I think Damon's right. Please let me know if we are incorrect. If you know that any of the movies posted on Apple's site that showcase HDV and h.264 were made with cameras that cost under $10k, or were edited with a editing suite that cost less than say, $20,000 let everyone reading this thread now (or in the future) know.

Here are the links again, so nobody reading this has to backtrack:

HDV Gallery of Footage:
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/hd/

Particularly good Music Video:
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guid...obymacgone.html

Andrew, the three videos I watched were beautiful, especially the Aimee Mann and Toby Mac videos. I thought the color was a little faded in the Africa video, but that could have been done on purpose. I'd just like to know the camera and editing equipment they used. Was it high dollar stuff, or was it something, that in theory, Boyd Ostroff could make with his Z1 and FCP studio set up, with the right crew, lighting, director skills, etc., etc.?

Stephen,

I guess the same opinions and questions I posted above would apply for the video's posted at DivX and on Microsoft's site as well.

YOu know the pisser of it all? QT7Pro does not work correctly on Windows to encode H264!!! Oh well, we tried.

@ Jay Gladwell Of course its a gross oversimplification. This is not a classroom hombre...

Stephen,

You're cool! Let me know if you need anything or want me to test anything out for you in the future to try to get it working.

Looks like we've made some progress on this part of the question.

How's it look?
As I mentioned above, I think the samples of HDV that I saw looked good.
Pretty hefty in size, but that's the price you pay for high-quality movies with very clear detail.

Now we just have to find out what was compressed? Was it footage from under-$10,000 HDV cam's? Or was it footage from camera's and crews that would cost well into the $6 figure range?

Stephen tried his hardest to show me some footage from the HD100 that he and Nate Weaver worked on. I had been wanting to see this even before I started this thread, but I was unable to see it. I could be in the minority here though. For those of you who saw it, any opinions?

So what would happen if I had the HD100 or the Z1 or FX1 (or in the future the XL H1 or DVX200 for that matter) and my client loved the HDV footage that I burned onto a DVD for her. She loved it so much, that she wanted me to put it on her Web site, so clients from all over the world could see it.

What do I tell her?

[Edit: changed the the client from a man to a woman.]

To the point of being misleading. That serves no purpose, homre.

Jay

You tell him he's got two options:

#1. Stick the HDV files directly online. This would be equivalent to hosting a DV project online as native DV... no one does this.
#2. Compress it to one of the web-delivery codecs - be it WMV or H.264 (preferably both). It is also recommended that you make smaller web-deliverables at SD and lower resolutions in widely adopted codecs (i.e., Sorenson3 for Quicktime, WMV).

This is all possible... hosting is just expensive. But it's getting cheaper. Getting a server with 5-10 GB of storage space and 100 GB of bandwidth a month isn't atypical.

-Steve

Then what do I tell her when she says -

"None of my friends can see it."

- - - - -

If it's possible, then why have I not been able to look at Stephen's footage? I'm under the impression, he's been overly helpful and has done everything under the sun to display the HD100 clip.

Doesn't look like its possible with an under-$10k HDV cam, so I won't be looking to sell my XL2 anytime soon for any HDV "solution."

Feel free to say otherwise, but please post some .wmv or .mov links to the footage that was filmed with a Sony Z1, FX1 or JVC HD100 that illustrates your point.

[feel free to add XL H1 and DVX200 to the above line in Nov/Dec 2005.]

In the mean time I can't help but to sum it all up with a quote from Seinfeld:

Babu's Brother - "Where is Babu? Show Me Babu!"

I think HDV is really cool and hope that everyone keeps up the good HDV work that's being done as the technology unfolds.

But as for me and my needs, from this XL2 owner to all the other XL2 owners out there...

I'm driving the "Family Truckster" to Wally World ;)

In response to the questions above about what type of camera was used to record this footage I have only found one reference in my exhaustive investigation.

It seems that at the very least the WildLifeHD footage was shot on a Sony F900/3, which retails at the wonderfully expensive price of $100,000.

Dissapointing. I can't be sure, but I guess it's safe to assume that the rest of the footage was shot on similar, non-affordable (for non-millionaires) HD cameras.

