maybe this has already been discussed...at first I didn't give a crap about the new HD24P cameras that have come out b/c I was set on buying myself a Canon XL1s...but now I have read some articles on the HD format and now I'm just confused. First off...is this type of HD camera even on the market yet? and if so is it better than say the canon XL1s?is the regular HD cameras better overall? Everyone here prolly wants to be a filmmaker...and like all filmmakers you want the camera thats better quality. so basically....WHAT THE HELL DO I DO...or where can I look to do more research?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
HD or not HD
- Thread starter Bsmith
- Start date
D
Digigenic
Guest
8)
The availability of HDV cameras in the prosumer market is being welcomed to mixed reviews.
There is currently an HDV camcorder available on the market, manufactured by JVC. However, this camera has been highly criticized in previous discussions within many videography and digital cinematography boards. JVC’s HDVcam lacks 24P, only uses one CCD, has poor low light capability, and is often referred to as the ambassador of half-assed innovation.
First, and foremost, all HDV cameras, regardless of manufacturer, are expected to employ MPEG2 compression with low bandwidth processing speeds to record HDV to mini DV tapes, like the JVC does. This has created quite a stir, and there's a big uproar within the videographer community that is adamantly oppose to the MPEG standard, because it automatically forces limitations in terms of quality. If you are familiar with compression for transferring footage to DVD or the web, you're familiar with quality loss, and understand that there's a noticeable degree of quality loss when compressing DV through an MPEG, AVI, or QT format. The same will basically apply anytime you press record on one of these HDV cams. It automatically compresses your footage without you having any control over it…pretty retarded.
With that said, there are other manufactures who are expected to make HDV cameras available in the near future, with announcements already made by Sony, Panasonic, and high expectations from Canon. It's believed that they might tweak the compression standard in terms of processing power to facilitate higher quality images. Some manufacturers, such as Canon, have the ability to employ proprietary processors, full frame CMOS sensors, high quality HD optics, and a series of innovative design quirks that would make for a pretty good HDV camera in spite of the compression issue.
It's still a question of concern to those who intend to make the transition from the reliable standard DV format to a HD hybrid format with very little literature or a proven track record with regard to its’ quality and performance.
If Canon, or Panasonic produce an HDV camera with higher processing speeds, high quality HD lenses, manual frame rate adjustability, three senors, or a single full frame 16 or 35mm sensor, rated at 1 lux or less, then that’ll be a camera worth considering.
As for now, HDV really hasn’t proven to be much of an innovation in terms of quality, performance and especially in terms of applicability. The limitless applications for standard DV cams like the XL1, PD170, or the DVX100 are much stronger, especially for the XL1, which has an incredible advantage with its’ open body architecture, a piercing advantage that no other manufacturer has been able to mimic in the prosumer market.
The availability of HDV cameras in the prosumer market is being welcomed to mixed reviews.
There is currently an HDV camcorder available on the market, manufactured by JVC. However, this camera has been highly criticized in previous discussions within many videography and digital cinematography boards. JVC’s HDVcam lacks 24P, only uses one CCD, has poor low light capability, and is often referred to as the ambassador of half-assed innovation.
First, and foremost, all HDV cameras, regardless of manufacturer, are expected to employ MPEG2 compression with low bandwidth processing speeds to record HDV to mini DV tapes, like the JVC does. This has created quite a stir, and there's a big uproar within the videographer community that is adamantly oppose to the MPEG standard, because it automatically forces limitations in terms of quality. If you are familiar with compression for transferring footage to DVD or the web, you're familiar with quality loss, and understand that there's a noticeable degree of quality loss when compressing DV through an MPEG, AVI, or QT format. The same will basically apply anytime you press record on one of these HDV cams. It automatically compresses your footage without you having any control over it…pretty retarded.
With that said, there are other manufactures who are expected to make HDV cameras available in the near future, with announcements already made by Sony, Panasonic, and high expectations from Canon. It's believed that they might tweak the compression standard in terms of processing power to facilitate higher quality images. Some manufacturers, such as Canon, have the ability to employ proprietary processors, full frame CMOS sensors, high quality HD optics, and a series of innovative design quirks that would make for a pretty good HDV camera in spite of the compression issue.
It's still a question of concern to those who intend to make the transition from the reliable standard DV format to a HD hybrid format with very little literature or a proven track record with regard to its’ quality and performance.
