HDV Bandwagon - are you on or off? [RANT]

[Gavin Gration]

I'm wondering how many people will be feeling the need to upgrade just for the sake of it.

Most DV/DVCAM 3 chippers still have a lot to offer - I can't see ANY need to replace the format for non-broadcast work for several years.

If you're just starting out, have worn out your current kit or need to relegate it anyway then I guess that's the ideal time to jump onboard HDV.

But...HDV is tape based - How long before all tape in video is doomed? Panasonic have proved that solid state media is viable, Sony have the XDCAM machines and JVC seem to like HDD cameras (even Microdrive).

The new HDV cameras are nice to look at (bugger to use) - but that's not a good enough reason for me to think that I need one.

[johnxl1s]

i was just thinking the same thing, so if anyone wants shot of there XL1 or S or 2.
thanks
john

[Alan Roberts]

I couldn't agree more, in the consumer market. Consumers will be happy making and watching SD stuff for many years yet. It's the pro and broadcast area that should be interested now, because broadcasters and high-end pro work will all be working with HD before long.

[PaulD]

Hi
Even low-end pro production is demanding true 16:9 for exhibition plasma screen or widescreen TV viewing, often with both NTSC and PAL versions.

That isn't really possible with nearly all of the current SD prosumer DV/DVCAM kit, certainly without considerable image degradation.

[Alan Roberts]

Agreed, and low-end HD is a good way to get that and to be ready for this "next" generation of displays. But beware, there is no wide-screen NTSC system, widescreen at 59.94 or 60Hz is only HD or one of the pseudo-HD formats contained within ATSC. Similarly, PAL is an SD composite coding system, not a scanning standard smile.gif

[Ed Stradling]

I will likely be buying the new Z1E at some point soon, but the reason for my purchase is not the HDV capability. I'm buying it primarily because it gives true widescreen DVCAM images on a reasonable budget, which nothing else can give you apart from the XL2 which is lesser value for money IMO.

The HDV is just a lovely bonus!!

[Alan Roberts]

Exactly, Sony are pushing it as a step up from DV/DVCAM, not as a step down from HDTV.

[PaulD]

Originally posted by Alan Roberts:
But beware, there is no wide-screen NTSC system...Hmmm......
From where I stand there are thousands/millions of DVD players out there, all of which came with a label NTSC printed on the outside of the box, which when connected to a 16:9 plasma screen, and configured to replay anamorphically from a DVD encoded in this manner - with anamorphically flagged 29.97 MPEG-2 files encoded into the VOBs - which fill the screen with the best resolution possible - totally unlike 'zooming' in on a 4:3 raster DVD....
And the owners of the aforesaid replay kit all identify them similarly.

I fundamentally miss the point of what I am to beware... :(

[johnpr98]

Hi Gavin

When I saw you at the Video Forum HDV wasn't on my mind, however I have now been converted.

My needs are simple at the moment, I have a HDV camcorder that gives me the option to crop the picture, I have done some experimentation, if I use the FX1 as my wide shot for stage performances I can zoom in on any part of the picture up to 4:1 & still equal SD quality (It's like having a couple of extra camcorders).

I also have the option of recording camcorder footage in HDV quality, I can render the completed edit in HDV & SDV.

btw I am using Ulead Media Studio Pro 7 with the HDV plug in, I had a few problems with capturing first off (Sorted now), the MSPro captured footage edits fine on the timeline with my AMD 3200.

No Regrets

[DVX]

I think it's too early to jump. Reviews from US Tv stations using the HDV Sony's show a soft focus, which is thought to be due to the high level of MPEG compression. The datarate for SD DV is higher. Also, there is little croma infomation in HDV, so croma keying could be hit and miss. The editing PC will have to be a higher spec unit to edit MPEG files in realtime compared to DV. Last thing is many of these first genration cameras show early design probelms, even the PD170 showed this. Panasonic are rumoured to be showing a HDDVPRO 50mbits P2 system at NAB to compete with Sony. I will see it there and let you know how it compares.

The main thing these new cameras bring is true 16:9, this could be more important for the next year or two.

[Chrome]

Well I wish I could find it (I can't), but I was on a US based 'pro videomakers' discussion forum the other day, and they were discussing HD in one of the threads. Contrary to what I have seen posted on the foums here in the UK, some of the posters there were saying it's still far to early to move over to HD. Some said it was not as wide spread as prople seem to think in the states. One chap said he thought they still had a couple of years before he would be forced to move over by the demand from his wedding customers. They WERE all on 16:9 though smile.gif

Not my opinions btw - I'm just reporting what I saw. smile.gif

If I do find it later I will post the link here.

