I don't think you are accurately responding to my issue. HDV is called a "format". HDV is defined as HD MPEG-2 written to tape. The file on the hard-drive is not "the format". "The format" is the tape speed, type, size datarate etc in the recording medium the format defines. Every HDV camera has a HDV tape deck. Otherwise, it would not be HDV but a MPEG-2 camera...

Your points about low-cost HD and forum feature demand are all well-stated, but they don't really address the issue other than confirming my point that HDV is now more a "multi-format standard" like "HD" and not a "format" like "DVCPro-HD:"

How do you arrive this conclusion? I fail to see any connection between contentment with HDV and computer skills....

How?

Because those who are capable of extracting the most from such a new 'format' as HDV, are those willing to experiment with the software, rather than expecting an "out of the box" solution.

A HDV camcorder will provide playback functionality via it's tape deck with a HDTV. In that sense it fulfills it's major function of providing HD quality video to be viewed on an appropriate viewing device.

To get more out of HDV of any flavour, it's up to the capabilities of computer and software.

As for confirming that HDV is more a "mulit-format standard" like "HD" not a format like "DVCPro-HD", I'd imagine that would only be natural as HDV wasn't ever designed to be like "DVCPro-HD" or DV or Digi-Beta or...

If it truly was; as all the early HDV press releases stated, designed as a "format" to provide 'low-cost' HD level video suitable for viewing on HDTVs - which are all (or should all be) capable of 720p and 1080i playback either native or scaled, then surely it has lived up to it's original intention... Aberations such as JVC's 24p inclusion are sweeteners which the increasing sales momentum of Sony's HDV offerings have cajolled from the competition in order to be competitive.

Again. If you don't appreciate what's being offered with these camcorders... and the format known as HDV appears too convoluted and "broken" to you - don't buy into it, or wait until something comes along to change your mind.

BTW, HDV camcorders are actually very much MPEG2 cameras!! Each HDV spec'd camcorder has a Mini-DV tape deck capable of recording MPEG2 transport stream high level video of either 720p or 1080i. The deck was included purportedly to allow the use of cheap Mini-DV tape cassettes, and some degree of DV backward compatibility.

HDV has the same data rate as DV, so about 13GB per hour or basically three standard-size DVDs. If it costs ~$5-6 to store that on a hard drive versus $1 or so on DVD, what's your time worth to split a one-hour project into three pieces, burn three discs and keep track of those when you need to retrieve the video in the future? Disc-based storage will make more sense when we can buy 15 GB HD DVDs at a reasonable price

Again, that point is fine, but that's not what this discussion is about. It's about the HDV format created by Sony, Canon, JVC is broken. Let me quote from the official site:

Tokyo, Japan, September 30, 2003 - Canon Inc., Sharp Corporation, Sony Corporation, and Victor Company of Japan, Limited (JVC) today announced that the specifications which realize the recording and playback of high-definition video on a DV cassette tape have been established as the “HDV” format.

I don't know how else I can make this point clear.

BTW, you are incorrect that I or probably many others "lack" the necessary computer skills to adopt HDV - I think there are many other reasons people have hesitated to buy the camera and/or adopt the format. I worked full-time in the computer field for ten years designing and managing networks for publishing companies. I currently still do some part-time IT consulting (pays bills better than video production in my neck of the woods).

But now I'm primarily a filmmaker and am currently working on a 1080p uncompressed HD experimental short for blow-up to 35mm and IMAX which is being created 2/3 in computer and the rest with composited DVX footage because I can't afford a CineAlta or Viper rental...I would say I probably push the computer digital video envelope just fine.

I have not bought a HDV camera because of the cameras (Sony are interlaced only and too many HDV artifacts, JVC and Canon have unappealing lens choices for my needs, JVC some glitches as well). I'm leaning to the HVX though still shopping and waiting to see what other options pop up.

The discussion here is not about any of these things though, it's about the wider pro, post and shooter markets that are going to run into issues with playback and transfer of tapes, and yes there are people there that lack computer expertise. However, as a former IT professional, I know the success of a format depends on ease of use for the non-expert.

"HDV" as a format is broken in this important area unless strong action is taken to clarify, re-integrate and move it forward.

Without a strong prosumer and pro base, Sony, Canon, JVC might not sell enough cameras (outside of some people on DVInfo and other niche area) for the format to sustain itself over the long haul.

And if people start getting a sour taste in their mouth with problems, that will be tough to market out of.

Given the rate of change, full HD recording with HDV-like compression may arrive soon enough to quickly obselete HDV, but then again, perhaps not.

