Mini DV, HD, HDV, and sizes

sonnyboo

sonnyboo

Attachments

  • hdsd.jpg
    hdsd.jpg
    25.6 KB · Views: 110
Last edited:
Sort by date Sort by votes
WideShot said:
I don't think you can make a more compelling case than that.
Click to expand...

How about the attachment here...
(Source: the latest Creative Cow magazine)

Note: it shows Digital SLR sizes in the comparison, because the article was about how to do very high quality time lapse with a decent DSLR..
 

Attachments

  • resolutions.jpg
    resolutions.jpg
    376.5 KB · Views: 162
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think what this really makes clear is why HDV is such an unstable format. If you think about it, you are trying to put six times the amount of information onto the same number of microns -- the only way to do that is use massive amounts of data compression -- the only problem is, compression works by only recording the changes in pixels -- which means the more pixel differences between frames, the greater the weight of the data.

This is the reason HDV folds when there is a lot of movement across the frame.

There is still no such thing as good, cheap HD. You can have one or the other -- not both -- unless you adjust your shooting style to work within the limitations of the format.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
clive said:
unless you adjust your shooting style to work within the limitations of the format.
Click to expand...

That's been my argument all along with any format. Now I shot HFD! side by side with an HC1 and 16mm 7265 and I didnt notice any oddities with my footage other than the red in the HD footage was slightly more bluish that orange in terms of true red. Motion looks great. The footage itself is wonderful quality, and downrezzed to 720 or even 480 is beautiful. Now I have seen documented cases where the Mpeg-2 scheme has trouble with things like explosions and a rock splashing into the water, and even a super-fast whip pan can cause blocky pixels for the frames. But again, working within the format's limitations can produce wonderful results.

Is there any advantage to more resolution?
 

Attachments

  • womenonhorses7.jpg
    womenonhorses7.jpg
    559.2 KB · Views: 153
Upvote 0 Downvote
I watched an entire vacation video shot at Disney World in Orlando by a guy I know. We studied the moving shots, of which there were plenty, we studied the low light shots, and we tried to find a reason why you'd want to shoot miniDV over this, single CCD, Sony HDV camcorder. In the end, the best we could do was that the tiny Sony was just not big enough to get us any respect on the set.

I have 2 reasons for not jumping on HDV, and they are related to each other ...

1) I have a nice miniDV camera that is already paid for

2) I believe HDV will morph into something better, at least at the prosumer level, by the time I have a business justification for a new camera

However, if I were buying a camera today, I'd buy an HDV camcorder, or the Panasonic HVX-200. I would be completely happy with all but the cheapest of HDV camcorders for my misadventures. Believe me, I tried to find the hidden evil in HDV. Even the editors are reporting that the GOP fears with frame-accurate editing were unfounded. I admit, I haven't analized any explosions, but I'm trying to reduce the level of violence in my life. ;) Seriously, though, all of the explosions I do are computer generated; so I can avoid the cost of pyrotechnics.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Since getting the JVC-HD110 HDV camera, I'd say most people talking trash about HDV are reading about it more than actually using it. There is little to no motion artifacting even in a high motion, hand held car-chase shoot we did (footage to be seen in early 2007). The only issue seems to be editing in native HDV (MPEG2), but in Premiere you can use the CINEFORM ASPECT HD codec and in AVID you can use the DNxH codec in Xpress Pro HD and then you've eliminated the MPEG2 editing problems... Is it as good as full HD? Hell no, but it's a lot more affordable and worlds better than Mini DV. Is the frame size the same as the diagram on my site? Yes. That was the sole purpose of this thread.

How a simple diagram of pixel sizes evolved into an HDV commentary, I'll never understand.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
sonnyboo said:
Since getting the JVC-HD110 HDV camera, I'd say most people talking trash about HDV are reading about it more than actually using it.
Click to expand...
I just got this camera. I start shooting a feature with it on Monday. So far all the tests I've done have been great. I was once an HDV trash talker, but I may be changing my tune soon.
How a simple diagram of pixel sizes evolved into an HDV commentary, I'll never understand.
Click to expand...
Because all discussions on messageboards evolve. It's the nature of the beast. I've learned a lot from evolving discussions - I'm glad they happen.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
knightly said:
I've seen it blown up in the theater and it works at that size, which confounds me.
Click to expand...
I believe it's a matter of viewing distance. An analogy might be the DPI required for a photographic print. For small prints, 300 DPI is considered minimum dot-size, but for larger prints, intended to be viewed from several feet away, DPI can go as low as 100.
Another case of this, is the difference between the 13" NTSC monitor I use for editing, which makes my SD video look nice and crisp, even when viewing up close. However, that same video on a 52" TV looks like sh*t up close, but looks fine from an appropriate viewing distance.
Although our eyes can't really discern that much detail in a moving picture, from a distance, I still find a sharper, higher resolution image more pleasing to watch. I think the amount of detail one appreciates varies with the content of the shot. As motion increases, or we're forced to process more elements at the same time, the detail is lost. Whereas, when the action slows down, or we focus on a small area of the overall image, those of us who are young and can still see, are likely to appreciate the clarity of a higher resolution image.