[infocus]

Should we have been around a centuy or more ago, we'd probably have been discussing the arrival of a new fangled thing called the "telephone". From what I've read, a lot of people then took up one of two views. One set saw that it was the future, no question, and in a short timespan noone would bother to write letters, and the mail service would collapse for lack of interest. The other set laughed at it - what's the point, when there are so many boys to deliver telegrams!? Why bother getting one when hardly anybody else has one? Etc, etc. We now know that it WAS a huge success, but did not lead to the death of the written word.

So often that's the way things go - people take very polarised views, and the truth turns out to be in the middle. And so with the new Sony cameras. They are extremely good.... but they are not going to lead to DigiBetas being thrown away by the score. HDV is a spectacular new format.... but it's not the be all and end all.

To DVX - HDV is intended as a CONSUMER format, and for the US stations to be reviewing it on a professional level is a little silly. It's a revolution for the home or low budget professional user, but not up to the standard of HDCAM, and I'm amazed that those Tv stations are surprised to find that. And yes, the expectation is a lot to see at NAB. Currently Panasonic have 25 and 50 Mb SD solutions, and 100Mb HD (DVCPRO-HD). The problem if they should launch "a HDDVPRO 50mbits P2 system" would be lack of edit support - I wonder if 100Mb HD on a P2 card is more likely in the first instance? I wait with interest.

What I feel is spectacularly clever about HDV is the backwards compatability with DV/DVCAM, and I'd suspect a great many will be brought by broadcasters primarily to use in that mode. I understand the DSR570 has been just discontinued, and wonder if that means it's replacement will be HDV. Think what that means - it could be brought by a company with no interest in HD, they'd buy it just for DVCAM, but in a few years a great many people will have HD capable kit by default, and a conversion then to HD then need not involve much in the way of new purchases.

[PaulD]

Originally posted by infocus:
Currently Panasonic have 25 and 50 Mb SD solutions, and 100Mb HD (DVCPRO-HD). The problem if they should launch "a HDDVPRO 50mbits P2 system" would be lack of edit support...

I understand the DSR570 has been just discontinued, and wonder if that means it's replacement will be HDV.Hi
Apple, with Final Cut Pro, currently provide full support for editing any variety of Panasonic's DVCPRO/ DVCPRO HD codec. It is expected - they have a publically announced 'joint-development' policy - that any future DVCPRO HD will be fully supported as soon as the kit is available.

Isn't there to be a replacement for that DV camera comparable to the new DSR400 DVCAM camera- which has a USP of 0.6lux capability....

[DVX]

Hi Infocus..The US TV stations are seriously using HD, they have to broadcast a minimum number of hours in HD every day, of course this depends if it a local station, affiliate, PBS or network. The Sony HDV is good for them as it supplement other high end HD cameras for low light and 'fly on the wall' type work, where a small camera is best suited. I can see in 1-2 years Sony migrating their HDCAM technology to the semi-pro level and dispensing with tape altogether, just as Panasonic are doing.

If I was going for new cameras now, HDV would have to be seriously considered. It would be good to get some feedback on how easy the format is to edit and any issues or restrictions in post.

As HDV is new, the next few years will produce some exciting kit and hopefully at lower prices.

[Nigel Longman]

Originally posted by infocus:
I understand the DSR570 has been just discontinued, and wonder if that means it's replacement will be HDV....snipped by NL I believe the replacement will be called the DSR-450WSPL - it's mentioned on Creative's website here (http://www.creativevideo.co.uk/pages/cvp_camcorders_dv.htm) .

Regards NL

[infocus]

Thanks Nigel, I hadn't heard of that before, and the SDI option could be very useful in some quarters. I have to admit to some disappointment that the 570's replacement won't be HDV capable though. Perhaps the next generation? Interesting how cheap the 25Mb version of the XDCAM camera is, too - under £12,000 ex VAT.

[mdiver]

The sony says the replacement for the DSR-390 is the DSR-400 XDCAM, but the 390 was a £6000 camera, and the 400 a £11000 camera...... so;

a) Will we see a HDV (true) replacement for the DSR-250 & 390,
b) will the price of XDCAM drop to wedding videographers prices quickly
c) Will DVCAM be around for a while - but lower picture quality that consumer cameras?

