DV, HDV or should I wait?

[lostbythelake]

I was currently considering purchasing the AG-DVX100B from Panasonic. However, I've gotten lost in all the confusion of the new HDV format, and now I'm a little lost.

Here's the deal. I am looking for something HIGHLY PORTABLE, yet can still give me film quality 24p comparable footage. This is just for the look of the footage. I don't actually plan to transfer over to film, and I am simply editing on my laptop workstation and then burning to DVD.

The reason I need something so portable is that I am shooting in the backcountry and I need something that can fit inside my customized backpack (it has a solar panel to charge a spare camera battery and laptop).

Now I see a whole lot of people saying that HDV is the better way to go, yet at the same time I hear that DV is still better because HDV is in its infancy. Also, I'm told that HDV format is hard to work with in an NLE application and demands a whole lot of system resources when editing. I am using the Hewlett Packard nw8240, so it packs a punch, but I realize this is no desktop with a xeon processor. I'm just wondering whether my graphics card can take the abuse of working with HDV footage.

Then I am also told that HDV has had problems with chromatic noise in low light situations. I've also heard complaints about fast moving footage like sports, or in my case fast paced nature shots of birds, bears and rabbits where there is a possiblity of the image breaking apart. Does HDV still have such a long way to come before being at par with DV?

So I'm wondering, DV or HDV? And if HDV, should I wait a bit? I can't any longer than 6 months though.

Finally, I found this site with an awesome price on the AG-DVX100B that seems TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE. Not sure whether this is legit. Can anyone let me know whether this seems like a good deal?

agdvx100b$1,585.00 and they say it is new.

Thanks for all the help!

 

[MarkG]

Why do you care about 24p?

Find a store with a DVX100 and Sony HC1 or A1 and try them side-by-side: see which one you prefer. Personally I can't see any reason to even think of shooting DV rather than HDV, but you might find it works better for you.

Not sure whether that's a reasonable price, but be aware that there are a lot of highly dubious prices quoted in the camera market: some companies will offer the camera at a low price but force you to buy all the 'extras' that are normally included (e.g. battery, charger) at hugely inflated prices so you actually end up paying more than buying from a reputable dealer in the first place. There are sites like resellerratings.com which give a lot of customer feedback on camera dealers.

 

[lostbythelake]

The 24p issue is more with regard to the clients. We are actually starting a high end guiding company, and the idea is that we document the whole trip in the back country. Then, after the trip, we edit the footage and make a personal documentary of the adventure for the clients. Our research shows that the target market wants image quality that is just like the movies.

I do have yet to actually experiment with HDV in store, so I guess I'll go and take one for a spin. I'm just afraid that things will look fine in store when I'm not really testing it for what it's meant for. Also, still a little worried about the weight of the HDV footage on my processor. I've been looking at the requirements in Adobe, and they bump up all the rates when considering HDV footage.

Thanks for the info, I really appreciate it.

Cheers

 

[Filmosity]

If you're doing outdoorsy stuff (guiding), I'd go with HDV for now. It'll offer much better image quality than DV, which is something you'll want for a backcountry adventure. You wanna see the detail! I think the detail and contrast combined with the superior imaging will be very good for outdoor adventure video. The "film Look" that you can get with a 24p camera is great, but it tends to add that bit of separation from reality. I'd be willing to bet your clients are looking for a connection to the reality they had.

Even better, if you can, go with HD. Panasonic has the HVX200 available now, which is competetive in price and size with the DVX100B. Though I haven't seen comparisons yet, the specs seem very good. If you're in a place that has cameras you can test side by side, go do it. In NYC, B&H has a cool little setup where you can test the cams on a miniature train and town setup!

This all coming from the guy who absolutely ADORES his DVX100a.

-Chris

 

[lostbythelake]

I really appreciate the feedback filmosity. I can definitely appreciate the need for detail in the backcountry. I will definitely take this into consideration when looking at the cameras. Unfortunately, I'm quite a ways from NY. I'm in the far north Ontario, on the coast of Lake Superior.

I will be looking for my equipment in the Toronto area, but I'll do my best to find somewhere that can allow me to truly test the different models.

Still wondering though, how memory intensive will HD be on my computer?

 

[MarkG]

Our research shows that the target market wants image quality that is just like the movies.

Well, 24p is a minor issue compared to the relatively limited latitude of even the best video cameras compared to film: I believe even $100k HDCAMs have 4-6 stops less latitude than film.

Otherwise, 24p just gives you stuttery video.

Also, still a little worried about the weight of the HDV footage on my processor. I've been looking at the requirements in Adobe, and they bump up all the rates when considering HDV footage.

Premiere transcodes to a different format for editing, which apparently does require a pretty fast CPU to capture. I'm editing on Avid Xpress Pro HD, which edits HDV natively and works fine with a P4-3Ghz CPU provided you don't expect to get many realtime multi-stream effects.

Even better, if you can, go with HD. Panasonic has the HVX200 available now, which is competetive in price and size with the DVX100B.

