Hd Camera Confusion
 

Hello everyone, I'm new here to this forum and I have read allot of the threads here. I own a small video production company http://www.vegasvideoproductions.com that has been using DV cameras for a few years now. We started with sony vx 2000 a fairly good consumer camera and graduated to the JVC gy-dv500u a 1/2 inch 3 ccd capture chip setup with pro end features that made the sony look like a toy. Well now we are at another jumping off point. Although none of my clients can show true HD or broadcast it they all want footage shot in it. So we are looking for the most bang for the buck. Now being new here in Las Vegas we can't just go and rent the latest cameras to test them so we have to rely on magazines and on line reviews. We have seen the Sonys fx1 and the z1u and they lack the pro end features that we have become used to. The JVC gy-100u has all the features, but I hear that it is compressed hdv and not even true hdv. And that is another thing HDV vs DV I hear that no HDV camera is even closed to true HD??? Does anyone here know. The other camera we looked at is the new canon xl h1 which is supposed to have true hd output but is 9k a bit pricey for a business looking to be profitable.If anyone here has professional experience with any of this gear your 2 cents would be greatly appreciated.

The Z1 comes from Sony's professional broadcast division. What pro end features is it lacking for your specific purposes?

The JVC HD100 is in fact "real" HDV. But you need to understand that all HDV is compressed. In fact, all of the various HD formats are also compressed... HDCAM, DVCPRO HD, etc. Compression is not a bad thing. Compression is a good thing. If it's a digital video format, then it's compressed. The question really is "how much compression and how does it hold up."

Right now HDV is the most affordable HD format, and it's also the most heavily compressed. If you want less compression, you'll need to throw money at the issue and move up to another HD format, such as HDCAM or DVCPRO HD, for a significantly higher expense.

Incorrect. HDV is in fact "true" HD, just like DV is "true" digital video. Hope this helps,

You might want to define what is meant by "true HD."

Also the Canon shoots HDV as well.

I am just an observer of developments, not a user of the new cameras.

In HDV (a tape based format) there are cameras available from Sony, now well established, JVC and Canon (both relatively new). The HDV format is highly compressed. For editing it is better to capture to an intermediate codec for the best results. There are a few nles out there that can do this with good results. Chances are you will need to upgrade your pc, (dual core processors, extra storage, HD monitor etc).

Panasonic have just launched the HVX200 which captures DVC Pro HD to a P2 card, or to a hard drive soon (ie it is a tapeless HD system). This involves a very different workflow eg clips captured on the P2 card are "ingested" onto your pc`s hard drive ready to edit at relatively high speed. There is no capture routine as with a tape based system.

There is much discussion, but relatively little hard, comprehensive evidence, about the relative merits of these cameras. This is because there is little practical experience reported so far about the newer cameras. The emerging view seems to be that they all take very good pictures, but that there are differences to consider. Different choices will be made depending on specific user needs - type of video that is shot, need or otherwise for interchangeable lens, workflow considerations and so forth.
Only you can decide that.

There are any number of places to rent in LA which is not that long a drive.

I have been shooting with a GY-DV500E (PAL land) for the last three years.
I bought a Canon XL-H1 in December. I was also considering the less expensive Sony and the JVC HD-100. I rejected the Sony first, because of the lesser resolution and the shorter lens, and I felt it was maybe a little too small and lacked a few things I wanted. The JVC has the ergonomics I´m used to and I thought a manual lens was important, but I felt that being locked to 720P (though I really wanted progressive) was dangerous because I´m doing lot´s of different programs including some sports where interlaced would be a better choice.

Now, the Canon doesn´t have a manual lens, but HD is very critical when it comes to focus so having a servo lens with auto-focus isn´t entirely a bad thing. Anyway, the Canon was the only of these three that gave me progressive and interlaced look, and thereby could be used on any project. It also has timecode in/out making me able to hook up to my friends two H1´s on multicam shoot´s. It has a SDI out, great for hooking up in a studio session and for doing uncompressed 4:2:2 recordings on indie-film work with external recorder.
It´s nice to carry and my customers thinks it looks pro.

The downside? If you went with the better VF on your JVC, this one doesn´t even come close. It´s color LCD and not even a good one. (the Sony LCD is a little better, still far from what you´re used to) There is an optional B/W CRT you might wanna consider. It´s nice to finally see some color in the field though, but you have to trust the AF and I´m sorry to say, It´s slow. It takes some time to adjust to. Never the less you are bound to love this camera when you look at the pictures it takes. It´s the most expensive of them.. yes, but if it´s gonna be your new pal for the next few years it´s probably worth it.

Your about to enter an entirely different world when it comes to quality and I think you´ll be happy with either of these cameras, but at least now you know why I chose mine.

Hope this helps. I know it´s hard to choose.

I edit HDV on a laptop with a Celeron M 1.4Ghz cpu and it is smooth and renders quickly. Yes my office NLE is a dual core machine with 4gig of ram and 1.5TB raid array, but the laptop HDV performance (AVID xpress pro) is absolutely fine. You just need to make sure the system is optimised, just like any NLE.

The one comment I keep hearing regard almost all of the HDV cameras is that the footage looks like or in some cases exceeds Digibeta. I have yet to see any SD small format DV camcorder that comes anywhere near Digibeta, yet both my Z1 and H1 produce picture that in most circumstances look better than my $40,000 Digibeta camcorder. What more do I need to say!

Thanks Guys
 

That is allot of info to process. I mentioned the true hd because I do aloot of compositing in shake and have noticed that the compression causes artifacts which make a clean matte more difficult.

Are you referring to DV compression (from the DV-500) or HDV compression ?

For keying the XL-H1 is the only one with uncompressed 4:2:2 color. You would need an external HD deck though, or capture the SDI directly into a capture card like Deck-link.

If you output to SD, HDV from tape will gain up till 4:4:4 chroma rez. when downconverting. (using a codec that can hold it )

[QUOTE=...If you output to SD, HDV from tape will gain up till 4:4:4 chroma rez. when downconverting. (using a codec that can hold it )[/QUOTE]

You don't gain anything in so far as color space. HDV is 4:2:0, what is thrown away as it goes onto tape is not added back.

Pete

The picture itself doesn´t change, but the resolution in chroma does when downconverting to uncompressed SD. Better rez. for keying.

Chroma keying in post is always done at better than the codec -- either YUV or RGB colour space. Some keyers are better than others, but that is because of handling/design improvements, not because some are working in 4:1:1 space (which none do).

HTH

GB

I´ve read this several places, but I certainly don´t wanna spread false info around. Since we´re off topic here I´ve made a new thread.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=59514