learning and sharing, and part of the process of getting these folks to come to this site is our real-names-only policy plus the fact that we don't engage in platform wars. The internet is chock full of places where people can bash stuff all day long... we're different. We're more of a "what are you about" kind of experience as opposed to a "what is that thing about" kind of deal.

Hope that's clear anyway.

"Uhhhhh John, where's the master tape for today? Please take that out the camera and toss it over to me please...thank you kindly."

I use tape now and I still don't work that way... :-)

"Uhhhhh John, have you finished copying over the footage from the P2 cards yet? Ok, when you're done, please bring me the Hard Drive, and please be careful that you don't accidently trip over that C-Stand and watch out for those sand bags laying in the middle of the floor. Because if you drop it and we lose that footage, the whole day was a waste and that's $4000.00 worth of time, food, labor, and location costs down the drain." not to mention our schedule will be ruined.

Oh, Lordy no. In a proper P2 or "tapeless" environment, the footage is as good as archived as soon as it's logged into the NLE. And it works this way with our tape captures too. Once it's in our system, the DV tapes are of no more use to us, we keep them just because we're too lazy to destroy them.

You need to pull a clip from the archive? Look in the catalog and if it's not online in our redundant SAN, then pull the corresponding DLT and load the video you need. DV loads off the DLT a lot faster than re-capturing from DV tape.

What, the producer wants a tape??? OK, put a blank in the deck and cut one for him.... :-)

All the bickering aside, it's obvious we have different ways of doing things. You're a producer and a "video guy". I'm not... I'm an animator and software developer with an existing workflow and I'm trying to add more video into the workflow I have already established. For me, trying to work with tape captures as I have done for years as a hobby at home and storing DV tapes, is an unappealing and a somewhat foreign concept. Apparently, a tapeless workflow with continuous, semi-automated DLT/LTO back-ups from redundant SAN spanning about 30TB of online data is a foreign concept to a lot of "video guys". To each their own... A setup like this would be very expensive to put together just for a new camera that's hitting the market. But then again, if I were starting up a new production company, I wouldn't consider any other way. We're pretty future proof here and any tapeless system that comes along from here on out will drop right into our workflow as long as the software supports it. Our other work beyond video will keep the hardware on the cutting edge, so I don't have to worry about that aspect of it being supported by the next great camera.

Just to add to the hard-drive versus tape debate, the company I work for, an ISP, has made the move AWAY from DLT tapes to a hard-drive backup strategy. The DLT tapes have proven to be too slow, too expensive and too delicate. Indeed, hard drives aren't foolproof either, but they're much less headache to manage and are proving to be much more reliable.

Sorry guys, I was just responding to the comment that DVCProHD and HDV might be cost-comparable and got a little carried away with my response. 'Nuff said.

I understand P2 expidites the editor and all that, but screw that. He ain't got nuthin' but time! Plus, I'm paying for it anyhow. Moreover, I'd rather my editor sit back and watch all the Takes as he captures anyhow. This will give him a better understanding of how the production went so he can make better decisions when cutting.


I realize you just threw that out there as one of the many reasons Shannon, but I gotta say... If you need you worry that the efficiency of your post workflow might make your editor lazy then maybe you need to find a new editor.

:)

In my opinion, ANY editor worth his rate will become more than familiar with the footage before making his first cut, whether the footage shows up on tape, hard drive, DLT, or whatever media you choose.

"Uhhhhh John, have you finished copying over the footage from the P2 cards yet? Ok, when you're done, please bring me the Hard Drive, and please be careful that you don't accidently trip over that C-Stand and watch out for those sand bags laying in the middle of the floor. Because if you drop it and we lose that footage, the whole day was a waste and that's $4000.00 worth of time, food, labor, and location costs down the drain." not to mention our schedule will be ruined.

How about: "Just have a cup of coffee and wait couple of minutes, the laptop is burning the last shots to dvd/hd-dvd/blu-ray right now and there's already backups in the internal and the external drive of the laptop."

