That's good to know. Sorry, I hadn't seen that statement.

Maybe I wasn't so clear...
 

Well, maybe I am guity of not having been very clear. I ain't going back and reading all that to find out though.<grin>

I am sorry if I implied that I have dealership clients I don't. It is a market I am trying to get into though so I've been studying it.

I'll give you an example though of how dealers reuse old footage. Bear with me...

Open on beauty of a car driving with titles. This shot will be reused until that body type is not being produced, between two and up to FIVE years.

A stock shot of the dealer lot with the owner talking about service etc. You know the part where the dealer rolls out his kids or sales staff. This is a shot I'd take. That will be reused until the cars in the shot are no longer produced or the dealer changes locations- again two to five years.

Then you have special promotions, normally VO with titles. Sometimes the background will be beauty shots of the vehicle under discussion, these beauty shots are usually manufacturer supplied. These get redone twice a year on average per model line advertised. I'd be redoing the VO and the titles.

Its very little work and pay rates are good from what I can find, because dealers have the best type of spending money- other people's. Still this year or next you will need to have in house HD acquisition and post capability.

HDV acquisition from any 3CCD camera would be fine, so the Z1 would be completely suitable for this work.

Hopefully someone here actually does car dealer commercials and can show some samples.

LOL! and roger on that.

Alexander,

What would you choose if you were headed solely for DVD?

I didn't actually shoot the video originally, but they got fed up with the company who did. I was doing some DVD authoring for them, so they asked me to update the video.

However, this is a perfect demonstration of one of the points that is being made: The original was shoot 4:3 on DVCAM, but they want to display it on a 42" 16:9 plasma. IMO the first company did a poor job in fufilling the customers needs. I may even suggest re-shooting the whole thing on HD for presentation off a HD-DVD from laptop and onto the screen as this is what the job really calls for. Had it been shot on HD in the first place it would have saved money. I think they choee not to because at the time they were using a smaller 4:3 display monitor.

Personally I always try to warn customers about changing technology so that they can decide whether it is worth future proofing their work. That way when the technology does arrive at least I can say I told them so, and they don't feel neglected by having info withheld from them.

We are the professionals and are their to serve the clients very best needs, we also must bear in mind that they may not be aware of these needs.

Acquisition for DVD output.
 

Big question. I think your DVD results look very different depending on how you originate.

I used to argue that DV could outperform DVD in every regard and thus was a suitable acquisition format for almost any project. That is wrong.

DV25 is a suitable codec but the cameras usually fail to live up to the codec. Only the best DVCPRO and DVCAM cameras can push the codec's edges, and most of those are DVCPRO 50 cameras in DV25 mode anyway. Why you would do that I have no idea.

You need a 4:2:2 format minimum to max out DVD. DV still can deliver good results, but not the best possible. I think you can composite DV better than HDV, but not nearly as well as DVCPRO 50.

Also there are some minor issues with color levels and such. New software handles DV better than before, but still a 4:2:2 format looks better.

HD formats can look better than SD formats for DVD, but I think that has more to do with the fact that they are treated better during production and until now have had uniformly more color space.

A lot of Hollywood is 4:4:4 from 35mm or HD acquisition. I don't think DVD can handle more than 4:2:2, but a little headroom is handy if you want to deliver top notch results.

Now all that said, I use my XL-1 most often for DVD, and most of the time it looks fine.

The bigger issues tend to be how you light and whatnot. I can see a huge difference in my productions where I had time and resources for proper acquisition vs. some sort of run and gun stuff.

With run and gun DV and HDV can look pretty bad compared to 4:2:2 SD or HD. It takes only a little bit of production care and technique to bring them much closer together.

Also, try and remember that these cheap video cameras we all have have very limited dynamic range. DVD doesn't "like" when you over or underexpose, so keep it tight within 5 stops, and if that fails color correct your output.

That last bit is a huge difference in what we can manage vs. Hollywood. They have ~11 stops dynamic range on HD or 35. You can match that look or at least come close even in DV but you have to be a freaking master of light.

I think if you only go for DVD you even don't need HD or HDV. I think SD just does fine. I think an XL2 suffices.
People forget that these cams (XL1, XL2, PD170, DVX100,...) still shoot great video.
Heck, 28 days later was shot on the XL1 and was projected and became a little hit!
I know that movie is always the example, but it just a prime example of how great SD can look!
Okay they had a professional crew and spent millions in postproduction, but they knew how to light!

OK,

So I'm getting 4 gig of RAM installed at the Apple Store right now.

Low and behold, they've got a Sony FX1 here.

