HDV is not the issue, it is in practice a 100% recording format.

I would think at least 90% of all PCs could play say a WMV-HD file in much better resolution than an SD TV.

The 16 million U.S. households that have at least 1 HDTV set, and want to view the wedding video on that, are of course mostly waiting for more consumer-friendly solutions than the current HD Divx DVD players, etc.

I purchased the FX-1 HDV three months ago, and have gotten nothing but blank stares from people when I ask if they want HD delivery. Apparently, however, the situation is quite different in Australia, as you will find if you look in past threads.

I wrote about this last fall, and I expect that it will be a slow roll-out in this country (U.S.), with demand staying pretty low for at least another two years. It could be longer if the competing format issues cause a problem. I doubt very, very much that it will be quicker (this is based on how long it took DVD -- the most successful consumer product launch ever -- to reach critical mass, which was three years). There are many, many things that will make HD go much slower, not the least of which is the gigantic installed base of SD TVs which, despite sales forecasts, are not going to be changed out wholesale in the next two years. There will also need to be lots of true HD content available. So much of what people watch on HD sets now is up-res'd SD, and therefore the experience is far from the (I think) compelling experience one has when looking at true HD. I can't tell you how many people I've talked to who tell me they've "seen HD" and that they don't see what all the fuss is about. Of course, upon further investigation, they've just seen SD material on an HD set in a store.

I'm shooting a talent show tonight, and while I'll be using my FX-1, I probably won't shoot in HD and then down-res in Vegas. The quality is a little better, perhaps, but hardly worth all the extra post-production effort for a low-end job. If I were doing something for big bucks, where every last bit of quality was important, then I'd do it (shoot in HD and then convert to SD in Vegas for delivery).

John,

I don't know where you're seeing uprezzed SD on the HDTV sets in stores.

In the distant past there were times when the stores didn't have HDTV feeds or in-store HD material, I don't think there are too many of those stores left, at least not among the big box stores.

Today there is true HD content available around the clock via satellite and cable, and a fair amount of true HD available for free with a regular old TV antenna, at least in the metropolitan areas.

You are right that most people are confused about HD though, in many ways.

For anybody who wanted to wait till the next step up in 1080p HDTV flat screens, "RGB LED LCD" sets look a lot better than the previous generation LCDs that were backlit with fluorescent tubes. As the name indicates, they use Red, Green, and Blue LEDs. The difference visually is that they have a much larger color gamut, i.e. they can reproduce more colors. Sony has it and most of the major brands are pushing them to stores.

Personally, I film and edit everything in HDV. I downconvert to SD for final output to customers. Gives me a good chance to learn about HD until the demand is there and helps build up my HD resume. Also, bet you in a couple of years, everybody you produced something for will call back and ask if you have an HD version - I always mention it was filmed in HD when handing over the final SD product. Think you would be shooting yourself in the foot by not doing everything in HDV now - the demand will be there.

Xander

> I'm shooting a talent show tonight, and while I'll be using my FX-1, I probably won't shoot in HD and then down-res in Vegas. The quality is a little better, perhaps, but hardly worth all the extra post-production effort for a low-end job.

John, have you used the downconvert in-camera? It’s quite good. In fact, I can’t tell the difference between downconverting in-camera or in Vegas. I’m sure it’s there, but my tired old eyes can’t see it. There is no reason to ever shoot DV with the FX1/Z1 unless you need to deliver a DV compatible tape. You just shoot HDV and then you capture as DV and it looks better than shooting DV. No muss, no fuss, no bother. Always shoot HDV. There is no reason not to.

> In the distant past there were times when the stores didn't have HDTV feeds or in-store HD material, I don't think there are too many of those stores left, at least not among the big box stores.

Well... you haven’t been to Sears at the local mall in upstate NY lately. I couldn’t believe they had 100’s of HDTV’s being fed from a poor SD signal that made them look horrible. And the sad thing was, people were still buying them!

> I'm still trying to cost justify going this route.

You will not cost justify it through customer demand because there simply isn’t a demand. But I just delivered a Christmas Play DVD for a local school that was shot on my Z1 and parents are calling me left and right raving about the quality. You really can see the difference even when downrezed to SD. The justification right now is that your footage will look better then your competitors because it will be from higher quality source (i.e., HDV)

~jr

John, have you used the downconvert in-camera? It’s quite good. In fact, I can’t tell the difference between downconverting in-camera or in Vegas. I’m sure it’s there, but my tired old eyes can’t see it. There is no reason to ever shoot DV with the FX1/Z1 unless you need to deliver a DV compatible tape. You just shoot HDV and then you capture as DV and it looks better than shooting DV.

My eyes aren't any good either. I have done this for tests, but Spot made it sound like it was so inferior to what Vegas can do, that it wasn't that much an improvement over shooting DV.

Always shoot HDV. There is no reason not to.

