HDV...let me make sure i've got this right

[irishpants]

I'm planning on buying the JVC-hd110u along with the that br-hd50 deck for importing into FCP 5.1.

This is my understanding, please correct me if I'm wrong. I really don't want to go spend all this money only to find out my stuff won't work or work the way I think it will.

1.) Despite previous shortcomings, FCP 5.1.4 can now handle the 720p24 signal that I will be importing, and the storage demands are not THAT much higher than normal miniDV.

2.) The best way to edit the HDV video will be to import it as the native signal it was recorded in, edit in HD, then downconvert to SD when exporting via Compressor so that it will still have a higher image quality than normal SD.

3.) I do not need to spend 850+ on an Apple high-def monitor for my iMac to be able to edit the HDV.

4.) The br-hd50 deck does not need to be attached to an HD NTSC monitor for external picture monitoring, the SD NTSC monitor I have been using will still suffice.

5.) Normal miniDV tapes will work for recording HDV, I don't need those HD miniDV tapes that seem like a scam.

Thanks in advance.

 

[CharlieAnderson]

Re: HDV...let me make sure i've got this right

1.) Despite previous shortcomings, FCP 5.1.4 can now handle the 720p24 signal that I will be importing, and the storage demands are not THAT much higher than normal miniDV.

Depends on your format. shooting at 720p24 has a much higher data rate than normal DV and requires a lot more space. Not sure about how the JVC handles that but I'm used to working with the HVX200 and the format for the harddrive takes up way more space.

2.) The best way to edit the HDV video will be to import it as the native signal it was recorded in, edit in HD, then downconvert to SD when exporting via Compressor so that it will still have a higher image quality than normal SD.

You can do it that way, but the best way is to export using HD formats. If you downconvert to SD from HD you'll still have an SD image. It all depends on the footage from which you finalize the editing process.

3.) I do not need to spend 850+ on an Apple high-def monitor for my iMac to be able to edit the HDV.

Correct, however if you want to CC on a NTSC Monitor, you would need a NTSC HD External Monitor.

4.) The br-hd50 deck does not need to be attached to an HD NTSC monitor for external picture monitoring, the SD NTSC monitor I have been using will still suffice.

Sorry but it won't work. You'll get a picture but it won't be anything like you want, quality wise that is. Think of trying to play a DVD in a VHS player.

5.) Normal miniDV tapes will work for recording HDV, I don't need those HD miniDV tapes that seem like a scam.

Sorry again but if you want the quality of HD you NEED to buy the HDV tapes. If you record just ti miniDV it will look like complete ass, in fact it looks WORSE than regular SD. The price of the HDV Tapes are expensive but I always push for quality over price.

Hope this helps.

 

[MarkG]

Re: HDV...let me make sure i've got this right

Depends on your format. shooting at 720p24 has a much higher data rate than normal DV and requires a lot more space.

Not true. The JVC cameras record 19Mbps, whereas DV is 25Mbps... native 720p HDV editing should use less disk space than DV (1080i uses 25Mbps).

You can do it that way, but the best way is to export using HD formats.

Not if your intention is to produce an SD video. But, yes, ideally you should master to an HD format other than HDV.

Sorry again but if you want the quality of HD you NEED to buy the HDV tapes.

No you don't. I use $2 Panasonic DV tapes or the cheap Sony tapes I've had lying around for years.

If you record just ti miniDV it will look like complete butt hole,

No it won't.

in fact it looks WORSE than regular SD.

No it doesn't.

The price of the HDV Tapes are expensive but I always push for quality over price.

The only benefit of HDV tapes is the theoretical 50% reduction in dropouts (which are rare anyway, I've only had one in hours of recording HDV on cheap DV tapes).

BTW, be careful about color correction on HDV footage; if you push it too far you will get lots of artifacts due to the MPEG-2 compression removing fine detail from areas of solid color. That's the single biggest flaw with the format.

 

[BenB]

Re: HDV...let me make sure i've got this right

1- 720p24 will take up more space than regular DV. I don't care what camera you're using. Unless it's an HDV, then you're using Long GOP compression, with DV color space, and it will be slightly larger than DV, but no camera does HDV/HD smaller than DV files, period.