I'll assume your not serious in believing that the prosumer/pro market is bigger than the consumer/prosumer market?

The pyramid of wealth distribution doesn't have such steep sides, and the steps at the base are very wide indeed. HDV (as executed in Sony's HDV camcorders) has very successfully tapped into that market. You may notice that Sony's releases haven't had to add competitive enhancements that extend or warp or pollute the HDV spec like JVC, Canon and Panasonic are having to do.

Those added enhancements - that in some cases mean the camera wouldn't be used as a HDV camcorder anyway, should have been thoroughly examined for ease of integration by anybody seeking to use these cameras in a more "professional" manner than was originally intended with the earliest HDV camera releases. If an individual espouses professionalism; and then proceeds to show little, if any, by buying into a new technology without thorough immersion in every possible permutation of viability in attaining a hoped for goal... they deserve to believe it's the equipments fault.

Those who know what they are dealing with - those with solutions, skill, the desire to succeed while others procrastinate, work-arounds and patience seem to be able to come to grips with what HDV has to offer to them... regardless of whether someone, anyone - whoever they are matters not a jot... has declared the format "broken".

Like I said, "if you don't like HDV - no one is forcing you to buy into it!!"

Hopefully the HVX will be exactly what you're after as it isn't a HDV camcorder.

Probably one of the most astute comments I've read about any camera format in a long, long, time.

HDV is not yet a "consumer" cam IMHO - you need $500 or less before it's that mass market.

I disagree completely - for some reason he's completely, although as pointed out eloquently, off-topic. The discussion here was never about the enterprising, astute, innovative, cutting edge or pushing the envelope here.

It's about the state of perception of the HDV format by people other than those pushing the HDV envelope.

But just like the vast majority of people are not going to build their own steadicams or mini35 rigs, if HDV continues to require a lot of "hassle" for broad adoption, it risks losing momentum.

The stated 2003 HDV format is broken and eloquence is unlikely to fix it :)

however, some quick engineering and PR by Canon, Sony and JVC would...

According to one recently published survey, HDV has already surpassed all other HD formats combined in terms of percentage of video production companies using it. (I don't have the reference handy, but it shouldn't be too hard to find.) HDV is cheaper to record than other HD formats using tapes available almost anywhere in a pinch, is more widely supported by video editing programs, is already supported for playback on a handful of affordable players, and will be much more widely supported for archiving and playback in the future. So HDV has already taken over as the de facto low-cost HD production solution, and is in a position to maintain that role for at least the next several years. Not bad for a format with a few complications when using specialized variations of the standard specifications, but no one's requiring people to use those variations.

HDV is about to become very widely used, so might as well start understanding how to deal with its quirks and limitations.

You think that HDV users (including the earliest adopters) were HDV format believers right from the word go?! Perhaps you also believe that HDV format camcorder users have no free will or that they were duped by "the glossy brochures" and "slick web-sites"...

There'd be many current HDV exponents who doubted the formats' capacity to deliver, but were prepared to be open minded about it. I was one. HDV had to prove itself as a means of gathering and processing digital video information, worthy enough in it's returns, of my committment in time, effort and monitary investment.

For the majority so far, it has lived up to these underlying expectations.

The truth is that HDV is just another form of video. Who cares whether it has a number of sub-flavours or not.

If a user achieves the result they desire or require from the HDV format flavour of their choice; and they then discover that they have even greater flexibility in shooting modes, colour spaces, transcoding options, storage and delivery methods - all from their single HDV camcorder purchase linked to a reasonably capable computer system - I'd think they'd be more pleased than cheezed!!

I don't think too many of us are all that concerned whether the stated 2003 HDV format has been amended, stretched, tweaked, altered or extended.

Mighty big call though: to say that your perception of HDV is matched by everyone who isn't already using HDV.

Crikey!! They'd better stop buying into it in such large numbers then!!

Hmmm. Maybe you should rethink this as an argument. There were and are no other low-cost (or even medium cost) HD formats, so it's HDV by default, for now as previous HD gear required a investment of $100k and much, much more for cam, deck and lenses.

There is no reason that another format or tech can't come out, then we discuss numbers and user base. For now, the only valid comparison in HDV vs. miniDV. Comparing HDV to CineAlta's or Varicams installed base is not informative.

Please re-visit my original post here. All I'm saying is that because HDV is cheap and makes HD shooting accessible for lots of people, once a lot of people shooting it,, archiving it, transferring it and expecting it to be a "format", there's a potential for backlash once it reaches critical mass.