I do apologise for the misleading presumption that this was shot on pro-sumer HD cameras. I simply assumed that Apple would be advertising how good their new codec looks from a consumer/pro-sumer production perspective, not from a studio perspective, which is why I guess, they left out this crucial information.

I suppose its still possible that some of the footage was shot on pro-sumer HD cameras. I also think that with the right camera operator, and some great lighting, the same results could be achieved with HD, and be indistinguisable to the human eye.

Andrew, thanks for taking the time to look. Like I mentioned to Stephen, to everybody here, time is money. So thanks again. AND no apologies are needed at all, you were just giving a link to Apple's site. We're all friends here and this is just a friendly discussion. The camera info you provided above is important information to know and I appreciate your research on it.

As for "I simply assumed that Apple would be advertising how good their new codec looks from a consumer/pro-sumer production perspective, not from a studio perspective," - I don't think you are alone.

To HDV or not to HDV...
 

The question has been approached from every angle except the right ones.

Despite what Jay Gladwell says, and what Derek keeps emphasizing, the output is what matters. Derek however is a bit too focused on the present. How you will output your footage in the future is also a huge issue.

Right now, TODAY, if your output target is DVD or Streaming video, then HDV doesn't matter too much. You can't see the resolution, and you lose colorspace compared to DV.

That will not remain the case for very long at all. Within the year we are going to have HD video discs (Blue-Ray or HD-DVD) available. Within five years they are going to be fairly common. Within 10 years they will be more or less where DVD is today.

In regards to streaming, the main limitation of HD video is very large file sizes, and thus high bandwidth requirements.

Well, right now TODAY, I can get fiber optic Internet service at 15Mbits down & 5Mbits up. Sadly I am moving next week and will not have fiber available for a while, but this type of fiber service is where ADSL was in 1998 or so in the DC area.

So the question isn't do you need to display HD video today, but rather will you ever need to use video you shoot today in future HD projects. I firmly believe that more than 75% of professional videographers will be working in HD almost exclusively by 2010.

Computers are already fast enough to edit HD. I have posted HDCAM 1920x1080p footage through a G5 2.3 DP with Final Cut Studio 5. I have posted DVCPRO HD, and even uncompressed HD. The G5 handles it well. Avid just released a version of Xpress ProHD that uses OS X Tigers hardware rendering, Core Image and Core Video. I've seen a demo and it is lightning. Windows Vista is supposed to offer a similiar feature. Processing power will not be the problem.

Storage and recording are the issues.

This camera is a revolutionary performer because it outputs uncompressed SDI video. HD and SD (I think). If you work with composites much this camera is light years ahead of any other DV or HDV camera- if you can store the data.

Some of the stuff I have posted in uncompressed HD (composites) used up a full XServe RAID. Using HDCAM or DVCPRO field recorders is an expensive solution and cumbersome.

HDV is not a very good HD format at all. You really can't do decent composites with it. (HDV is great for simply showing a picture. You'd be surprised at how well it intercuts with professional format HD footage once color corrected.) You can't rely on HDV as a storage medium for your future needs. I anticipate a 50Mbit/s format will be what we end up with at the prosumer/low end pro level. (twice the data of HDV half of the data in DVCPRO HD) With luck we might get a 75Mbit/s format that handles full 1080p. (~half HDCAM data rate.)

The next question you need to answer is how well does SD footage intercut with HD footage. Everybody has an opinion. Mine is that for many applications SD intercuts with HD beautifully. You have seen SD intercut with HD on network television, and even in Star Wars movies.

So... where does that leave you ? I can't say.

I can say where it leaves me. I still do the bulk of my work with an XL-1. Yeah- the original. Most of my clients say its beautiful. So definitely hang on to your XL-2 until SD is not an option.

Most of my work is not going to be useful to me in five or ten years. So I am not worried about having it in HD ready to go, it isn't worth the expense.

The XL-H1 is the first camera I can seriously consider for HD work, it is closest to my operating budgets and has the quality (at least on paper) I need via its HD-SDI output. Coupled with some sort of field recorder this camera is extremely capable (again on paper). I expect to be able to do very high quality broadcast and low end theatrical (2K) post with the SDI output from this camera.