[Nigel Longman]

Matt

I think you may be mistaken in that the DSR400 (which will be replacing the DSR390 - according to Creative's web site as I mentioned above) will be a DVCAM unit (not XDCAM) albeit with some additional features over the DSR390 (an SDI option for example).

Time will tell ;)

Regards NL

[infocus]

Originally posted by MATTtheBAT:
...., but the 390 was a £6000 camera, and the 400 a £11000 camera...... so;
According to Creative the 400 costs £6,500. I think you're confusing it with the XDCAM PDW-510P - which is indeed over £11,000.

[StevenBagley]

I have to admit to some disappointment that the 570's replacement won't be HDV capable though.From what I was told by a friend who was at the Sony launch of the Z1 in Canada -- Sony don't intend to do a full-size tape version of HDV *at* *all*. Certainly the HDV deck they've put out is the only one they intend to produce (no full size tape model)

I suspect it'll be the replacement for the XDCAM stuff that gain HD CCD sensors, recording long-GOP HD MPEG2 to XDCAM.

Which makes a lot of sense.

Steven

[Bruce]

I have been using a Z1 for a few weeks and have found it to be really good. The reason for having it is to be able to shoot true 16-9 without loss of quality as on the PD170.

Have used in HDV mode on a few jobs alongside Digibeta. I am transfering to Digi in component mode. Yes you can see the difference on a grade 1 monitor but for projects ending up on DVD and viewed on a domestic set it stands up well. THe lens does not give edge to edge sharpness but then the Digi has got a 10k lens on it.

Have still to test the Z1 on picky subjects like bushes with lots of leaves waving in the wind etc. Also I wonder how steady shot would cope with helicopter shooting?

[Jim Bird]

Hi,

I think the PC market needs to catch up with HDV editing, and it will. Software is still improving and hardware is getting faster.

By the time my existing kit wares out the market could be just about right for a buyer like me.

Jim Bird

[Jim Bird]

[bcrabtree]

As I think has been made clear from various responses to the original question, HDV is very far from being a fad or a gimmick.

In the form offered by Sony (and using Sony's camcorders) it offers quite a few REAL advantages, and at an on-cost (for serious video photographers) that is VERY reasonable in my view.

Of course, whether or not those advantages are of use to an individual or company is what, logically, will be what makes them decide to jump onto the bandwagon.

My own perspective is that HDV (as offered by Sony) is a breakthrough comparable with DV.

Better still, it offers a vast amount of intereresting stuff that I'm desperate to learn about and write about.

Bob C

[RayL]

If, as suggested above, there will be no Sony HDV cameras to take full-size tape then the Firestore FS4 (with its 3 hour recording time and on-the-horizon upgrade to HDV) will be be the accessory of choice for event videographers who want to venture into the land of Hi Def.

Ray Liffen

[Unicorn]

Reviews from US Tv stations using the HDV Sony's show a soft focus, which is thought to be due to the high level of MPEG compression.HDV is _less_ compressed than broadcast HD. So unless all broadcast HD is also 'soft focus', how could the compression be causing soft focus in HDV?

It's possible you're right, but IMHO it's more likely people are treating them like DV cameras, which have significantly more latitude for loose focusing.

Personally I'm waiting for NAB, but if nothing better is going to be coming out in the near future, I'll be buying a Z1.

[infocus]

Originally posted by bcrabtree:
As I think has been made clear from various responses to the original question, HDV is very far from being a fad or a gimmick.

My own perspective is that HDV (as offered by Sony) is a breakthrough comparable with DV.
I agree with those comments 100% Bob, and if I or anyone else come across slightly cautiously, it's not because we think your perspective (as above) is in any way wrong now, but because we don't see the current situation as an endgame. At this price range, I see little reason to buy a new PD170 now, with the Z1 available, but do wonder how long the Z1 will hold the crown. I would certainly be wary of buying one pre-NAB at least, without a pressing business need.

Regarding the US stations, I strongly suspect that the relative softness they are noticing has more to do with the front end of the camera than HDV or compression systems. A bit like saying a PD170 shows signs of soft focus in the SD broadcast world, and assuming that's because of DV compression. Well, it will look a little soft compared to such as a DSR570 (costing many times more), which uses the same compression, tape format etc, but that's down to lens, chip, processing, not DVCAM. The Z1 and HDV are not the same thing - one is a camera, the other a tape format - and without doing sensible tests (such as mastering on HDCAM, and dubbing to HDV) the quality of HDV the tape format should not be judged solely on Z1 pictures. All that said, HDV does not have the spec of HDCAM, and it is entirely possible that whilst it may look spectacular when used in a straightforward manner, it does not survive the broadcast chain as well as originally less compressed HD material. And yes to Unicorn, operation of the camera may well play a part!

