HDV is completely broken

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

The data rate chosen for HDV is due the tape speed and capicity of miniDV and is limiting.

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.

[Steve Crisdale]

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

???? It is. They needed to get one hour of HD on DV cassette

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).

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...

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

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.

[Sean McHenry]

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

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

What's the point of this particular debate, guys? It's going nowhere very fast.

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 :)

[Steve Crisdale]

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

Maybe arguing about the color of the clouds due to global warming will have more merit?

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

[Sean McHenry]

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

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Sean McHenry

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.

[Sean McHenry]

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

[Steve Crisdale]

Originally Posted by Sean McHenry

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

Sean

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...

[Sean McHenry]

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

[Steve Crisdale]

Originally Posted by Sean McHenry

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...

[Chris Hurd]

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

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

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.

[Chris Hurd]

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