Home Free Library Store
Free Catalog



Save with a Two Year Membership

To post in the forums see the Forum Guidelines.
Join or Renew Today.
New Benefits for all VU Members
Forum Guidelines and FAQ
Main Index Search Posts
Who's Online Log In



Home: Video University Forums: HDV:
Post deleted by adtr

 

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All


adtr
Veteran


Jan 7, 2005, 8:41 AM

Post #1 of 43 (7317 views)
Shortcut
Post deleted by adtr

 


Nouveauvideo
Novice

Jan 7, 2005, 3:59 PM

Post #2 of 43 (7207 views)
Shortcut
Re: [adtr] The HDV snowball [In reply to] Can't Post

Sounds like you are excited about HD as we all are. Thats great, but you had better take care to make sure that you can find a software package to edit long form weddings in HD. We are in touch with Sony, Adobe, Cineform and Ulead for a review, and all of the software seems to be in an almost ready for prime time mode.

Think about Joels posts, that one can be creative with current DV hardware and software.

HD is coming and is coming quickly, but is still in an early phase. I think in a couple of months, HD software should be kicking.


Mathew
Veteran

Jan 7, 2005, 4:15 PM

Post #3 of 43 (7198 views)
Shortcut
Re: [adtr] The HDV snowball [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Now where did I put that 5 grand?Tongue
Just in time for my first hdv wedding in March- phew!!


I was under the impression that HD wasn't catching on over in England. I know you guys have widescreen displays and the BBC broadcasts in 16:9 but it's all standard def, isn't it?


DSE
Veteran


Jan 7, 2005, 6:21 PM

Post #4 of 43 (7167 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mathew] The HDV snowball [In reply to] Can't Post

Europe has already had a strong HD foundation, and it's growing stronger all the time. The Earls Court show will have lots to impress folks there with, but the Germans have strongly embraced the format, as have the Italians, and of course, Bollywood is embracing HDV, which will result in the French moving with it too.

Douglas Spotted Eagle
Author, producer, composer
www.vasst.com
"I enjoy music, long walks at sunset on the beach, and poking dead things with a sharp stick."


John K.
Veteran / Moderator


Jan 7, 2005, 6:44 PM

Post #5 of 43 (7149 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] The HDV snowball [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Douglas,

As for me, regardless of who is jumping in on HDV, I won't spend 1 cent until it starts affecting my bookings.

For wedding videographers, I just don't see the need now, nor have I had any requests or questions about it. I think the timing now for an event videographer to jump into this is horrid to say the least and would be a poor business decision. Secondly, I would never buy the first generation of any of this stuff, only to find their replacement models being released a year or so later with better features/improvements, etc. Thirdly, how long will it take for the average consumer (and parents) before they are willing to shell out more money for a new DVD player, new HDTV, proper cables, etc. I would guess a solid 2-3 years. And as mentioned before (at least for weddings): a bride/couple will book based on content and emotional impact, they could care less what it was shot with.

Anyway, still waiting for my first couple to ask about having their wedding in 16 x 9, and how many years has wides creen been around now? And finally, for wedding videographers - I would think of this too - the cost of a wedding is always increasing and I would venture to say most couples would much rather spend any extra money they have on a down payment for a house vs. spending x dollars more for a HD wedding video, which will require them to have the other necessary hardware in order to watch it.

Not looking to create a big debate with this thread, but just pointing out a few things that can sometimes be overlooked in the "excitement" video folks find over HD. Don't forget, we on these boards get overly excited about this stuff, "oh, we must have it"... but again, to the average consumer, it just doesn't have that spark. I do think HD will arrive and will become the norm for event videographers, I just think it's years away and investing in it now is a financially bad idea.

John


DSE
Veteran


Jan 7, 2005, 7:01 PM

Post #6 of 43 (7140 views)
Shortcut
Re: [John K.] The HDV snowball [In reply to] Can't Post

