What do you think about HDV broadcasting vs DVX100a?
 

Someone was saying that DVX100 was not broadcast quality. What does everyone think? Would the new HC1 or the FX1 be broadcast quality?

I would say that DVXes being used in shows all the time would lend to the idea that it was broadcast quality. And the Z1 (or FX1) had a shot in JAG that got broadcast, which would lend one to think it was broadcast quality...

I am not sure what you mean. That response I found slightly confusing.

'Broadcast quality' is essentially an arbitrary term, since footage from almost any kind of camera can and has been used for broadcast purposes. Most people with access to more expensive cameras would probably say that current HDV cameras aren't broadcast quality, but again that's an arbitrary statement. In general, higher-quality "broadcast" cameras typically have expensive lenses and large imaging sensors, something you won't find in 'prosumer' cameras costing under $5000. But when I play footage from a Sony FX1 directly on my HDTV, it looks a heck of a lot better than typical 'broadcast quality' TV images. Go figure.

Dear Mandy,

The previous poster was saying that video from BOTH cameras can be seen on broadcast television; therefore they are both "broadcast quality".

Example: Reality shows frequently shoot with the DVX100.

Sincerely,

Steph

And in a recent book I was reading, the term 'broadcast quality' was coined by television engineers to describe video that was 'legal' to broadcast with respect to the technical limitations of NTSC video. Has nothing to do with how pretty the picture is.

But a lot of people try to associate it with the latter. Like Kevin stated, it's a rather arbitrary term when used in that context.

-gb-

PD-150's have been extensively used for broadcast. You might find the following interesting regarding the BBC's view of the Z1:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost....24&postcount=1

The JVC JY-HD10 was broadcast quality as an audition camera for American Idol.

I guess the important thing would be to ask what one would be broadcasting too...

For SD transmissions, viewed on SD only capable devices there wouldn't be much visible quality difference. Any SD source material broadcast on and to HD capable devices is always going to look inferior.

That doesn't mean that the SD material isn't 'broadcast quality' however.

The whole reason for the advent of HDV (which seems to be something that continually gets shunted into the shadows as irrelevant) was the increasing number of HDTV owners who were perceived by major electronics firms as a worthy market for cameras which would complement displays that SD cameras largely failed to support to their full capacity. So, it's truly owners of HDTVs that got this whole 'affordable HD' camcorder thing under way.

What HDV offers, is exactly the same (or so close it's only the pedantic who'll want to quible about it) level and format of video that the majority of broadcasters are sending to air. Get yourself a STB or DVB-t card and see what the feed is... MPEG2 ts of no more than 19.3Mbit in either 720p, or 1080i.

SD sent to air on HD channels is up-scaled, so artifacting is often visible, but the simple fact is that it's being broadcast.

BTW, here in Australia I've been noticing radically more HDV material being used, largely from the FX-1e/Z1, but even HD-10 stuff... and I noticed Mythbusters uses some HD-10 material in newer episodes I've seen.

I'll echoe those responses that have already stated that "broadcast quality" isn't necessarily all about 'the image', but it is also dependent on the ability and learnedness of the stations technicians in dealing with their source material.

Whew.... Steve,

Must admit I didn't understand much of any of what you said, but thanks for posting to those who do.

My "theory" is based on economics. Most content producers know that the number of folks with HD televisions will increase every year. Can you say syndication? They want the original video to be shot in a format that will be usable to the most numbers of sets, without having to spend the money to dub up to HD.

Just MHO,

Steph

Hmmm... Sorry for being so 'obtuse' and 'verbose'. I guess, put simply - HDV was devised by the manufacturers of HDTVs and HD display devices to capitalise on a growing market. The happy co-incidence for HDV camcorder purchasers was that HDV is basically "broadcast quality", because anything less would've looked crumby on HDTVs.

I'd be certain the reason Canon appears to be moving one hell of a lot faster to get their HD/HDV offering out, is the impact the FX-1/Z1 will have had on their market. You seriously going to buy a SD only camcorder if you own a lovely 32" or larger 16:9 HDTV?

Unlike Canon, Panasonic does produce HD TV sets and other related electronics gear, so their response can afford to be a little more measured. I suspect they'll be targeting what they perceive as a 'gap' in the FX-1/Z1 market, i.e. the broadcast networks' desire for higher spec'd equipment than ordinary consumers are able to purchase.

TV stations were initially more than against using HDV camcorders. Some were hostile. I don't pretend to be an expert, or that I know all there is to know about what is, or is not possible. What struck me as illogical was the negative attitude by broadcasters to a video stream that was 'exactly' what was being sent to air.

From observation of HD broadcasts here in Oz, that attitude seems to be rapidly changing. To a large extent, I must agree with you that economics is driving the developments that those with the vision to recognise it are seeing right now.

Let's just hope a new batch of economic factors don't bring things to a grinding halt...