Finally to Ray, I agree wholeheartedly with what you say about the FS4 (and such other devices which may come along). Perversely, I think they may well prolong the life of tape format cameras, and delay the acceptance of such as P2. I can appreciate a situation of recording onto both the Firestore and tape, downloading chunks off the Firestore for editing, but still keeping the (cheap) tape copy for archive/future re-edits etc. You have the freedom of recording just to tape or Firestore, or to both together, and each of those options may be of benefit to one scenario or another.

But my comments above referred to far more than just the 3 hour big tape capability of the DSR450, as the DSR570s successor. (Why have the numbers now started to go down?!) These cameras may well be bought now by organisations interested in the pro features such as SDI connectivity, and the benefits of 2/3" sensors etc, with no current use for HD. (In the same way the BBC et al are currently buying Z1s as PD170 replacements, with little intention of currently using HDV.) If the 450 was HDV, and purchasers subsequently decided on an HD migration, well - they're halfway there, it's flick a switch rather than buy a new camera!

That they're not HDV leads me to speculate that it's all part of a Sony masterplan to ensure true professional High Def forces an acceptance of an XDCAM solution, if not HDCAM. I can see the logic, but suspect a sector of the market will not be impressed. But roll on NAB! smile.gif

[DV_Ed]

In reference to the topic title, I have to say that although I am interested in HDV I really dont see myself any time soon purchasing a HDV camera. I would definately like one for gadget value alone, but when a minority of people I know even have widescreen, I really dont see the immediate need!
So for now I am definately off the bandwagon - I have to admit though for some strange reason places like this forum make me feel I should be getting one need or not. But there we go! Given the choice if I saw the Sony Z1 or a Canon XL2 both on a table and had the choice, I would choose the XL2. I have discovered however that it appears I would infact beable to edit HDV with no problems - which is quite encouraging. Should the need ever arise smile.gif

[SimonMW]

Personally I don't see the rush. Even in broadcast. Alan would be able to confirm but I believe the BBC are only after the FX1's use as a 16:9 DV camera, not HDV. Further to this at the kind of level where footage will have a serious use in broadcast in the future in HD I think cameras such as the Varicam etc would be used instead.

So where does that leave consumers and corporate people? Note that when I speak of coporate work I am speaking for smaller operations where training videos and the like are the norm, not car adverts etc.

For consumers who want to have more futureproof holiday footage etc it will be nice to have. For indie moviemakers who make a product of high enough quality to warrant a re-release in high def in the future it may also be of use. Although to be honest I think this last point may be a mute one. There aren't exactly droves of indie movies shot on DV available on SD DVD right now, so I don't know why some think that there will be an explosion of HD indie movies coming out as a result shot on HDV.

I have to take Walter Graffs stand here as many people, if you read around the forums, seem to think that HDV will make them better at what they do. They seem to think that shooting on HDV will make them more marketable. They forget about the talent and content part of things however. My point has always been that if people can't make something decent, or market their productions in SD, they don't stand any more chance in HD!

Now for low level corporate. Well, I can't honestly see much of these sorts of production requiring some kind of HD re-release, nor is there any way of delivering HD content to such clients, nor do many, if any, have any form of HD viewing set.

In fact I have only just started getting more requests for DVD than VHS! In my experience most clients in this sort of area wouldn't know web quality Quicktime from HD!

So personally I won't be upgrading to HD until a)I get asked to shoot it, b)there is a camera that meets my requirements that shoots it (possibly a HD version of XDCAM when it appears), and c)the editing solutions have fully matured.

What I see around the web is a constant stream of misinformation that we all need to upgrade to HD today or else get left behind. I don't shoot for broadcast so until I have a demand for it I don't need it. If I was commisioned to shoot something for broadcast I'd hire out the relevant equipment.

All I'm saying is that I don't think the appearance of the FX1 etc will somehow speed up the take-up of HD in the average Joe Soaps life. We're talking major upgrades here. A new TV, a new DVD player/recorder, a new Digibox. These things aren't cheap. I hear timespans of 3 years or so being quoted too.