I am a little confused, but I think the H1 also outputs 4:2:2 SD SDI. That is also a great thing for my projects today that might get intercut with HD in the future or that have to be composited. This is much more economical. I can reasonably store some clips for extended periods at 23MBytes/sec, while 190MB/sec for HD is presently out of reach. This is a camera I can afford, and I can produce very high quality composites with it- no more renting DigiBeta cameras. If I get this camera I am likely to buy a DVCPRO or some type of Beta deck to go with it, probably units I can use in the field.

There is one final consideration. I will be able to use this camera in five or ten years. I can't say the same about an XL-2. Sure it will be outdated, then again so is the XL-1 that makes my clients happy today. That's essential, because the reality of my business has taught me that I NEED to use a camera for at least 5 years before buying a replacement.

So, anyway that is how this camera affects ME. It is about the future. It is about reducing my costs and increasing my capability today. That may all be worthless to you- you may not have any of these needs.

So, what is my specific plan ? The XL-H1 has set a new bar for me. It is now the least capable camera I will consider as an upgrade. If everything works out and SD-SDI output is available and high quality, I expect to acquire a camera like this in late spring 2006. It will be used primarily for SD work, but it will increasingly be used for HD. In both modes I'll be using SDI video-out at least part of the time.

I expect that when I transition to primarily HD work the H1 will stay in the stable but will not be my primary camera. That is also the point when I expect to send the XL-1 out to pasture.

Apple HD Footage
 

The footage shown in the Apple HD Gallery is mostly studio feature films. Very little of it is acquired on any sort of video. Mostly 35mm, some 70mm and some IMAX. There is some video, but its high end stuff as previously posted.

Apple is showing off their H264 codec, not their HDV workflow.

Remember that Final Cut Studio is intended as a complete solution for offline SD all the way up to online for features shot in 70mm. (Cold Mountain)

HDV is only a small part of the puzzle for Apple and Avid.

The great feature of the XL-H1 is the uncompressed HD-SDI output. If it is as good as promised you'll be able to deliver results basedon that camera which compare to Hollywood produced HD materials. That's about as far from HDV as you can get.

Alexander,

What well thought out post(s). I gotta get some stuff done over the next few hours, but look forward to re-reading it and discussing your excellent points.

Another thing that needs to be pointed out. Even though you may not be able to deliver HD to a client, and the clients aren't asking for it, the time to learn the technique for shooting HD is NOW. That way, when it is mainstream, you will already be proficient with the technology and not playing catch-up. Just as you shouldn't try to be learning an NLE or other high end software while working on a client's project with its associated deadlines.

-gb-

When DV first came out I didn't have clients running up to me asking for me to shoot in DV. Should I have held off shooting DV?

When DVD recording came out my clients were not asking for DVD's. Should I have held off making DVD's for my clients?

Remember most clients don't know what is out there like we do. It is up to us to present clients with the best quality not to wait for them to ask for it. If that was the case we may all still be sending out VHS (barf) tapes to our clients and shooting on SVHS.

In 2 years time, when my clients want their next HD presentation sequence produced and they want to use footage from the library that we are shooting today, they are going to be VERY happy that we shot it in HD.

Even if they don't want it now, and all they get at the moment is SD, they will soon catch up, and the fact that todays rushes are in HD is going to be a big bonus.

I couldn't agree more. Client's don't like to pay for you to learn.

This said, the main thing I feel you need to learn for HD is how to focus. You may have thought you could focus, but HD is here to tell you you were wrong.

This is why the XL-H1 lens includes a rangefinder and focus marks on the lens. I understand you can pull focus with a measure of reliability on this lens. That should be telling you something... focus is much harder in HD. It is as hard as 35mm photography compounded by all the problems of motion pictures.

I haven't seen it, but I expect that the autofocus is much improved compared to the XL2. I am not an XL2 owner, but isn't the inclusion of the DIGIC chip from Canon's 35mm line new ? You should see better color processing and focus as a result.

In my limited experience you should plan on purchasing a high resolution field monitor to go with any HD cameras you acquire, or depend on autofocus completely.

Alternatively look into HD viewfinders, but in practice I can tell you that focusing even with a good HD viewfinder is very hard. I can't tell you how many times I have focused "to perfection" in the VF then looked at the monitor only to be horrified. This will only be exacerbated by the limited resolution of the H1's viewfinder.

