that would be a Yes...

The beauty of HDV (and the thing that AVCHD does not offer) is downconversion to SD via iLink. You can acquire your footage in HDV, and log/capture your footage either in HDV (1440x1080) or DV (720x480). So even if you are not giving your client an HD deliverable, you can retain an HD master. While I feel that the newer, tapeless workflows are brilliant, the flexibility of HDV will keep me shooting on miniDV tapes for at least another year.

Idiot Savant,

I'm not sure I understand the HDV downconversion advantage over AVCHD you claim. With AVCHD, I never have to capture from tape and I always have the High Definition (1920x1080) "Master" available. I can use Vegas to downconvert as needed.

-Dan

It's not my claim, its Sony's; they are the only HDV manufacturer to offer the feature. But here is why it's helpful (for me) Rescaling during the render takes more time than rescaling during log/capture.

To recap, fast render = good. SD DV AVI-> SD mpeg2 or SD DV AVI is faster than HD AVCHD-> SD mpeg2 or AVI.

To go back to the original question of this thread, YES, go with HDV, and you'll find it's a very smooth transition into HD.

I'll be using HDV for a good long time yet, and one of the questions pointed out in this thread is the answer (aren't the good answers always in the question): "Are you storing everything you shoot to HDD?"

It's not just a problem for smaller producers...Hollywood and elsewhere, formats that capture digitally create serious storage issues. While tape has a limited shelf life, I've popped in a several first generation DV tapes and never had a problem. Hard-drive...ooh...they crash all the time (and sorry, but optical just isn't practical - maybe with bluray it'll be more practical, but at $20-25 a disc, not quite yet).

In any case, yes, buy HDV. It's well supported, a known commodity, the quality is DEFINITELY there (I've been raving about my HDR-HC9, even as a backup camera for larger shoots - x.v. color...good!). The worst you'll have to do is find a nice shoe box to store your media, and if you catalogue them well, recapturing from logs and shotlists is always an easy option.

"As far as you having your High Def master "available", it's only as available as the media you store it on. Are you storing everything you shoot to HDD? "

Absolutely! With the Canon HF-10 recording AVCHD in highest quality mode (1920x1080@17Mbps), it only takes up 8GB of Hard Disk storage per hour of video. (I believe HDV and DV take up over 13GB per hour?) With the low cost of disk space it's really not a problem.

As for workflow: If you are logging before capturing scenes from tape, I can see where a tape based workflow is not a hinderance. However, for those of us who used to capture each and every scene from tape and do the logging after all the video was on the Hard Disk Drive, than going tapeless saves a lot of hours. (Of course, as of now, the major drawback to AVCHD is trying to get a good editing preview rate without resorting to using an intermediary. ..... using an intermediary negates the time saved from not having to capture from tape.)

-Dan

DCRANDALL -

I have read in another thread
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=588393&Replies=10

"....that 625 GB/hour is what is needed should you decide to render the cineform as FULLY uncompressed avi at 1920x1080, after your editing...."

You currently use compressed footage at 17Mbps @ 8GB/hour.

Will you also render out a fully uncompressed file @ around 625GB/hour?

If so, how do u manage/store such a large amount of data?

If not (and hence render compressed file), what will the GB/hour be?

And, obvousuly you recognise the heavy compression at start when recording to your camera media. Do u see any compromise in PQ when using AVHCD - as opposed to say MiniDV tape?

Advantages of having a good editing preview rate without resorting to using an intermediary? Is this step absolutely needed?

Bit

Bit of Byte,

"....that 625 GB/hour is what is needed should you decide to render the cineform as FULLY uncompressed avi at 1920x1080, after your editing....

You currently use compressed footage at 17Mbps @ 8GB/hour.

Will you also render out a fully uncompressed file @ around 625GB/hour?

NO! .... I don't forsee ever needing to render to an uncompressed avi after editing? Why would I ever do such a thing?

As of right now, my final delivery options are:

Render SD-MPEG2 for SD-DVD
Render HD-MPEG2 or AVCHD in Blueray format
Render WMV for internet

"If not (and hence render compressed file), what will the GB/hour be?"

As far as GB/hour: depends on the bitrate used. (as decided by the user before render)

"And, obvousuly you recognise the heavy compression at start when recording to your camera media. Do u see any compromise in PQ when using AVHCD - as opposed to say MiniDV tape?"

The Canon HF-10 is a 3rd generation AVCHD camera and, according to the reviews (Camcorderinfo.com has a comprehensive review) http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-Vixia-HF10-Camcorder-Review-34711.htm , the HF-10 picture quality is on a par with the best HDV camcorders.

"Advantages of having a good editing preview rate without resorting to using an intermediary? Is this step absolutely needed?"

No, an intermediary is not really needed for basic cuts and transitions. I get 15-24fps on a "Preview-Auto" setting and 15-20fps on a "Best-Full" setting. But, if you're using heavy FX or extensive CC then an intermediary is recommended.

-Dan