BenB said:
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.