John, the only thing I'd debate there at all, is to say that it's not a horrible business decision to get into HD now. I agree with much of what you say, from the viewpoint that being on the bleeding edge isn't always a good place to be. On the other hand, early adopters tend to lead the field. Several high definition delivery options have been announced here at CES, and it's not as far away as you'd think. But, you're right, it's more expensive to produce/edit, and can lead to delivery issues as HD. However, the smart money is on folks shooting HDV now, and delivering in SD. The quality is not only higher, but more importantly, it allows you to provide another return product call to your wedding client a few years down the road when things may not be running as busy as they might be now. That may or may not be important.
As far as first vs second gen products, there is some truth, although less truth to this than with many/most other products. The quality of second gen won't climb that much, for reasons that are part of the HDV consortium.
For me, I/we've moved to HDV and HD because our tradeshow clientele demand it. Our video work for Microsoft, Nero, Sony, and other tradeshow vendors here at CES for instance, was all delivered in HD because that's what they want. The migration of the home user from SD to HD is going to be much quicker than 3 years. CES predicts it at 14 months as a broad scale movement, with heavy penetration in 24 months. But that's still 2 years away, so there is a lot of time to be preparing for the format. I'm by no means suggesting that everyone abandon their DV cams and immediately go buy HD. There are marketing advantages, educational advantages, and positioning advantages to being into HD now. But there are also financial issues that might come into play. I sincerely doubt that the wedding videographer in another year will be able to charge much more, if anything more, for doing HD videos vs SD, not only for the reasons you mention, but also because in another year or 18 months, everyone will be moving in that direction anyway, and competition in the broad market will likely demand that it's merely a competitive upgrade rather than a higher level service.

Douglas Spotted Eagle
Author, producer, composer
www.vasst.com
"I enjoy music, long walks at sunset on the beach, and poking dead things with a sharp stick."


John K.
Veteran / Moderator


Jan 7, 2005, 7:48 PM

Post #7 of 43 (7097 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] The HDV snowball [In reply to] Can't Post

Douglas,

Very good points and insight from your end, thank you. I would likely disagree about the time frame (time will tell), but when the CES or WEVA or other electronics shows/publications state the market time, etc. of HD - I don't hold much to that. I think you will always see them paint a pretty picture and state earlier "arrival" times - by doing this, more "video folks" will attend their shows to see the latest gadgets, read their articles and magazines, and they will attract more advertisers looking for sources who keep touting HD to market and advertise their HD offerings.

Douglas, correct me if I'm wrong please, but the HD videographers will be recording is compressed, it is NOT the same that one might associate with TV programming in HD, etc., correct?

Finally, just my opinion, I would do a "spin" on the topic of HD if a couple asked if I did so. I would tell them the video they receive today will not only play in the current crop of players, but will also be viewable on their up-coming (if they don't have one) HDTV - so, it will not become obsolete. Further, I'm guessing, please correct me on this too if I'm wrong, but I could take the "edited" master miniDVs I keep from each wedding, and eventually offer that on HD-DVD (or whatever takes hold) and say, now you have your wedding on HD disc too. Like we do now by putting VHS on DVD - people after the fact just say they now have it on DVD, they don't mention, "oh, yeah, it's really VHS quality just put onto DVD, the consumer considers it a true DVD. But, in all honesty, I'd rather not mess around with making more copies once my client picks up their video - it just seems more of a pain that its worth, or maybe I'm getting lazy on that, not sure.

Take care Douglas,

John


Laura K
Veteran


Jan 7, 2005, 11:21 PM

Post #8 of 43 (7035 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] The HDV snowball [In reply to] Can't Post

Different tapes.
Different batteries.
Camera
1900 x 1200 capable monitor
Cineform
3G plus processor


What else Douglas? If I want to use Vegas and edit in HD for storage later, then output to SD for current production,
what else am I going to need?

Basicly a person would need to drop a minumum of 10k on two cams and then another $2500 for the studio upgrades?

What are we looking at hear in real terms of investment to go HD?
L




"... it seems that if you're passionate about something, it freaks people out. You're considered bizarre or eccentric. To me, it just means you know who you are." - director Tim Burton


Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.


DSE
Veteran


Jan 7, 2005, 11:42 PM

Post #9 of 43 (7020 views)
Shortcut
Re: [John K.] The HDV snowball [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
Douglas, correct me if I'm wrong please, but the HD videographers will be recording is compressed, it is NOT the same that one might associate with TV programming in HD, etc., correct?