And you could also continue: "When I get back to office, I'll copy the footage to SAN or raid5 and also make another set of optical disks to archive in another building in case my office gets burned down. If you happen to loose the footage you can have another copy of then in the matter of hours."

Haha, this is so off topic now. "DVCPRO HD can be awesome," was the inspired spirited beginning. Where is the discussion now? Hahaha.

I see a thread lock coming :D :D

No impending lockdown, but I do smell a thread title change in the air.

HDV will once again have a practical advantage as an end-to-end recording, editing and distribution solution -- with the end user discs serving as a convenient full-quality backup of the finished project.
I'm not sure if this thing has already been stressed enough, but this end-to-end philosofy is totally wrong in today's digital workflow. If I remember correctly it was sony that used this marketing slogan with beta-sx to justify lower quality than digibeta.

Every time something is done to a compressed footage it has to be uncompressed and then compressed again. All fades, cc'ing, graphics etc., with long gop even straigth cuts. Many times in production workflow these are done in a chain one after another and even with different systems that use different codecs. At the end broadcasters usually have sdi pipes in the playout systems, so there's still one de/re-compression more and they might also have to do statistical multiplexing when broadcasting.

So the uncompress-recompress chain will remain long at least for years from today and in every step the quality can only get worse. If you start with hdv, end user will receive somthing much less. If you start with dv100 the end user can have something that's even better than hdv's camera originals.

If you start with hdv, end user will receive somthing much less. If you start with dv100 the end user can have something that's even better than hdv's camera originals.

I wasn't following your other train of thought too much, but I agree with what you're saying about better final product, and I'd like to add to it. My tests with HDV, CC and/or filtering/FX, and then out to Mpeg2 yields artifacting that I simply am not getting from similar treatment and output from DVCPRO HD (or even DV) source.

Can anyone explain in technical terms, the ramifaction of HDV (Mpeg2) source getting compressed to Mpeg2 distribution? And god forbid, Mpeg2 source, out to Mpeg2 master, out to yet recompresed Mpeg2 for broadcast, then recompressed Mpeg2 to DVR. I'm suspecting it's like chopping at a tree trunk. But what if there is nobody there to hear the tree fall? Okay, I digress. Cholly HA HA HA.

How are you going to do that?

- ShannonRawls.com

You can simultaneously record to MiniDV tape while recording to the P2 cards or out to Firestore device or whatever. So at the end of the day I, or the producer, or whoever, could look over the MiniDV tape to watch the footage, all while the "original" high HD res stuff is in hard drive form getting handed to the editor.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, if I did any variable frame rate stuff, that will show correctly on the MiniDV tape. So if I shot slow-mo, when I pop in that MiniDV tape at the end of the day i would be watching the slow-motion footage in actual slow motion. Pretty dang cool if you ask me.

You can simultaneously record to MiniDV tape while recording to the P2 cards or out to Firestore device or whatever. So at the end of the day I, or the producer, or whoever, could look over the MiniDV tape to watch the footage, all while the "original" high HD res stuff is in hard drive form getting handed to the editor.

Ummm.... No you can't. You have to choose your record media P2 or Tape. You can dub HD to a DV tape in camera when you're not recording, but there is no simultaneous recording to both. The firewire stream is always live, streaming whatever it is you're recording.

You can simultaneously record to MiniDV tape while recording to the P2 cards or out to Firestore device or whatever.

LOLOLOL. You sure about that? Absolutely positively stick a needle in your eye sure about that? *smile*


if I did any variable frame rate stuff, that will show correctly on the MiniDV tape.