I wouldn't even think of using the HVX200 for travel footage. What are you going to do once your 16GB of P2 cards are full (i.e. after shooting about twenty minutes of footage)? Or would you be lugging a hard disk with you and hoping that you don't drop it and lose all the footage you've shot?

Still wondering though, how memory intensive will HD be on my computer?

That depends on the editing program. With Avid, Liquid Edition and other programs that edit HDV natively it uses the same amount of disk space as DV. Programs like Premiere which transcode will use a lot more space.

I guess another question is whether you'll ever need HD footage for the projects you're shooting. If you'll only ever be going to SD DVDs then you could make do with a DV camera now and buy an HD camera when your clients start expecting HD DVDs.... but if you're still expecting to be selling the same footage a few years from now, you'd be better to shoot HDV so you can release HD DVDs later.

 

[Filmosity]

Even better, if you can, go with HD. Panasonic has the HVX200 available now, which is competetive in price and size with the DVX100B.

I wouldn't even think of using the HVX200 for travel footage. What are you going to do once your 16GB of P2 cards are full (i.e. after shooting about twenty minutes of footage)? Or would you be lugging a hard disk with you and hoping that you don't drop it and lose all the footage you've shot?

Yeah, now that i think about it, MarkG is right about the P2 cards. You won't get much record time out of the expensive cards. Thanks for calling me on that!

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I think Mark G is being overly dismissive about 24P. I shoot features, mostly 35mm but some in 24P HDCAM too, and I think progressive-scan capture is essential for any video camera attempting to emulate a film look. If I was planning on buying a digital video camera for shooting narrative works, a 24P or 25P option would be absolutely essential to me. If there is anything about video that is completely unlike film, it's interlaced-scan capture, not latitude (after all, reversal film or skip-bleached film also will have a limited exposure latitude but that doesn't make them look like video.)

 

[Lazlo]

Finally, I found this site with an awesome price on the AG-DVX100B that seems TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE. Not sure whether this is legit. Can anyone let me know whether this seems like a good deal?

agdvx100b$1,585.00 and they say it is new.

It's probobly a gray market camera. I've seen those sites and done some research, and I would stay away from them... People that buy from them usually end up regretting it. Not only do they often lack things that SHOULD come with them like warranties, batteries, and battery chargers, but its just all pretty sketchy... I would stick with the pros, bhvideo, willoughby's... I wouldn't risk that much money on a gamble.

 

[MarkG]

reversal film or skip-bleached film also will have a limited exposure latitude but that doesn't make them look like video

But equally, that doesn't make video look much like reversal film... nor does shooting 30fps on film or using pulldown to go from progressive 24fps to interlaced 30fps make it look like video.

Stick a video frame and a film frame of the same subject side-by-side, and the latitude is a dead giveaway to me as to which was shot on film and which on video. You can work around it with careful lighting, of course, but just shooting at 24fps won't change the look of the individual frames in the slightest.

Another issue is that film, I believe, responds to light logarithmically, whereas video responds linearly (except in some high-end cameras which try hard to record film-like images). Certainly if I load my video into Fusion and convert from linear to logarithmic frames it looks a lot more like film, but the whole image is squashed into a small fraction of the RGB range.

I guess I should also add that I live in a PAL country, where shooting film just means you get 25fps progressive frames, not 30fps stuttery video with pulldown: if your audience have grown up believing that stuttery 30fps video is 'film look' then I guess that 24fps shooting may be more important.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm just saying that if you want to shoot video but achieve more of a film look, then one important factor is to avoid interlaced-scan photography, which is unique to video and film cannot emulate easily. Interlaced-scan video always looks like classic video, but progressive-scan video has the potential of looking closer to film, more so than interlaced-scan video.

To me, interlaced-scan is a big hurdle to get around if you're trying to make video look more like film, and there's no reason to put up with it if progressive-scan is an option.

Now if you're going to argue that video, no matter how it is shot, can never look like film, then the whole argument is pointless regarding frame rate, progressive-scan versus interlaced-scan, etc.

 

[surjones]

I concur with David,

I also must defend the P2 system, Simply amazing. Anyone who have used it, says so. All you need to 2 4 gig p2 cards, They act as a safe. but one will do just fine. I can say atleast 95% of the people on these forums has a External HDD. With the HVX200 you can dump with a verication to an external. or you can use USB OTG. which plug directly into the camera as well Also coming out between now and end of Sept. is the CinePorterm which will alow you to record 720p/24pn for 800 mins STRAIGHT.. It has Raid 1 and Raid 0 so you can actually haev a back up of the footy you just shot cloned to the other HDD inside man simply amazing.

 

[surjones]

I also might add with the Frame Rate Hack, I also get a 2fps with a 350degree shutter. For those light streak looks.

Here are your frame rate choices. 2,3,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20,22,23,24,26,27,28,30, 32,34,36,38,40,42,44,46,48,50,52,54,56,58,60.