No, this is not correct. HDV is HD. HD by definition is anything larger than SD, or 480 pixels in the US, 576 pixels in the rest of the world. As far as the compression, just like DV, it's compressed. It's an MPEG 2, 15 GOP compression that uses an intermediary that typically is a 4:2:2 compression. (Cineform)
Further, it is ITU 709 colorspace, as all HD is. HD delivered via broadcast is all compressed prior to b'cast, but the compression ratio will vary. Television shows like J.A.G. are already using HDV as a production tool. You're gonna see more and more of this in broadcast. Tomorrow, I fly to Dallas to train the ABC affiliate in the HDV cameras and editing HDV in Vegas. We'll be showing the editing flow of HDV at the Sundance Film Festival using the J.A.G. footage, for those that will be making it to Sundance.
This is a common misconception that HDV isn't broadcastable, perpetuated by people that either don't understand the format, or have reason to cast aspersions on the format. DV is compressed 5:1 using a 4:1:1 sampling format. HDV is a higher compression ratio using a 4:2:0 compression ratio that when compared with SD, it's visually about the same as 4:4:4 SD, which of course is broadcast every day. Shows like Discovery Channel broadcast DV every day of the week. Well....we've pretty well all figured out that DV isn't as good as HDV....so it's a foregone conclusion. Tech TV aired a short bit of our tradeshow pieces for Nero today in the hotel room, and even though it was HD downsampled on the fly to SD, it also looked WAY better than any of the other SD pieces on the closed network.

Douglas Spotted Eagle
Author, producer, composer
www.vasst.com
"I enjoy music, long walks at sunset on the beach, and poking dead things with a sharp stick."


Jeff N
Veteran


Jan 8, 2005, 3:09 AM

Post #10 of 43 (6987 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] The HDV snowball [In reply to] Can't Post

Douglas,
Good to have you around. You have a nice way of "de-teching" tech....thanks for your contribution!
---------------------------------------------------------
Jeff
www . eriekids . com


John K.
Veteran / Moderator


Jan 8, 2005, 5:42 AM

Post #11 of 43 (6974 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] The HDV snowball [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks for explaining that Douglas, I stand corrected. Let me say I don't mean to come across "bashing" HD, but rather I honestly do believe (in my humble opinion) that for event videographers updating now isn't the best move. Even if one does so now (buy into HD), with the idea of offering their client a call in a couple years to see if they want it put onto a HD format, I don't see the client paying more for what one would charge for an additional copy now put onto DVD. Plus, I'm still guessing that even with all the SD stuff we can still say we will put that on a HD format down the road anyway, sure, not the same resloution, but will the client be that concerned? Just like doing VHS to DVD transfers now, the client views that as they now have a DVD copy. I think HD will be a reality for the event market, just now for a few years.

Have a great weekend all,

John


DSE
Veteran


Jan 8, 2005, 7:03 AM

Post #12 of 43 (6965 views)
Shortcut
Re: [John K.] The HDV snowball [In reply to] Can't Post

John, I don't disagree that it might not be entirely prudent for wedding videographers to move into HD right now, due to the extra costs.
On the other hand, if you're in the market for a camera anyway, it's a great choice with a great step towards the future. It's inevitable that HD will become part of the event workflow, so the real question isn't "why" but "when." How soon is too soon to start learning the new means of shooting, working with light, modes, editing, and delivery? For me, there is never too soon. If you just bought a new camera say...in the last year, it's likely silly to move towards HDV today. But if a new cam is needed, shoot HDV or even SD with the new format so you've got one-up on the next guy that didn't prepare for it at all. Consumers are definitely more educated today than they were a few years ago. Will that mean they'll want higher quality wedding vids? I don't know. I can only say that once they see their wedding vids on an HD monitor, which they'll surely have in the next 24 months if not sooner, they'll wish they'd gone HD.

Douglas Spotted Eagle
Author, producer, composer
www.vasst.com
"I enjoy music, long walks at sunset on the beach, and poking dead things with a sharp stick."


Lou Bruno
User


Jan 8, 2005, 7:55 AM

Post #13 of 43 (6953 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] The HDV snowball [In reply to] Can't Post

Guys,

The HISS audio problem is back with the new SONY.....so beware.
Attachments: Copy of Copy of LouCamera.JPG (6.86 KB)


DSE
Veteran


Jan 8, 2005, 8:00 AM

Post #14 of 43 (6942 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Lou Bruno] The HDV snowball [In reply to] Can't Post

John,
What setting do you have your audio gain set to in the menu?

Douglas Spotted Eagle
Author, producer, composer
www.vasst.com
"I enjoy music, long walks at sunset on the beach, and poking dead things with a sharp stick."