Low and behold, they had some mini DV's for sale.

So I bought them and put one in the Sony FX1. I'm recording footage right now, so I can take it home, load it up into FCP and see what and see what I think.

I'm just recording in auto mode, and it looks like its in 1080i mode.

I guess the only issue is, can I put the miniDV that I take out of this FX1 into my XL2 and capture it from there without it causing my XL2 any problems down the road?

It was a brand new tape, right? Probably no worries at all, but if you have a head cleaning cassette handy then you might run it for about five seconds in your XL2 after capturing that tape.

Thanks Chris,

Yep. Brand new tape.

I thought about it some while driving home and I gave my parents one of my old Sony Camcorders. It's about 5 years old but it's miniDV and has a FireWire in/out so I think I'll try to capture the 15 minutes I taped with it on Sunday (just to be on the safe side).

I'm sure you are right though, just hate to take an unnecessary risk even if it's just a .000000001 chance.

I'm looking forward to it though. Especially with my 6 GIG of RAM! My neighborhood's lights are going to flicker!!!

- - - - - - - -

Just a quick side note here - this forum is excellent. Thanks for running for us Chris.

Can you play it ?
 

It should play just fine if its any sort of DV.

I don't think the XL2 will play back HDV at all. So, if you are right and the FX was in 1080i mode, you won't get a useful picture.

Waiting to hear, but please when you capture check the clip info and see what resolution you used to record.

Just an update on this. I had given my parents an older Sony DV that I bought about 4 years ago. I thought I would try using it to do the capture, so I wouldn't have to risk any bad side effects with the XL2. I think the risk are minimal, but when faced with the risk vs. reward factor I often use - it was not worth the gamble.

So I tried the sony that I mentioned above and it did not work.

Although, thinking about it now, even if it did work:

I don't think it would have been fair on the FX1 for the following reasons:
-I've never shot with it
-I don't know how "jacked up" the settings could have been from about a million people messing with it.
-If you've ever been in an apple store, you know how bright (all white basically) they are, and I'm sure the footage would have been very bright and not properly balanced.
-I'm sure there are other reasons as well.

So, to sum it up - Best to everyone using HDV and to those who are going to acquire the new Canon H1. Keep on keepin' on. I'm looking forward to seeing the footage on-line.

Wow, yet another thread questioning the viability of HDV recording and HD video delivery. I don't know if I would rush to pay $9K to replace a Canon XL2 with the XL-H1, but I'm blown away by the image quality difference between a $3K Sony FX1 and the Canon GL2 I bought last year for about $1800. My FX1 footage is clearly better in many ways even for SD delivery, and on an HDTV it's just plain jaw-dropping compared to the GL2. I haven't had time to upload many samples yet, but here's one downsampled to Windows Media at 720p resolution:

http://www.videomem.com/hdv/yosemite_720p.wmv

HDV is going to disrupt everything because any new videographer can drop $6K on two FX1s and $1500 on a dual-core editing setup, and deliver HD image quality that rocks for the same price any decent SD videographer is charging. (Assuming the content itself is worth watching.) Once proper HD DVD players start shipping all heck is going to break loose, because anyone paying good money for professional video projects may start wondering why they shouldn't get it done in HD. Plus the fact that most HDTVs being sold are widescreen and most SD cameras are primarily 4x3 will be a problem for many videographers -- XL2 owners can get by a little longer delivering widescreen SD video. But at some point any customer with real money is going to start asking for HD recording options, even if they're not quite sure whether they really need it.

Draw your own conclusions based on sensible business planning, but SD video is on its way out.

So out of the currently available low-cost (compared to previous HD camera offerings) HD/HDV camcorders; how many are offering a comparable competitive format?

It's been nearly a year since the release of Sony's HDV camcorders, and 2 since JVC's HDV initial foray. I'm yet to see anyone announce any "competing" format for High Definition video at HD broadcast level specifications.

Some how, I get the feeling that the number of Sony and JVC HDV camcorders already sold will mean that HDV remains with us for more than just a fleeting glimpse before passing into the abyss known as the "Cavern of Forgotten Technologies"... Seems to me you're more than hoping that HDV is going to fail dismally.

Come to think of it - this whole thread wreaks of doubt amongst those seeking reasurrance that their decision to stay with SD, rather than moving to HDV, was the correct one to make. It's a shame that so soon after making that decision there's so much doubt about having made it.

Personally: I made the choice to go HDV. Why? Because I was able to!!

I'm damned happy that I made the choice I did. Why is it so hard for some folks who decided to stick with DV to be the same?

