The way I think of HDV

Discussion in 'Amateur Video Production' started by Five, Sep 10, 2004.

  1. Five

    Five Guest

    Some people are getting hyped up about the new HDV
    format, but to me it is like takeing your standard dv
    camcorder footage, and making a DVD video, and then
    taking that footage and reediting it and making a
    second dvd.

    The first dvd looks very mooshy compared to the
    footage you shot, and then when you reedit it, you
    loose so much. Now you want to put that re-edited
    footage onto a second DVD. I can only imagine how bad
    that will look.

    HDV is already a compressed format to a lossy file
    type. When you edit it, and save, it is even more
    lossy. At some point, you will have to save it to
    DVD.... YUCK!

    Maybe Panasonic will make it's own format that is
    50meg, 24P, 720P widescreen.
    And when all the television manufactures realize that
    they can make their images look better by enhancing
    their refresh rates, and "jitter" from this format
    will be a non-issue with a higher refresh rate
    Five, Sep 10, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Five

    david.mccall Guest

    Back in the 50s (last century :) The people shooting 35mm said the
    thing about the people shooting 16mm, and the people shooting 16mm
    said the same thing about the people shooting 8mm. It was as true
    then as it is today.

    However by that philosophy, you shouldn't shoot anything unless you
    can aford to do it right. Shoot everything to 65mm and print it to 70mm
    and keep those damn computers away from your pristeen images.

    HDV is a consumer format, and is targeted at people that have HDTVs
    in their family room. By what we've heard HDV is better than DV,
    especially when viewed on a HD set. DV was a designed to be a
    consumer format, and had much more compression than any profesional
    would ever want to put their name on. Guess what? there a lot of people
    that call themselves profesional doing entire projects in DV.

    I have a client that has me do computer graphics and titles for their
    productions (hospital related training tapes). They shoot on DV, Edit DV
    in FCP and have me deliver my graphics on CDs in DV format. I don't
    particularly like the way it looks, but the client is happy and they
    pay their bills. What more can I ask?
    Your example has only limited merit. HDV has as much bandwidth
    as DV does. The difference is that it uses a more efficient form of
    compression to allow for much more detail. Viewed from a distance,
    I wouldn't expect recompressed HDV to look dramitically worse
    than recompressed DV. It's the same amount of bandwidth after all.
    Will there be noticable losses? Yeah, but there are significant losses
    when you print 65mm down to 35mm for distribution, but the folks
    go to the theater anyway.
    At the moment we can't save it to DVD (in the home) unless we
    down-convert it to SD. We have to go back to tape or convert it
    to something else with playback limited to computers.
    They already do. They have DVCpro HD in 100mbs and
    I think 50mbs too. Sony has even less compressed formats.
    You are more than welcome to use any of those, but they
    aren't consumer formats, so expect to pay a lot more.
    Upping the refresh rate might help with the jitters from
    interlaced video, but it does little for the issues discussed above.

    david.mccall, Sep 10, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Five

    nappy Guest

    but on the other hand a significant number of successful features are being
    done in DV.. I suppose the differentiation is that these features usually
    get a lot more post processing, color correction and film transfers. I
    actually like the look of well done DV footage. (silly me) I haven't seen it
    yet but I understand the feature "open water" ( I think that's the title)
    was shot with a PD-150. Add another one to the growing list. I liked "28
    days after" also. Depressing as it was.

    The only thing I see as a drawback is the MPEG2 part of it. Mostly because
    of the technical aspects. Not to mention rendering time, as another poster
    pointed out better than I can.

    Of course the key to this is inexpensive high speed, high density storage
    local to the camera.

    In fact, with a camera like this there ought to be a mode where, if you
    have a hard drive connected like a firestore, and are capable of 80meg/sec
    it will store uncompressed frames. Or 2:1 ... I should think that would not
    be hard since the pipe is so much faster than the one that writes to tape,
    capture, compress (MPEG2), stream to tape.. Hey Sony!