BjP
User

Jan 8, 2005, 9:17 AM

Post #15 of 43 (6918 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] The HDV snowball [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To


Quote
It's inevitable that HD will become part of the event workflow, so the real question isn't "why" but "when."

No actually it's not. The only thing that is inevitable is that at some point, supposedly next year but I wouldn't bet on it, the nation will be forced to switch over to a digital transmission format, HD is not a forced standard of the digital signal it is an option. There is no "snowball" of HD coming. HD outfitted, not to be confused with HD ready, sets have less than 10% market penetration. Digital reception sets have less than a 30% penetration of the largest markets and the smaller markets are even lower. To switch to full digital transmission a region must have 80% or is it 68% digital set penetration and at present the government is begging for that penetration. None of this entails that HD will have any type of dominanace in the market.

HD or HDV is completely untested consumer wise, there is nothing to indicate that the public will consume this format. Add to that the fact that to realize any real benefit outside of widescreen from an HD tv it needs to be 35" or bigger, you need to consider just how many homes have tvs that are bigger than 27"! And if they have multiple tvs how there is usually only one that exceedes 27".


Quote
Consumers are definitely more educated today than they were a few years ago.


There is no snowball for HD tv there isn't even one for digital reception format. The day after Thanksgiving our 2 local Meijers sold out of 2000 27" analog only TVs (no digital capability at all), Circuit City went thru 1500 of them, they were all interviewed by the local broadcasters. When asked about HD sets moving the response was far from enthuastic. HD may one day be a standard but from all indications the consuming public frankly could care less. Take the date of the last analog tv sold and add 12 to 15 years to it and you will probably get the date for the total saturation of digital reception but it probably won't be the total saturation of HD.


Quote
But if a new cam is needed, shoot HDV or even SD with the new format so you've got one-up on the next guy that didn't prepare for it at all.


Event videographers purchasing the first generation of HDV cameras to shoot in SD is just wasting their money on the extra cost. If you are going HDV now, well as always happens early adaptors always spend double what the people who wait and see spend. In a market where most of the vendors would make more money working at Mickey D's for their time, to be an early adaptor of this new, untested technology is a bad business decision.


Quote
Will that mean they'll want higher quality wedding vids? I don't know.


All you have to do is read the whines on the various event forums about how so many brides are only willing to pay $500 for a video to know the answer to that. The majority of brides don't care much about quality, only price, heck the majority have no video!


Quote
I can only say that once they see their wedding vids on an HD monitor, which they'll surely have in the next 24 months if not sooner, they'll wish they'd gone HD.

ROTFLMAO Said like a true industry salesman. I remember the 1990 summer CES show in Chicago, (one of the last ones for Chicago) HD tvs all over the place, within 5 years the manufacturers claimed our NTSC tvs would be dead, gone, kaput, they even had an intermediary format, remember IDTV? LOL! 15 years later, we have a truncated HD format (less lines of resolution than the old analog HD format had) and it's still 24 months away. Keep prediciting I'm sure it may come around... soon. Smile
Brian
-------------------------------
http://www.rivercitymusic.net
http://www.rivercityproductions.com
http://www.michianaweddings.com
http://www.fortwaynebridal.com
http://www.professionaleventvideo.com


Joel
Veteran


Jan 8, 2005, 9:27 AM

Post #16 of 43 (6907 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] The HDV snowball [In reply to] Can't Post

DSE said:
" The quality is not only higher, but more importantly, it allows you to provide another return product call to your wedding client a few years down the road when things may not be running as busy as they might be now. That may or may not be important. "

In my experience it's not important. I have SVHS masters going back to '89 and weddings recorded in DVCAM during the '98-2001 seasons. None of these clients received a DVD. So I thought it would be a windfall of business to transfer those masters to DVD. I contacted as many clients as I could based on the information I had, which was albeit old in many cases, and I have had, at most, two or three people contact me about having their wedding transferred to DVD. The market is not there for repeat business in my opinion. I think a wedding videographer's tack should be to sell it as HD coverage from the outset and supply the HD version when a delivery method is available in addition to a temporary SD version right away. And charge a premium for HD while it's still unique...
Joel


"Think of this business as a room with a huge table and a bunch of chairs around the table. There is a big pie on the table. Your mission is to take your place at the table, pick up your fork, and eat your pie. Do not look to the left and do not look to the right. Just eat your pie. There is plenty of pie for everyone."


