Hey Glen,

Thanks for chiming in. One of the most frustrating things about this new format war is that it confuses clients and makes adoption of a new HD delivery standard that much slower. I think HD-DVD will win in the end just because Sony is horrible with new media they introduce in the market. The latest casualty is their UMD for movies. In the end that makes delivery of HD-DVD that much slower for us.

I had to take issue with the whole "wait til they demand it" argument because brides don't want to know how something is made. It's not on their radar. It's like me walking into my favorite sushi restaurant and asking how they made that Volcano Roll. Just not on my radar. I just don't think that client demand for HD should be an accurate measure of when to jump in.

As I've said elsewhere, keep using SD equipment until the wheels come off but when it's time to upgrade to new gear, I don't think it would be a wise investment to stay with SD.

I would concede that nonlinear reallly changed things and nothing is going to equal that as far as impact to our iindustry. I will say that HD is just as siignificant on the shooting end of things. Sure it's only better resolution and a different aspect ratio but it makes a huge difference both in it's native format and when it goes to DVD.

One of the things I've been doing is deinterlacing the clips to get rid of the video look and make it look more like film. When I did this with SD, my resolution would take a hit. That doesn't happen when I do it to my HD material. When downconverted I end up with a 480 progressive look that looks and feels more like fiilm than video. Also, the slow motion remains sharp as a tack since it's sampled at a higher resolution. Same thing goes for alot of effects that normally dull down the video. So there is an advantage of starting with more to work with even if the final delivery format is SD.

As for the low light, I think we're further along on the first gen of Sony Hd cams than we were with the first generation of DV cams. I'm looking forward to hearing what the FX-2 is going to be like and whether it is going to improve in the low light department. As is, the FX 1 does pretty well in low light and is only 2 stops down from the VX 2000 so it's not like going back to the dark ages or anything.

Anyway don't shoot in HD unless you're ready to switch and definately don't watch said footage until you're ready to edit in it. You pretty much get ruined after that :).


Chris Watson
Watson Videography
www.dallasweddingfilms.com

Those of you already shooting HDV... do you downconvert to SD in the camera and capture as DV... or are you editing native HDV or with an intermediate codec and downconverting later? For those of you downconverting to SD after the edit.. what have you found to be the best way to do this?

Respectfully, this statement violates the laws of supply and demand that control the entire world economy. Why invest 30K into technology that is not perfected, not in demand, and will be obsolete in a year or two (or whenever the next gen comes out and blows this stuff away)? That is most of the SD guys points in a nutshell. I am not saying that the current HD stuff is not better technology than SD cams, it just doesn't make sense from a financial standpoint for most wedding and event videographers and companies. That's all!!

Oh and Peter, content is king! (just thought I should slip that in for ya)

Dan, following your logic flow, none of us would ever pick up a video camera. It is never perfected, always replaced by better tech, then replaced by an entirely different format before the first batch of old tech even has a layer of dust on it... We would all be using Super 16's, or trying to get a 35.

I agree with Dan Minor for the most part.

While I agree the current crop of HDV cameras do great SD 16:9 and are valuable for that purpose, I think HDV will be improved or replaced (will have a much shorter lifespan) than SD DV does/did.

With DV there was nothing better on the horizon. HDV has MANY issues (fast motion artifacts is a big one). Sony already has XDCAM which is 35mbps and VBR (unlike HDV's 25mbps CBR encode) and Panasonic has P2. Granted neither are "affordable" for the wedding/event market that will happen and supplant HDV in a year or two (so I believe).

Now if the demand existed RIGHT NOW in the wedding market it would make sense to shoot HDV but it'll take the same year or two for blu-ray/hd-dvd for the format war and market penetration to make delivery economically viable.

In a year or two both the playback means and the format will settle, a new crop of cameras will be out with either an improved HDV codec or somthing that replaces it.

Unlike the move from Hi8 to DV, this HDV period will be much more "transient" IMHO.

People bought VX2000 came out in 2000. Those are still in service six years later and not much different than the VX2100. The DVX100 has been in service 4 years or so with only a few improvements. I don't think the "current" HDV will be the best codec available for wedding/event video in 4-6 years.

Why do you suppose TV networks are investing many millions of dollars in HD if customers don't care? Do they know something we don't?

Also, part of the point here is to provide the best quality we can for customers at a reasonable price, whether they understand to ask for it or not. Even without HD delivery there's value today in being able to produce widescreen SD output, something most DV cameras can't do well. And any new videographer can offer entry-level HD for essentially the same price it's costing old-timers to do SD, so at some point that's going to force everyone to convert to keep up. When to do so is an important business decision not to be taken lightly, but if you have an annual budget for new equipment then it may be time to start spending some of that.

UPDATE: I'm the original poster of this thread. I wound up buying a JVC HD100u. I ultimately decided it was pointless to invest more money in an SD camera when the HD100 can shoot both SD and HD, 4:3 and 16:9, etc. So far I like it a lot and find the low light to be fine -- there are a million adjustments you can make to achieve an acceptable image in poor lighting.

[QUOTE=Kevin Shaw]Why do you suppose TV networks are investing many millions of dollars in HD if customers don't care? Do they know something we don't?
QUOTE]

Because they have a viable, operable means of delivering the content to their customers in both Satellite and Cable HD offerings. We don't! You couldn't output and deliver HD to a customer who could view that now even if you wanted to. Everything is up in the air!! If I could deliver the stuff and my clients could watch it on their Blu-Ray or HD-DVD players than I might consider. I pay $10 more a month to get HD programming on Directv. That is why TV networks are investing millions of dollars in HD! The technology IS better but we can deliver it effectively and our customer are not demanding it. Why upgrade just to be able to say I shoot HD? Maybe it's an ego thing?

I'm going to offer a package that will include an HD DVD player with their wedding video. I think we have to be proactive with the new technology. Separate yourself from your competition.

I can and have, but for now the biggest benefit of shooting in HD is being able to make good widescreen DVDs. If you already own true widescreen SD cameras then that's no big deal, but few videographers do. So like I said before, there's a benefit to shooting in HD now for regular DVD output, and there will be more benefit soon when HD delivery becomes more commonplace.

If your business analysis says shooting in HD today won't gain you anything then don't do it, but start making your plans for when customer expectations change.

P.S. Better frame grabs too. Sell some prints.

Congratulations Bill! Welcome to the world of HD video production, and happy shooting.

I have two HDR-FX1 cams. The low-light has not been an issue for me. I think the FX1 provides very acceptable low-light performance. The gain is much cleaner than the GL2's I used to have, as well as the DVX100a. Last weekend was the darkest reception I had been to in a while. The first thing the photographer said to me when she walked in was "its dark in here."

I had my gain at 15dB and my shutter at 30. The picture looked alot better than I was expecting it to look when watching it back on my 57" HDTV later when I got home that night. I was impressed.

I think 16:9 adds value to my product as well. Especially as 16:9 tv's gain popularity which is happening exponentially.

Hey Bill,

Congrats on the new camera. I'd love to see some weddings shot with that cam as the 720P appeals to me. Can't wait to hear your reaction when you see the footage you shot with it on an HDTV.

Chris Watson
Watson Videography

THANK YOU BILL!!!!!

If only more people would bother to tweak the settings.. of EVERY camera in this range. then this stupid low light argument would die in the arse...

You kidding Peter? I've had it a month and I'm still playing with scene files, learning about knee and stretch... how to assign user buttons... and it is paying off big! Now, to find Jim Cantori's cameraman and learn the art of steady shots...