I'm sure this is all pretty obvious, but I had to throw my 2 cents in. I apologize, in advance, if I've gone outside the parameters of this discussion, with anything I wrote, or anything I may have thought about writing, or anything I simply thought about, while I was writing.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Since getting the JVC-HD110 HDV camera, I'd say most people talking trash about HDV are reading about it more than actually using it.
Click to expand...

Guys, sorry to push the thread off another tangent, but how did you get past the workflow problems with that camera?

Final Cut have just upgrade with 5.1.2 and Lumiere have developed a codec to handle the full HDV image, but every UK user I talk to says that the firewire link between the camera and the NLE just can't handle the data rates -- leading to timecode dropouts every thirty seconds or so.

JVC have promised a deck, but there are only two units in the UK at present.

The other thing I've heard about that particular unit is it's too light to properly control shoulder mounted and its build quality leaves a lot of be desired.

Where they do agree with you, is that this new codec does seem to deal with with 90% of the HDV image issues -- but most of the guys I'm talking to can't see the point in shooting footage you can't cut, on a camera with a working lifespan of no more than a year.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
clive said:
Guys, sorry to push the thread off another tangent, but how did you get past the workflow problems with that camera?
Click to expand...

As I stated after the quote in the original post....


sonnyboo said:
The only issue seems to be editing in native HDV (MPEG2), but in Premiere you can use the CINEFORM ASPECT HD codec and in AVID you can use the DNxH codec in Xpress Pro HD and then you've eliminated the MPEG2 editing problems
Click to expand...


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


http://www.cineform.com/products/AspectHDPPro.htm

Aspect HD literally quadruples the performance of Adobe Premiere Pro 2 and Premiere Pro 1.5.1 to offer real-time editing of multiple HDV streams on affordable desktop PCs. Aspect HD incorporates CineForm Intermediate™ technologies to allow you to edit multiple HDV streams, add motion titles, color adjustments, dissolves, wipes, page peels, picture-in-picture and much more – all in real time without rendering. Aspect HD offers an online compressed Digital Intermediate workflow, meaning that you never have to work with proxy files, and you never have to conform a project at completion - you're always working with full-resolution source material using CineForm's Visually Perfect™ CFHD codec format.

We invite those who have not experienced the blazing real-time performance and stunning visual quality of Aspect HD to download our fully-functional 15-day trial version. You'll never put up with rendering again!


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


I'd stay away from NATIVE HDV editing, as that is not very optimal, but since there are software solutions out there, HDV editing has taken a turn for the better, albeit bigger file sizes. It's about 28 gig for 1 hours footage of NATIVE HDV, and about 42 gig for these alternate codec versions of 1 hours footage, but it's substantially less compressed, and easier to edit.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
clive said:
every UK user I talk to says that the firewire link between the camera and the NLE just can't handle the data rates -- leading to timecode dropouts every thirty seconds or so.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about capturing from camera? The bit rates of HDV are lower than DV25 (around 20Mbps). If there are problems in capture (which I've not heard of, but that's not to say there are not), I doubt they would be from raw bit rates of compressed HDV. Working with uncompressed HD streams is another issue, altogether.

Now I'm curious. I may have to do some reseach when I find time. The last full life cycle review (capture + edit + export) I read reported success at every step, with some down conversion issue going HD to SD that was handled by using the camera to down convert. That reviewer was using a Sony camcorder (probably NTSC). I wonder if there are codec issues, since the MPEG2 codec is the component that makes HDV on miniDV even possible.

I've only done simple tests, myself. Those were also with a Sony, and I didn't capture into FCP. I don't doubt there could be problems (as with any new technology), but I don't think the bit rate is too high for Firewire.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks for restating the info.

When I read your post all I saw was Premiere and Avid and as everyone I know over here is a FCP user I must have missed the FCE HD reference.

I'll pass that on to the guys over here -- we'll see if it makes any diference.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top