starting | perfectionists







DSE
Veteran


Jan 8, 2005, 9:40 AM

Post #17 of 43 (6903 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BjP] The HDV snowball [In reply to] Can't Post

First, there is no "supposedly." You sound very informed, but somehow missed the fact that there are one of two FCC-mandated options available to US broadcasters:
1. Begin DTV on Jan 1, 2007
unless-
2. Less than 85% of the US market is capable of receiving DTV.
There are currently no plans to delay the Jan 1 date, we won't know the real answer until Jan 2006. Digital reception capability currently sits at slightly over 50%, according to the NAB. I'm sure we'll see revised numbers up or down in April of this year at the NAB show.

All ATSC signatories have agreed that they'll be broadcasting HD when they make the switch. Currently there are nearly 1500 stations in nearly 250 markets already simucasting DTV, and of those near 1500, 972 have signed on to HDTV. Many already are broadcasting bars, weather, infonet, or static graphic right now.
Industry trends are accelerating by a factor 3. In other words, the American public used to buy a TV on an 8 year cycle. Now we're allegedly buying televisions or related home entertainment equipment every 28 months. Depends on which industry and government report you read, they vary in numbers.
We are far more a home-entertainment based society, which is a big part of the acceleration. DVD sales, players, internet use, video games, home theater systems, and high costs of external entertainment such as concerts and sporting events are keeping the buying public at home more. As the home becomes more digital, people are also upgrading not only more rapidly, but more intelligently. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out, look at what's happened in recent years with Best Buy, Circuit City, and similar electronic's based store offerings. Peddie, Taranton, and every other industry indicator and research firm not only supports this trend with research data, but expects it to accelerate even further.
DV is also expected to die a slow death, but was the death of SVHS all that slow? And the cost of the new formats are equivalent to the cost of a semi-professional and professional DV camera.
Regarding Chicago, there weren't HD TV's "all over the place", as there were dang few HDTV's available in 1990, and what ones were there, were well over 50K, and it wasn't called HDTV, it was called NHK TV, and wasn't offered to the general public, only Hollywood and trade. Barco made a fortune on just the 54" versions of these, as rentals for trade events and large format display walls. Of course those few TVs weren't demanded by any but the Bill Gates of the world. The HDTV standard wasn't even settled until Dec 1990,and no broadcast anything existed until late 1995, it was all cobbled stuff that wasn't compatible with anything, let alone itself. So using "Chicago 1990" as any kind of a benchmark is like using the Hindenberg as a benchmark of spaceflight.
Now you can buy HDTVs in Walmart. That in and of itself, is a strong indicator of the market trend. If folks can buy it at Walmart, they think they need it, regardless of quality. Walmart has significantly stepped up it's purchasing of HDTV, one of their buyers was on a panel two days ago at CES.
BTW, even beginning to consider that CES Chicago is remotely akin to CES 2004 or 2005 is seriously mistaken. This is ComDex now, CES has matured and grown beyond comprehension. It's NOTHING like Chicago, or even Vegas 4 years ago.
You, me, and all the rest of the people speculating on this could be right or wrong. Industry research and market direction has certainly been wrong before. But one thing that is for absolute certain; we're consuming more gadgets, gizmos, electronics, entertainment, and software exponentially faster than ever before. The only thing anyone knows for sure is that no one knows. All that can be done is look at the trends, look at what's coming, and draw the best line from one resource to the other, and gamble. Obviously, Sony, JVC, Samsun, Hitachi, Pioneer, Canon, Toshiba, Fuji, Panasonic, Apple, Microsoft, and a host of others are gambling on the same futuristic come that I've ascribed to as well.
Maybe we're just all suckers.
Only time will tell.

Maybe this will call up some memories. They said in 1965 that people would never want to stay home and watch this many television shows, and in 1962, there was even a small movement to limit the number of hours television could broadcast on 3 stations.

Douglas Spotted Eagle
Author, producer, composer
www.vasst.com
"I enjoy music, long walks at sunset on the beach, and poking dead things with a sharp stick."

