|
|
Posted by Specs on 10/06/63 11:34
> >
> > Will
> >
> > You'd be well advised to ignore the above. HDV is HD BTW. The only
thing
> I
> > would worry about with HDV is the low light sensitivity. This can
easily
> be
> > overcome by using additional lighting or judicious use of the camera
gain
> > control.
> >
> > A detailed comparison can be found here:
> > http://www.sonyhdvinfo.com/
> >
> > Let me draw your attention to the HDV production in Ghana thread. It is
> > written by someone, John Lubran, who has actually used the format in
> > production. Listen to these people not the urban mythmakers....
> >
> > Spex
>
> I have also used HDV in productions. Currently being broadcast on MTV,
FUSE,
> etc..
>
> I disagree with the honorable Specs in that HDV differs from HD in
numerous
> ways. Most notably the MPEG compression, low data rate and mid scale
> resolution. Also the compressed audio is possibly its weaked point.
>
> HDV is an appropriate label in that it does distinguish between HD and
HDV.
> If HD were HDV then there would be no need to call it HDV.
>
> I have to add that HDV has thrown the software developers a curve they
would
> rather have circumvented.
> Some editing programs now run very poorly while editing HDV because of the
> complexity of editing MPEG formats. It is not all working perfectly yet
....
I am sure you can remember the days of frustration and expense trying to
edit SD in the not too distant past. I remember the cost of those 500 MB
SCSI drives in my RAID. I remember the flaky software and the crappy
hardware. Even when DV arrived it was not that easy to edit more than a
couple of streams in realtime. So I'd take where we are gladly as history
tells us its only going to get easier.
> . SO performance issues that were not a problem with uncompressed or
> frame-compressed formats are back to plague us as they did in the early
> 90's. Generation errors caused by re-encoding , which has to happen more
> often in HDV land, are also a problem. In my world at least, it does
> require extra planning.
>
Using edit friendly codecs like DNxHD, Cineform and Canopus mitgate much of
the above. But in a professional environment why go back to HDV? The cost
of owning a HD-SDI board is irrelevant and a days hire won't break the bank
either.
Nappy, you mentioned the music video you shot that you were unimpressed by
HDV's audio? For the life of me I cannot understand why you were recording
audio for a music video other than for syncing in the edit. Why would use
MP2 in a deliverable?
> Then there is the little problem of no live transcoding though cameras..
> FWIW DV is a more fleixble format in my world. I wish they had simply
> expanded the DV format instead of MPEG.
>
>
>
What do you call DVCPROHD aka DV100? Even at 100 Mbps DV100 falls apart at
1080i with complex images. Mosaicing can be seen and to my eyes are more
noticeable than "motion blur" one gets with HDV material. HDV is improving
and we haven't seen the best yet. The Canon HD1 output is superior to the
Sony cameras so there are optimisations to be had even within the confines
of 25 Mbps. Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting there will be earth
shaking improvements but there will certainly be noticeable refinements.
Some clips from the Canon HD1:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=52110
HDV is not meant to be amazing quality its meant to sell HDTVs as its first
and foremost objective. Its second objective is not to take sales away from
the Cinealta. Question: If you were given a brief to design the best
quality small format HD camcorder to be sold for about $6000 you wouldn't
base your design round a DV tape would you? Its not beyond the wit of man
to produce a camcorder with a half decent lens and removable hard drive bay
accepting drives in ruggedised enclosures and recording MPEG 2 @ 50 or 75
Mbps with PCM audio. We can all dream....
Spex
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|