If Canon, or Panasonic produce an HDV camera with higher processing speeds, high quality HD lenses, manual frame rate adjustability, three senors, or a single full frame 16 or 35mm sensor, rated at 1 lux or less, then that’ll be a camera worth considering.
As for now, HDV really hasn’t proven to be much of an innovation in terms of quality, performance and especially in terms of applicability. The limitless applications for standard DV cams like the XL1, PD170, or the DVX100 are much stronger, especially for the XL1, which has an incredible advantage with its’ open body architecture, a piercing advantage that no other manufacturer has been able to mimic in the prosumer market.
Also, I believe the JVC camera is only 720 lines, which is a fair improvement over NTSC (480 lines), but only a small improvement over PAL (576 lines). It will take 1080 line cameras to make an obvious large difference in picture resolution.
As does DV. The difference is that DV compresses individual frames so your final movie will be as high quality as the original footage, other than loss due to recompression for color grading, effects and the like. HDV compresses groups of frames together, so after editing the entire movie has to be recompresses regardless.
Either way, unless the limitations turn out to be really problematic, I suspect my next camera will be 1080 line HDV.
Well, personally I've yet to see an XL1 in the real world with anything other than the standard lens. It's certainly a big advantage if you do want to attach other lenses, but I suspect the reason no other manufacturers have followed that route is that the market for cheap DV cameras which take interchangable lenses is a small one.
It automatically compresses your footage without you having any control over it…pretty retarded.
As does DV. The difference is that DV compresses individual frames so your final movie will be as high quality as the original footage, other than loss due to recompression for color grading, effects and the like. HDV compresses groups of frames together, so after editing the entire movie has to be recompresses regardless.
Either way, unless the limitations turn out to be really problematic, I suspect my next camera will be 1080 line HDV.
especially for the XL1, which has an incredible advantage with its’ open body architecture, a piercing advantage that no other manufacturer has been able to mimic in the prosumer market.
Well, personally I've yet to see an XL1 in the real world with anything other than the standard lens. It's certainly a big advantage if you do want to attach other lenses, but I suspect the reason no other manufacturers have followed that route is that the market for cheap DV cameras which take interchangable lenses is a small one.
D
Digigenic
Guest
Regardless of 720 or 1080, the HDV MPEG2 format is still limited to something like 25 or 50 mbps processing speed.
Which, when taken into a situation where you have a lot of action, panning/movement, the slower processor starts to choke. This problem will drastically effect anyone attempting to shoot an action sequence etc. This doesn't happen with the current DV cams I use, I can shoot run and gun with an XL1 or GL2 without having to worry if I might get pixelated images. That's the main problem I have with HDV and MPEG2 compression standard.
Which, when taken into a situation where you have a lot of action, panning/movement, the slower processor starts to choke. This problem will drastically effect anyone attempting to shoot an action sequence etc. This doesn't happen with the current DV cams I use, I can shoot run and gun with an XL1 or GL2 without having to worry if I might get pixelated images. That's the main problem I have with HDV and MPEG2 compression standard.
Because this thread seems to be going along those lines of pros/cons of digital I remember reading here that 28 days later was shot using XL1s and i saw it theatrically and I don't remember how it looked then but when i recently rewatched it on DVD i noticed significant artifacting in the images. So I don't know how loudly that speaks as to the quality of shooting digitally but there was a very distinct difference there as opposed to any other DVD i've ever viewed.
Regardless of 720 or 1080, the HDV MPEG2 format is still limited to something like 25 or 50 mbps processing speed.
And DVDs are limited to about 8 Mbps MPEG2: so that's 3-6 times more bandwidth than the best quality DVD. Certainly you could get artifacts in some cases with poor compression chips, but there's no theoretical reason why they have to be significantly worse than artifacts on the best DVDs.
Personally I'd rather they used DV compression at four times the data rate on 15 minute tapes, but their MPEG2 implementation looks potentially viable to me.
D
Digigenic
Guest
Panasonic's AGDVX100a isn't HD, but it does shoot in 24P, 30P, or 60i.
D
Digigenic
Guest
Yes, we find ourselves caught and confused within that great divide between DV and HD…what should we do? Who should we trust? How should others view our work?
It’s a tough question,
But, one thing’s for sure, technical innovation shouldn’t dictate the direction of our ideas…
Many people are either putting their ideas on hold to collect dust, degrade on disk or drive, or they’re despairingly rushing into them half-assed, anticipating technological innovation to become the gateway to great filmmaking, and that it will provide the ultimate means of instant appeal…but, that just isn’t the case.
For the last couple of years, people have argued that it would be out any day, a magical camera to provide them with all of the desirable amenities...HD(720 or 1080), frame rate changes in single increments from 1 to 60 for under and overcranking, the ability to use professional prime lenses, as with the Canon XL1's notorious open body architecture and the mini35 or other P+S Technik adapters, 1 lux rating or less, 1 full frame CMOS with NATIVE 16:9 instead of 3 CCD in 4:3. Everything the big boys get to play with...and we can only dream about.
Really, I think it's worth waiting for HD, but then again, if you really want the standard DV camera with 24P (AG-DVX100a), by all means, get out and go make a good movie with it. That camera certainly won’t prevent you from making a good movie, and neither should any other decent camera. Bottom line is; you’re gonna have to decide for yourself which format would be most suitable for your needs.
It’s a tough question,
But, one thing’s for sure, technical innovation shouldn’t dictate the direction of our ideas…
Many people are either putting their ideas on hold to collect dust, degrade on disk or drive, or they’re despairingly rushing into them half-assed, anticipating technological innovation to become the gateway to great filmmaking, and that it will provide the ultimate means of instant appeal…but, that just isn’t the case.
For the last couple of years, people have argued that it would be out any day, a magical camera to provide them with all of the desirable amenities...HD(720 or 1080), frame rate changes in single increments from 1 to 60 for under and overcranking, the ability to use professional prime lenses, as with the Canon XL1's notorious open body architecture and the mini35 or other P+S Technik adapters, 1 lux rating or less, 1 full frame CMOS with NATIVE 16:9 instead of 3 CCD in 4:3. Everything the big boys get to play with...and we can only dream about.
Really, I think it's worth waiting for HD, but then again, if you really want the standard DV camera with 24P (AG-DVX100a), by all means, get out and go make a good movie with it. That camera certainly won’t prevent you from making a good movie, and neither should any other decent camera. Bottom line is; you’re gonna have to decide for yourself which format would be most suitable for your needs.
Regardless of 720 or 1080, the HDV MPEG2 format is still limited to something like 25 or 50 mbps processing speed.
Wait a minute. 50 mbs is a broadcast transfer rate for production or post production (DVCPRO 50, digital betacam). 25 is not so bad (dvcam, dvcpro). Both are MJPEG. used The problems of pixelisation when displaying are due to the mpeg2 algorythmic (interimage redondance compression) wich is 15 mbits/s.
I don't know this "HDV" so called new format, that looks like having nothing to see with real professionnal HDTV wich is up to 100 mbs, 1920 dots/line and i'm not talking about HD for 25 mm release feature films (cinema not TV) but if it is mpeg2, it must be a joke, since sony is dropping down mpeg2 sx system, that are 15 mbps max.
all digital broadcast formats are MJPEG.
Concerning this rate compared to 9.8 mbits dvd transfer rate : the problem is not the same at the final postproducted transfer rate beetween the dvd player and the monitor. Digital sattelite tv reception is 4 to 8 mbs, while broadcast should be 10 and HDTV 20 and coded mpeg2.
concerning 24 p : it is a mode of producing image : 24 fps instead of 25 for pal or 30 for ntsc, as to fit with cinema standard 24 fps. The aim is to ease film transfer, thats all. p means progressive, as film is 24 fps, while you have 1/48 s of black beetween images, that lasts 1/48 s as well.
video is 50 or 60 frames per seconds interlaced. 24 p is just the system you need for best and cheap transfer to film from a video tape. there is non "film like look" in this. because it depends, as always on wich final support you watch. If you watch a 35 mm positive film, it has the film look, of course. But you can shoot 25 fps progressive for pal video systems that will have the "film like cadence look ", or 30 p for ntsc for a video "film like" product, no hassle with 24 fps. it's the progressive instead of interlaced that gives the film look, not 24 cadence.
if you shoot in video in 25 or 30 interlaced, and print on film (telecine), it will just be more expensive but will have exactly the same look as if shot 24 p (you have some dropped frames, but not so bad).
concerning the comparision beetween 1 cmos pickup device and 3 ccd pick up device : it is the technics of cmos that make 1 pickupdevice, as last ccd where 3 pickup device. this (new) use CMOS is more recent, that's all.
I think one has to consider each point at its turn, and always keep from mixing problems or items that have nothing to see with one other.
Network Sponsors
