-
To HDV or not to HDV? that is the question!
I will soon starting a new job as a video manager for an international charity. As part of the job I will be developing their in house facilities for video production. One of the first purchases will be a small prosumer widescreen camera. It’s likely to be the Sony HVR-V1 or the Canon XH-A1, both of which can shoot in HDV.
My own experience of HDV is minimal and is based on what I have read on the forums. Currently I am trying to determine whether this charity currently needs to adopt it. The main distribution of their videos occurs on DVD, via an internal intranet and across the internet. Therefore, in theory, SD would be adequate for their current needs. However their video projects are likely to have longevity and could still be used several years from now when HD is more prolific (I realise HDV is not HD, but shooting in full HD is not currently an option for this org).
With all this in mind I have a number of questions about HDV.
1) Is there a noticeable difference if the rushes are shot in HDV and downconverted to SD, compared to an identical project shot only in SD? If so what are the key differences? Basically I am trying to work out if the HDV route holds any advantages for this charity other than being reasonably future proof.
2) Assuming we go ahead and shot all future projects in HDV, is it better to edit in HDV and downconvert at the end of the process or shot in HDV and downconvert to SD and then edit in SD? What are the pros and cons of each.
3) Somewhere I’ve read that it’s better to downconvert to SD using software rather than let the camera downconvert when importing rushes. Is this true and if so is the software an independent application or will it be included in an NLE package like Premiere Pro 2?
Finally I am trying to balance the pros of HDV against the current (and future) needs of this charity, keeping in mind that the HDV route will involve upgrading their current PC which is capable of SD editing. So as always it’s performance vs. budget. I welcome anyone’s thoughts on this and would like to take the opportunity to thank anyone who responds.
-
3 Replies
-
I would shoot in HDV, let the camera down-convert to DV, edit and burn.
To edit now in HDV would require 3X the hard drive space…more hard drive and processor speed and probably the Cineform Aspect codec ($500).
To author now would require HD authoring software ($500), HD burner ($800), HD player ($500), HD TV ($1,200).You can later recapture as HDV and create a HDV version.
-
On the other hand, I have found that editing HDV in a SD project allows me to find the best part of the frame. I can pan around the larger frame, scaling from 40% or so to see the entire frame, all the way back up to 100% to see just a small part of the frame. But yes, without Cineform Aspect HD, it would be a lot harder.
Steven
https://www.stevengotz.com -
Ask yourself some basic questions:
Does the charity org. NEED high definition? Does it NEED widescreen? What tangible benefits would they get from them? Increased donations? Increased credibility with sponsors? I’d be very hard-nosed about this. In my view, the job of a charity is to do good works with its income; the less spent on things like in-house video facilities, the better.Once you’ve answered those, if the answer is yes to one or both, I’d go for the HDV cameras. With either one, you can shoot in DV mode and get footage that looks as good, or better, than previous generation DV camcorders (eg., VX2000, etc), with the one exception that the DV cams are a little more light-sensitive.
Whenvever you like, you can shoot in HDV mode. Any late model computer, and most recent version NLE software, can ingest and edit HDV footage. Same throughput and disk storage requirements as DV. Editing may be a lot slower, and you may need to pre-render some effects to see what they’ll look like. Once edited, you can render and author an SD DVD that will look distinctly superior to a DVD based on DV footage.
Regards,
Doug Graham
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up