vectorskink wrote on 2/3/2005, 7:43 PM
Maybe it's people trying to justify their much more expensive HD camera??? HDV is HD in my opinion. HDV has the same resolution as HDCam, which is HD.
Obviously there's a difference in quality in HDV to HDCam, but still is HD to me...

my 2c
Catwell wrote on 2/3/2005, 7:50 PM
HD is spec that defines a set of different resolutions any of which meet the classification. How you get there is not part of the spec. HDV meets the resolution specs but does so with greater compression techniques than the early methods. In my book it is HD, just another variant.

When this thread get further along I would like to hear what your views are.
p@mast3rs wrote on 2/3/2005, 7:54 PM
I think its HD but maybe more like a "poor mans HD". While you have the same resolution and sizes, you dont have the same kind of data rate that comes with HD. At this point, Ill take anything over the standard def we have been stuck with.

To me, I could care less as long as it looks good when displayed.

What I would like is to know why gain wasnt included on the FX1 because I cant justify spending another grand for that feature. Having said that, I'll prolly end up with an FX1 before is all said and done.
John_Cline wrote on 2/3/2005, 7:55 PM
Yes, in all ways that matter, I absolutely consider Sony's version of HDV to be "true" HD. How anyone who has seen HDV shot by someone who knows what they're doing can say it isn't HD needs to have their eyes examined.

While it isn't full-up 1920x1080, when viewing the FX1/Z1 1440x1080 output on my Sony 34" CRT HD monitor, it looks as good as the majority of the HD programming I have seen shot with vastly more expensive HD cameras.

I would go so far as to say that HDV is every bit as revolutionary as DV was in its time.

musman wrote on 2/3/2005, 8:23 PM
I agree completely. BY the numbers it is HD, no question. Read DV Mag's article on different HD specs and it will explain a lot.
Still, how useful HDV is, well that's another question and I don't feel qualified to speak on it. Compression wise I have my doubts as lattitude is more crucial in my opinion than resolution. But Spot loves it so I think we should all give it a chance.
mhbstevens wrote on 2/3/2005, 8:43 PM
When we, the amateur/semi-pro bunch shoot "HD" we would like to feel we are shooting the same "HD" we see on the box - Discovery channel etc. If we see the pros footage is better than ours (as of course it will be) and if we can blame it our technoly being Prosumer we will.

I think in this age of increased technolgy, increased wealth, and a leveling of playing fields the average user is getting pissed-off by dual standards in technology. A good film or a bad film should be a creative issue and we should ALL be using standard technology. Unlike the 35mm wet process techology of old we now can all be economically on a level playing field and this is what we all want. The modern amatuer film maker resents that a "second-rate" technolgy is being developed just for him so the pros, who have big funding, can be charged more.

Mike Stevens
Spot|DSE wrote on 2/3/2005, 9:00 PM
Mike, I'm sorta missing your point here...are you saying that HDV isn't HD, or are you saying it's not HD?

Catwell, just for the record, I love DV too. And Beta SP. And HDCam. I've even been known to play with web video too. :-)
Regardless of whether I feel HDV is or isn't "true" HD, I do feel the format is revolutionary, and will replace DV.
rextilleon wrote on 2/3/2005, 9:17 PM
I really do believe that HDV is true HD--at least according to specs. I think that the people in other forums essentially feel tremendously threatened by it. Lets be frank, the DV revolution has put the means of production into the hands of many people and has certainly affected the 'old pros' who have been toiling in the mines for years. Often, when I read their posts I sense that anger transcends rationality. I remember shooting my first 16mm film--back in 1981---I dont recall precisely how much it cost but it wasn't cheap. My first effort for PBS ran something like 17,000 dollars and I worked with only a sound man. The same film today, shot in DV, would run me about 1200 dollars!
epirb wrote on 2/3/2005, 9:27 PM
Nice and simple. Yes it is High Definition.
resolution well over 480 lines, 16X9 format
With Someone like Spot or you other experienced guys, let em shoot a shot of a razor blade,with a Z1 , and you'll swear if you put your hand on the screen , you'll get cut!
keep in mind peole, the high definition we watch via cable tv or ASTC is also compressed, and can give the same sort of artifacts you "might see" from HDV. Even if it was shot on the 100K HD format cams.
As far as the common term High Defintion to the masses. It IS HDTV.
the purists will say that certain films stocks have higher resolution, color saturation, blah , blah blah.
But then were playing the "Highest" Definition game.
This term came about in the television realm, not film, or other delivery methods that are beyond the average joe. heck in that case every film that came out would have been advertised as "high def"
I could go on and on , but the bottom line is High Def is considered twice the resolution of standard NTSC. Show some great shots shot on Varicam, Cinealta, and a Z1 or FX-1 to most people that have mostly watched SD stuff, and their jaw will drop, and they wont be able to tell which was shot on which.

Ok so that wasn't nice and simple....just kinda pushed a button when I read some of the other posts...seem like most of us agree.
I look forward to checking this thread tomorrow.
B_JM wrote on 2/3/2005, 10:23 PM
A lot of the "HD" on my cable looks like crap , and they call it HD .