Again I agree. You have to know what's out there. You have to balance that for the client based on how you can deliver to them.

You have to be on the cutting edge. Just don't let you or your customers get cut!

For me right now, I sell HD as future proofing. If I shoot HD now, I can post HD and deliver SD for DVD, VHS(ick) or the web. Later on I can output to HD when that's necessary. Some of my clients are warming up to this idea because in a new HD market they can stand out simply by standing up with a product- any product that's true HD.

This post has me more addicted to it than the first John Grisham book I read over 10 years ago.

I skimmed through some of your comments and think all of them are very valid. I can't wait to spend more time reading them tonight and thinking about them.

But until then, just one thing really strikes me about "future-proofing."

When do you start? How many of you started future-proofing with the first JVC HD1?

If you did, are you still shooting with it?
If you did not, why? After all... it was HDV.

I've gotta go now (to go hook up some hardware), but I'm really looking forward to discussing this more. Afterall, I'm just trying to figure out the best path.

When to start learning the next technology...
 

In answer to your question I started using HD before HDV was available. HDCAM and DVCPRO HD. I can't afford any of that equipment. I just got gigs doing a little editing here, a little camerawork there, maybe a composite and some 3D, little by little.

About half of that work was delivered as SD. I am quite sure some of it at least has been repurposed by now as HD though.

All the HD work I have done so far has been on other people's equipment. Well, not all. I have done a logo bump in HD using Lightwave... but that isn't the same at all.

I did check out the first HDV camera, but it was a lousy camera. It shot HDV, but it didn't look that good, and as far as SD goes it was a huge step backwards from an XL-1. It was a single CCD camera IIRC. Footage shot with that had resolution, but was in every other way worse than any 3 CCD DV camera. There was no way it would intercut well with footage even from the current crop of HDV cameras, much less with other cameras I used for HD then.

The difference now, with the Sony camera at least, is that you can intercut that with F900/950 and it will look good. Not great but definitely deliverable. I expect the H1 will improve on this, and more over HD-SDI.

Right now the only HD capable equipment I own is my Dual 2.7 G5. Aside from goofing around with demo clips from Apple, Avid and Panasonic that hasn't seen any HD use as yet.

I said it before, I'll say it again: Stay on the cutting edge but don't get cut!

I have to go now, so allow me to write myself a reminder to discuss workflow and budgeting with the H1 on a show vs other HDV cameras.

Alexander,

Regarding Post #92 -

Welcome back from the future.

I don’t know how much I need to say. It seems like your post has grown since I skimmed through it yesterday. And it also sort of seems like you are going back and forth with yourself.

You say “the question has been approached from every angle except the right ones.”

I don’t think so. I’m just trying to figure out why I would want to switch from my XL2, which has a very proven and pretty much hassle-free workflow, AND, if it makes sense for me to get a Canon XL H1 when it’s released. My main concerns are: Will I be able to shoot good looking footage, capture it, store it, edit it and export it to the web? And to this point in time, it does not really look that way. The whole workflow has to make sense not just the camera by itself.

When it looks like there is a total solution from shooting to delivering HDV is the time I’ll buy some new stuff. But I’m not going to speculate on “and maybe this, and maybe that.” kind of vaporware.

Am I focused on the present? You bet I am. Am I focused on the present to the point of not looking for future solutions? Not at all. When there’s a good HDV solution I’ll switch to it. It’s just got to make some sense. If none of your clients want footage exported to the Internet, then you don't need to worry about (yet). But for me, how things look on the Internet is the most important factor.

Your point of “Storage and Recording are the issue” is quite valid. And from what I've read on storage solutions for uncompressed SDI output (in this forum) it does not look cheap OR easy. Paying $30,000 to store uncompressed SDI does not make sense.

You mention “There is one final consideration. I will be able to use this camera in five or ten years.” Alexander, you will be able to buy a XL H1 on eBay for $1,000 in five years. $250 in ten (shipping included). And why you would even want to use it at that point in time is beyond me.

Finally, on "I can say where it leaves me. I still do the bulk of my work with an XL-1. Yeah- the original. Most of my clients say its beautiful. So definitely hang on to your XL-2 until SD is not an option."

