I have an MBA and I see no inflated COO with HDV. I have the same computer I would have if I were shooting DV or playing Doom, and when I bought my camera the top prosumer Canon DV camera was in the same price range as my FX1. My investment is in mics, booms, lights, sticks etc., none of which are format related. I just don't see it. My ONLY specific HDV cost was $9.95 for Spots book!

Mike, I have an MFA and it's not that simple, not if you do it right. Sure there are work arounds, but those of us who do this for a living haven't the time for jury rigging. And those of us who take our work and our clients' needs seriously (meaning this more than an expensive hobby), there is more to it that the cost of Spot's book!

MBA or not, what Bill said is 100% accurate and true.

I'd beg to differ!
Let's be specific here, where is the additional costs going to come from? All I can see at the moment is a significant cost increase if you delay.
We were smart enough to sell off quite a bit of our SD kit before HDV really took off, what we've got left is fast plumetting in value.
And here's the thing, I do a few commercial and a heap of non commercial DVDs and the one thing that's really struck me is that if you're in NTSC land then the benefits qulaity wise of HDV for SD delivery are bigger than if you're in PAL land.
I've got the option on many projects of ingesting DigiBeta as either 10bit 4:2:2 or as DV25 at 4:2:0. To be honest I can see such little improvement in quality in the final product that I usually avoid the SDI ingest despite having spent the dollars to do it. However from the small amount of NTSC material I've worked with the difference between going from 4:1:1 to DVDs 4:2:0 is quite noticable.
What that means is by downsampling HDV to the Sony YUV codec in Vegas, editing that and encoding to mpeg-2 you'll get a big quality boost and at no additional cost, none of this requires fast disk arrays or fast CPUs, sure it's another step and yes it's going to take more time but there's zero capital outlay to do it. If you've got a high throughput business model then OK, you might need to invest in some faster PCs with more storage but that's hardly a huge cost impost and one you'll likely be making even if you stayed with DV.
So someone please tell me what dollars need to be spent, none of our clients have had to spend a penny more on it, I certainly haven't and we've had clients dealing with this stuff in Vegas, FCP and PP with every flavour of computer imaginable, right down to low cost laptops.
Bob.

Very simply, for me anyway, I use a Canon XL2. I 've used Sony DV cams and don't much like the Sony product. The JVC looked promising until the advent of split screen problems. The Panny has exhorbitant memory costs. To upgrade to HD, for me, would be an initial outlay of $10K for the camera, not to mention all the accessories that won't cross over to the XLHD, like lenses. It won't break the bank, but, not one of my customers has complained about the quality of the work I deliver from my XL2. When they do, I'll make the move. OK, I admit that 100% of the work I deliver is art, indie film, and music video, not your run of the mill advertisement or TV oriented material, nor is it event videography. My market segment is very small. That segment will expect top quality when full production is funded. In those cases, rental of the right equipment is the most cost effective route. No cost to me other than the rental fee, which is defrayed by the customer. Maybe that makes a diff, I don't really know. I'm getting a pretty good ROI on my XL2 purchase. I'm happy. Like Jay said, I'm not inclined to help pay for the development of the HD or HDV product.

Bob, let me put it this way...

Ford makes a sports car they call the GT. It's beautiful. I like it. It has 550 horsepower. It will go from 0-60 in 3.3 seconds. It's top speed is over 200mph. It costs $150,000. Why should I pay $150,000 for a car I can't (legally) drive over 70mph? For ME, that would be a stupid investment. Here in Miami, I've seen several around town. Evidently, those GT owners disagree with me. That's fine! To each his own.

The same is true, at this time, with HDV. For ME, that would be a stupid investment.

What works for you in Australia does not necessarily work for me in Miami, and vice versa. You have your opinions, I have mine. Why can't we leave it at that?

To generally compare COO you can not start with an "I have a DV camera already so I must stick with it" statement because another might say "I have a Kodak Brownie camera already." You need compare with a clean slate and the fact is the XL2 and Z1 are comparably priced and any modern computer running Cineform or GearShift can handle HDV no problemo. Now Jay has particular issues that affect the decision for him but this thread's title is a general statement. It does not say "Looks like DV will be with Jay for awhile."

To anyone who is about to start a videographic career or who is ready to replace his camera I say you are wasting money and loosing opportunities by not going HDV.

Mike..

What you're saying is de riguer. No arguments here. If you're starting from scratch, go with the best you can afford. However, if the capital outlay has already been made, based on a different time and place, and the equipment is still paying for itself, why kick the mule in the balls? If you do very many multi-camera shoots, you can't mix one with the other, which means all the cameras have to be updated. For DV content, you just can't beat the XL2 for quality and adjustability...oh, did I forget 24P?