Blow up those HD WMV files on microsofts HD web site, they don't look good at all if you look frame by frame -- and MS certainly calls them HD ...

HDV looks better - and mpeg2 is a very good delivery for HD .... To me , the data rate is lower than I would like to see, but it holds up well in most of what I have seen (some didnt look to good either , but some looked outstanding) ..
I I have not tried out the cineform codec, but being a wavelet codec like QuVis and Pic Video jpeg Wavelet lossless - should work well I expect - though there is some odd things about wavelet to temporal type compression .. .
On average, the temporal compression method used by MPEG provides a compression
ratio three times that of JPEG for the same perceived picture quality. It is is very effective means of storage.
I would have myself may have used a wavelet perhaps from the start - instead of mpeg2, maybe.

Non the less -- HDV IS HD , no question about it ...
farss wrote on 2/4/2005, 4:37 AM
I think this is a plain dumb question of semantics. The term High Definition defines NOTHING, it isn't a technical standard ratified by anyone. If you think I'm being pedantic then should we start calling SD Low Definition?
And what is SD, well that term usually refers to 4:2:2 and DV25 isn't that so it really qualifies to be called Low Definition yet I doubt any of us want to put a proposal to a client that says we'll be shooting on LD!
Now this isn't a trivial matter, local legislation requires broadcaster to xmit a certain amount of High Definition content but doesn't specify what High Definition is, so you can guess the rest!
The core issue is that HD has long been associated with HDCAM and HDV sure isn't HDCAM but that's all it is, common usage much the same as "High Performance" car or "Long Distance Runner" (to me anything over 1 yard is long distance running) or the classic "High Fidelity".
So I'm not saying it isn't High Definition, I'm saying the term "High Definition" is meaningless and what's even sillier is that HDV IS a technical standard and HD isn't.
So please can we all stop getting sucked in to using dumbed down marketing terms, it's bad enough the public getting sucked in by all of them, as professionals we should set higher standards in how we communicate.
Jay Gladwell wrote on 2/4/2005, 5:02 AM
Not knowing any more than I do on the subject, I presumed it was a form of HD just like DV is a "lower" form of digital video something akin to the 4:2:2 vs. 4:1:1 difference.

farss wrote on 2/4/2005, 5:08 AM
Sorry to seem like I'm replying to my own post but this has really got me feeling a tad hostile. Maybe all I should say is take a wander over to the HDV forum at COW, read a few of the posts by the 'moderator'.

And the more I think about it the sillier it all gets, anyone ever have a client ask what camera you were going to use? I just told the client it's going to be 16:9 and look great on his big plasma screens at the trade shows and they jumped at it. Perhaps we should all stop worrying about what these "professionals" think and quietly get on with stealing their clients.
Jay Gladwell wrote on 2/4/2005, 5:17 AM
So please can we all stop getting sucked in to using dumbed down marketing terms, it's bad enough the public getting sucked in by all of them, as professionals we should set higher standards in how we communicate.

But, Bob, isn't this exactly what's happening on both sides: provider and consumer?

farss wrote on 2/4/2005, 5:32 AM
Exactly, we're playing the marketing depts games. We should be above it. I don't think it really matters in many instances. The client wants moving images of something, he wants to display them on something and have a certain impact, it should be, at least to some extent, our call as to what we shoot, edit, and deliver on to meet his needs. This principal applies accross all professions, thats why architects are professionals, and builders aren't.
Xander wrote on 2/4/2005, 6:56 AM
HDV and HDCAM at 1440 is a HD anamorphic equivalent of SD anamorphic. Nobody complains about the horizontal stretch when viewing anamorphic DVDs, etc. on a widescreen display. 1920 = 1440 * 4 / 3

Most 1080i broadcasts to the public are 1920X1080 at 19.39 Mbit/s or less. HDV is 1440 X 1080 at 25 Mbit/s - increased quality due to reduced resolution and higher bit-rate.

For comparison of pixels per second, HDV is way up there:
NTSC: 720 X 480 X 29.97 = 10,357,632 pixels / second
PAL: 720 X 576 X 25 = 10,368,000 pixels / second
HDV: 1440 X 1080 X 29.97 = 46,609,344 pixels / second
720p: 1280 * 720 * 59.94 = 55,240,704 pixels / second
1080i: 1920 * 1080 * 29.97 = 62,145,792 pixels / second

Basically, HDV is as true HD as you are likely to get / need.
mhbstevens wrote on 2/4/2005, 7:11 AM
Spot: It was late last night when I wriote and I was not very clear. I was questioning whether there is a real need for HDV and HD. I don't want to be too synical about the industry but it seems there is an economic need to have dual standards so both top and bottom markets can be sold to. While it is good to have well made and cheaply made equipment so we all can afford something, I think the need for a pro HD standard and a varying mix of HDV standards is artificial. One technology and one resolution is best, as is one aspect ratio and I'm just saying that I think a lot of film makers want one standard so we can forget technology issues like this and get creative. Whether or not this is a valid argument this is what I was trying to say.