That's awesome. You are obviously a talented videographer and I hope you use your time to keep shooting the beautiful work that your clients appreciate instead of the headache's of a HDV workflow.

When it's mainstream in our eyes will be well before it's mainstream to the general public. It's not mainstream for us yet. When it is, THAT will be the time to learn it. The majority of the bugs will have been worked out by then.

Go visit HDV equipment & HDV editing, you'll be busier than a one-legged man in an a$$-kicking contest reading posts about workflow problems.

Why waste all your valuable time (time that you can be making money) being a pioneer for the manufacturers with the products that WE PAY FOR.

Good point, but really have you ever had a client asking you to shoot in any certain format? Or do they just ask you to shoot because they've seen your work and it looks great? If you think HDV is to the point where you can transition over to it and shoot AND deliver better stuff, then by all means go for it.
Nope, because DVD recording came out and here's the key thing - it worked. You could buy the DVD recorder from the place of your choice, capture your footage, edit your footage and then SIMPLY burn it to a DVD.

So then my question is this? What's the best quality? Is it footage from a Z1 or a HD100? And if they want the best quality stuff on the web, how will it be delivered?

This depends, what type of clients?

DVD's were a pain in the arse to start with! Nothing was compatible. Most of the early players wouldn't play burnt DVDs, especially Sonys.

Well, I didn't know this. I was just drawing from my own experience. The first time I burned a DVD was about 2 years ago. I just put the DVD in my mac. Opened up DVD Studio Pro 2, spent about a day learning how to use it to achieve the best results and burned my first DVD.

Maybe you all have been burning DVD's for 10 years or something and I just lucked out that the technology had advanced to the point that it did by the time I was ready for it.

This I agree with. We'll need B-roll for all kinds of situations. This is my main reason for (starting to) be against P2. I'd rather archive and index my tapes for whatever scenario and not have to buy hard drive after hard drive for P2 content. Steve you are right I think.

It's not wasting your time, it's investing your time. Being a pioneer is riskier and comes with more problems, but in the long run, there's also a higher chance of getting a bigger return on your investment. The bigger opportunities tend to go to those who took the risk and thus were more prepared than the rest.

Micheal,

I agree with you 100% on being a pioneer. I believe in getting the best (that I can reasonably afford) technology when I make the purchase. But I think there's a point of being too far ahead. I simply want to be able to deliver video that looks the best on-line. If Sony, Canon, JVC or Panasonic can give me a solution that can deliver HDV on the Internet that looks better than DV, I'll get it. If you look back a few pages, I was pretty excited a couple of days ago when I thought that a Sony Z1 could give me the kind of footage posted on Apple's H.264 page (shooting skills and abilities aside).

But then we found out otherwise. :(

That's one of the reasons I've been so focused on wanting to see ALL OF THIS GREAT edited footage that EVERYBODY who has HDV cameras has been getting posted in a viewable format on-line.

I want to be a pioneer as well, just not THE very first one.

Yeah I get you, it would be kinda like being the first guy to try cow's milk. Everybody looks at you weird, and you're not sure yourself what's gonna happen next.

LOL !!!
I was sort of thinking more like 100's of years ago when one guy was saying to another as they were standing on the shore of the Amazon River. "Those fish.... Those little tiny fish over there, they won't bite."

The first guy who jumped in left plenty of room for all the other "early adaptors" to spend time adapting other things...

things other than swimming with Piranhas.

Well, you can store in formats like DVCPRO 50 and DVCPRO HD. Those are much nicer than DV or HDV. Much easier to post, composite and SELL.
My clients expect me to deal with the headaches of HD so they can buy that product. The companies I want to sell to demand it as a MINIMUM.

That's my business.

I am sure yours is different. What do your customers want ? What do they need in the next few years ?

For example: If you do commercials for TV you have to be HD ready in the next 2 years or you are out of business.

If you shoot a commercial in SD for a small business right now, and they can't play it next year and have to produce a new one- they may be upset with you. Why didn't you tell them ? Why weren't you prepared ?

If you offer them upconversion of SD materials, it won't look very good next to the other slickly produced HD commercials. About the same effect of shooting with an industrial SVHS camera then posting in a linear suite in today's market.

If they come to you and you can say, "Oh, we shot and posted it in HD so for a {relatively small fee for minor post} we can have a true HD version ready in a week." You've won a reputation and a customer for life. Not to mention some easy future revenues.