Bill:
Isn't that what I said? For Jay the decision to stay with what works is right. Most people here will be buying new cameras in the next year or so and I don't believe any of them wont or should not go HDV - that's all. Listen to what Bob says and don't be left behind. When the market demands HDV, which it will when delivery is established, DV could die overnight. If that happens you need be prepared. When you have a living to make, deadlines to meet and and family responsibilities there is little time to learn a new technology to proficient pro levels. If the change to HDV comes quickly and you are not prepared you will might have several months downtime. Ask someone like Bob who has made the change how long it would take if he needed to learn from scratch and work at the same time.

Yes, stay with a system that works for you, but if you do then I say get your hands on a HDV camera even if you need borrow one, read the books and learn the differences. It's not just shooting in 16:9 or making allowances for movement or DOF, Vegas capturing and rendering is quite a bit different too. And I repeat - IF you are new to this game, starting with HDV is no more expensive (same COO) as DV. I say nothing more than that.

Well I bought my new little HVR-A1 because I wanted to do native 16:9. HDV was an extra bonus. Now that I have HDV resolution, I'm going to shoot everything that way even though people are going to end up seeing it mostly on SD DVD. Why? Well a number of reasons. One, I can do all kinds of full resolution formats with the same video. I can do 24p 16:9 that looks gorgeous, 60i 4:3 that will still look best on most peoples TV sets, true full resolution PAL in both 16:9 and 4:3 formats, and any number of computer playback resolutions for internet playback. I can grab beautiful stills from anywhere in the video and crop and animate movement from static tripod shots. Going with an HDV camera is improving the quality of my work more than I ever thought it would, even though releasing anything in HD is still a few years off.

Great discussion, lots of interesting viewpoints. Two things that I wanted to chime in on - one of the great things about HDV (in my opinion) is you are future proofing your footage to some extent. With the ntsc plug getting pulled in a few years I think it's at least worth a conversation with the client. I know some of the people I work with wan't to be able to go back over a period of years and re-use old footage.

The second thing is the "WOW" factor. With some of the HDV work I've done, we rented a big LCD monitor and put it on a c-stand. This was of course to be used as a reference monitor but it looked fantastic and the client couldn't take her eyes off it. It had a much bigger impact than getting them to peek through the porta-brace hood into the little 7inch sony CRT. This gave the client huge confidence in us right from the start.

Before this goes much farther, I need to clarify something I said earlier about the availability of HDCP compliant monitors. I looked again at the statement in POST magazine and also found a similar statement in PC World Magazine:

"Few existing wide-screen desktop displays support HDCP. If you're one of the hundreds of thousands of current wide-screen desktop display owners, you can probably forget about viewing Blu-ray or HD-DVD discs on your nearly new (and far from cheap) monitor. To watch high-def content, you'll likely have to upgrade your monitor." (http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,122738,00.asp)

The PC Magazine clarified that it is the HD computer monitors that won't play Blu-Ray content, and that very few are currently available.

Now, for something completely ... still on-topic.

I do a lot of multi camera shoots. In fact, Excalibur for Vegas makes multicam so easy that almost everything I shoot is multi camera. So much that I am passively (I.E., if a deal falls into my lap) looking for a good used PD-150 to become my third camera. However, when I do buy a new camera for whatever reason, it will likely be the Sony Z1 (or Z2 if I wait long enough). I'll buy an HDV camera not for the HD capability, but for the native 16:9 SD that my clientelle can use now.

By the way, to those MBA's on the group... If all event videographers did an honest COO or ROI examination, our ranks would be decimated. I'm not the pot calling the kettle black because I am one of those who cannot justify my expenses by the income alone. But it sure beats working 9-5 at a job that I don't enjoy.

Steve

> If you're starting from scratch, go with the best you can afford. However, if the capital outlay has already been made, based on a different time and place, and the equipment is still paying for itself, why kick the mule in the balls?

I’ve never done that but I would imagine it would make the mule very angry! ;-)

But seriously, it’s not just about starting new. The beauty of HDV is that it is backward compatible to DV. So if you can only afford to acquire one HDV camera at a time, you can shoot DV for multi-camera until they are all HDV and still use HDV on single camera shoots. It’s an investment you can ease into.

Look, don’t believe everything you read. HDV is 13GB/hr just like DV. That’s 3.6GB/sec not 150GB/sec as suggested earlier! As for the COO being a pittance compared with the hardware needed for HDV capture and render, I’m not seeing this.

I just purchased a Sony Z1U and the total cost was the Z1U. I use it on my 2 year old PC (P4, 3.0Ghz 1GB memory, 320GB capture drives) and it works just fine. If you want to save time capturing you can invest in Connect HD and capture straight to AVI. If you have more time you can render to CineForm or Sony YUV manually from within Vegas for free. If you have a slower PC you can use GearShift and work with DV proxies. Heck you can even capture downconverted DV Widescreen to start with and it will require no more time or PC resources than you have now (since you can only deliver SD anyway!)

