A technologists view of HDV
 

I have been learning about HDV (and video in general). My background is really in watching the computer field for 30 years, thru all the generations from the IBM360 to the latest. I watched many technologies come and go, and understand that the best one is not always the winner. Having said all of that, I see major clues that HDV will be a flash in the pan.

Caveat: We have two manufacturers offering HDV. When we have three, some of these opinions may change as marketing and critical mass become more important than technology.

1. Both mfrs have completely different specs. Almost nothing is compatitble except the tape inside, and even that is marginal since SOny is pushing their new formulation at $18 each.

2. 720 vs 1080
3. progressive vs interlaced
4. 15 COB vs 6 COB (BIG difference)
5. square pixels vs non-square pixels
6. 19MBps vs 25 MBps


From a pure technology perspective, they are both very different and both have made compromises. Presumably they have made different choices based upon their concept of what is important. Sony chose absolute resolution at 1080, JVC chose better motion handling with 60p and a smaller COB.

These compromises were made in the name of using an existing (miniDV) tape format. yet even at that, Sony had to pull away by pushing a more reliable formulation to reduce dropouts and the potentially serious impact of a dropout on a 15COB compression format.

They have made other compromises too. MPEG 1 layer 2 audio is less robust than PCM, making audio input levels much more critical. MPEG1/L2 audio is also more difficult to post-process. The interlaced compression format of MPEG-2 TS adds yet another layer if codec complexity. All in the name of using a mini-DV tape.

Yet many of these compromises make it less likely that HDV will be widely adopted as a consumer format, which is what will dirve costs down and accessory choices up (from NLEs to HD-DVD burners). To get good HDV, you need more audio knowledge and need to not zoom or pan fast or tape fast moving objects. SO training becomes MORE important, which is not the way to sell new consumer technologies. Plug & Play is the way to go.

When I look at all of this as a technologist, what I see is too many conflicting choices being made. The correct solution to this techno-babel is usually to re-evaluate your basic assumptions, and the basic assumption here was to use DV tape as the recording medium. Change that to require less compression, and all other choices become easier and better.

So unless a third mfr comes along to prove that marketing dollars will overwhelm a poor technology, I will remain an observer. When someone comes out with a non-miniDV solution better suited to HD requirements, I will watch with interest. It could be a new tape format, it could be hard disk, it oculd be built in wireless to a separate capture device. But 18 months from now, I expect both current HDV incarnations to be sitting on the shelf next to the 8-track tapes.

I can't wait to see the responses. :)

I just hope we do not collectively pay the price for this bastard format. I am going to sit this on out; no-one can make me use MPEG-2 on miniDV.

Erme, nobody is forced into any format. SD will continue to be around for quite a long time, and there are several other high-definition formats to choose from.

I wouldn't call it a bastard format; I would strongly recommend each person who is basing their judgments on the gear to actually use it before passing said judgment.

Also, the Sony F900 is 1080i and the Panasonic 27F is 720p. Both are HD.

heath

The Sony F900 and the Pannasonic 27f do not record on MiniDV, which, if I understood the original posters intent correctly, is why he called it a "bastard format". Admitedly, an unfortunate term. Still, I am inclined to wait and watch for two or three more years.

Some film festivals still require your submission to be on VHS, and some clients still want copies available. Hell, people are still buying and spinning vinyl.

Re: A technologists view of HDV
 

<<<-- Originally posted by John Galt: When I look at all of this as a technologist, what I see is too many conflicting choices being made. The correct solution to this techno-babel is usually to re-evaluate your basic assumptions, and the basic assumption here was to use DV tape as the recording medium. Change that to require less compression, and all other choices become easier and better. -->>>

And all that they should have done is to let that minidv tape roll at double speed (50Mbps).

I agree with most of what you're saying. BUT! lol :-)

Both HDV specs are compatible with each other, I don't see why you say the only thing compatible is the tape. I believe the FX-1 and/or the Z1 will playback the 720p HDV format as well as the 1080i format. I know the Sony deck does. I agree that the HDV spec won't be long lived, but neither will 720p and 1080i if you see the industry is becoming more 1080p. I don't think ANY tape based format will be with us much longer. Going to solid state or HDD or optical formats will also allow us to use less compression- or no compression.

Have you shot with the FX-1? I only ask because I'm wondering where this comment came from:
> "To get good HDV, you need more audio knowledge and need to not zoom or pan fast or tape fast moving objects. SO training becomes MORE important, which is not the way to sell new consumer technologies. Plug & Play is the way to go."