If you got cold-feet, because you didn't understand what HD/HDV was about or offered - how to work with it or what is required... that's your problem.

BTW for those Mac users who seem to be rather afraid of the m2t files that are available for them to view. Why don't you try a well known PC user trick? Change the file type (the three letter extension) to .mpg? Just so you know: the m stands for MPEG, the 2 for MPEG2 and the t stands for Transport Stream. By crickey!! it's an MPEG2!! If you can load MPEG2 into FCP then you can load this...

Steve, thanks for your comments. One of the great things about this forum is its ability to help expand your thinking and see other views and points.

Personally, I do not want to see HDV fail, or any other technology for that matter.

Not really looking for reassurance either. I can sell my XL2 and go get a JVC or any other HDV camera at any time, due to how well this equipment seems to hold its value. Really though, I don't see myself selling the XL2. It's too good for the money. I would just purchase a HDV camera and use the camera I want for whatever I was shooting. Technology will always be improving and I knew that my XL2 was not going to be a 5 or 10 year solution, but a 1 to 3 year solution. But here's the key - during that 1 to 3 years the entire workflow is EASY, with a very limited amount of "work arounds" and "tricks" and other stuff that just costs more money and takes up more time. I think maybe in two or three years the HDV workflow could be that way.I just don't feel HDV is the right solution for ME at THIS point in time. Just doesn't make sense to have a 30 second clip on the web be 30 to 40 megs. Broadband has come a long way, but even with a very fast broadband connection the beautifully shot 12 second clip posted by Kevin above (thanks Kevin, looked really nice) took about 2 minutes to download. I just don't see people wanting to wait 8 minutes for a one minute clip.

It's not a problem for me as it's not a format I'm using. And REALLY, from the video's I've seen, both on-line and on TV, I'd rather see the manufacturers put their R & D into reducing the cost and size of cameras like the Panasonic SDX900 with three 2/3" 520,000 Progressive CCD imagers.

somehow my message posted twice. Just deleting the duplicated post. Maybe a moderator could delete this?

Note that the clip I referenced was posted at roughly 6 times the bandwidth I would use for a typical web sample for clients, and for me it starts playing in about a minute via a standard cable modem connection. So yeah, the internet isn't a good way to distribute HD content for now at anything approaching full quality, but then downloading from the internet isn't how most people watch their videos. Once you've seen HDV material displayed at full quality on an HDTV, it's clear that the days of SD recording for professional purposes are numbered. Maybe the HD transition will be a slow one, but it's going to happen sooner or later.

Kevin,

Thanks.

So that was 6x the normal quality?

In my opinion, I don't think so. Look at EVERY major Web Site for the following categories:
All networks - ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX.
Cable stations - HBO, CNN, FX, ESPN, Comedy Central (just to name a few).
Newspapers - Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Dallas Morning News, etc.
The list could go on and on.

HDTV is good, but I think that it's a mistake to underestimate the amount of video that will continue to make it's way to the Internet and Internet related devices, both now and in the very near future. I have no source to back the following statement up but I would think more people are watching video over the Internet, than on HDTV's. Not full blown movies or TV shows, but footage of news, product info, demo's, pre-view's and clips of movies and TV shows, etc. Just look at the latest deal from Apple... iPod video.

the rest is optional reading:
- - - - - - - - -
Not to say that people don't watch HDTV. They do, and I agree that if you are shooting something that will primarily be viewed on that medium, getting a HDV camera would be worth considering. I had HDTV through DirecTV (dish) about 3 or 4 years ago. HAD being the key word. I still remember the very first day it was all installed and I could watch High Def television. It was stunning. I could stare at it all night, but I got tired of not being able to watch ANYTHING when it was raining outside (or even just windy in some cases). The straw that broke the camel's back was not being able to see The Soprano's one Sunday evening about 15 minutes into it. So now I've got two HDTV's and could care less about being able to watch anything in High Def. I just have cable now... and it works all the time, rain or shine. I have not even looked into trying to get High Def again.

You could say that it's roughly six times the quality of samples I'll be posting in the future on my web site, but then most internet video is still posted at 320x240 resolution -- so it'll look good compared to that. Ideally I'd like to post my HD samples at a bandwidth of 1.5-2 Mbps, but that would still be a bit slow to download. On the internet, convenience trumps image quality.

Okay, but name even one such web site which posts full-bandwidth SD samples or any sort of HD samples, and think if anyone you know spends more time watching video on the internet than they do watching TV. For purposes of professional video production and delivery, the internet simply doesn't work unless what someone really wants is to watch their video at low resolution on a web site. That may change someday if people get used to streaming video to their TV from a computer-based multimedia center, but that's currently a rarity.