I never argued that HDV won't sell lots of cameras or that people are going to use it. If that were the case, my argument would't even exist because it would be a small, niche product and could afford to do whatever it wanted.

But if HDV is going to rack up miniDV like sales and market penetration, user expecation education and easy ways to deal with the "variants" will need to occur.

See my reply above. And my argument's weight increases the more the cams are sold and the more people need services (post, screenings, transfer) off their HDV tapes.

Plus, unless you have numbers that HDV cams are wildly outselling XL2, DVXs, PD170s etc. it's not really an issue yet.

I live in average US city (Greensboro, NC) and we have a sprinkling of HDV users here - , mostly Z1/FX1 (no HD100's that I know of yet). Dozens and dozens of DVX, XL Series and Sony VX/PD/DSR.

Blue-Ray and/or HD DVD may end up being the solution but right you have to be blinded by the technology to see that this is not an pending issue.

Then the people who'd constantly NEED those sort of services are the people who shouldn't consider a HDV camcorder.

There's a lot of others who don't constantly NEED those sort of services in order to get the most from their HDV camcorders.

As for numbers - I too would be keen to see the HDV unit sales figures, now that the FX-1/Z1 have had nearly 12 months of sales. I remember seeing a post of early sales figures that indicated massive financial returns from initial sales of the FX-1, so it'd be nice to know where things stand now.

I take it you're accounting for the short period of time that HDV camcorders have been available, when you describe the sprinkling that you've seen. One wonders how long the DVX, XL, VX/PD/DSR owners will hold out before going to either HDV or one of the other lower cost permutations that are either with us or soon will be.

In the end; does it matter how long they take? Not really. If they enjoy what they're doing - Fine!!

As for being blinded by technology - It's definitely not as bad as being blinded to technology!!

In my admittedly unscientific sample over the years, the majority of potential users of any tech do need it. If HDV starts selling like miniDV, some company will probably step in to deal with the issue as it could be very profitable.

maybe but then again if we are talking about the a-bomb and global warming, may not :)

It would take an extraordinary development with tremendous support across both the video and computer industries for anything to replace HDV as a widespread video solution within the next few years. The fact that HDV isn't one consolidated format may be a nuisance, but the two main flavors will be easily handled and everything else will be niche situations that (as you say) can take care of themselves. Yeah, it's a pain that the tapes aren't readily exchangeable, but that just means people will have to learn to copy things to other media when sharing HDV data.

Okay, but backlash to what? SD video is on its last legs, and there isn't anything on the horizon to compete with HDV for cost-effective high definition video production. Perhaps the problem here isn't HDV so much as it is the loose definition of HD in general, which inherently creates more issues for HD work than we've had for SD. Changing from HDV to some other HD recording solution won't eliminate that problem.

That seems like a fair statement, depending on how HDV is implemented for a truly large-scale market. You may have a point that it's going to take some doing to be able to handle HDV footage from a variety of sources, but that's a logistically solvable problem. I don't count on being able to play DV tapes from other people's cameras if they can't provide the camera, so it's not a big leap of faith to deal with the same problem for HDV.

Really? I do and have for many years as do most people that shoot DV. I've only see an issue with LP mode not working or playing back DVCam etc. in miniDV decks.

Not sure if I agree. The data rate chosen for HDV is due the tape speed and capicity of miniDV and is limiting. Computers now (and certainly down the road can handle much more).

My guess is that very soon higher data rate HDV (which may or may not be backwards compatible with HDV and may or may not be called "HDV" e.g. "ProHD") will obsolete current HDV.

I could be wrong...

Where'd you get the notion that HDV's existence is due to the tape speed and capacity of mini-DV?

The fact that Broadcast HD is no greater than 19.3Mbit MPEG2 transport stream, was a happy coincidence. Why look to replace a currently available piece of technology that could be refined to take next generation data?

You definitely seem to be one of those who are hung up on the fact that HDV isn't providing what you want - so it must be "broken"... there's got to be something wrong with IT!!

For people like yourself, the HVX-200 will be just the ticket... maybe, because you'll no doubt find something there to make it fall just short of what you're after... maybe the P2 cost, or capacity, or problems with processing DVCPRO-HD and how the format at such high bitrates needs computer power that's beyond your budget.

It may take a while; but the logic of avoiding HDV if it's not to your taste - until something you know will fit your needs hits the market, seems to be beyond some folks comprehension.

Does lack of comprehension make someone wrong?... Hmmm...