When you put the camera in full auto mode (plug and play), it takes FANTASTIC pictures and captures great audio, especially for a consumer camera. I've had friends of mine use this camera in full auto, who have zero professional knowledge and they make "good HDV". Every friend and family member has commented on how great the picture looks and how great the audio sounds- comparing it to their home movies.

I've also shot hours of "fast moving ojects" while panning fast and it's also "good HDV" - I'd say GREAT HDV!

If you're talking about compatability, my HDV footage is more compatible for the future than DV.

Plug and play is a "slang" term meaning editing, plug in the firewire and start capturing, editing and print back to tape.

I've used the FX1 on two short films, including this one. I will be putting new jpegs soon, as these are a little stretched out horizontally and I didn't get a chance to re-import the clips and then fix the stretch (happens when I make a digital still of the footage--it doesn't reflect the camera).

Read Jon Fordham's review of the FX1.

heath

Yes, I'll admit there is much speculation abroad, and if I were allowed to speculate I'd say prosumer HiDef is going to flame HDV before it's of the ground.

> JVC chose better motion handling with 60p and a smaller COB.

The HD1's 60p mode is SD, not HD, and with a single small sensor, thus low sensitivity and high chroma noise, according to reports. The Sony FX1/Z1 is something completely different, even considering it's still a prosumer cam and not intended for broadcast work.

> I'd say prosumer HiDef is going to flame HDV
> before it's of the ground.

But... but... I don't get it. Isn't HDV sopposed to be the consumer HD? Just as MiniDV was supposed to be for consumers and it was adopted by the pro's, if HDV is good enough, it will be adopted also. Of course Sony has pre-empted this by releasing the Z1, with a some "pro" features, but's it is still a consumerish small sensor, no interchangeable lens... it's made for the indies, for us, not for ENG, not for studio HD work and so on. Sony has too much too lose, they made it as good as they can. Don't expect Panasonic, who also have a pro line to protect, to be able to do much better, not because they can't but because they won't.

JVC on the other hand has no such problems. After the initial HD1 experiment, they have had years to improve on it and are probably just waiting for the EBU to make it's choice about 1080i or 720p before they release a shoulder-mount HDV camera with a large sensor and pro optics. Canon is in an interesting position also, if they can make an HDV camera that uses their own high-end lenses they can make some interesting waves without cannibalizing themseslves.

As far as there being a divide in the HDV format I would have to say this is a little premature. There are essentially only two cam offerings one prgressive and one interlaced. Is this a problem? The editing sytems for each don't differ. All of the major NLE's support both at this time, and both are considered HDV. No problem. As far as the PC power required, it is in a far better and affordable state than when SD DV was introduced. Firewire and NLE support was slow and expensive when the first DV cams surfaced. HDV is already miles ahead of where DV was in its beginings. As far as using DV25 tape as some sort of negative it is not. DV25 is by far the most common, affordable tape stock of all time. The next great move in this regard will be to tapeless recoding. So if you think that affordable, widely available tape stock was a bad choice, what would you suggest?
As far as sound is concerned there is nothing wrong with HDV audio when used in a prosummer level. If your doing serious work you record externally anyway. Whats the beef?
HDV cams will evolve as did their DV versions befor. The compressors will get more efficient, tweaks will be made. DV unfortunately will continue to be a blurry low definition format. HDV will not go the way of an 8-track as you can edit and use HDV now and in the far for seeable future. NLE's aren't going to just stop working. Editing native mpeg2 will be standard issue from here on in, as well there are many other editing options for the professional one of which will be intergrated into Adobe Premiere from here on in, with Sony's Vegas right behind.
Also to clarify: JVC 6 frame GOP at 720p30, 12 frame GOP at 480p60

Ignacio, HDV is a flavor of consumer "Hi Def" but is highly compressed. When I speculated I meant true HIDef aquisition in a prosumer style camera. Panasonic is already making noises about a 100 MBps fixed lens
tapeless aquisition model, and if this pans out I can't see there being a middle ground for HDV, particularly if you also consider being able to capture all of that gorgeous true HD info over firewire. But it has to yet happen, we'll see, soon enough. Canon is also a sleeper, and they do not have a Hi def legacy to protect and potentially could provide us with the ultimate; a HD
prosumer with interchangable lenses. But I'm not going to hold my breath for that.

There seems to be one important piece of information lacking in this discussion.

John-- you say that there are only two manufacturers in the HDV world and that there are two differing opinions/standards as to what this means...