BUT as I have not yet had the guts to order an HDV camera you may willingly ignor me; maybe today while the wife is at school?

Jay Gladwell wrote on 2/4/2005, 7:11 AM
... increased quality due to reduced resolution and higher bit-rate.

How does reducing resolution and having a higher bitrate increase quality? Is this referring to picture quality?

Spot|DSE wrote on 2/4/2005, 7:18 AM
I don't know that I'd have a valid response. Regardless of what may or may not be best for the industry, I'm just interested in whether folks here think HDV is "true" HD or not. It seems to be a subject that even here, where folks are usually pretty rational, open to ideas and discussion can't even get through without some emotional involvement. It's very heated on some forums, no doubt. Like I said in another thread, i've already gotten hate mail from a couple of losers on the VideoUniversity forums. But I'm still seeking as many responses on a few forums as I can get.
So, "creative standards" or "creative technical issues" aside, is HDV "real" or "true" HD or not?
winrockpost wrote on 2/4/2005, 7:32 AM
Depends on your definition of true , is it the best form of HD ? I doubt it, the worst ? I doubt it. If it meets the defined standards of HD , ( if there are any) then it is HD. Not sure about the true part.
I have a headache.

Jay Gladwell wrote on 2/4/2005, 7:38 AM
Sorry for getting off track, Douglas, but that thing about the hate mail really amazes me (and I'm not doubting you!). We started out hating people because of their religion, then we moved to hating them for the color of their skin, recently we started hating them because of their politics, now we have evolved to hating someone because of the video format they use! What's the world coming to???

Spot|DSE wrote on 2/4/2005, 7:44 AM
I posted part of the guy's mail in another thread. I find it pretty interesting that so many people are emotionally involved in the entire subject of HDV. Some of it I understand, some of it I don't understand.
Which is why I'm asking this question here. I'm gathering some data that I may or may not use for an article, just on this subject alone.
Being in so many forums ranging from the Video University forum to a few private forums, one runs into a lot of different kinds of people. I've gotten hate mail over my name, so a little hate mail over a camera format doesn't bug me. I think it's kinda funny. Visit the VU forums if you want to see some particularly emotional posts, (and stupid arguments for the most part) from a wide group of people. Same with some of the posts on the Pasture that Farss mentioned. Here and on the DMN, folks seem to be holding it together very well. The site has always held it together fairly well because they don't allow flaming of any sort.
DavidMcKnight wrote on 2/4/2005, 7:58 AM
I haven't seen the nature of the hate mail, but just the fact that it exists saddens me as a member of the human race. That said....

I agree with Jay in that I thought HDV was a form of HD. I guess I'm a Wedding Guy
(which isn't as bad as a "Wedding Guy" and definitley not as bad as a " WEDDING GUY"),
in terms of the equipment I use (I can't justify anything more than VX2000's) and types of projects I work on. I'm OK with that. So to me, if video I shoot on an HDV cam can be rendered in Vegas and delivered in a format that CAN look as good on my DLP HDTV as the INHD broadcast channels, then I would be touting the benefits of HDV too, in my marketing materials.
I would NEVER belittle HDV just because of my ineptitude at using it! Is that what the "Wedding Guys" at VU are doing?

- David
Barry_Green wrote on 2/4/2005, 9:17 AM
HDV is a recording format.

HD is a broadcast standard, defined by the ATSC as including: 720/24p, 720/30p, and 720/60p, or 1080/24p, 1080/30p, and 1080/60i.

HDV can record many of those formats (specifically 720/30p, 720/60p an d1080/60i).

HD is not a recording format. HD is a standard for defining what makes up a television signal. HDV is a way to record that signal.

So HD is a broadcast format, just like SD is.

SD is not DV, and DV is not SD. DV is a way to record an SD signal. HDV is not HD, and HD is not HDV... HDV is a way to record an HD signal.

You can record an HD signal in many ways, the most common being HDV, HDCAM, and DVCPRO-HD.

You can record an SD signal in many ways, including DV, DVCAM, DVCPRO50, Digital Betacam, BetaSP, VHS, DVD, D-1, D-2, 8mm, Hi-8, S-VHS, and LaserDisc. All of these formats record standard-definition video.

HDV, HDCAM, HDCAM-SR, and DVCPRO-HD all record high-definition video signals.

The debate is not (and cannot) be over whether HDV is "real" HD, any more than one could debate whether VHS is "real" video. It obviously is video. It's recorded.

The question of HDV vs. HDCAM is more like the question of DV vs. DigiBeta. They are obviously both standard-definition component video recording formats. And nobody is going to argue that DV is superior to DigiBeta. But it's obviously "real".

HDV is "real". It records an HD signal. It records at the same pixel resolution as HDCAM. It is not the same quality as HDCAM, just as DV is not the same quality as DigiBeta. But nobody argues that DV isn't "real" SD, do they? So they shouldn't argue that HDV isn't "real" HD, because it obviously is.