Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: HDV or not?

  1. Default HDV or not?

    'Opinionated Moderator' (his title, not my opinion) Mark W says in his sig :
    I have one prejudice - I am anti HDV for consumer camcorders.
    I would like to say that I disagree with this.
    I think recording in hi def is a very good idea.
    Firstly because it is better quality than standard PAL and presumably you want to record in as high a quality as possible.
    And secondly because pretty much everyone will have an HD TV before very long, so HD 1080i will be a natural format (whether burned to Blu-ray or stored on your multimedia PC) to play through our HD TVs.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Bristol uk
    Posts
    8,938
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    The following is my very personal views on HDV.

    My comments are aimed at sub 2000 camras or there abouts.

    HDV is a gimmick, seems to me it is little more than a new shiney sticker on a box to encourage us all to throw away our DV cameras in the mistaken thought that a different shiney sticker will make us all better film makers.

    It wont.

    HDV might make you a poorer (financially) film maker, it will certainly make your editing much more frustrating, it might impress your friends (the stickers at least), and... I dont think the video will look any better.

    Ponder this - consumer level camcorders never achieve anywhere near the resoloutoin and performace that is possible with standard res DV. Consumer camcorders are full of price / performance compromises that means many HDV cams perfrom very similarly to DV cameras at the same pricepoint. Picture quality is not limited (or improved) by the stickers but by the compromised lens, block and chassis.

    Big deal you might say, whats changed? Well, nothing and that is my point.

    If you want to know in general terms how well camera performs the stickers is the last thing that should impress you. What matters is it's actual performance. Anyone with access to a few cameras should try some comparisons - the results may suprise you.

    I think the most important sticker on a camera is the price - pay more, get more - but there are some superb bargains to be had on e bay, sd that is...
    Last edited by Mark W; 03-09-2008 at 03:31 PM.

  3. #3

    Default

    I feel HDV is misleading, HDV 1440x1080 at best and most is 1280x720 frame size, HD is 1920x1080. For the cost of a HDV cam your better off getting a 3 chip prosumer cam
    Wil

    Software Used:
    TGV Edius 6, TGV ProCoder 3, DVD Lab Pro. 2

    http://www.youtube.com/user/ChapmanProduction

  4. Default

    Let's face it, unless you have unrealistically deep pockets, there are compromises on every product you buy.
    I personally have not done a straight comparison between a DV and an HDV camcorder.
    I bought a Sony HDR-HC3 to film our wedding and honeymoon/family holiday in the summer of '06 and have yet had time to edit it. When I put it through our 1024x1024 oldish Hitachi TV (not HD Ready but capable of HD type resolution playback at 1024x768 ), I was amazed by the results which looked 'high definition'.

    HD Ready means quite specific things about the specification of a product. But at it's lowest resolution, it means 720p output, which I personally find excellent as I use it in our home cinema from Blu-ray through a 9 inch CRT projector onto a 7 foot wide screen. My point being not to get hung up over 720 versus 1080. If you render your video at 720p, the definition is still going to look totally awesome (or should do, and I think will). And isn't the footage from the most modern HD camcorder costing in the region of 500 going to look better (since it contains more image information) than a normal DV camcorder of similar price or a bit less)?

    I concede that things like lens, CCD and internal video processing quality will all have an effect on the final video quality, but surely 'HD' means there is more capability to store information?

    And something else important, I think anything which makes people aspire to having an HD set up is a good thing. Having experienced HD from a PC, Blu-ray and HD DVD on a big screen, I can absolutely say that the picture and sound quality are so much better that people will appreciate the improvement.
    Last edited by Spinball; 03-09-2008 at 08:54 PM.
    Stuart Wright, founder www.avforums.com

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Bristol uk
    Posts
    8,938
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    This can get confusing - HD is commonly used to refer to much more high end products.

    HDV is what we find in consumer camcorders.

    You say it should look better because it contains more information - NOPE - this is a common misconception, and an understandable one given the hype.

    The bit rare of DV is 25mbit per sec give or take.
    The bit rate of HDV is 19mbit.