2- Native HDV editing is a royal PITA, you'll want to use an intermediate codec, there will be no image quality loss, but "slightly" larger files size. Drive space is super cheap now, and if you want to do HDV, you need to buy larger drives, it is really as simple as that. I produce DVCPRO-HD exlusively. When we down convert to SD MPEG files for DVD authoring, we still end up with MUCH BETTER IMAGE QUALITY than if we had shot DV. But that's DVCPRO-HD, which has the full HD color space, not the limited DV color space HDV is limited by.

25 Mbit/s is the standard rate of both SD and HDV, and this camera shoots standard HDV but SUPER compressed down to 19.7, which won't make very much difference in file size at the end of the day. Use an IC to capture and edit. Cut corners with HD/HDV, and you'll regret it in the long run.

3- Apple HD Cinema displays work well enough, we have them in our studio and get great, pretty accurate results from them. Or you can spend a ton of cash for an actual HD-CRT production monitor. But a regular SD monitor will NOT work for editing HD material. But there are a variety of very good quality LCD monitors you can use that are cheaper than a full blown HD-CRT.

4- Same as #3.

5- Mini-DV tape is Mini-DV tape. The better quality tape you get, the more secure your footage is. Tapes, especially cheap ones, go bad every day.

 

[MarkG]

Re: HDV...let me make sure i've got this right

1- 720p24 will take up more space than regular DV. I don't care what camera you're using. Unless it's an HDV,

You did actually read the thread and the title, right?

then you're using Long GOP compression, with DV color space, and it will be slightly larger than DV

Sony 1080i HDV is the same bit-rate as DV. JVC 720p HDV is a lower bit-rate than DV.

but no camera does HDV/HD smaller than DV files, period.

Wrong, period. JVC HDV is around 19MBps, as I said... though it's possible they still record 25Mbps to the tape and stick zeros in the extra space.

Native HDV editing is a royal PITA

Not really; I do it all the time.

25 Mbit/s is the standard rate of both SD and HDV, and this camera shoots standard HDV but SUPER compressed down to 19.7, which won't make very much difference in file size at the end of the day.

See, you're even contradicting your earlier claim right here.

Why do people who've apparently never used HDV feel a need to post so much nonsense about it?

 

[Tim Kolb]

I agree with Mark that it's interesting how someone who uses DVC ProHD knows so "much" about HDV.

HDV's official colorspace is 709...like all HD. JVC's first cameras (VERY first) were 601...like standard definition video, but I'm not sure about these latest models.

JVC's HDV1 is actually LESS compressed than 25 Mb HDV2 as a 1280x720 image is substantially less pixel content to compress than 1440x1080. That's why the Sony/Canon cams run a 12 or 15 frame GOP and the JVCs run a 6 frame GOP on everything except 60p.

So again...even the 25 Mb/s HDV isn't "slightly larger"...it's the same. Actually, when you consider that the audio is MPEG2 instead of PCM, it may still be smaller.

DV tapes perform just fine. I've used them many times for HDV shoots with no problems. I try to use the HDV tapes for times when I may have to hand over the footage to a different post house as it just takes one more variable out of the conversation, but it's probably overkill for most situations.

HDV has it's limitations, but then shooting DVC ProHD at 24fps yields only 40 Mb/s usable picture data, and the HVX200 camera has a sensor that is 960x540, so the JVCs native 1280x720 CCDs actually yield some more picture resolution. It's much more of a toss up than many think it is...I've worked with HDV 720/1080 and DVC ProHD.

 

[BenB]

Yes, I use DVCPRO-HD, and yes, I have used HDV cameras just as much. My preference is the HVX-200 for it's price range. Also, your tech specs are not exactly accurate.

What about the JVC's pixel shifting? There's not an HDV camera made that doesn't incorporate that. But it makes not difference in the final product, which is why I didn't bring it up. There's lots of false information about DVCPRO-HD and the HVX200 on the Internet. It is a true HD CCD, there is nothing to argue there. It delivers a fantastic image, and the camera offers more usable features, and is more flexible than pretty much anything else before it. There's nothing wrong with it. Again, your tech specs are really not correct, nor correctly addressed.

Why do you people insist on sewering tech specs and an extremely popular format? If you can't afford DVCPRO-HD, go with HDV, I don't care. But don't put false information here, and don't launch personal attacks on folks you don't know.

You have a personal problem with the HVX, then don't use it. But don't bash it with false information.
Why wouldn't I know about HDV if I've used it so much? More importantly, how do you know I've never use HDV, nor know anything about it?

 

[Tim Kolb]

Also, your tech specs are not exactly accurate.

What about the JVC's pixel shifting? There's not an HDV camera made that doesn't incorporate that. But it makes not difference in the final product, which is why I didn't bring it up. There's lots of false information about DVCPRO-HD and the HVX200 on the Internet. It is a true HD CCD, there is nothing to argue there. There's nothing wrong with it. Again, your tech specs are really not correct, nor correctly addressed.

You have a personal problem with the HVX, then don't use it. But don't bash it with false information. Why wouldn't I know about HDV if I've used it so much? More importantly, how do you know I've never use HDV, nor know anything about it?

Well...first please explain the technical details of how JVC pixel-shifts a 1280x720 sensor to create a 1280x720 image...then go over how the HVX pixel shifts a 960x540 sensor into a 1280x720 image.

I work with HVX footage all the time...we have one in house and have pushed it as far as shooting footage for Getty's stock library. We have a P+S Technik prime adapter on it. We've also worked with HDV since its inception. I'm not slamming DVC ProHD...I'm just saying that the gap isn't anything as wide as some have described in this thread. My point is that they each have their drawbacks, HDV's MPEG is temporally compressed and that affects the image and HVX200's DVC ProHD is an interpolation of a lower resolution image...that also affects the image.

As far as jumping to the conclusion that you don't work with HDV...well:

"720p24 will take up more space than regular DV. I don't care what camera you're using. Unless it's an HDV, then you're using Long GOP compression, with DV color space, and it will be slightly larger than DV, but no camera does HDV/HD smaller than DV files, period."

This is just simply false...720p24 HDV is 19 Mb/s...DV is 25 Mb/s. 19 is less than 25. ...and HDV 1080i is 25 Mb/s...an identical data rate to DV...not even "slightly larger."

"I produce DVCPRO-HD exlusively. When we down convert to SD MPEG files for DVD authoring, we still end up with MUCH BETTER IMAGE QUALITY than if we had shot DV. But that's DVCPRO-HD, which has the full HD color space, not the limited DV color space HDV is limited by."

I guess your extensive HDV experience is in a previous life? You do state that you work with DVC ProHD exclusively here... Also, since this is the second place you mention colorspace, DVC ProHD and HDV both have a clearly identified colorspace spec of rec 709...and they are both 8 bit (as every HD tape format is with the exception of HDcamSR), so this statement is also simply not true.

...if you are referring to "color subsampling"...this is a different topic, but HDV with 4:2:0 color difference subsampling is still different than NTSC DV (being that you and I are from the USA), which is 4:1:1, though in PAL countries, it's 4:2:0. Unless you count the DV25 version of DVC Pro from Panasonic, which is 4:1:1 for NTSC and PAL.

As far as what I can "afford"...be careful here with who you apply this statement to. I work with Varicams and F900s, ARRI D20s, Silicon Imaging 2K cameras, etc. We have some HDV gear in house because we did some production that was shown at the Sony Z1's introduction at NAB a couple years back...and I've done a couple of corporate projects with HDV. We also have an HVX200 in-house and we work with that footage frequently for local spots and smaller projects...I've greenscreen composited both.

DVC ProHD is a bit easier to edit than HDV on a Mac, but of course it's not as straightforward on a PC. Both formats are equally tricky to "push" very far in color correction as they are both 8 bit.

All of the cameras in this price range are making compromises of some type. I'm just trying to lay out tech specs that are accurate as I think that the information that you and Charlie provided was certainly enthusiastic, but not factually accurate.

Please do research my points and tell me where I'm incorrect and link me to the information that will educate me...

I have nothing against you or any particular video equipment, I just think that if tech specs are going to be presented as basis for judgement, they should be accurate. Saying you like or don't like something or had a good or bad experience with it is entirely your right. Laying out technical data that is only accurate enough to support your enthusiasm doesn't help anyone make an informed decision.