What you're not mentioning is that two other manufacturers (Canon and Sharp) originally formed the HDV consortium or whatnot with Sony and JVC. Also, they set the standards for HDV (which closely follow some of the standards for HD--at least as far as resolution and frame rate) which are the 1080i (at 25Mbs) and 720p (at 19Mbs) that we currently see. Add to that nearly 40 software/hardware/camera accessory manufacturers that have announced support and/or products...and there is a much different picture than that which you paint.

HDV ain't perfect, but it's already positioned itself to be more than just a flash in the pan.

<<<-- Originally posted by Emre Safak : I just hope we do not collectively pay the price for this bastard format. I am going to sit this on out; no-one can make me use MPEG-2 on miniDV. -->>>

You must be a very happy person with many friends. It is not bastard format. It is cost effective format allowing peoples to use HD video on standard DV tape. How can you say that when it possible to record 1 hour HD video for only $10? You can try HDCAM, see how much you spending. Please, if you never try HDV before, don't make aspersions of the format, then you look foolish, and not to be listened to.

Bill,

You keep speculating, and I feel that's what's killing your argument. Go out and grab and FX1, because you'll be impressed!

heath

At the start of this thread John said that one flaw of HDV is that your camerawork has to be done with the disadvantages of MPEG compression in mind. I suspect that many of us working with DV are already doing that because the final viewing format is DVD (and obviously with a much lower data rate than HDV).

It will be interesting to see what Panasonic do. Bill says they're
"already making noises about a 100 MBps fixed lens tapeless acquistion model". That sounds significantly better than the FX1/Z1, but if it's comparably priced to the Z1 it will knock a hole in Panasonics Pro sales. Still if Panasonic don't do something in the fairly near future this particular market segment will go to HDV.

Hey, didn't we already have this discussion before with VHS/Beta and then again with SVHS/Hi8 for consumers anyway (the pro market was dealing more with 3/4", 1" and Betacam, DigiBeta and BetacamSX)

It's pretty funny to think about what we will look back at in a few years and call crap. One day soon, you will all agree that both DV and HDV suck and aren't worthy anymore. But what will that image look like then? Hmmmm what's next?

HDV in its present form would strongly limit me in terms of what I can shoot with it. With the sony I can shoot "talking heads" in supreme sharpness but as soon as I want slightly "quicker" pans or I shoot action I'll get disappointing results. Mini DV tapes?? This medium limits the whole technology, a 25 mbit/s MPEG2 capturing of what I shoot is supposed to handle the high resolution?!?

So when Sony goes blue-ray with the cameras, will it still be 25 mbit/s despite the better suited medium?

Panasonic has built incredibly accomplished SD DV cams and I trust they'll come up with a better standard of their own. The average consumer of course gets nervous when there is more than one available system but nowadays it shouldn't be such an issue anymore, material shot with a sony HDV camcorder can be edited on the same computer and displayed on the same HD screen as what you've shot with a future Panasonic HD camcorder that uses a different technology.

I wanna shoot my movies in high definition, period.
And I'll choose the best HD camcorder I can get, regardless of the system or manufacturer.

Heath, you misunderstand, I posit no argument but simply my observations. I am already impressed by HDV, DV, and HiDef- not to mention film-technologies. I am indeed speculating and I made that quite clear. However, these speculations are based upon very reliable sources within the camera manufacturing industry, even then I am hesitant. The mistake you are making is in the belief that my speculation is my desire. Not so. If I see a lame duck waddling over a busy highway I may predict that it's going to get flattened, but at the same time not desire this. The more formats the better, as far as I'm concerned because I choose formats for their unique qualities, relevant to a given film project.

Bill,

No sweat.

Alexander,

I would recommend grabbing the camera if you can, and give it a test run. I had very little issues, though ripples in a lake was a bit weird with the compression. Also, it's 25 mbps to get onto mini-dv tapes so we won't have to buy an all new tape format. More money for the companies because they have DV and HDV formats using the same tapes and no R&D for said companies to develop new tapes. But here's a question: why is JVC's HD10 and HD1 19mbps?!

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Rhett Allen: It's pretty funny to think about what we will look back at in a few years and call crap. One day soon, you will all agree that both DV and HDV suck and aren't worthy anymore. -->>>

Well, digibeta has been around more than decade and it's still the only cameratape that has 10bit colors.
And I wouldn't call even analog beta a bad quality.
Their prices just never dropped. Lack of competition...

But how many p2 cards you can stick inside that pana's small hd100 camera and how many seconds you can shoot with them?