    HDV has less data to spread over 4 times the pixels - luckily it uses a more complex compression algorithm thus narrowing the gap a bit, at the expense of making huge demands on editors and the possiblitly of HUGE drop outs.

    I am curently trying to get a test together of HDV v DV.

    All i know for sure is that a 700 quid hdv cam i played with perforned slightly better than my oldold sony pc4.

    My SD pro JVC wiped the floor with it oviously (7000 new) but remember those sd bargains... this pro camera cost me only 1600 with a lens. I aim to compare this with PKbristol's 4500 sony ex1, I suspect the differences will be smaller than people expect.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Bristol uk
    Posts
    8,938
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Here is a rather rough and ready picture that started my suspicions about hdv.

    Left - 700 quid hdv hard disc camera at max bit rate, 19mbit.
    Right - oldold sony pc4e, 100 quid off ebay.
    Middle - DV, but a pro camera, JVC DV5001e.

    I did this cos some of my more impressionable friends thought I should have spent the 1600 quid on a prosumer hdv cam, not my used pro jvc - they thought ANY hdv cam would better ANY dv cam - thats just silly.

    The colours look very different cos i didint manual w balance any of the cameras - I was most intersted in the comparative resoloutions - more soon.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  7. Default

    Interesting, Mark. Admittedly I know a lot more about home cinema than camcorders and video production/editing. But since we have started to produce videos (please take a look at AVForums videos), I am learning.
    We may have the opportunity to get a Pro camcorder via a sponsorship deal. The only facility we need is 2 mic inputs so we can feed the lapel mic receivers into it.
    Which JVC should we go for?


    One point you make with regard to HD being 'much more high end' - I have to disagree with this.
    It's possible to buy DVD players which upscale to 1080p for 70, Sony Blu-ray players are 260, and you can get 720p HD-Ready 20 inch LCDs for way less than 300.
    Stuart Wright, founder www.avforums.com

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    11,526
    Blog Entries
    24

    Default

    Stuart, with regards to pricing, you have to bear in mind the distinction between playback and recording. Given your background, I think it's fair to say that you experise sits firmly in the playback area. Historically, video playback has always been cheaper than high end recording (both in terms of recoding using a lens, and recording merely a signal).

    On the point of HDV, I am (suprisingly some might say) in agreement with Mark. Consumers have been force fed a multitude of numbers by the industry, and we've all lapped it up. I cringe when I hear people compare megapixels and as it shows just how succesful companies have been in spreading the wrong message. Thing is, it's easy to quanity megapixels, but lens quality is rather more qualitative.

    Yes, higher resolutions are great. But as Mark says, there's an important trade off. In order to keep manufaturing costs down, the first crop of HDV cameras used miniDV taping mechanisims. And in order to use this, they used implemented MPEG2 for editing. They also played around with the bitrate. Now sure, the more highly compressed format means the bitrate doesn't need to be as high to sustain the same data / quality ratio, but there is the increased propensity for drop outs, and also the fact that increased compression means something is lost per se; MPEG compression is lossy, so you throw data away.

    Newer generation use AVCHD (an MPEG4 codec). Theoretically the improved compression technique means the quality is better than MPEG2 at any given bitrate. Problem is the manufacturers don't use the maximum bitrate. Oh, and it's a bugger to edit.

    But it's not just due to misleading information that the consumer gets a bum deal. To get the most out of a camera, you need to know how to use it, and how to factor in the environment around you. And this education is somewhat lacking. Just as importantly, you need to be able to edit the stuff.

    I've bleeted on about this many times, but miniDV is still by far the most accessible prodcut on the market and right now other comsumer formats are either more expensive for the given quality, or very difficult to edit.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Bristol uk
    Posts
    8,938
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I think maybe I should clarify - I dont think for a moment that HDV cameras are worse than DV, just that the HDV option adds little to picture quality in cheap cameras.

    What I would love to see is a comparision of something like an hc1 shooting dv and hdv - anyone game?

    The only hdv camrea I have easy access to does not shoot in dv.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Bristol uk
    Posts
    8,938
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Bump - cos I like this thread.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •