HD DV Camera

[Nexus]

Camcorders have been able to record in Mpeg-2 format, but now HD, I can't wait to get my hands on one of these puppies. Not only does it have HD recording ability, but it can switch between HD and DV formats.

 

[Nexus]

I just am very impressed that I haven't had anything screw up with them.

Canon: Tape jamming problems with two cameras, plus one won't even power on now.
JVC: Horrible picture quality on two cameras, and on one of the two, the camera will not load a tape(it's stuck open)
Sony: Great quality video, and no problems yet
Panasonic: Have yet to try.

therefore the score remains-
Sony - 1
Canon - 0
JVC - 0
Panasonic - null

 

[MarkG]

http://www.studentfilmmakersforums.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=113

Personally I've only owned Sony cameras so far, and never had a problem with them: absent a major technical or financial reason to switch, I don't see any benefit to doing so (and I'm sure other people feel the same about Canon, Panasonic, etc). Unless something better comes out in the next six months, I'll proably be buying an FX1 next.

 

[Nexus]

If I had the money for it, I would purchase one. I'll have to look at by budget to see if I can afford one in a few months.

 

[MarkG]

Well, I could buy one tomorrow, but I still want to wait six months so they get the initial bugs out, we get to hear about anything bad about the camera which isn't obvious yet, we get HDV upgrades for our editing packages, the price comes down a bit after the initial demand dies away, and the other manufacturers get a chance to release something better...

But I think Sony are going to make a ton of money from this camera: from the comments made on the web by people who've tried out the FX1, at the moment there only really seems to be one camera that can compete with it under about $50,000... and that's the professional version of the FX1 .

 

[Digigenic]

HDV, especially among current offerings doesn't really interest me; I've talked personally with Roy Wagner ASC in LA about the format, particularly about Sony's model, and let's just say I'm going to continue shooting on a format that at least offers decent bandpass with no processing choke. I don't even want to talk about how poor the bandpass is for HDV right now, ugh. :x

 

[MarkG]

If I can be heretical for a moment, I think that a lot of directors worry far too much about how good their movie is going to look and far too little about how good the story and acting is: I've met plenty of aspiring directors who could argue the minutae of camera choice for hours, but whose movies, frankly, sucked. I've seen many bad movies with great cinematography, and many good movies with poor cinematography... in fact, one of my favorite shorts of the last few years was shot on VHS with only natural light, and another on super-8 stock with grain the size of footballs when projected on a cinema screen.

If I could afford to I'd shoot on a 'real' $100k HD camera, but, at a minimum, it looks like HDV will produce an image far better than DV. Considering I don't have the budget for multi-million-dollar production values, I don't think the difference in picture quality between an HDV camera and a $100k HD camera is going to make the difference between success and failure to the average audience.

 

[Digigenic]

it looks like HDV will produce an image far better than DV.

Where have you seen side by side comparison footage?
I know you said you would be heretical, but your also being purely speculative.

In deed, you can tell a story with any format, that's the beauty of living in this day and age, we have so many mediums within reach. But I also know that professionals with whom I have spoken with personally and online have all said that HDV in its current state is an underdeveloped format not fit for serious filmmaking. Of course, those people will likely be proven wrong, as artists continue to make the impossible possible.

Please understand that I myself have not seen any footage from this camera, only frame grabs on a computer monitor, so the image isn't fully realized. When HDV footage is played in the right environment for HD viewing, that's when it really rears its ugly head and shows how important bandpass is when processing and compressing so much information. Right now, the bandpass levels are very low, and the resulting images, when reviewed in an HD environment shows many faults, particularly with movement. I don't about you, but I like to move with my camera, and catch movement, but that's a problem with these HDV cameras.
Also, on a side note, the Sony HDV camcorder doesn't even shoot progressive...even the JVC shoots progressive! Now that just plain sucks.

 

[MarkG]

Where have you seen side by side comparison footage?

http://www.hdvinfo.net/media/kakugyo/

I also know that professionals with whom I have spoken with personally and online have all said that HDV in its current state is an underdeveloped format not fit for serious filmmaking

They said that about DV too. And to an extent they were right, but to a larger extent they were wrong.

Also, on a side note, the Sony HDV camcorder doesn't even shoot progressive...even the JVC shoots progressive!

Given a choice between 1080i and 720p, I'd take 1080i even if I was expecting to project it on a cinema screen: 1080 lines with intelligent deinterlacing will still give you a better picture than 720p, all else being equal. On a typical low-motion shot you'll get around 30-50% more pixels on deinterlaced 1080i than 720p... and in the worst case of a shot that has to be fully deinterlaced you'll still get almost as many pixels as a 720p frame since 1080i has far more pixels to begin with.

Seriously, I had doubts about these cameras before they were released due to the MPEG-2 compression, 'pixel shift' and cheap lenses, but the more footage I see, the more convinced I am that Sony have done a good job.

 

[DannyG]

Hmmmm. the video links on that site dont seem to be working. Got anything else MarkG?

 

[Digigenic]

I meant 24 and 30 progressive frame rates; why can't they do it???
And you're referencing footage that you saw via the web; as I'd addressed in my previous post, this cannot be used as an accurate point of reference for the true quality of the image. After having undergone some pretty serious changes for the web, including a reduction in the size of the image, it can look favorable to anyone; it is not the same as viewing it in an HD setting. This is where the nastiness of the format becomes apparent, particularly with its inability to process and accurately record fast motion.

 

[MarkG]

I meant 24 and 30 progressive frame rates; why can't they do it???

Extra cost, limited market, competition with Sony's high-end HD cameras.

After having undergone some pretty serious changes for the web, including a reduction in the size of the image, it can look favorable to anyone; it is not the same as viewing it in an HD setting.

LOL. Most of it is 25Mbps MPEG-2 ripped straight from tape to hard disk. That's pure, raw, unadulterated camera footage, shot by someone with relatively little camera experience, mostly in natural light: in other words, close to the worst footage you're likely to see from the camera if you put any amount of time and money into decent lighting.

And, of the gigabyte or so that I've downloaded, much of it looks very good when displayed at 1920x1080, where even the fast pans don't appear to be a major problem for the format.

Hmmmm. the video links on that site dont seem to be working. Got anything else MarkG?

Have they taken the footage down? I guess it wouldn't be a surprise given how many gigabytes of downloads they must have had.

 

[Nexus]

Children.. Children.. I realize that some of you have an anti HDV feeling currently, but we don't need to get angry over it. I think that the picture quality is great. I can admit that it may not be the best camera, but it is a step into what future filmamkers will probably be using at some point or another. How long did it take for DV to become popular, and how soon after that did HD come out. Technology develops at approximately 150% per year, if not more.

Secondly, I agree with MarkG about the quality of the cinematography vs. the story that you are trying to show. If you have a crappy movie, that audience won't care how good the picture is because the story itself is horrible. HD has the ability to be better, but other measures need to be taken first.

Until anyone gives the rest of us an actual review or whatever of HDV versus DV, I vote that we do not continue this downward spiral of arguement. Can we all just get along? lol.

 

[Digigenic]

Extra cost, limited market, competition with Sony's high-end HD cameras.

Extra cost? It probably cost them more to create that crappy simulated 24P mode than to just use the real thing.
Limited Market?
What really irritates me is how they try to cover it up with fake 24P/30P, acknowledging that the market is there.
Competition with Sony's high end HD cameras? Well, there's a reason they're high end, and it isn't just because they're 24P, having 24P doesn't automatically neccesitate a price surge to tripple digits, if that were the case, we wouldn't be shooting with the DVX100 or XL2, which also brings me back to my point about marketing...ahem...they're the best cameras available in the prosumer market right now.

LOL. That is 25Mbps MPEG-2 ripped straight from tape to hard disk. That's pure, raw, unadulterated camera footage, shot by someone with relatively little camera experience, mostly in natural light: in other words, close to the worst footage you're likely to see from the camera if you put any amount of time and money into decent lighting.

:lol: Indeed. Considering 25Mbps MPEG-2 as raw, unadulterated camera footage is pretty damn funny; yeah, it sounds about as pure as Paris Hilton.

And, of the gigabyte or so that I've downloaded, much of it looks very good when displayed at 1920x1080, where even the fast pans don't appear to be a major problem for the format.

So, by saying it isn't a "major" problem, are you implying that it is a minor problem?

 

[MarkG]

Extra cost? It probably cost them more to create that crappy simulated 24P mode than to just use the real thing.

I may be mistaken, but I believe that CCDs which can do both interlaced and progressive scan are significantly more expensive than CCDs which do one or the other: and the big (pixel-wise) CCDs in the FX1 can't be cheap to begin with. Isn't the JVC camera progressive-scan only for the same reason?

Limited Market?

Yes. 95+% of the market for the camera don't care about progressive scan, and 99.9% will never need it since they won't be projecting the footage on a cinema screen from a 35mm print. It's not worth adding a significant amount to the price for that.

Competition with Sony's high end HD cameras? Well, there's a reason they're high end, and it isn't just because they're 24P

I doubt that many people who could afford to shoot on a $100k HD camera at 24p would switch to a $5k HDV camera if it was possible, but Sony really don't like cannibalising their high-end market. I'm actually somewhat surprised that their HDV cameras are as good as they are.

Considering 25Mbps MPEG-2 as raw, unadulterated camera footage is pretty damn funny

It's the footage that the camera records on tape. What else are you going to call it?

I'd much prefer they'd used 50-100Mbps DV compression, but again Sony aren't going to give you $50k quality for $5k even if the cost to them would be minimal.