This is a real scenario with small businesses, car dealerships for example. They shoot a commercial then reedit it for a couple of years with new stills/beauty shots of new models etc before producing a new spot.

The H1 is not the last word in <$10000 cameras. Your customers may not care about HD at all.

It isn't about the technology at all really. Its about YOUR business. Can this make you more money or not.

I think it can.

Since you're shooting "the bulk of your work with a XL1" what have you been telling all the clients "demmanding" HD?

A car dealership is not going to re-use a 2005 commercial in 2007 for more reasons than one.

Similar things happen all the time. A company phoned me two days ago about updating a video that was shoot just a year ago.

That's good. Repeat business is always the best. Even though you having the original footage that they want to update is one reason they called, they probably phoned you because they liked the results you gave them a year ago. What did you shoot it with?

and when you say update -

Update, as in adding or editing graphics?
Upadate, as in shooting new footage?
Or both?
If shooting new footage:
What are you going to shoot it with?
Is that the same camera you used to shoot the original?

Car dealership commercials
 

But they do! Collect dealership commercials for a couple of years and you'll see I am right.

Now, understand that dealerships have a better deal than most small businesses. They get plenty of B-Roll and beauty shots and other production materials from the manufacturers. They also get a promotional budget based on how many cars they sell. A budget we can tap into.

Finally they get regional advertising based on how many cars they sell direct from manufacturers, but we don't deal in that level. Not with an XL2 or an XLH1. HDCAM and 35mm only there. You may see a Mazda commerical produced and distributed by Mazda that has a local dealership name on it, but its a Mazda ad.

Still my main point is that many small businesses reuse advertisements for several years, with only minor changes.

OK, lets take one of your car dealership clients as an example:

What 2003 footage that you shot on the XL1 two years ago are you re-using in the 2005 commercial that you are doing for them today?

Rental stuff
 

I don't know if you were referring to me, but I have shot HD, yet most of my work (weddings, small event documentaries and training videos) is done with an XL-1.

I use the XL-1 because I own it.

When I do work with HD its because the client wants HD, and I rent equipment as needed.

I see a time coming, sooner rather than later, where I'll need to own HD capable equipment. I already have a need to be ready to post HD in house in various formats. So far its just preliminary dealings but its there.

For the small stuff I do HDV is actually pretty good. You aren't doing a lot of manipulation and compositing for a wedding, and what you do need is mostly overlays and such. HDV holds up to that.

That means I can offer clients interested in that type of stuff a finished HD production. Oddly weddings have been most interested- HD is the future and people have their weddings done so they can look back in ten or twenty years. They know they don't have HD today, but they expect to.

As productions get more complex they also need to be more controlled. You can't key shots done in a run and gun fashion.

When I shoot stuff I need to key it is almost immediately a studio type shoot. The H1 can do that in uncompressed SDI for me or DVCPRO HD direct to the computer. That makes my time in Shake or AE easier. It also means I don't have to rent a camera and deck- that means more profit.

Does my business sound like yours ? If not my advice won't necessarily be useful to you.

I've said it again and again- if all you do is online distribution the XL2 is just fine. You'll be able to wait longer than most of us for HD production.

It seems to me that you are focused on online distribution TODAY.

HDV doesn\'t deliver a huge improvement over DV for online distribution. One huge reason for that is that most people can\'t download or view full resolution clips.

Take another look at Apple\'s HD gallery. A lot of those clips are over 100MB. The Serenity HD trailer was 138 MB and requires a fairly new machine, Quicktime 7 and a high resolution display to view in its full glory.

Given all of that it looks better than a theater presentation of the trailer. Seriously.

If you want your work to look like that with you can do it- you can get Hollywood level production quality from a studio equipped with about $45000 of equipment starting from scratch built around using the HD SDI from the H1.

Your XL2 can produce results for online distribution on par with the movie trailers you can see at Apple\'s regular trailer page. Notice however that most of those trailers are 480x272 or smaller.

If that is really all you want to do then HDV, heck even full blown HDCAM SR is of no utility to you whatsoever. None of those cameras matter one whit considering you choice of distribution.

They still all have valid business plans attached to them.