    Still I am excited about the higher resolution. But even in high data rate
    MPEG I have seen anomolies in the shadows, etc..
    nappy, Sep 10, 2004
  4. Five

    david.mccall Guest

    All good points. We always have the desire for excellent quality video, but
    you know that the medium is only a small part of the whole. Lighting,
    camera-work, audio, settings & props, actors, scripts, direction, costumes,
    etc., etc., are all very important too. It might be safe to say that any
    of the above combined would have a greater impact on the final production
    than the image quality alone. If you can get good quality in all of those
    areas, then you have a movie, even if you shoot it on hi-8. If it's really
    then it might not be that hard to get a real HD camera for the next one.

    I'm not sure how quick Sony will be to shoot themselves in the foot, by
    making a camera at this price point be good enough for professional work.
    Of course it is possible though.

    I'm looking forward to playing with one of these toys.

    david.mccall, Sep 10, 2004
  5. Five

    david.mccall Guest

    Some of my messages don't seem to be staying on the server. Two post back
    only a 15 minutes ago, the post was gone before I got to it. I'll try to
    repost it.

    Anybody know why this would be?

    david.mccall, Sep 10, 2004
  6. Five

    Mike Kujbida Guest

    You folks might be interested in taking a look at a clip shot with the new
    Sony HDV camera. I'll quote the post verbatim from the Sony Vegas forum. I
    have my opinions but I'll wait until others have seen it. Enjoy.


    Hi all-

    I recently shot a little demo piece using a prototype of the just announced
    Sony HDV cameras. This footage is being used as part of our presentation at
    IBC in Amsterdam but I thought some of you might want to check it out too.

    Camera: I can't respond in any sort of depth about the camera details other
    than to say it really rocks- excellent quality all around, very much in the
    PD-170 class of fit and finish, image quality and ergonomics. There will be
    tons of official info released in the next couple of months so I won't go
    into this any further here.

    What I shot: Using a Sony HDV PAL prototype (very low #), I shot flowers and
    various nature scenes here in Madsion on a bright summer day. All shots are
    statics (I had only a cheap tripod available at that time so I didn't do any
    slick crane shots or anything). All footage shot in 1080i PAL, factory
    settings, no add-on filters. Manual exposure, manual focus at all times. I
    tried to show off color, contrast, DOF and detail etc.

    How I edited: I used an (unreleased*) capture app to pull the footage off
    the camera. Footage was loaded on the Vegas timeline (shipping version,
    Vegas 5.0b), project settings 1440x1080, upper field first, PAR 1.333,
    25fps, audio 16/48. A few dissolves, an ACID-created music bed, and Vegas'
    text generator were used. No color correction was used- footage is straight
    off the camera.

    * Capture- right now this camera isn't shipping and even if you got your
    hands on one, Vegas 5.0b cannot capture HDV natively. This will of course be
    addressed in a future version of Vegas, details TBA. Cineform will also be
    updating their capture applet to work with Sony HDV in the future, some
    other capture alternatives may also possibly surface soon.

    Delivery: It'll be awhile before everybody has an HDTV set and it'll also
    take awhile for disc-based HD players to proliferate but probably everybody
    reading this has a high rez display sitting a foot from their face right
    now- your computer screen. HDV is great for computer delivery! So I rendered
    the project in Vegas 5.0b to Windows Media using the following settings:

    Audio: CBR, WMA9, 192/48
    Video: CBR, WMV9, 1280x720, 25fps, 5 kfps, smoothness=90, 5Mbs

    On my barebones 2.4 Dell this project took ~7 minutes to render (crossfades,
    title overlay throughout, mask on the very last shot under the title, "best"

    How you should play it: Download the file to your computer. Open in Windows
    Media Player. When the video starts, hit alt-enter and WMP should go to full

    This file plays back fine on Sony laptops so it should playback fine on any
    decent desktop. If you can't play it back in WMP without hiccups, surf on
    over to Microsoft - there's quite a bit of info on how to test and tweak
    your system for HD playback.

