Yes, in PAL, or 960x480 in NTSC. But this is what happens in the camera head, not what is recorded to tape, which is another thing entirely. The numbers you're quoting are for the actual image area of the CCD block, and yes it does equal native 16:9. However it must go to tape as 720x576 (PAL) or 720x480 (NTSC) because that's the limitation of the DV format. In other words, if it wasn't that size on tape, then it wouldn't be DV. Hope that's clear,

Ok, I see now. But then it happens to all DV25 and DV50 cameras, right? Like the SDX900 or DSR570 also only record 720x576 in PAL.

Something that just occurred to me. If one needs to convert HDV to another codec to finish it, what will be the deliver or distribution format?
You just convert it back to HDV? I think this would degrade the signal.

You dump it on DVD? Doesn't make much sense to use HD and then throw it back on DVD, does it?

You make a DVCPRO-HD dub?

The best way to keep the quality and resolution up, would be dumping it on HDCAM or DVCPRO-HD I think. Or if you need to project it, do it straight from a laptop in full HD resolution. But I think you would have to convert it to uncompressed quicktime or something first.
Very confusing path. But if going back to HDV is the worse idea, maybe I should not waste my money in getting a HD101E (which is the PAL version which has DV IN & OUT and cost like 500 more). I should just get a HD100E, which is the PAL version which has DV OUT only.

That's the pixels on the chip. That's not what gets recorded. A PAL DV frame is *ALWAYS* 720x576, regardless of whether it's 4:3 or 16:9.

The pixels aren't square. The 960x576 gets sampled into a 720x576 frame.

You can never have PAL DV at any resolution other than 720x576; it just doesn't exist.

960x576 on the chip, 720x576 on the recorded frame. HD 720p is still over twice as many pixels, per frame, as PAL DV is.

It definitely can happen. It just seems less likely with the JVC, because it allocates more compression bits per pixel, and especially in the 24P mode since there are 6 fewer frames per second, but the bitrate stays the same.

Again, I must disagree. The DVX had a fixed lens, and the XL1 had interchangeable -- but the mini35 on the XL1 spanked, IMO, the mini35 on the XL2. The rest of the imaging chain was plenty strong enough to overcome any limitation caused by shooting through the Leica lens vs. shooting through the XL1's relay lens. I expect that similar results may be possible: shooting 1080/24p on the HVX with 4:2:2 color will probably (not guaranteed, but probably) far outweigh any disadvantage caused by shooting through its onboard lens. Of course a removable lens would even make it better still, but based on my experience with the DVX/mini35, I think I'm on safe ground here.

The 960x576 gets sampled off the CCD into a 720x576 grid. All DV, whether 4:3 or 16:9, uses the same grid (720x480 NTSC, 720x576 PAL). The difference is not in the # of pixels, it's in the shape of them (DV pixels are never square).

Welcome to the wonderful world of HD distribution. In other words, there isn't really any good way to distribute HD content.

If you wanted to distribute on HDV tape, that would limit you to the maybe 100 people in the world who have some sort of HDV gear that could play 24p HDV (which would be the HD100 or BR50 deck, as nothing else will play it).

If you wanted to distribute on DVCPRO-HD tape, well... there's probably only about a thousand of those decks out there, and very few are in end customer hands.

If you wanted to distribute on HDCAM, there are none in customer hands, only at larger production companies.

You could think about distributing on D-VHS, there's probably a thousand of those in the US. Versus something like a hundred million DVD players and three hundred million VHS decks...

So, basically, tape is a pointless method for distribution. I think everyone's looking at five years in the future when blu-ray or HD-DVD might have some market penetration -- probably 10%, maybe as much as 20% of households may have one or the other.

Which is why everyone looks at distributing on DVD. DVD may be standard-def only, but at least it's a universal format that everyone has. Your potential market is more like a billion or two billion people, vs. the 1,000 with D-VHS decks.

Right now if you want to distribute high-def, there are really only two ways: through broadcast (which still rules out the 93% of the US who don't have HDTVs, or the 99.99% of European customers who don't have HDTVs), or through authoring a Windows Media 9 or Windows Media 10 HD .wmv file, and expecting your customers to play back the product on their computer.

I don't see the issue with MPEG-2 artifacts. Sure, I'd prefer to be recording uncompressed HD, but unless you're shooting for a video-to-film transfer, at the end of the day your footage is almost certainly going to be shown after compression to MPEG-2 on some HD DVD format or a digital broadcast.

So it's all very well to shoot uncompressed or low-compression HD and avoid MPEG-2 compression artifacts... but if you shoot footage that would have caused MPEG-2 artifacts if you'd shot in HDV, you'll see very similar MPEG-2 artifacts when you watch your footage on a TV in its final format. So where's the benefit?

I've seen some really bad artifacting on broadcast HD using MPEG-2, when the show was shot on HDCAM or a similar high-end HD system: I'm sure the DoP and editor loved the footage they shot and edited, with trendy fast pans and three-frame cuts... but it looked like poop in broadcast MPEG-2.

