I have been working as a camera assist on a HDCAM nature show about the red tide algae blooms. The guys I'm working with have been doing HD stuff since 1995 and are really good, but they seem to have absolutely no respect at all for the HDV format.

I must say that I appreciate the HDCAM format. I am amazed by the color resolution of HDCAM and how good HD footage can look that is full 1920x1080 with only light compression. You can go so much further with color correction enhancing an image because of the color depth. Then there is the issue of how much damage is done to the image in the regular broadcast process. Video gets heavily compressed before it makes it to your home on the HD Discovery channel. Do this heavy compression to a pristine HDCAM image and you still have a pretty good picture. Compress video that is already compressed and you have artifacts of artifacts. Another issue is glass quality. These guys are using twenty thousand dollar lenses with absolutely wonderful optics. You can't get optics like that on a Z1 no matter what you do.

Having said all that, I still love HDV. Much of the difference between HDCAM and HDV may be really obvious in an Science Center Imax theater, but is not even noticable on a 42" plasma or LCD screen. HDV lets you use a regular computer without banks of RAID drives and super expensive equipment. HDV as you look at it, is quite comparable to what you see on an HD broadcast after the delivery compression.

I know exactly why the HDCAM guys don't wan't to use HDV but have no problem at all using uprezzed SD from mini-DV. Uprezzed SD looks like uprezzed SD. There is no confusion as to whether or not it is full HD.

HDV is way more expensive, looks quite different to some people and almost exactly the same to others. HDCAM may end up being shown on a large screen in a science center, but the people paying for the product are going to be making their decisions based upon what they see on a much smaller screen. These are guys who make a living based upon this difference. Standard definition uprezzes don't threaten their art or their livelihoods. HDV does.

As far as independent guys like us go: use HDV rather than SD if you can afford to. It is about four times better resolution. Don't worry what the big guys are doing or what their opinion is of the HDV format. HDV is currently the best format available to most of us. Use it.

I kind of get the impression that the "HD" guys are kind of "Snooty" like "I can afford this good stuff while you HDV guys can use the junk". I got this impression visiting the "COW" forum.

JJK

Oceanvisions -
not to "harp" on it, but "from the old days" - the direct analogy to still work is shooting 35mm vs shooting 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 - Leica vs. Century graphic (or Hasselblad).

For scenics, you've got a heck of a lot more resolution and on a HD screen you can really see it. Plus, I've really come around on the 16:9 format - that is - I'm liking it a lot.

FWIW - a recent convert.

v

Everything is a compromise and acknowledging that is essential in this business. You might wish to shoot 65mm film but the budget can only cover shooting with a cell phone. HDV is a compromise format that gets you good definition at an affordable price. Generally the HD guys haven't worked with HDV and only read criticisms based on reading the specs. When they do try it the general comment is "much better than I expected" and even express surprise about how good it looks in post. Of course those who express this view are quickly told that they need to get their eyes checked. So if you have the budget go for full HD with great lenses, or maybe your compromise is SD because it's small, easily edited and affordable. These are decisions for the individual. What others say is but information.

This is not the first time I've heard similar comments recently.
I'm told some of our local broadcasters are going back to SD for HD content delivery. However they're not talking about shooting SD as DV25, they're talking about shooting DB and upscaling that on their expensive real time upscalers.
Factor in that their camera / glass is around $50K, for the price of their hardware upscalers / de-interlacers you could buy a house and you'll see that this is not the same as us mere mortals shooting on a PD170 and upscaling in Vegas.
This is where it's very easy to get the wrong idea, on our LCD screens good DV25 looks pretty much the same as DB, it's when you start to push the image that how it looks matter less than than the numbers behind that look.
For what it's worth though HDCAM isn't that great, it's pretty lossy, the color sampling isn't that great either. HDCAM SR seems to be a much better format which our national broadcaster has decided upon as their standard HD format. It's frighteningly expensive, a 120min tape costs $800 local dollars. However they do shoot quite a lot of HDV, the Z1 is a great camera for them, it's cheap enough to be 'disposable', small enough not to intimidate and light enough so that if you've got to 'run before you get gunned' you mightn't have to leave it behind.
I think what's really going to change things a lot are the digital film cameras that are coming on line, >2K res, 4:2:2 sampling, small, light and relatively cheap, easy to post and tapeless. The challenge will be how that fits into the broadcast chain. Well probably it won't but so what, you can still deliver thhe content on HDCAM or SR, that's what dub houses are for.