So, I’m not seeing quite a bit more cost. Beyond the cost of a new HDV camera which only a little more than the price of a new DV camera, the cost is negligible.

I understand if your equipment isn’t paid for yet but when you do need a new camera, look at it this way: If I buy a DV camera today, what could I sell it for 3-5 years from now? And that’s Bob’s point. If your business model includes the amortization of your current equipment, HDV is causing it to loose value quicker than you planned. So getting rid of some SD gear a little early might mean you can get more for it and actually save money.

I got caught like this with my recording studio equipment. Digital, smidgital, I hung on to my analog tape machines too long and now they are worthless. (anyone want to buy a Tascam 80-8 ½ inch 8-track recorder with DBX? Of course not, your PC has more recording power!) It’s a boat anchor now (a very heavy boat anchor too).

The COO of HDV doesn’t have to be any more than buying a DV camera. You can still shoot straight DV with an HDV camera, you can shoot HDV and downconvert to DV on capture, or you can use HDV natively. If you are still paying off your DV cameras, then of course you need to wait until they are paid. But if your next purchase is now, there really isn’t any compelling reason to buy SD. And if your COO calculation included resale value, then better calculate again because the value is plummeting.

I realize you guys are reading all sorts of stories from people claiming the sky if falling. Most of these people don’t even own any HDV gear. They are just speculating from other things they have read. The people here in this community who actually own HDV gear are telling you something different. Believe whoever you want, and know that the truth lies somewhere in between. ;-)

~jr

Good point Johnny Roy. The truth is always somewhere in between. I've been around this biz for 8 years. Certainly not a noob. I have two degrees in engineering, so, I'm not exactly technically challenged. For my experience, that is to say, for what I HAVE seen, and despite all the rationalizations, the DV out of my XL2 is competitive with down-converted HDV. For me to go out and spend $5-10k on new technology to produce the same result, is fiscally irresponsible. If I want not-so-cheap thrills, yes, I'd go get a Panny HD200 right now. My point in starting this entire thread is that I think that the arguement that I'm future proofing myself, is also just another rationalization. By the time HDV becomes mainstream, it will have evolved past where current cameras are, anyway. No, no thanx. All arguments aside, I like my XL2, it's making me income. and oh, by the way, I also have a job that pays for the fact that video work is a not for profit activity...LOL. Try keeping up with digital still photography AND digital video hardware. And, BTW, an audio recording studio trying to start up on the side. It's enough to make the hardiest wallets blanch.

All that aside, I will say that if I could distribute HDV content, or even hope to distribute in 6 months, you'd have to crawl over my dead body waiting in the HDV line. But, it appears we're more than a few years away from a widely accepted, CONSUMER HDV standard. That's enough to keep me holding my breath.

Well, this has been a fun romp thru the fields of conjecture. It's clear to me that a lot of the people on this forum have quite a different business model than mine. Thanx for all the perspectives.

Blessings

The latter part of this thread has made some valid and interesting points. Mike's clarification--starting with a clean slate--is greatly appreciated. That is a whole different situation. And I agree in that case, one should start as high in the HDV chain as can be afforded. But to say anyone is loosing opportunities because they don't have HDV is inaccurate. Unless you're doing broadcast, such as Bob, you're not loosing anything. I have not lost one job because I am not HDV compliant.

Nor do I feel that I am being left behind by not going HDV right now. I didn't move from film to video until I thought the video image was acceptable enough (to me). When I saw the XL1 and the image it delivered, only then did I make the move to video. Nothing was lost in the conversion.

DV will not die overnight. If that were true, it would have happened already. It will die, but it will take some time. It wouldn't take any longer for a knowledgeable person to move from DV to HDV than from film to DV.

Part of the problem is I have had my hands on an HDV camera, the Sony Z1. I've seen what it can and can't do. I was underwhelmed to say the least.

Yes, I've heard the future proofing idea before, but I don't buy it. Buy the time HDV is as mainstream as DV is now, that format will have probably changed. Keep in mind, one day, in the not too distant future, we'll be having this same discussion about HDV! So the future is a moot point, in my estimation.

With some of the HDV work I've done, we rented a big LCD monitor and put it on a c-stand. This was of course to be used as a reference monitor but it looked fantastic and the client couldn't take her eyes off it.

And how was the final master delievered to the client? What was the final format? I'm just curious.

For my experience, that is to say, for what I HAVE seen, and despite all the rationalizations, the DV out of my XL2 is competitive with down-converted HDV. For me to go out and spend $5-10k on new technology to produce the same result, is fiscally irresponsible.

Well put. That is exactly how I feel.