Understood, but what you described was a delivery problem, not a lack of interest on your part in HD programming. And I suspect people will have a different attitude in the future about their paid video projects than they do today about HD content: why on earth would you pay good money for an SD video when you can get HD quality for almost the same price? That change in expectations hasn't happened yet, but it's coming.

Kevin,

I just visited your web site and you do very nice quality work. I'm looking forward to seeing how your SD compares to your HDV... on the web. Which HDV camera have you been using? (I did not see it in your profile)

But I do agree, that if you are delivering to HDTV (and I would imagine that that's what most of your wedding clientele will want now and in the future), then a HDV camera should be part of your equipment mix.

Thanks Derek, I appreciate the positive feedback -- especially since my web site samples are out of date and don't reflect either HDV quality or my latest shooting/editing techniques. I currently own a Sony FX1, a Canon GL2 and Canon GL1, plus I have access to another FX1 when I need it. I hope to ditch the Canons soon and get another HDV camera, but I need to think about the timing on that.

OK, to be fair, I just saw some very nice footage ON-LINE and in a Quicktime movie format that downloaded and played perfectly. The person who did the work used a FX-1 and RedRock M2. I'm impressed. I'm going to send the person an email to ask if it's OK to post a link here.

So I think to be fair, I'll have to look into getting a HDV cam. Canon is way overpriced though and I would prefer something smaller and easier to handle, so the FX-1 or Z1 is looking pretty good. At Sony's prices, I would be able to keep the XL2 as well.

I think the best thing to do would be to see if I can find a Sony to rent for a weekend in the Dallas / Fort Worth area. And then see what I think of the editing process on my G5.

This thread started by Meryem had some beautiful nature footage as well:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=52904

For Mac viewers - its best to right click and "download linked file" to your desktop.

kev,

while it isn't a large majority of the population, there is a growing niche market for computer users who don't have a "TV" in the traditional sense of the word. they utilize their HTPC quite frequently and do watch a lot of content from the internet. i wouldn't under-estimate those people.

http://fongunlimited.com/htpc
^like me. i don't have a TV. i watch all of the latest movie trailers from quicktime.com (check it out, they have increased their HD movie trailers exponentially). so when i goto the cinema, there are very few trailers i haven't seen. although i subscribe to HBO, HD cable TV, i don't have time to catch 'em, so i use on-demand. failing that, the internet. having a HTPC means flexibility. watch it WHEN i have time ANY time i want it. that's the future of video media.

Well,

I rented a Sony Z1 for the weekend and look forward to using it - from filming to editing to outputing to the web.

I found a rental place in Dallas after doing a search.

http://www.videotexsystems.com/contact.aspx

The above place was recommended by someone, and my experience with them to this point has been just great. I spoke with Roger (who handles the rentals).

FYI - Rental rate is $275 per day. The weekend counts as 1 day... nice!

No icons here, but you get a thumbs up from me!

My primary goal is to be able to export efficiently to to the web. I'm very anxious to see if the Z1 will allow me to do so, and how it will look when compressed using various settings.

It would be nice to have a camera that would allow for great looking footage on-line and on HDTV, but on-line is my primary concern.

If it does look good, then Canon will have helped to sell a Sony FX1 or Z1 to at least one person.

I really do like this camera so far.

The Good News -
The images are crisp and colors are nice and vibrant.
Light and easy to carry.
Works better in FCP 5, much better than I thought it would. Just plugged in the firewire, changed my easy set up to the HDV 1080i setting and the computer, FCP 5 and the Z1 had no problems with each other. Did take a while to export a 1 minute quicktime movie, BUT right now I'm on a 2 year old mac dual 2.0 G5. Not my newer 2.7 with the latest upgrades. And the increased time in exporting was to be expected.

The Bad News -
I'm really going to have to figure out what the best settings are on the camera along with how best to compress this beautiful footage so I can find the right balance between footage quality and download times. The first attempts were not so pretty. With my XL2, I shoot 24p(a). 24 frames per second vs. 60 frames per second... 36 more frames, much larger frames per second.

This IS a great camera though.

By the way - to anyone reading this - Chris Hurd and/or any other moderators included.

I know this thread has kind ventured off path from my original question on what XL2 owners thought - more to what "this XL2 owner is thinking & doing." If you ever see the need to move the thread or have any suggestions, I'm more than open. I appreciate the organization of this forum and never want to take away from that.

What? Move the thread??

Thanks. I'm good with it here, that's for sure, I just wanted to make sure the rest thought so!