"But how many p2 cards you can stick inside that pana's small hd100 camera and how many seconds you can shoot with them? "

Toke, that's the million dollar question isn't it. But "seconds" I can't imagine
an outfit as capable as Panasonic compromising sales with something as silly as lack of storage space. But how much is this storage space going to cost?
However, a prosumer true HD camera that can deliver to an editing system
without wear and tear on the camera due to the P2 card aquisition is going to be quite desirable. Also I think the data can be captured to the NLE on the fly.

<<<-- Originally posted by Bill Anderson : "But how many p2 cards you can stick inside that pana's small hd100 camera and how many seconds you can shoot with them? "

Toke, that's the million dollar question isn't it. But "seconds" I can't imagine
an outfit as capable as Panasonic compromising sales with something as silly as lack of storage space. But how much is this storage space going to cost?
However, a prosumer true HD camera that can deliver to an editing system
without wear and tear on the camera due to the P2 card aquisition is going to be quite desirable. Also I think the data can be captured to the NLE on the fly. -->>>

So ultimately, the current position for anyone wanting to have personal low-cost access to technology that's capable of providing High Definition content of (at the very least) broadcast quality at the highest form factor of 1080i would be to take the Sony FX-1/Z1 HDV route.

If anyone feels that the ability to create video straight from the cam that could be broadcast alongside any other 1080i material from any other source without anyone being any the wiser is a decidedly poor return for the monetary investment, they have the right to do so.

For those who feel that being able to provide broadcast standard High Definition from a lower cost perspective than any previously available option has no future; well......you're entitled to your opinion.

If you decide that you would prefer to shoot HD video that's well beyond the highest level currently available (and for many, many years to come), then you do the right thing to steer clear of HDV.

Perhaps one of the major Corporations will, one day, provide the equipment you feel will satisfy your requirements.

Normally I prefer sitting on the fence - but not when the fence gets so high my feet can't touch the ground.....

So, yeah; I do have an FX-1.......

BTW Do you have to be a technologist to see the writing on the wall, or a linguist to determine what's actually written?

Obviously the FX1 isn't perfect, but I like what Steve Crisdale pointed out:

The fact of the matter is that the FX1 is a higher quality (less compressed at least) source of High Definition content than broadcast HD.

The only feature I really wish was different at this point in time is a true progressive mode - but in my mind the Cineframe modes, or the possibility of adaptive de-interlace from 1080i are sufficiently good to perform better than the DV-only offerings from other companies.

I'm glad that Sony chose to use the miniDV tape system for this camera. It greatly reduces the cost of shooting, and provides cheap and easy storage of my video. I didn't buy this $5000 camera so that I could dump more money into every other aspect of my production. As a stand-alone product (w/ a little software) the FX1 is an amazing piece of hardware.

-Steve

Quote by Heath McKnight: "I would recommend grabbing the camera if you can, and give it a test run. I had very little issues, though ripples in a lake was a bit weird with the compression."

I saw the clip from the sony of this guy who fires various automatic rifles and I was of course blown away by the level of detail and the color reproduction. However, when the cameraman pans around rifle-man I saw a quite notable jitter . The sky is clouded in the video so it's hard to judge how the sony can handle a bigger latitude, or true low-light situations.

I'm glad that we got the possibility to shoot high definition video for such a killer price but I'm getting a little nervous when I think about shooting fast motion and scenes in low-light with the sony. That's torture......

All the talk about the F1/Z1 seems to be about the HD. The Z1 will also do SD, DVCam at 60i, 50i, 30, 25 and 24 frames(I know not real 24), SMPTE, XLR inputs. Plus its real 16:9 and 4:3 (maybe it crops that). It seems like it has alot of choices and options.

I have read from two video to film transfer houses that they say to shoot 16:9 at 60i for best results. If so do you even need the 24P?

I think the HDV is still a few years off but at least the Sony gives you the choice. Not sure if its better than the DVX or the XL2, but I would guess it's going to be a nice camera to use.

My choice between the 3 cameras is not getting any easier!!

Alexander Benesch, i think the video your talking about was posted by rsilvers. i too, saw the jitter you were talking about. now check this out. the video was mpeg4, so i took it into after effects and rerendered it as a regular quicktime mov. wa la. most of the jitter was gone except for the jitter that was naturaly caused from the kick back of the gun. even when i play it back at 1920x1080 it still looks sharp and clear. this just goes to show you what you can do when you have high quality video to work with. i can't wait to see the first movie in a theater that is shot with this camera.
(hope it's mine_

Darrell Essex wrote: "Alexander Benesch, i think the video your talking about was posted by rsilvers. i too, saw the jitter you were talking about. now check this out. the video was mpeg4, so i took it into after effects and rerendered it as a regular quicktime mov. wa la. most of the jitter was gone except for the jitter that was naturaly caused from the kick back of the gun. even when i play it back at 1920x1080 it still looks sharp and clear. this just goes to show you what you can do when you have high quality video to work with"

True, that video was about 2 minutes long and compressed down to just a meager 100 mb in size.
I'm in pre-production of a movie that contains some very fast motion scenes, low light situations and a scene that even has strobe lighting. I ask a freakin' lot of a HD cam under 5000 Euros but I'm too fascinated by HD to reconsider the format.
I'm currently editing on a triple-head system with AvidExpress pro and I'll upgrade it to handle either HDV or Panasonic's format.