(This post was edited by DSE on Jan 8, 2005, 9:53 AM)


Morris
Enthusiast


Jan 8, 2005, 12:36 PM

Post #18 of 43 (6860 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Joel] The HDV snowball [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
DSE said:
" The quality is not only higher, but more importantly, it allows you to provide another return product call to your wedding client a few years down the road when things may not be running as busy as they might be now. That may or may not be important. "

In my experience it's not important. I have SVHS masters going back to '89 and weddings recorded in DVCAM during the '98-2001 seasons. None of these clients received a DVD. So I thought it would be a windfall of business to transfer those masters to DVD. I contacted as many clients as I could based on the information I had, which was albeit old in many cases, and I have had, at most, two or three people contact me about having their wedding transferred to DVD. The market is not there for repeat business in my opinion. I think a wedding videographer's tack should be to sell it as HD coverage from the outset and supply the HD version when a delivery method is available in addition to a temporary SD version right away. And charge a premium for HD while it's still unique...


A big ditto to what Joel said.

After buying my first DVD recorder, I notified all of my past clients of putting their videos on DVD thinking that the windfall of business would help pay for the DVD start up costs. I explained in my letter that the DVD copies would be made from SVHS or DV masters which have higher resolution than their VHS copies. Nada, zilch, el-zippo responses except for about 4 people and only two of those actually followed up and had DVDs made. The other 2 said they were going to do it but never followed up. One of those even said they still wanted to do it a year later when I saw them when they recommended me to a friend but they still never followed up (they brought it up, I didn't).

I wouldn't plan on getting any worthwhile income 2 years from now for HD copies. Plus only one copy even if they do order since the rest of their friends and family will probably not have HD players or HD TV sets to view the HD DVD. All that work and time for HDV video for every client now, only to deliver now in SD and possibly sell 1 or 2 HD copies two years from now (3-4 years?) does not make any sense to me.

If one can sell HD "NOW" at much higher prices to wealthy high end clients, then it makes sense. But how many folks on this board have that type of client base? And there is no optical HD delivery media now!!!!! (Maybe give each client a FX1 to play back their video?)

Morris


(This post was edited by Morris on Jan 8, 2005, 3:19 PM)


Morris
Enthusiast


Jan 8, 2005, 1:01 PM

Post #19 of 43 (6853 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] The HDV snowball [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
However, the smart money is on folks shooting HDV now, and delivering in SD. The quality is not only higher, but more importantly, it allows you to provide another return product call to your wedding client a few years down the road when things may not be running as busy as they might be now. That may or may not be important.


DSE,
If one shoots in HDV now, the video will be framed in 16:9 aspect. To deliver in SD, there are 3 choices.

1. Unconditionally crop off video on both sides and end up with 4:3 aspect.
2. Pan and scan the 16:9 video to get 4:3 aspect.
3. Letterbox with black bars at the top and bottom to see a smaller 16:9 video.

If choice-1 is made, then one has to shoot with the content in a 4:3 aspect in the middle of the frame.
If choice-2 is made, there will be a HUGE investment in time and resources.
If choice-3 is made, the client sees a small video on their 27" SD TV set.

Then to deliver HD video a few years down the road, there are two choices:

1. Edit in HDV now requiring a substantial investment in hardware and software, and also substantially more time for rendering slowmo, soft focus, etc. Deliver in SD now at SD prices, only to sell a few HD-DVD copies a few years from now.

2. Capture and edit in SD now using the 3 choices mentioned above. But one has to re-edit the whole thing again in HDV a few years from now for minimal return as compared to booking new events.

Are these actually realistic choices for the "smart money" now?
Morris


gl
Veteran

Jan 8, 2005, 1:41 PM

Post #20 of 43 (6835 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] The HDV snowball [In reply to] Can't Post

Plain and simple. HDV is technically HD but a severely compressed form of it and it is not the same colorspace. HDV lives in the 4:2:0 colorspace and therefore offers no color advantage as a format. PAL DV is also 4:2:0 colorspace BTW so, this is not even as good, color-wise, as a DVCPRO 50 camera <- which costs a lot more grated but, everyone seems to believe that HDV is superior to all things SD, which it is not.

The fact is that HDV still has a lot of problems that most everyone is avoiding. I can't see any sports application for the format. It is just to compressed for moving that many pixels around. A bunch of corporate interview-based promos will be a great application for it. Some Discovery channel content will also work well when the images are mostly static. So, perhaps weddings will also be a good application as they seem to be slower-paced and mostly static in mature.

gl


DSE
Veteran


Jan 8, 2005, 4:07 PM

Post #21 of 43 (6814 views)
Shortcut
Re: [GL] The HDV snowball [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
Plain and simple. HDV is technically HD but a severely compressed form of it and it is not the same colorspace.