DVD took 6 years to reach critical mass. It was one of the fastest take-ups of new technology. Is HD in the UK ever realistically going to match that speed of uptake when we have only just been pursuaded to get new SD widescreen sets and digboxes? Furthermore most of the uptake of HD capable LCD's and Plasma's can be written off almost immediately if they only have component input for HD!

Lastly, just as an example of what you might consider to be the most technologically savvy nation on the planet, Japan. My sister currently lives there, and has done for a while. Her face went blank when I asked about high def TV. She'd never heard of it, nor seen it. That's because even in Japan the take-up of HD has hardly been stellar.

If it's been slow for consumers to take up there, what chance does it have of fast take up over here when we haven't even got a definite schedule yet?

Sorry to be miserable.

[Alan Roberts]

I've heard today that HDV is being viewed in the US as between DVCAM And HDCAM for production purposes. One broadcaster will accept a maximum of 30% non-HD material (i.e. not shot on HDCAM or DVCProHD, or 35mm film neg)in any episode with up to 15% of that being HDV. SD up-conversions (not from DV) are acceptable but limited to a maximum of 60 seconds at a time, but not HDV that can be continuous. They will accept only 1080i in this mode, not 720, unless the cine-style is selected "for artistic effect" (that leaves a lot of doors open). So they're seeing HDV as equivalent to best SD up-converted.

And that's how I see it as well, HDV's a step up from DV, not from best SDTV.

[SimonMW]

Were these US or UK broadcasters?

My point is that we are not the US. Broadcast is only one area of video production. There are many more around from low level corporate, to specialist videos and DVDs, educational productions etc. Many of which will never see light of day outside of the UK, or ever be broadcast on TV.

In other words such productions don't have a way of being distributed on HD, and many of them are designed for 'now' rather than later, ie many won't warrant a new release in HD when the technology becomes avaialable.

So with that in mind I don't think the lack of HD for such productions at the moment really harms anyone with SD equipment, and given that DVD will be the main distribution medium for some time to come it will be many years before HD becomes an absolute neccesity for such companies.

Some broadcasters will want HD as they wish to maximize the money that they spend. But will such demands become common in the UK? I know the BBC is going to make all their acquisition HD by 2010. However the BBC are not the only broadcaster around. Take ITN for example. They are seriously budgetary challenged! What about cheap cable TV companies?

All I'm saying is that much of the discussion about whether it is neccesary to upgrade to an HD camera is based around outlets for work that most of us will never be using anyway. How many here have created work for broadcast?

HD at the lower levels need to mature. I think Panasonics new entry may be the start, and the JVC looks interesting. But until there is a true HD equivilent of the DSR570 etc there won't be a solution for everybody.

I think it's a sad time indeed if the Z1 with it's rubber servo focus ring and handycam form factor is aimed at taking the 570's market.

[Alan Roberts]

I'm not saying anyone has to upgrade to HD via HDV, only that the FX1/Z1 is a cheap way to do it and that some US broadcasters are happy with it. HD is approaching rapidly in Europe and it would be foolish to ignore it. But there will always be a market for programmes made in SD, albeith a gradually shrinking one as time goes by.

[infocus]

Originally posted by SimonMW:
Personally I don't see the rush. Even in broadcast. Alan would be able to confirm but I believe the BBC are only after the FX1's use as a 16:9 DV camera, not HDV.Not just the BBC, but generally for broadcast use, that's quite true - AT THE MOMENT. It's also true for other facilities being bought, such as the Hi-Def cameras bought for BBC OBs, it's more accurate to call all these Hi-Def CAPABLE - they don't have to be used in HD mode all the time. Why's that important? In the case of your original point, even though such as the BBC may have no plans to use these cameras in HDV mode at the moment, at some point in the future the HD requirement will be needed, and bingo, it just means flicking a switch. Yes, Varicams or HDCAMs are likely to be the norm (as Digibeta is today), but such as the Z1 or what succeeds it will take the place the PD170 has today - second camera, or used for special purposes, but now in the HD world. What's significant is the infrastructure is starting to be put in place now, such that a widespread switchover in the future may be just that - a switchover, rather than a re-equipment!

And for the con/prosumer user? Isn't it the same thing? I'd agree there may not be the need to rush out and buy HDV tomorrow, but if you're due to buy new kit anyway, it seems foolish to me not to buy HD capable kit now. Even if only used SD for the next few years, much of the improved quality shines through, and the price premium is not that great. And it should hold resale value better.