So you're right: what you see in the HDV viewfinder is not what you'll see when you watch the tape. But what you see in the viewfinder on a more expensive HD camera is not what the viewer will see when it's broadcast or played from DVD either... and that's what really matters. Either way you need to be aware of the problems and avoid them by not shooting or editing in such a way that you'll cause such artifacts.

Barry, sorry for the confusion about the XL2 pixels. I saw my mistake when Chris pointed it out. I knew it was just too good to be true.

About the HVX200, as I said, it's a great camera and it's on my plans for the near future. It's just not out yet and I would like to wait till P2 prices get more practical. Maybe by end of next year I will buy one. Then I can just sell the HD100.

So, since I'm not going back to HDV, I will buy the HD100E which has DV out only. Or do you see any situations where I could need the DV in for HDV? For SD, I have a DV deck.

I see the point about HD distribuition.
But what would be the best format to master for video projection? Windows Media 10 HD? Since DVCPRO-HD or HDCAM would require the rental of a deck, Windows Media 10 HD seems like the only affordable alternative.

I was also thinking about monitoring HD. Unless using the HDV Rack, which might not be sharp enough for HD focus, I think one would need a HD monitor to work with the HD100? Or could you just monitor it out of the SD video out?
I think a HD-SD converter for a monitor is very expensive, isn't it? Might be one more hidden cost of shooting HD. Even if it's HDV.

Also, on your opinion, what type of system would be needed to record the uncompressed HD for greenscreen? As I said, storage wouldn't be that much of a problem, since it would only be the green screen shots.

Interesting.

Anybody cares to elaborate what would be the No's No's when trying to avoid compression artifacts while shooting HDV?

Mini35 soft or focus issue?
 

Great job on the footage all involved and very nice article. I admit to being finally impressed by HDV footage - perhaps my bias to 24p progressive is showing :) Plus, I can't say I cared for motion smoothing at any frame rate. It was also good to see images well exposed and composed - easier to see strengths and weaknesses. Though I don't have true HDTV monitoring on a CRT or plasma, it does look noticeably sharper than my DVX100a on my JVC TM-H150CGU.

It does seem JVC has improved MPEG motion artifact issues - perhaps also only having 24 frames helps? It would be interesting to see that tested.

However, if the clips labelled A-Flowerbed-xxxxx, to my eye the Fujinon looks sharper than the Mini35 - is that a focus issue, ground glass or something else? Noticing especially edges of her shirt/hair etc.

But, I have to say while the footage looks nice, the glass and CCD issues make it a difficult purchase for me. The Fujinon glass appears to be a a get what you pay for and appears to be more marketing than good value. JVC wanted a price point to make the camera seem like it's a sub-$10,000 cam, but clearly that is not really the case. You need to add quality glass for professional or indie work and that pushes it right up.

Hopefully, the will update the package with a decent lens option and keep the price at around $7-8K. The body-only option I think is the way to go and hopefully lens adaptors will start appearing. Then it becomes a much more compelling option.

I would have expected Canon XL series quality glass at least. Also, CCD quality issues are still an unknown variable. For Mini35 Rig users, perhaps it's a good setup, but for those looking for a complete setup well under $10K, I have to say it falls a little short of my needs and budget range.

However, the best HDV thus far to my eye. Unless you must shoot interlaced, the Sony's HDV seem much less well-suited for delivering filmic images.

Hi Michael,

That's really a topic for a separate thread. Could you please post this question in our HDV Acquisition Equipment forum? The link is: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=62

No problem Chris. Just wanted to avoid starting new threads. But you are right. This question calls for a new one.

Just as an FYI here, for anybody who is interested in this thread, we have a similar discussion in our P+S Technik forum... I might merge the two threads together... might not... but here it is in case you missed it:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=49410

Actually I would have to disagree with Barry Green. If you are a wedding videographer and are getting 1500 bucks to shoot a wedding in high definition you can very well afford to bundle a free D-VHS deck with the package. Steven Gotz gives a free high definition AVel Link Player whenever he shoots a wedding and gets paid handsomely for his services. You guys have to learn to think outside of the box.

Forgotten... I've talked about the "A-R-Walking Hands" video, just play it out to a SD TV screen and it will look as a DVD transfered from 16/35mm film. It doesn't just have the "look", it goes beyond that... c'mon take a look at it on a regular SD TV. At least this camera would be great for DVD-oriented productions.

L

I talked to wedding videographers who are shooting standard-def weddings, on 1/3" cameras, and getting $3500 per wedding. And are booked every weekend.

$1500 for a wedding would be way too cheap. And handing out a $250 Linkplayer? May work for the actual client, but what about the 10 or 50 copies of the DVD they order? Are you going to hand out $250 Linkplayers with every copy? Sorry, that model makes no sense whatsoever. May work for a one-off where you're doing a corporate video for someone who doesn't even have any sort of high-def playback system, but for something where people order tens or even hundreds of copies, it's entirely impractical.

The only practical means of high-def distribution, right now, remains WMV-HD encoded to a computer.