By the way, I did start the following thread in the Z1 forum to get some quick help with learning this camera as quick as possible.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=53129

But, I will continue along here with my Z1 venture. Thanks.

The biggest issue that I will face with exporting to the web will be that I'm exporting to a .flv format. So I will have to figure out the best way (and format) to export my footage from FCP 5 in the highest quality possible. As I will then import that file into SorensonSqueeze 4.0 and export that to the .flv.
So the problem is exporting and compressing twice. Any time I've done this with my GL2 or XL2 the end results were great.

When I tried the same process with the HDV footage the results were not good.

If anyone has any suggestions or sees any errors I might be making feel free to jump in.... OR if anyone can just tell me the best way to export from FCP 5 that would result in the highest quality movie.

Beuhler, Beuhler............beuhler???

Technically this isn't the best place to answer this 'cause it's way too far off thread... and given there's a dedicated FCP5 (and Mac based) HDV editing forum here, I'd reckon it'll be worth your while to check for the latest and best Mac/FCP/HDV tips etc. there!!

However, as with PC - the basic principle for keeping HDV quality as good as possible requires your concentration in reducing the number of encodes/re-encodes to the absolute minimum (i.e. use SD proxies or uncompressed for all but the last action), and maintaining the highest possible bitrate.

Check out LumiereHD...

Bryan said "By all means feel free to share it." to posting a link to his site (the one I mentioned above).

As I mentioned above, he used a Sony FX1 and M2 combo. He does give you the option to see the footage with and without special filters added.

I think this is a nice sampe of HDV on the web:

http://www.tampahighdef.com/

I'll be out with the Sony all day.

Derek,

There is a section in the larger clip from about :30 to 1:05 where the rotation on the M2 adapter was accidentally turned off and you can see some dust particles on the ground glass if you look closely. I put together those clips the first day I had my M2 adapter so I am still learning how to use it and tweak it for best results with the FX1. Either way I think it opens an entirely new dimension to HDV that I am very pleased with and I plan to do a lot with it.

Bryan

I was able use the Z1 for a few hours on Friday and a few hours on Saturday. I really liked it quite a bit. A friend of mine is involved with raising Texas Longhorn, so I took it to the Longhorn Show at the State Fair of Texas on Saturday. I also took my Canon GL2.

Truthfully, I have really mixed emotions. The clarity is exceptional. I captured most of the footage from the Z1 early this morning into Final Cut Pro 5 before taking the Z1 back to VideoTex. I'm just now beginning to capture the footage from my GL2. I have a XL2, but felt adventurous enough taking one $5,000 camera, and I knew the majority of my attention would be focused on the Z1, so I did not take XL2.

I have to say that you can see a huge difference in the quality of the image, but I still have not figured out the best way to export the footage into a .flv for the web.

You can export directly from FCP into a FLV, but it only does it using Sorenson Spark (the version that comes with Flash) and I have Sorenson Squeeze 4.1 (the "much better" version). I will probably do a search on
the web to see if I can find how to export directly from FCP 5 into Sorenson Squeeze 4.1, where you can really fine tune the settings.

Things I like about the HDV format:
-The clarity
-I think it's what clients will want, if nothing more because "HDV" sounds like it's the best
-"futureproofing"

Things I like about the Sony FX/Z - 1:
-All of the above, PLUS -
-The size. It was much easier to carry than the XL2, making it much more likely to be used, and easier to use by more people... like my mom :)
(hey, I'm over 30, but my mom loves this hi-tech stuff too!).
-The balance
-The cost (vs. the H1 which will be around $9k).

Things I like about my XL2 (some of which the H1 will have):
-24p (or 24F for the H1)
-manual lens
-easy workflow for exporting to the web
-the image quality of footage exported to the web (so
far, I'm still early in my experimenting)
-the file size of footage exported to the web.
-the capability to save unlimited settings in Blue Barn.

***(I'm sure I've left out some points in the above)***

I'm going to be working with the footage as I can this week and will keep you posted. But overall, the Z1 is a really great camera...

... as is HDV.

With that said, I will keep an interested eye on the Canon H1 forum and Panny HVX200 forum over the next couple of months. I may start eating Ramen noodles again and begin saving my money for another camera.

You can start saving for retirement when you're 40, right?

Sample Footage From Z1
 

Made this site just for experimenting with seeing how HDV would stream on the web. First footage is located here -
Click "Montgomery Plaza," which is an old Montgomery Wards Building that is in the process of being renovated into lofts.

This footage was exported to a .flv. I will also post a H264 movie format soon. (fyi - there is no sound)

http://www.thisishdv.com/