Mistake to purchase HDV camera?

[Daniel Serrano]

you can go with the HDV camera…. I would do it if I had the money..

way I see it is this, if you need something in SD you can record miniDV.. also you could record in HDV and record for SD for your DVDs and when you are ready to go you can do it all in HDV and then record to bluray or HD-DVD when you ready…

[13]

Any camera you get just like any computer you get will most likely be replaced with a newer model within 6 months any way. There is nothing wrong with HD you get great quality for the money, sure there are better cameras out there, but for many people whey are just to expensive so HDV is fine.

[Steven Gladney]

Most of what you’re hearing about HDV is the fact that it can be a difficult format to work with. It is NOT true HD, it is a “basterdized” version of it, if you will. Many people have a lot of success with it, but many choose to avoid it because of it’s compression and editing issues. I myself just recently purchased a Panasonic HVX200 and a large reason for that purchase was because it did true HD. I looked at the same Canon model you mentioned, and was willing to say that maybe HDV was “good enough”. But a financial opportunity came about that made my first choice, the HVX, a possibility. I think there are far too many HDV cameras out there for the technology/camera to become obsolete tomorrow. But I would highly suggest you taking the time to rent your camera of interest, shoot with it to make sure you like it and feel comfortable using it, and most of all, edit some footage and see what type of workflow you’d have to develope and make sure you’d be comfortable with it. If you can answer yes to all of those questions, then make the move. But more than anything, research, Research, RESEARCH as many of your different options as possible and come to a decision as to what’s best for you. Many people are still using standard def cameras and waiting until all of this HD/HDV mess gets hammered out and then make a move when it’s right for them.

Sometimes the obvious is hidden in plain view.

[Art Z angel]

First, I agree that the HVX200 is the only HD camera I would consider. As far as HDV is concerned, on the horizon is ACVHD. Jointly developed by Sony & Panasonic, ACVHD offers variable bit rates while HDV is a constant bit rate. On of the drawbacks to HDV is that scenes with a lot of motion do not compress well (keeping in mind that both HDV and ACVHD use long GOP compression). Using a variable bit rate should give scenes with a lot of motion smoother playback. Of course ACVHD will still have all the drawbacks of long GOP editing; which is why I like the HVX200!

Mike

[Doug Graham]

I must disagree with SteveG on one point: HDV ****IS*** “true HD”. It clearly falls within the HD specification. True, it is a lower bitrate and more highly compressed than some other flavors of HD, but it is NOT, repeat NOT a “bastardized format”.

Now, as to some of the other points.

Video formats are changing quickly, which is yet one more thing that is making equipment obsolete faster than ever. As more consumers upgrade to widescreen and HD TVs, standard definition equipment will get you fewer and fewer jobs. If you plan to keep your camera for three years or more, I would get an HDV model. Or, if you’re on a budget, you can pick up good used DV equipment at bargain prices, as others go the HDV upgrade route. I would not buy new standard def equipment today.

As for waiting for the “next big format”, that’s certainly an option, if your business can afford to do it. One should never purchase equipment just to have it sit on the shelf and depreciate; it should be purchased only if there is a real need for it. However, I’m not at all sure that AVCHD is going to be HDV’s replacement. There are currently no professional or prosumer camcorders in this format, and no NLEs can handle it; it’s where HDV was about two or three years ago, and even if it develops legs, it will take quite a while to do so.

Regards,
Doug Graham

[Steve Eisen]

Doug,

What StevenG meant by Real HD, was that HDV uses the Long Gop stucture and DCVPro HD is intraframe. For those who do not understand, Long Gop only has only one true frame and the rest are made up. Unless you capture your HDV as DVCPro HD, editing and exporting HDV can be very problematic not to mention the vido artifacts it produces. You may not see it but they are very visable.

Don’t get me wrong most HDV cameras can produce nice pictures. You do have to consider who is operating the camera. HD or HD shooting is VERY different than shooting DV. You need more light and have to watch out for focus. HD cameras are less forgiving in automatic mode. You need to customize your settings each shoot.

My option for an HD camera is Panasonic’s HPX-500. This camera is not for your ordinary event videographer. That is why Sony and Canon continue to make their Consumer HDV cameras.