???? It is. They needed to get one hour of HD on DV cassette (http://www.canopushdv.com/abouthdv/compress.html)

You still seem to be completely misunderstanding my post. It is not about "why I'm avoiding HDV" - if I wanted one of the HDV cameras, I would have it here now and still making the same point that the format is "broken". I would be making the point even louder...

I don't how many billions of way to explain it..."HDV" is no longer a format. It's three in mine (some people here say 2).

Statistics can be bent, we should all know that. In the poll citing the number of production facilities using HDV, could it be they counted ever mom and pop production "house" and every kid with a JVC single chip camcorder? Stats can lie. Just so we get that out in the open.

I really don't think anyone who is using HDV is happy (not if they are honest) with the actual workflow they have had to adopt. Premiere users need plugins or extra apps to get and/or transcode footage to an editable format and likewise to get it back out - I know Adobe has their own, subcontracted codec for this but still, it's an after thought if it's a plugin. Avid still can't work with several deck/camera pieces - no control of the JVC HD100 camera via 1394, no control of the BR-HD50 via any means, etc.

The main exception in the workflow is Sony Vegas and let's face it, Vegas is great but not one of the mainstream editing apps. It surely is perhaps 3rd of 4th now in sales but that's only really because we can't work with Avid or Premiere nearly as easily as Vegas.

I may have to move from Avid to Vegas if this mess keeps up. Lot's of folks are abandoning the Avid ship for FCP and Vegas, not because they want to but because they have work to get done in this format their clients keep asking about.

No matter how the semantics break down, it's still a mess. Getting better, but still a mess.

Sean McHenry

Yes, but it's also what makes HDV the ideal format for widespread high-definition recording, since (in theory) almost any DV camera model could be converted to HDV for a modest cost. And since HDV is already widely supported for editing and will soon be supported for archiving and playback on HD DVD discs and players, it becomes an unbeatable combination of practicality and cost-effectiveness as we move into the HD era, even with the limitations raised as the premise of this thread.

If the world doesn't want to deal with the quirky variations of HDV they'll be marginalized to niche uses, and it's not hard to see that coming and avoid it if you don't want that problem. The two main flavors of HDV will be widely supported and hopefully fairly consistent; it may be a nuisance that it's not a single unified format, but that won't change much. The original premise of this discussion is a good one, but if anything it just means the odd variations of HDV have limited chance of becoming widespread.

They needed? They were happy at the confluence of what was currently available and it's ease at integrating into the new hardware. To look at only one component of the HDV equation as symptomatic of the engineers' goals with designing these camcorders is demeaning to their creativity in providing the equipment that they have.

Considering the brief the engineers involved in designing these first generation HDV camcorders would have faced, they've done an amazing job.

You could try for a googleplex of explainations... and even then it wouldn't matter, because you'll keep seeing what you want to see, and those of us who don't think HDV is "broken", will continue to believe in what we see.

Using your reasoning of HDV being composed of three (in your opinion) distinct 'flavours' that are (in your opinion) actually seperate formats - HDV is "broken".

Using the same criteria, there'd be many other formats that have subvariants, additions, extensions and constant refinement, that should lead to their being labelled equally "broken". By crikey!! there's stacks of them!! From avi, qt, Divx, Xvid to mpg and wmv. Are they all "broken" because they have almost as many if not more variants than HDV?

HDV has a number of HD level encoding alternatives. I see it as one format with a number of flavours - like a 'High Definition Neopolitan ice cream', that is made up of distinct flavours all in the one tub... Yum!!

You don't see that, and you never will. I'm sure you'll find the tub of single flavour HD video 'ice-cream' to suit your appetite one day... maybe...

Based on the logic of several of the previous posts, mpeg 4/H.264/AVC is "broken" too.
What's the point of this particular debate, guys? It's going nowhere very fast. Expressing points of view is one thing; arguing about whether the format is viable is not what the forum is about, and certainly a meaningless argument. The format, with its various flavors is here, its successful, and its growing in number.
Maybe arguing about the color of the clouds due to global warming will have more merit? Either way, how about cooling the rhetoric in this thread and get back to the actual subject.

I agree with Douglas. It's a bit pointless to go on further in this one for me.

I will leave this thread saying simply that if you follow the actual HDV specs and find the camera/deck that is in the format you want to use, and you can finds a path through the NLE mine field, go for it and be happy.

All the other side "formats" like 720p24 are a bonus, if you can make use of them. I will say I am looking seriously at learning Vegas as they seem to have theis HDV thing pretty well wired right now.

