There seems to be a consensus among wedding videographers that HDV is almost unusable because of its inferior low light performence. Either they are exxagerating because they want an excuse not to invest in any new equipment or they have a valid point. Since I have only shot one wedding I do not have enough information to confirm or deny their objections to the HDV format.

No -- Canon does use two fields, Simplified:

1) Objects not in otion -- like a rez chart -- will have about 800-lines because both fields can be used.

2) OBJECTS in motion have lines pulled from only one field. So there is smart software that finds areas that change positipn from onefield to the next.

Now, these objects have a V rez of only about 400-lines. So smart software takes these objects and interpolates the in between lines. Depending on HOW they do it, they can get a slight boost in V rez.

The point is that on static rez tests -- there will be no difference between 60i and 24F. Great marketing!

When objects are in motion they naturally blur and lose rez. You'll have a hard time seeing moving objects lose V rez. (Remember, moving objects naturally lose H rez too.) But, I'll bet in some situations in will be apparent to some. For example, a pure vertical pan that is slow may look like s**t.

That will lead to another flame war like SSE and CF24. :)

Just had to chime in here...

Perhaps I'm totally confused, but couldn't Canon just be deinterlacing on the fly using a really good smart algorithm? They would be using both fields. When there is little motion, the deinterlaced frame would be nearly identical to standard 24P. When there is motion, there would be a hit in resolution. But, since they are using a GOP length of 15 frames I believe, wouldn't this give them about a half second to analyze what is changing in each frame over time and allow some type of smart predictive deinterlacing?

I use a VirtualDub deinterlacing filter all the time, and the result looks quite good. Couldn't something like the new Digic DV II chip the Canon has do an even better job in real time?

Sorry if I'm totally out to lunch.

Shawn Kimmel

--
Forever on DVD
shawn@foreverondvd.com
http://www.foreverondvd.com

Now how in the heck would they know if they never used a HDV camera? The only time I see low light being an issue for HDV is in a totally dark reception but even if they are using a 2/3" camera they should be using lights.

I really do think it's an excuse. I think the current HDV cameras are about what the previous generation of DV cameras were at. Heck I still sometimes bust out my Canon XL1 as a backup and while it doesn't look as good as my newer cameras it is half way decent with a light. I'm sure every HDV camera is at least more sensitive than my old XL1 so I am not complaining at this point.

Not so: many wedding videographers are already switching to HDV. It is true that current HDV cameras are not as sensitive in low light as some of the best DV cameras, but if you boost the gain and use a small light when needed it works fine. I've shot five weddings in HDV this year and am learning to work with the limitations of the equipment, just like you would with any other camera. Used properly the image quality of HDV is impressive, and to me that's worth the trade-off in poor lighting.

In regards to the Canon XL-H1, I don't expect it to be very popular for wedding videography due to the high price. Maybe if Canon ships an HDV version of the GL2 for under $4000 they'll get more attention, but Sony's already pretty much captured that market segment.