Huh??? HDCam, CineAlta, DVCProHD are all ITU 709. So is HDV. How is it not the same colorspace? The HD standard, period, is ITU 709. No ifs, ands, or buts.


Quote
PAL DV is also 4:2:0 colorspace BTW so, this is not even as good, color-wise,


Huh? Everybody knows that PAL encodes to MPEG and AVC better than NTSC, BECAUSE it's 4:2:0 (so is MPEG)

Tell that to Kenneth Johnson, director of J.A.G., or tell that to the people at Paramount. They'll be interested to hear from a shooter that the format they're shooting in is inferior for broadcast or high movement. Same for S.H.R., who can't get their hands on enough FX1's right now to fill the Hollywood rental demand.
It's an MPEG ENCODE. The key is in how it's DECODED. MPEG as a format has been used for broadcast compression for years and years. FAST made their whole business around it, and Pinnacle has done it for years after they acquired FAST. Betacam SX even uses MPEG2, at a bitstream of about 18Mbps. DTV is MPEG format. DishNetwork and DirecTV is MPEG. Just like HDV. When the HDV intermediary is used, it's 4:2:2 and about the same as MJPEG, which used to be the grail of editing.

Again, is HDV for everyone? No. Is it superior to DV at every level of 4:1:1? Yes.

There is no difference between HD and HDV. HD is defined by the number of pixels that make up the image. With regards to compression, yes, HDV is a higher compression ratio than a 75K F700. But it's still HD. Further, do a little research, since what I've presented isn't accepted by some. MPEG is a more efficient, and overall superior compression format to DV. Further, HDV is visually lossless, and mathematically superior to many formats that have been accepted by broadcast for years. The concept that compression is a bad thing is a myth; it's how it's compressed and decompressed that matters. This is why Windows Media is doing so well, it's why AVC is doing so well, it's why MPEG 4 in it's various flavors are doing well.
http://www.cineform.com/...rkflowWhitePaper.pdf has a pretty good paper on compression, HDV, and uncompressed that's presented in fairly basic terms. You might wanna check it out.

Having an opinion is one thing, but having an opinion based on what others write vs actual experience is quite another. Whether the wedding industry finds this as a viable format remains to be seen. It may not find it as such for a long while. But HDV is indeed replacing DV, that's a given, whether it's accepted or not.

Douglas Spotted Eagle
Author, producer, composer
www.vasst.com
"I enjoy music, long walks at sunset on the beach, and poking dead things with a sharp stick."


gl
Veteran

Jan 8, 2005, 6:16 PM

Post #22 of 43 (6776 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] The HDV snowball [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Huh??? HDCam, CineAlta, DVCProHD are all ITU 709. So is HDV. How is it not the same colorspace? The HD standard, period, is ITU 709. No ifs, ands, or buts.


4:2:0 <-HDVs colorspace. That's the bottom line. Every other HD format is at least 4:2:2 colorspace or 4:4:4. This is not about the standard - this is the implementation of the standard.



In Reply To
Huh? Everybody knows that PAL encodes to MPEG and AVC better than NTSC, BECAUSE it's 4:2:0 (so is MPEG)

Tell that to Kenneth Johnson, director of J.A.G., or tell that to the people at Paramount. They'll be interested to hear from a shooter that the format they're shooting in is inferior for broadcast or high movement. Same for S.H.R., who can't get their hands on enough FX1's right now to fill the Hollywood rental demand.
It's an MPEG ENCODE. The key is in how it's DECODED. MPEG as a format has been used for broadcast compression for years and years. FAST made their whole business around it, and Pinnacle has done it for years after they acquired FAST. Betacam SX even uses MPEG2, at a bitstream of about 18Mbps. DTV is MPEG format. DishNetwork and DirecTV is MPEG. Just like HDV. When the HDV intermediary is used, it's 4:2:2 and about the same as MJPEG, which used to be the grail of editing.

Again, is HDV for everyone? No. Is it superior to DV at every level of 4:1:1? Yes.