    File location:

    The URL:

    Username/Password (case-sensitive):

    We can't answer a mountain of further questions about all this right now
    (and sorry, I can't provide native HDV footage from the Sony cameras) but we
    look forward to reading your reponses. Have fun-

    -Sony Vegas engineering team
    Mike Kujbida, Sep 10, 2004
  7. Five

    Dard Guest

    Bad log in.
    The user name and password has been blocked already. Is there
    somewhere that is NOT on a ftp server that we can download the clip?
    Dard, Sep 10, 2004
  8. Nope... the file's gone.

    Jon Erlandson, Sep 11, 2004
  9. Five

    PTRAVEL Guest

    It's there -- you have to download it, rather than open it.

    PTRAVEL, Sep 11, 2004
  10. How did you log in?

    Robert Morein, Sep 11, 2004
  11. Five

    Funprice Guest

    It works just as said in the opening post. Try again if you please.
    Funprice, Sep 11, 2004
  12. Five

    Glenn M Guest

    The video looked great viewing it on a Sony GDM-F520 computer monitor
    in Windows Media Player...

    Thanks for sharing that...
    Glenn M

    Glenn M, Sep 11, 2004
  13. Five

    Johan Stäck Guest

    Myself, I am working on several projects with one thing in common.
    The common factor is: Video will only be played back on a PC display.
    No TV:s ever.
    Presently I work with DV.
    Living in PAL-land, I get 720*576 pixels.

    I want more pixels and I want better-looking pixels.
    Cost is definitely an objective.

    I don't (normally) want interlace.
    Simple rule:
    If the playback equipment (e.g. household TV:s) is interlaced, then
    shoot interlaced.
    If the playback equipment (e.g. computer screens) is non-interlaced
    (progressive) then shoot progressive (if at all possible).

    The sample looks very promising. Since there is no fast movement in the
    sample, interlace is not a problem, and the picture quality looks good!

    /Johan S
    Johan Stäck, Sep 11, 2004
  14. "530 - user anonymous, cannot log in"

    Gary Eickmeier
    Gary Eickmeier, Sep 12, 2004
  15. Five

    Mike Kujbida Guest

    Just tried it now and it still works for me (using IE 6).

    Mike Kujbida, Sep 12, 2004
  16. I haven't got broadband so am not even trying to download it, but see
    if the log-n works as



    Martin Heffels, Sep 12, 2004
  17. Thanks Mike. I just got it in IE. Not sure what the big problem is in

    The clip was beautiful, but as "Guy" said, it was pretty much a slide
    show. Wonder if they have a problem with motion. Also wonder what such a
    download would look like in regular DV. I guess all I would have to do
    to find out would be to play a clip from one of my projects on my
    monitor at full screen. Would that be a valid comparison?

    Gary Eickmeier
    Gary Eickmeier, Sep 12, 2004
  18. Five

    Mike Kujbida Guest

    Not sure either. We use Netscape at work and I find that I have to switch
    to IE more and more often to get a page to display properly.
    A lot of folks on the Sony Vegs forum are wondering the same thing.
    Hopefully we'll see some action footage really soon.
    Probaly not. Simply because the original was shot in 1080i PAL and uses
    MPEG-2 as it's recording format. You'd be comparing apples & oranges.
    OTOH, folks on the SOny Vegas forum that have fed it to an HDTV set say it
    looks very good.

    Mike Kujbida, Sep 12, 2004
  19. Five

    Dan Guest

    IE has proprietary features that naive web designers use knowingly or
    unknowingly. Mozilla 1.7.2 and Firefox 0.9.3 are the most compliant
    browsers on the market with regard to web STANDARDS. I rarely run into
    web sites that don't render in Mozilla.

    Dan, Sep 13, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.