I intend to rent a sony unit and shoot some test-footage with it; maybe I'll be happy with the results.

<<<-- Originally posted by Bill Anderson: But "seconds" I can't imagine -->>>

If pana's eng camera has room for 4 cards + 1 for offline quality, the small camera might have room for 2 cards.
4GB each means 687 seconds of dvcpro100.
If we get 8GB cards in 2006, then it's still less than 23 minits.
But you could change cards on the fly, so I would take that kind of system.

Even at 8 Gigs a card--the cost to have enough cards to continously shoot all day is going to be astronomical. Everyone keeps saying the flash media is dropping in price, but it hasn't happened enough, not yet anyway.

what you would need is to have your computer on location so you could swap cards every few minutes.
? if you just had firewire external hard drives, you would still be able to transfer the uncompressed video on to them wouldn't you?
then when you get to your main system with a fast raid, you could move the files over.
does this sound like it would work?

Could, it's just one more person to have on hand to transfer files all day... but possible.

My guess is that JVC held the data rate low to make the TS fully compatable with the broadcast ATSC stream (19.6 Mb/s maximum I think).

I used to be a 1080i fan, but I am being converted to 720p. No problem converting frame rates - stills look great - etc. With Fox going 720p, the big 4 networks are now split.

Also - it's tough to evaluate interlaced material on a progressive monitor (motion-wise). Things just don't look the same.

Interesting discussion though!

Cranking up the speed on a DV tape might solve many problems, Tapes are still cheap, but only 30 minute capacity for that totally lightweight-mobile solution. Wireless-G can handle 54MBps (maybe??), which would allow a wireless cam-to-computer link for direct storage and no capture before editing. Could easily be the preferred mode for studio work.. And a portable 1TB disk smaller than a battery pack (or including a battery pack) is just over the next horizon, which would give 30-40 hours of record time and no capture/transfer, while being more mobile than a computer. Sony could go to a 4-6 GOB, and JVC could go to 1080p with capacity to spare. Maybe even have room for a better audio compression mode too.

I think thats gonna be my prediction for next generation HDV. LOL :)

Personally, I hope the HD broadcasting favours 1080i... I don't really care about interlaced video, but I do want the standard for film transfers to be to 1080 @ 24p. I'd be really sad to see the industry favour a 720p format in the long term.

While I bought an FX1, I consider it an intermediate camera until a true 1920x1080 24p camera with minimal or no compression comes out.

-Steve

So, you don't really favor 1080i then...you're in favor of a 1080p standard... Which, hey, if we could have the best of both worlds (progressive scan with the temporal motion characteristics of both 24fps and 60fps plus 1920x1080), who wouldn't be for that? But now you're talking a whole crap load (that's a technical term of course) of information for our computers to choke down

<<<-- Originally posted by Steven White : While I bought an FX1, I consider it an intermediate camera until a true 1920x1080 24p camera with minimal or no compression comes out.>>>

Expect to wait a decade, at least.

<<<-- Originally posted by John Galt: Cranking up the speed on a DV tape might solve many problems, Tapes are still cheap, but only 30 minute capacity for that totally lightweight-mobile solution. -->>>

If you use 80min tapes, you get 40 minits and that seems to be enaough for digibeta and hdcam cameras, so what's the problem?

<<<-- Originally posted by Davi Dortas : <<<-- Originally posted by Steven White : While I bought an FX1, I consider it an intermediate camera until a true 1920x1080 24p camera with minimal or no compression comes out.>>> Expect to wait a decade, at least. -->>>

Or untill March. Sumix with Altasens should be out then. Then all we need is someone like Decklink to manufacture portable hard disks with hd-sdi and that's it...

<<<-- Originally posted by Toke Lahti :
If you use 80min tapes, you get 40 minits and that seems to be enaough for digibeta and hdcam cameras, so what's the problem? -->>>

It works for me. Thats why I think that will be generation HDV2 (along with a direct-capture of some sort).