From what I've seen,

the image quality from HDV can be very good. The show full ride was shot both on a Varicam and a Sony Z1, both with 35mm adapters (except when the Varicam was on a Steadicam). Color correction on a Discreet Smoke system. If you watched the show, you'd think it was shot with a single type of camera.

Where the HDV is weak in professional use is workflow.
If you want the 24p framerate, the Z1 doesn't shoot that and had to be manually converted from 60i to 24p. There are new cameras that will shoot 24p; however, support for those cameras when they first came out was sketchy (I haven't followed closely enough to know the current situation).

If you want to online the HDV footage, you can have problems when re-capturing the footage. The HDV decks shuttle slowly and require a HDV-->HD-SDI convertor (which may not work with the latest decks).

Considering the added post production costs, you might as well rent the Varicam or an XDCAM HD camera. XDCAM HD conforms very quickly.

2- In my opinion, the images coming out of HD and HDV cameras look very similar. i.e. there are various shootouts of different HD and HDV cameras at dvinfo.net, dv.com

The differences in the images are likely to be overshadowed by other differences.
Using 35mm adapters give a noticeably different aesthetic. Shooting on film also gives a different aesthetic. The digital cinema-oriented cameras also give a different aesthetic (i.e. check out images from the Red camera in particular). For cost-effective acquisition, I think cameras like Red (and SI) are going to be the next big step up in image quality.

I really cannot see anyone using XDCAM HD underwater!

Vic, I actually shoot only in 16x9 mode on my TRV950 - it was one of the reasons why I got the camera - it was relatively inexpensive for my budget - and that included a $3000 Light & Motion Bluefin housing to go with it.

That being said, I can relate toyour analogy quite a bit withregards to 35mm -vs- 2 1/4 format - yet, I saw some phenominal images shot on 35mm when full utilization of the frame was used, and have seen the same in 2 1/4 as well.

Since I look at online content distribution as the wave of the future, the idea of shooting something that will never be fully utilized right now seems like a waste of money - and time.

Up-rezzing is a stop gap for me if needed - The Red Giant plugin for AE does a pretty nice job up-rezzing to 720P, or even better - have the client purchase the HDV camera for a project if needed.

I've been asked to submit information for possible inclusion on an arctic expedition with the NSF and US Navy to study climate change with the polar ice caps melting - am trying to figure out if I can sell the project to the local public broadcasting station or something else with my current setup. Hence the question - I may just opt for a second camera - SONY PDX10 - since it will fit my housing and there will be scuba diving involved and will want to document the researchers as they dive during the 2 weeks I will be allowed at the research facility.

farss - Would you believe the SONY CineAlta in an Amphibico housing??? Saw it at the dive show - a work of art and design needless to say... Check it out on Amphibico's website

Yes, I do believe but that's not the XDCAM cameras.
The records time of XDCAM HD @ 35Mb/sec isn't overly long as far as I know.
The other thing I'm very interested to see / hear about is how well these mpeg-2 compression schemes hold up with underwater footage as there's no such thing as a static shot underwater.

Bob.

If you are seriously thinking "arctic" shooting, you need to focus on batteries, camera operational temperature ranges. You need to test all batteries for low temperature performance, especially in varying cold temperatures ranges(winds can be a real pain). Check the camera low temperature performance concerning power requirements vs battery. The best picture camera may fail to operature correctly, while "cheap-o" backup camera works like a charm. Wish you luck on your project, tho Artic weather can be a **B**!