I guess there is no other way to say it. Each of us has a different point of view. None are 100% right, none are 100% wrong. I guess what raises my hackles are the implications that if I don't go HDV, I'm either stupid, doomed, or both.

What I said about those who buy early in the development stage was sincere. I honestly do appreciate your doing the shake down for me. I'm glad you are in a position financially to do that.

Have no fear, when the clients start demanding HDV and when standards have been established, I'll be right there with you!

Here's a simple test, I haven't done this so I have no idea how it'll pan out other than my own suspicions.
Download a half decent m2t HDV file shot at 60i. Using Vegas convert it to both Sony YUV and NTSC DV. Put each resulting file onto a track and split screen them. Encode to 16:9 NTSC mpeg-2 and burn a DVD. See how the resulting DVD looks on a decent TV, preferably one connected by component to the DVD player.
Apart from the cost of a blank DVD and an hour or so of your time this'll cost nothing.

Just as a note to anyone who thinks I live on the bleeding edge or drive $150K cars (I'd hate you to be dissapointed if you come down under and I picked you up from the airport!). I make much of my income working with 1/4" audio tape, in our 'group' we still have 2" quad, 1", UMatic and Beta VCRs, there's good money to made from being able to handle formats that time passed by.
Bob.

Here's a variation on that same test: do what Bob said, but render the HDV stuff directly to MPEG2 at 24p or 30p, Now the HDV footage will look approximately twice as sharp, even better if you have a big 16:9 HD TV and one of those fancy new uprezzing DVD players. By going directly to MPEG 2, you'll notice a vibrancy to the color that you absolutely do not get with SD DV as well. I would say that the difference is quite noticable.

The point of my test (assuming it does show an improvement) is to see the difference primarily between 4:2:2 and 4:1:1 when it gets converted to DVD. Down here there's not a whole lot to be gained as DV is already 4:2:0 in PAL.
Bob.

I see what you're saying. In PAL-land you already have a pretty good picture even without shooting HDV. You guys can even get pretty darned good results with Super-VCDs IMO. Here in the NTSC section of the world, the arguements for using an HDV camera are a lot more compelling.

"And how was the final master delievered to the client? What was the final format? I'm just curious."

Good old Beta SP :(

Most of the local stations require spots to be on Beta SP. Of course this would then get immediately digitized onto there hard disk playback device...It seems that none of the local stations are re-tooling for the HD conversion. They are only geared up to retransmit the mpeg-2 HD stream that they get off the satelite.

Bob and Laurence thank you . . I don't/didn't have the technical background to put into words that which I feel and appreciate about PAL.

Grazie

I agree DV will be with us fo ra long time, 5 years or more as a major medium.

Just to be clear HDCP is a federal law see:
http://ftp.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/part15/part15-91905.pdf

With SD most computers will read commercial protected DVDs. Vegas and a few mouse clicks and you can set up protection for SD DVDs that will be commercially produced. Your current XP computer won't play HDCP DVD (Blu_Ray or HD_DVD) and...

According to this link the key to protect your HD content with HDCP will cost $50,000. MPAA messing with Indies???
http://www.digital-cp.com/home/HDCPContentProtectionAgreement071202.pdf
God knows I hope I'm wrong or this changes.

Not to bash Apple but a search for HDCP on Apple.com returns zero results. MS (I'm a former employee) has lots of info. Vista will also have MS video content protection AND HDCP.

BTW: "Over The Air" NTSC is dead as of 2007 but their is talk of slipping to 2010. Again FCC Fedral Law. Hello DTV.

Just my $0.02

Read the whole paragraph. HDCP is only required for the monitor to be marketed as "digital cable ready".

"(b) A unidirectional digital cable product may not be labeled with or marketed using the term “digital cable ready,” or other terminology that describes the device as “cable ready” or “cable compatible,” or otherwise indicates that the device accepts a POD or conveys the impression that the device is compatible with digital cable service unless it implements at a minimum the following features:
(1) Tunes NTSC analog channels transmitted in-the-clear.
(2) Tunes digital channels that are transmitted in compliance with SCTE 40 2003
(formerly DVS 313): “Digital Cable Network Interface Standard” (incorporated by reference, see §

{irrelevant stuff deleted}

(3) Allows navigation of channels based on channel information (virtual channelIn addition to the above requirements, a unidirectional digital cable television may
not be labeled or marketed as digital cable ready or with other terminology as described in paragraph (b) of this section, unless it includes a DTV broadcast tuner as set forth in §15.117(i) and employs at least one specified interface in accordance with the following schedule:

(i) For 480p grade unidirectional digital cable televisions, either a DVI/HDCP,
HDMI/HDCP, or 480p Y,Pb,Pr interface:

{More stuff deleted}

(ii) For 720p/1080i grade unidirectional digital cable televisions, either a
DVI/HDCP or HDMI/HDCP interface:"