Sorry, but wrong. While a 4:2:0 colorspace seems to be better than 4:1:1 the fact is there is still as much color loss in an interlaced format(1080i for example). The 4:1:1 scheme samples 180 per scan line and 4:2:0 scans 360, the 4:2:0 scans are only every other field in the interlaced world. So you still get the same amount of color information and even less when you go multi-generation. 4:2:0 works fine for broadcast but is NOT a good editing solution - each pass you lose color info.


In Reply To
There is no difference between HD and HDV



Yes, there is a difference. HD is a standard. HDV is a format implementation of a standard just like DVCPROHD or HDCAM.


In Reply To
HD is defined by the number of pixels that make up the image. With regards to compression, yes, HDV is a higher compression ratio than a 75K F700. But it's still HD. Further, do a little research, since what I've presented isn't accepted by some. MPEG is a more efficient, and overall superior compression format to DV. Further, HDV is visually lossless, and mathematically superior to many formats that have been accepted by broadcast for years. The concept that compression is a bad thing is a myth; it's how it's compressed and decompressed that matters. This is why Windows Media is doing so well, it's why AVC is doing so well, it's why MPEG 4 in it's various flavors are doing well.



Wow. There is lot of subjective statements there.

-Mpeg is not superior to DV in every way. There are still areas of application that DV is more efficient or more flexible. THese are just as important as image quality in day-to-day application. Mpeg is a pain to edit with and while some companies have made it work it requires a lot more cpu power to handle. There is no perfect winner take all format or compression scheme.

-Visually lossless is marketing speak. HDV, BTW, is far from visually lossless in some conditions - like when something moves ;)

-Compression is a fact we have to live with. Uncompressed is ideal(and necessary in some cases).



In Reply To
Having an opinion is one thing, but having an opinion based on what others write vs actual experience is quite another. Whether the wedding industry finds this as a viable format remains to be seen. It may not find it as such for a long while. But HDV is indeed replacing DV, that's a given, whether it's accepted or not.


You are assuming a lot in that statement. I don't shoot weddings but, this is beside the point. My point is to just give a correct view of the realities of HDV. Some are saying it is a godsend to all things video and would have you belive that you could use it in ANY application. It's just not the case. Here are the facts:

-HDV has less color information and more compression than any other HD format

-HDV has the SAME amount of color information as DV(PAL or NTSC) in an interlaced format(FX1/Z1). If Panasonic came out with a 720p 4:2:0 format it would offer more color info than what Sony is.

-HDV compression has a lot of advantages and a lot of drawbacks. Some of the drawbacks prevent it from being useful in some circumstances (mainly action - it kills it).

That's all. Not after a war or even a small skirmish :D

gl


Mathew
Veteran

Jan 8, 2005, 6:32 PM

Post #23 of 43 (6772 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] The HDV snowball [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Same for S.H.R., who can't get their hands on enough FX1's right now to fill the Hollywood rental demand.


Then why is B&H showing stock at the low, low price of $3,299.95? Jeez if the FX1 is indeed the DV killer you claim it to be then why is it already being sold at firesale prices? The lowly DV, stone-age DVX100a is selling for $100 more! Laugh

Sony has to be losing their butts on this model. Maybe the Z1 will be their savior. However it seems rediculous for someone who wants to go HDV to spend $1800 more just for XLR and 1 lux improvement. Does Sony marketing have a clue?


In Reply To
But HDV is indeed replacing DV, that's a given, whether it's accepted or not.


Laugh Get over yourself already.


(This post was edited by Mathew on Jan 8, 2005, 6:34 PM)


BjP
User

Jan 8, 2005, 7:12 PM

Post #24 of 43 (6363 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] The HDV snowball [In reply to] Can't Post

 
Brian
-------------------------------
http://www.rivercitymusic.net
http://www.rivercityproductions.com
http://www.michianaweddings.com
http://www.fortwaynebridal.com
http://www.professionaleventvideo.com

(This post was edited by BjP on Jan 23, 2005, 11:10 AM)


Mathew
Veteran

Jan 8, 2005, 7:28 PM

Post #25 of 43 (6355 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BjP] The HDV snowball [In reply to] Can't Post

The populace as a whole will only buy new technology if it makes their lives easier. I still say the reason DVD caught on is because you didn't have to rewind it. CD's replaced LP's because you didn't to take care of them. Want proof? Check out the CD's clients give you and you'll see how poorly people take care of them yet they still play without a skip.

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All