chris brings up an interesting point that i'd like to see more examples on. been browsing the HD editing sections lately and i'd love to see more HDV footages, raw vs. SD. i think just a few seconds of it is good enough (won't take up 2much space). just make the footages have some details (cloth, fabric/texture). why are people bashing HDV? i've seen some footages of the JVC HD cam and it looks pretty good on a 40+ samsung HDTV.

The vast majority of those who "bash HDV" are people who have never once used it. These are the type who get hung up on numbers and specifications... for example the issue of compression... heavier compression is not a bad thing at all when it's done right. For example nobody seems to complain about the H.264 spec, it is only 8mbps, I've seen it projected on a large screen and it looks awesome. Thankfully the "HDV bashers" are a rare breed on DV Info Net; we do our best to discourage those nay-sayers who have no pratical experience with the whatever they're trying to talk trash about.

agreed, A lot of people have no clue about specs and especially withbroadcast. So long as the picture quality is good, and your delivery is on an exceptable format. Mini Dv is not a broadcast standard, but most will broadcast it. Some HD stations do require no more the 10 or 20% of content to be HDV, with exception if the film is say about everest, and the weight of the camera is a factor.

In theory, everything in a imaged is compressed regardless of format, it s a replication of life, and the only thing that matters is how well what ever the format you use, replicates.

If you want to complain, it can be graphic and effects people doing compositing, because rendering out DV causes artifacting.

My theory is if it looks good, and has a great story, and somebody will air it, that is all you need. People over look the story part and that is why TV is so bad for the most part.

Ofcourse, i'd love to have a 90k Vari-Cam to shoot on.

plus, when you downconvert from HDV, doesn't regular SD DVD look better than regular DV to SD DVD?

It is easy to get hung up on technical nonsense.

Still there are many valid reasons for working with other formats.

Compression IS an issue.

Of course it is never as easy as saying that "HDV sucks" or that "HDV is great." It is a compromise, and a complicated one.

HDV was designed to make it possible to acquire good images with a cheap camera. It does the job.

HDV was not designed for complex editing, but it can be edited effectively. Mostly this just entails throwing CPU power at the problems of HDV editing, and current machines can handle this with aplomb.

HDV was not designed for compositing, but within limits it can be composited very well. For example it makes a great background layer in any composite. As composites get more complex, HDV is less suitable.

Examples of composite situations where HDV breaks down are lace, long hair and spill suppression.

The next step up intraframe compressed formats like DVCPRO HD and HDCAM. For fairly modest upgrade in disk requirements you get a much better edit and composite codec.

DVCPRO HD handles lace and spill suppression much better than HDV, but can still be tripped up. Compositing long human hair remains an issue, but you can throw some time and procesing power at it and get good results.

Uncompressed formats give you the best results possible. Even at this "ultimate" quality level you can find images unmanageable. For example 35mm film has issues with grain. Grain is often removed as a precompositing step. It is often added to the image after the composite is complete.

Its all about how you intend to use it.

I suggest using a mix of formats as your production requirements change.

For many that will mean that HDV will be used all the time if HD is used at all.

My advice to everyone however is to learn in detail what the limits of the formats are, and when you need to press for higher end acquisition.

Nice balanced post - and 100% correct!

Does HDV produce a better image for DVD output than SD camera recording.

With DVD as the final output I would say no.

HDV's main benefit over DV is raw resolution. It is worse than DV in many other regards. (Of course I love resolution... so its a good trade off.)

DVD throws away all the extra resolution, so in the end you gain all of HDV's problems and get none of its advantages.

DV is a better acquisition format for projects destined for DVD only. Notice the last part.

If you want or need better images for DVD release, then shoot a better quality SD format, like say DVCPRO 50 instead. The Canon XL-H1 allows uncompressed SD SDI output as well, so I can record DVCPRO 50, DigiBeta or even just raw uncompressed SD.

These basically give better color data. DVCPRO 50 and Digibeta are 4:2:2 formats. So if you want quality similiar to them for DVD distribution with HD acquistion you have to look at DVCPRO HD or HDCAM.

Now, I believe that our industry is in transition and we have to consider future viewing of our video. That means considering HD.

If you plan on making a future HD product (say a Blue Ray disc) then HDV has one HUGE advantage over any SD format: Resolution.

The best SD images don't upconvert to HD very well. They always look out of focus compared to material acquired in HD.

Of course while HDV looks decent often, it is NOT as good for HD production as DV is for SD production. You have to move up from HDV to a better format faster than you had to with DV in SD.

I hope that last bit made sense.

So... there you have it. Up to you to decide how your footage will be used today, next week, next year and in ten years. Then you can decide what format to shoot.

Of course, rather than obsess about all this I agree with Mike Dalton... it is always preferable to focus on STORY than technology. If its a good show except for technical issues viewers will still accept it.