So, by saying it isn't a "major" problem, are you implying that it is a minor problem?

The few fast pans I've seen look a little weird, but it's nothing that would bother me too much... it may even be a 'hallucination' due to expecting them to look bad. Normal-speed pans and zooms look fine.

IMHO the dropouts are a far more serious concern, if they're real: losing part of one DV frame I can live with (and probably fix), losing half a second of video is bad news.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

>99.9% will never need it since they won't be projecting the footage on a cinema screen from a 35mm print.

You're ignoring the fact that progressive-scan photography LOOKS different than interlaced-scan photography, whether for interlaced-scan or progressive-scan display systems. Making a transfer to 35mm isn't the only reason one might want to shoot progressive-scan.

TV shows shot in 24P HD, like "Enterprise", "Joan of Arcadia", previously "Pasadena" or "Robbery Homicide Division", etc. all would not have used HD video cameras at all had they been limited to interlaced-scan capture (50i or 60i) because the look would not have been considered film-ish enough. None of these are destined for a 35mm print.

The trouble with 60i HD before 24P was an option was that the majority of people would still end up seeing the material in standard def video, where 60i HD downconverted to 60i NTSC just ends up looking like typical NTSC photography. 24P HD, however, downconverted to NTSC with a 3:2 pulldown, still retains a look unique from 60i image capture.

 

[Jared Isham]

So the discussion seems to be with compariable footage. I personally would not purchase the FX1 from sony due to the "24p" mode, also called the "Cineframe Mode." I think it would be worth it for the frame rate options and audio features that are provided on the Z1U - it shoots in 24P, 30P, 25P, 50i and 60i with 16x9 chips in it, instead of the dropping of every 5th frame as with the FX1.

I realise that it is compressed for the web, but I would have to say that it is a pretty good web compression and, sorry, a shameless plug for a short.
http://www.studentfilmmakersforums.com/news/article_200.shtml
I shot this short with the JVC camera HD-10U or something. I did some pickups with a Sony PD150. My complaints with the camera were in the motion during fast pans, sometimes. It was a rather rigorous test for pans, considering that a good portion of the short was shot with a steady cam. I preview dailies on a 15' screen and did notice a diffecernce in image quality, in the better range. BUT, don't get me wrong, DV is still a really good format for low budget filmmaking - I still and always will prefer film over video, but my wallet does not.

Anyway, if you want a comparison - not entirely accurate due to the compression, but still a comparison, watch the short - All the shots with the bag flying through the air are with the PD150 and pay close attention to the pans - you will be able to see what people are talking about in motion problems - But remember, the DVX100 had a few motion problems that were fixed in the DVX100A. - There will always be improvements to technology, so my suggestion is if you are going to buy something don't keep waiting for the next model to come out because you will always be waiting and something better will always be coming out. Choose your tool and run with it, for goodness sake - aren't we just trying to make movies. Just tell your damn story and make the format you have work.

 

[DerekEastham]

Just tell your damn story and make the format you have work.

Absolutely... just wanted to chime in my absolute agreement with that!

 

[MarkG]

TV shows shot in 24P HD, like "Enterprise", "Joan of Arcadia", previously "Pasadena" or "Robbery Homicide Division", etc. all would not have used HD video cameras at all had they been limited to interlaced-scan capture (50i or 60i) because the look would not have been considered film-ish enough.

Sure, but they're not going to be shooting HDV any time soon. I don't think many people are going to be fooled into thinking that HDV footage was shot on film just by shooting 24fps: there are far too many other compromises in the imaging system which give it away as video footage.

 

[Digigenic]

I don't think many people are going to be fooled into thinking that HDV footage was shot on film just by shooting 24fps: there are far too many other compromises in the imaging system which give it away as video footage.

With so many compromises, I wonder why people even consider the HDV format an innovation at all.

At the very least, implementing 24 progressive scan would have given the indie filmmaker/producer the option to capture in closer proximity to film than without. Had they done this, which shouldn’t have been that difficult to do, then it would be clearer to me that this product was built with the indie filmmaker/producer in mind. And their disinterest in the indie filmmaking movement doesn’t come as a complete shock; they are largely invested in commercial/Hollywood scale productions, particularly in their venture with Panavision. So, for them to even toss us the nicely packaged scraps that they have been; I do feel as though I’m somewhat appreciated.

Of course, there are other compromises other than the lack of 24P that makes me lose interest in this camera's ability to deliver an image that would help me tell my story in an aesthetically pleasing manner. This doesn't mean that someone else won't come along and create a masterpiece with this camera, hell for all I know I'll be forced to use this camera as I was with the XL1/GL2, and I might actually take a liking to it, who knows? But for now, in my current condition, I'm disappointed in HDV, particularly the Sony variety.