Since I love a good argument, I'll pose two reasons NOT to do it:

1) The long GOP format of HDV will result in a huge dropout compared to what the same defect would do to DV. This means I must either use much fancier tape, or else risk the big dropout if I use standard DV tape.

2) I will have to mask the monitor, since my FX-1 doesn't provide a 4:3 mask when shooting HDV. No big deal, I just temporarily put the camera in 4:3 DV mode, and then put two rubber bands around the display at that location. I actually use small bands so I can still see the edges of the display so I can keep an eye on what is about to come into frame.

3) I can't simultaneously capture to my laptop, at least not using Scenalyzer. I think Vegas will capture, but it doesn't integrate with camera control, I don't think.

But, like I said, I'm just bringing up these points for argument's sake. I plan to take your advice and shoot in HDV tomorrow, despite my original intentions. You changed my mind.

to be honest with u, HDV acquisition is the cheap way to acquire 16:9 footage. for now anyway.. those who WANT HD delivery cant afford it as theyve spent most of their cash on the actual display device.

Here in Aus, the only real question you will get is "is it 16:9" and half the time they wont know the difference anyway.

then again, here is aus, only 70% of households have a DVD player and 95% still have a 4:3 tv.

For now, HD and 16:9 output really isnt an issue. If your product is GOOD, they wont care hat format its in. Trust me on that.

I have 2 DVX100s and 2 Z1's and the picky ones that ask for 16:9 always comment that the DVX footage looks much more "real and filmic" as opposed to the downconverted HDV to SD progressive scan (for dvd) of the Z1. The Z1, even with its 4;2;2 colour just doesnt have the width that the DVX has, and for my wedding business, most clients opt us to use the DVX simply due to its colour gradations and lack of "sony" warmth/look. (those that know the 2 makers know what im talking about here)
Also as im in PAL land, our colour sample rate is inherately cleaner than NTSC, so the differences to us her in aus of 422 vs 420 is noticable, but not to as noticable as NTSC 411 vs HDV 422 and more importantly, not noticable enough to be detrimental to the final output of the quality of product.

Youd be surprised how picky some of these people can be, but to be truthful, i shoot in HDV and use cineform in vegas. Then as im editing, i offer to provde the client with a HD WMV file, helps with sales as unlike photograhers we really dont make that much more money on the project apart from additional copies. For Fotogs, they make cash each time someone wants a print..

But for now, noone wants HD.. dont ask me why, but down here, its jsut not that big a deal.
Theres always afew that are in the know, but thats like 0.2 % of clients.

> Spot made it sound like it was so inferior to what Vegas can do, that it wasn't that much an improvement over shooting DV

You may have misunderstood him. I’m not sure why he would say that because you really have to look for the difference. I’m telling you, I can’t tell the difference between downconvert from the camera and downconvert in Vegas. I’m sure under certain conditions is noticeable but I haven’t noticed it in my shooting.

> Since I love a good argument, I'll pose two reasons NOT to do it:

Who doesn’t. ;-) John, Those are darn good reasons. I forgot the FX1 doesn’t have 4:3 guides like the Z1 and it doesn’t do the downconvert crop center either right? (just squeeze I think). Your most compelling argument is the long GOP with dropouts and I’ll add audio to the list. DV audio is better than MPEG audio. :(

Still, I only shoot in HDV mode now because it gives me more options in post. I can just capture as DV or I can capture HDV if I want to zoom in and make a one camera shoot look like two cameras. (which I do if I’m shooting a play and the two actors are at different sides of the stage. I just frame a wide shot and cut between close-ups in post)

~jr

HDV MPEG-2 is 4:2:0, as is PAL, although not exactly the same 4:2:0...

Color is cleaner in broadcast PAL compared to NTSC, although digital signal processing has reduced that difference very dramatically.

doesn’t do the downconvert crop center either right?

I'd better check that tomorrow before the shoot. I think when I tested it that it just cropped the edges and left the center -- no stretch or squeeze. But, I'll check.

HDV demand will come, but the increase in market penetation will tend to be slow. The uptake seems to be limited by two factors:

1) market penetration in HD-ready plasmas and lcds
2) market penetation in standalones, able to play back HD-material

As long as 1) or 2) is limited, demand for HDV-videoproductions for small things like wedding videos will stay limited. However, there is also a premium segment, that starts to become interested in that products. Some people here in Europe have the experience, that this customers tend to aks for HDV even today - all, what you have to do is to show them the difference.

I think it is a good idea to learn today enough about HDV - that is the reason why our German forum "Videotreffpunkt" has a clear focus to HDV today. Unfortunately, it is in German.

I haven't had ANY requests for projects in wide screen, either. Most of my projects are projected at large conferences, fund raisers, or played on home TVs. The cost of purchasing GOOD wide screen-format monitors is just another barrier to getting into HDV for me.