LMAO. You certain about that statement too Brian??. I mean, cause if you were wrong that could be disasterous....I know you're kinda new here and all, and may not have done your due dilligence, and may be blindly following a certain manufacturers camera without doing any research, but I doubt that's the case....correct? Even worse, I would hate for you to be wrong about this information and actually preaching it to some unsuspected guy who is taking your advice on buying the camera, but in reality, you gave him bad info and didn't know what you were talking about, because you were so gungho about the camera you missed the specs and capabilites...... so now this person who took your advice went out and bought the camera based on your incorrect recommendation....and found out it didn't do what you told him it could....... $10,000.00 after the fact. *smile*

Are you sure buddy?

- ShannonRawls.com

Sorry to butt in on this interesting discussion with a point that is indeed way off topic.
I think the biggest issue with HDV is the cameras used to shoot it and how it's shot. Biggest killer for mpeg-2 compression is noise, from my experience the more pristine the source the better it survives high levels of compression.

Years ago now I used to make VCDs from off air VHS, the results looked absolutely horrid, barely watchable. And then the same clients gave me a SP studio master to turn into a VCD and the results were remarkably good. In other words the amount of degradation suffered by the VHS was dramatcially higher than what happened to the SP.

I've seen the same thing with DVDs, given footage from a 2/3" DB camera and the results look pretty close to the original, start with VHS or poor DV and things go downhill really badly.

Same has got to happen with HDV, I'd bet starting with HDCAM you could produce a HDV master that held up very nicely, run some upscaled noisy SD through the same process and it'll fall apart real quick.

Starting with noisy HDV and as said decompressing and recompressing that is a formula for things getting ugly quickly, so much of the available bandwidth is being used up by the noise. When the bandwidth is exhausted artifacts creep in and they need more bandwidth during the next pass.

Given that mpeg-2 is the standard for HD broadcasting I think an issue that needs more attention is the noise level of any of these camera. Recording DVCPRO HD to P2 cards avoids the issue at acquisition, but still the footage has to pass through the same process during broadcast. Perhaps some form of noise reduction in post would help out, certainly that'd work better with DVCPRO HD than HDV acquisition.

You certain about that statement too Brian??
Yes, and he is correct.

Shannon -- seems like you're into some heavy trolling recently. If you're happy with your Canon, that's great, but let the JVC and HVX guys discuss their products in peace without you ragging on them or laughing at them, okay?

Are you sure buddy?

Sadly, I seem to have put my phrase "if I'm not mistaken" in the wrong paragraph. I should have put it in the paragraph about the dub to tape, because I was remembering that function incorrectly. It can't do it simultaneously.

But, I shouldn't have included that phrase in the paragraph about watching the slow motion on MiniDV because evidently I got that right, according to Barry, whom I believe. So yes, buddy.

And I'm so sorry for anyone that went out and bought a HVX200 based upon my posting. Please let me know if you did because I will gladly refund your money. I am sorry for spreading such misinformation on such a clean pure-fact only forum. I hate myself.

And if I only read the thread after this one first I would have seen my mistake and not posted about the simulataneous P2 and tape things. I was so close to being cool, then I blew it.

But Shannon, I did tell you about 2 features that you weren't aware of. The "good take" button and the slow motion on MiniDV. 2 out of 3. Not too bad right? I know I'm a newbie (techinally "regular crew") Shannon, but please oh please don't kick me out. I know I'm not "inner circle" but someday. Someday. A boy can dream. Don't crush my little dreams. Please. Let the boy dream.

If you're happy with your Canon, that's great, but let the JVC and HVX guys discuss their products in peace without you ragging on them or laughing at them, okay?This is the best advice I've seen yet in this thread. It's a great suggestion. I would hate to be the one who had to enforce it, but I will if I have to. The trolling is seriously starting to drag down the quality of our community here. Thanks in advance,

Trolling?
Camera Flamming?
Because I said I prefer a Tape after shooting and gave an explanation why?
Ahh man, you guys ain't fair!

But, OK. I'll lay low. I think it's because I have too much time on my hands every December and I like it here so much.

and Barry & Brian...It has "selectable" frame rates, not Variable. Only the Varicam has Variable.

- ShannonRawls.com