Sean McHenry

Beats me at this point. I was trying to discuss the narrow issue of the "format" being broken which people who understandably passionate about HDV seem to be taking it as "HDV" is broken and therefore people should not buy it. The only people who should considering postponing decisions on HDV equipment are places like large post house, transfer houses, film festivals or other place that would need numbers of decks to process tapes. Hopefully, a number of new decks will be announced by NAB 2005 and the issue well sorted out by then.

My original post was just about vendors (Sony, Canon, JVC) being far more proactive on engineering and PR to address the incompatibilities or someone else stepping in and doing so.

I agree that this horse has been beaten into a pulpy goo and we should move on to the next post 'n rant :)

The Sky is "broken"!!... The Sky is "broken"!! :)

I saw "Sky" ver 1.1a just recently. They fixed the occasional leakage problem and adjusted the user interface to a slightly less blue color. Overall, I wouldn't consider it an improvement but an option for those interested in playing with a new format.

Problem is, Microsoft is involved so there will be bugs. The Open Source community is attempting to fix any issues that come up but various branches now each have their own versions that are all slightly different colors and are more user adjustable. This will likely lead to incompatibilities between various atmospheres but hey, it's all Oxygen based so I think we will be able to find a nice workflow to make it all wash in post.

Hey, if we can't have some fun, what's left?

Sean

Are you SURE it's Oxygen-based? I know Ophrah has been buying a lot of media outlets, but I hadn't heard she'd purchased SKY yet? I'm sure the price was stratospheric if nothing else.
She's got the cash.

If she and M$ ever merge, oh man. Throw in George Clooney and that's the end of the world as we know it.

Sean : )

PS, Saw "Good Night and Good Luck". Very very nice. Also check out "Stay" if you get a chance. Interesting transitions for film.

Hey Douglas, we could use your help here:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...d=1#post383550

SMM

AMEN Brother!!!

And what's this about Oprah and Microsnot merging?

Change that line in the Beatles song then... "She came in through my program Windows, protected by a corporate loon"...

Will we be upgrading to Sky V2.003b in the near future? What hardware requirements are expected for those wanting to upgrade? Will upgrade cost be affordable relative to productivity and performance gains? Will there be backward compatability with previous Sky versions?

I'm wondering whether I should wait for a new sun too rise before I buy into this new Sky...

Sorry, as your hardware is showing increased age and performance degradation, we aren't recommending anything beyond SKY 1.0.42 for your planet.

Should you wish to upgrade in the future, you will need to thoroughly clean and replace SKY ver 1.o which you are now abusing with cluttered code and obscure spurious RFI emissions. This should be followed by a complete rebuild of Lakes and Streams, your current version is .97.3

After that your application can be reviewed for compliance and completeness.

Good luck.

Sean

God... So you mean that unless we defrag our current bug riddled SKY version and offload valuable processing load to reduce strain on the already overtaxed resources, we'll never see SKY V2.0?!!

It'll just be vapour ware then!! Don't you just hate when you get swept up in the winds of change, only to be dumped into the rubble those same winds created...

Somehow I feel this thread is destined for Area 51...

you're up early, reading my mind as to where it should be split and sent into the ether.

I am up *relatively* early. To Area 51 it definitely will be going.

Yeah...sorry about the drift. All done diverging now. My original intent was to show a similarity in the current state of HDV and other software. And we strayed. Sorry Chris. I do that.

Sean

I think what you are trying to say is that the technology of high definition in general is completely broken. When a new technology is introduced no matter what the technology is or how good it is it is not readily accepted by everyone. I thought high definition would be an exception to this basic rule because you can see with your own eyes how good it is. But the fact is that if a person is not ready for high definition he will indeed turn a blind eye to it. The critic will say that high definition is unwatchable because it shows the wrinkles and makes the actors look ugly.

There is no doubt in my mind that when color television was first introduced that there was fierce opposition to the format. The first objection was that color television was not backwards compatible with black and white television.
It was then said that only the very wealth would ever be able to afford color television and that it would never achieve any sort of significant market share.

That was actually said about television in general prior to World War Two, and back then it certainly was true as far as anyone could foretell.

That's odd: I've edited hours of HDV in Avid Xpress Pro HD with few problems (the primary one being that it sometimes loses contact with the camera while capturing). Why would I want to switch to Vegas?

As for HDV as a format, it does everything I need it to other than giving me a usable master format... you don't want to recompress to MPEG-2 after editing.

The difference with HDV is that 4 incompatible / semi-incompatible colour TV formats have been put to market, and you can't watch/edit/dub etc. from one to the other. What if Beta and VHS had the same sized cassette shells, and the same logo on them, but were incompatible? Well, that's practically what's happening here.

Graeme