HDV is completely broken

[Steve Crisdale]

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

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.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Steve Crisdale

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".

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

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Steve Crisdale

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

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

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

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

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...

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

... if HDV continues to require a lot of "hassle" for broad adoption, it risks losing momentum...

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.

[Steve Crisdale]

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

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

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!!

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

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.

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.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Steve Crisdale

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!!

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.

[Steve Crisdale]

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

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!!

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Steve Crisdale

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

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.

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

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

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

There is no reason that another format or tech can't come out, then we discuss numbers and user base.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

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.

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.

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...

[Steve Crisdale]

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

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...

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Steve Crisdale

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

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

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!!

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).

[Sean McHenry]

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