Steve Eisen
Eisen Video Productions
Director-At-Large
Chicago Final Cut Pro Users Group

[Steven Gladney]

I appreciate you guys taking the time to clarify my post from earlier. I was attempting not to over inundate “raiderneal” with too much information. I didn’t want to flood his brain with long GOP structures and interframe vs. intraframe, and so forth and so on. To echo what many of you have already said, I don’t think HDV is a necessarily “bad” format at all. I believe it has it’s place. But from personal experience and the experiences of some of my collegues, it can be a bear to shoot and edit. A lot of “jittery” movement (to borrow an adjective from an associate of mine) and artifacting with scenes with lots of movement have been a commonly expressed problem with HDV. Part of the reason I’ve avoided like the plague. But, many people have had a lot of success with it and that is why I challenge anyone whose interested in it to “TRY IT FOR YOURSELF”! Rent a camera and shoot some footage and see how you like it. I love my HVX200 and I shoot some event stuff, but it is simply not the ideal camera for shooting events (in HD anyways) because of P2 limitations. I do, however, love the footage I’ve gotten from shooting HD with the camera, all of the different frame rate options, and, of course, the tapeless workflow option! And editing HD is really no different than editing DV.

But in the end, it’s really going to fall down to your preferences and, probably more so, your budget. Test what you like, and buy what you can afford (and, even more so, what you NEED! If you don’t need it, RENT IT! Boy how I wish I could follow that advise 🙂

Steven Gladney

Sometimes the obvious is hidden in plain view.

[Craig Seeman]

I bought a Sony PD-170 a few years ago after having a Sony PD-150 on “perma-loan.” I’m reluctant to move to HDV but would also be reluctant to get a new SD camera.

Here’s my “nutshell”
1) HDV cameras currently are worse in low light than SD especially worse than the PD-170
2) HDV can have motion artifact issues as others have noted.
3) There’s no easy means to deliver HD product (yet) which means you basically have to eat the cost on the downcovert (or downconvert on input).
4) By the time HD DVD or Blu-Ray become consumer affordable they’ll be another generation of HD cameras out (whether HDV or another codec) which may improve some of the issues noted above

On the other hand
The current HDV (and HVX-200) cameras have many new features that can be used in SD although there’s still the low light issue.

HD will become the standard at some point but that doesn’t mean the HDV camera will be up to the competition at that point (or it may be, I’m speculating not though).

[13]

“3) There’s no easy means to deliver HD product (yet) which means you basically have to eat the cost on the downcovert (or downconvert on input).”

I wouldn’t say that you have to eat the cost of the down convert, most I know will just start it before they go home at night or before they go to lunch depending on the length of the video.

You also say that there is no easy way to deliver a HD product, with in a month or two there will be. The Apple TV supports 720p video. All your client needs is a computer with 802.11G or 802.11N, a computer with iTunes, and an Apple TV, and they can ether send the HD content to the Apple TV and have it stored on its internal HD or they can stream it to the Apple TV. And Apple TV is only $299 which is actually very affordable (cheeper then any HD DVD or Blue Ray DVD player I have seen). And all you have to do instead of encoding a authoring a HD DVD is to output to the proper file type and give them the video file.

[Craig Seeman]

[zrb123] “”3) There’s no easy means to deliver HD product (yet) which means you basically have to eat the cost on the downcovert (or downconvert on input).”

I wouldn’t say that you have to eat the cost of the down convert, most I know will just start it before they go home at night or before they go to lunch depending on the length of the video.”

It’s still computer time. It’s time I can’t use for web compression, DVD/MPEG2 compression, other FX rendering. If you’re talking about a wedding video that might be 90 minutes long that a lot of time for a downconvert.

[zrb123] “You also say that there is no easy way to deliver a HD product, with in a month or two there will be. The Apple TV supports 720p video. All your client needs is a computer with 802.11G or 802.11N, a computer with iTunes, and an Apple TV, and they can ether send the HD content to the Apple TV and have it stored on its internal HD or they can stream it to the Apple TV. And Apple TV is only $299 which is actually very affordable (cheeper then any HD DVD or Blue Ray DVD player I have seen). And all you have to do instead of encoding a authoring a HD DVD is to output to the proper file type and give them the video file.”

Most people are not going to immediately run out and by AppleTV. You still have to deliver the file so factor in the cost of a hard drive too or are you going to your client’s home to xfer the file (assuming they have the space for the file on their hard drive) and either they are you will have to set up Apple TV. All this also assumes they have 802.11g or 802.11N. Heck after all that money spent they can probably buy an HD DVD player now. Sorry but just because it “can” be done doesn’t mean the will be common or financially viable.

Most folks want to pop a disc in a player and be done with it.

It’ll be a year or so (maybe longer) before people can get HD Disc players of some sort for $300 and even then growth may be slow.

Think of this. If EVERY TV sold is HD and 20% of the population buys one, that’s still 5 years for 100% change and 3 years for it to become the majority.

If you have clients who are asking about HD delivery be sure to charge them a higher price for it too.

Another thing to think about is HDV color correction is somewhat expensive too. If you’re working in HDV it doesn’t travel down firewire live. You need to get a box for that. Then you need to send that to a color accurate HD Monitor.