I think low end corporate could be a big market for HDV. Big plasmas are starting to be more widely seen at company stands etc, and they are increasingly becoming HD native with the HDready logo coming along. Sourcing it HD could make your offering stand out just that bit more, played off HDV at the moment, but Blu-Ray in a years time. Just remember - the internet was a specialised geeky thing about ten years ago!

[johnpr98]

An interesting HDR-FX1E\VX2100E comparison page

http://www.supervideo.com/shtoutsvFXVX.htm

Note the PRIESTMAN shot

[Alan Roberts]

Infocus, only one problem with your last posting.

The HDTV cameras the BBC have bought for OBs etc are Sony HDC950, they are 1080-line HDTV only, not switchable. The trucks they are used in are digital-switchable though, and that's really what matters most. The HDTV cameras being bought accross Europe are mostly the Thomson LDK6000 "Worldcam", they are switchable between 720p and 1080i/psf, but not to SDTV. Either way, if these cameras are used to make an SDTV programme, the camera runs as an HDTV unit and a downconveter makes live SDTV from it, in the same way (but with much better quality) that the FX1/Z1 does on replay of an HDV tape as SD.

[infocus]

Point taken - I deliberately didn't put "outside broadcast bought for BBC OBs" since I understood it to be a reburbishment rather than a new build, but my use of "cameras" really should have referred to "cameras and associated equipment". The point remains though - just because it's an HD truck doesn't mean it has to spend it's life giving an HD output. But come a general move to HD, it's all ready. Future facilities are likely to go the same way (now costs are comparable to high end SD gear), Z1s are set to replace PD170s in 2nd camera broadcast use, and similar policies are sensible (IMHO) in the prosumer world.

I believe a similar thing happened come the 405-625 switch, facilities were built able to work to either standard, started their life working mainly 405 line, finished up 625 line. (At least, I remember being introduced to an early dual standard sync pulse generator, by my time firmly rusted to 625 settings!) No doubt similar discussions were had at the time of that switchover too!

[Alan Roberts]

Yes, I didn't intend to score points, just to make sure that the facts are right because I don't want to mislead anyone. The BBC's 2 HD trucks are conversions, not even full rebuilds, one is already fully booked for the series of the Proms this year, and will make HD or SD programmes as needed. It's routine now, the guys are happy with the system and it works. All the HD kit works at SD without complicated switching, except the vtrs (HD vts are hirede in as needed, so far).

When I started at the Beeb in 1967, R&D still had a multistandard film scanner. It was quite happy running at 405, 625, 441, 819 etc, and you could programme any other standard into it as well. It finally went when we needed the floor-space for the analogue standards-conversion project (I worked on the finishing of RD1 (525 to 625) and a lot on RD2 (625 to 525)).

[infocus]

Originally posted by Alan Roberts:
The BBC's 2 HD trucks are conversions, not even full rebuilds, I din't take it as point scoring, was glad of the clarification. I understood the general principle of the system being HD capable (as opposed to HD only), but wasn't sure how far down the chain it went.

But TWO HD trucks? from what you've previously said, I was only aware of the one you were involved with. Obviously things are starting to move more quickly! And two out of how many?

From the point of view of this thread, I think it illustrates that such as the BBC isn't chucking away all it's SD kit overnight, but is replacing it with HD as required, or when needed for actual committments - which would seem a sensible policy for those of us with smaller budgets to follow. Even if used SD in the short/medium term, the here and now benefits being proper 16:9 if nothing else.

[Alan Roberts]

The first one was kitted ready for last year's Proms. It was used SD for much of the season and went HD near the end. The last two nights were shot exclusively HD. That was such a success that it got fully booked for this season, but other programmes are already scheduled for HD during that run, so another was converted very quickly.

This is just a change of direction in a continuous process of re-kitting. I don't know how many full trucks there are in the fleet, but the UK's combined fleet must be over 100. If each truck has a 10-year life before re-kitting, they'll have to do about 10 a year from now on, just to keep up with wear and tear. Visions have had 4 HD trucks for a few years (they were at the Sydney games, and in Athens, and do a lot of opera). And there are many other firms...

[bcrabtree]

Commenting to, hopefully, make this one appear (on account of I moved it to the HDV&HD forum and it disappeared!).

Bob C

[cstv]

it's appeared now, Bob!

back to the original question... ;)

i'm not convinced that now is the best time to be jumping to HDV, or even if there's going to be a good time. HDV seems to be increasingly treated by manufacturers as an interim standard; particularly from a prosumer point of view. 4 months ago it was being compared to DV in the sense that it would revolutionise consumer, prosumer and (limited) broadcast aquisition. This simply doesn't look like it'll be the case and i suspect HDV will end up being decidedly "consumer"...

Consensus is going to get a big shove in this direction when panasonic (eventually!) get around to releasing their DVCProHD P2 camcorder. Ugly though it may be, it does at least feature a more robust recording format that a) doesn't rely on long-GOP MPEG, and b) isn't tape-based.

I was one of the people getting very excited about HDV back at VideoForum and DVC's open day, but the format just isn't doing it for me any more. It's great that we're getting all of these new camcorders with better lenses and small-form shoulder mounting (JVC) but if they've been deliberately handicapped by the manufacturers then what's the point? Both Sony's and JVC's HDV decks only accept "mini" tapes to prohibit long recording times, and there's seems to be some confusion over the use of the term "HDV" being used to describe "HDV1" and "HDV2" - two slightly different formats that no one piece of equipment will play both of! See this thread (http://forums.dvdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=33827) for more info.

And let's not forget the added skill and expense involved in shooting HD generally. The higher resolution means paying much more attention to acurate focussing, and obviously the cost of editing is higher due to the extra processing required with a greater number of pixels. If shooting in progressive mode its important to understand how high-speed motion in the frame is affected, and the same is true (possibly to a lesser extent) of the MPEG compression used by HDV.

i work for a JVC releaser and we're getting an HD100 as a demo/hire unit and until about 4 hours ago i was quite excited. I'm not sure i'm going to be able to be quite as passionate about it anymore... :(

mark.

[infocus]

Consensus is going to get a big shove in this direction when panasonic (eventually!) get around to releasing their DVCProHD P2 camcorder. Ugly though it may be, it does at least feature a more robust recording format that a) doesn't rely on long-GOP MPEG, and b) isn't tape-based.

True - but at HD it curently costs about £15,000 per hour in media. Albeit reusable, but just how would you get on if you needed to film a two hour event? All of a sudden HDV and tape starts to look far more attractive......

But it doesn't stop there. I think a lot of HDV cameras are going to be used with hard drive stores like the FS4, and in that case the tape becomes a very useful archive/backup after the hard drive has been downloaded and wiped. Yes, HDV is an interim format. But can't that be said of any format? It's just a matter of timescale, and it does have many compatabilities with DV.

The economics of P2 will undoubtably improve with time, but it'll be a good few years before it rivals HDV, and who knows what we'll see then?

[kwshaw1]

Regarding the notion that HDV won't improve anyone's video work, that's true in an artistic sense but not necessarily in a technical one. If an HDV camera yields visibly better output than someone's current SD camera, that's a clear benefit to both them and their customers. It's not a bad thing if even entry-level videographers can produce impressive image quality from an affordable camera, so there's really nothing to criticize there.

As far as marketability is concerned, HDV is already proving to be an advantage for some people, including one guy who reportedly lied about using HDV to win a job over another videographer. One thing for sure: when the most established videographers start using low-cost HD cameras they'll make a point of describing that as an advantage for their customers compared to videographers who don't shoot HD, so then there won't be much choice for anyone who wants to be taken seriously. It's just a question of time now, with perhaps some geographic factors depending on how fast people in your area are buying HDTVs.

I expect that many of the folks who are dismissing HD video today will be lauding its benefits within the next year or so. That's okay, except for maybe you'll have talked some customers out of using HD who might actually have appreciated it.

[Alan Roberts]

Well said, young man, that's been my line all along. HD offers advantages at all levels and to all users, so long as too many compromises aren't made in the camera and compression designs.

[johnpr98]

Consumer John here;)

My Sony FX1 got me noticed when I played back a video of a stage production (DVD quality), The lighting person said it was brilliant & accurate.

I have to agree with Pete Wells when he said the colours on the FX1 are amazing, the FX1 does suffer a ½ second dropout on each tape though (using Sony Excellence + cleaned heads before hand).

This dropout soon becomes apparent on a 1 hr shoot when you can compare the audio with a minidisc track.

My secondhand Sanyo SE-10 projector can play the tapes back at 1080 from the cam, somewhere to try it out is my next step & look at those colours in their full glory.