A good article recently surfaced at eventDV about the maturity of the HDV format for pros and consumers alike. Some clear facts for those who don't know.

1. Technically there are no HD-compliant cameras. AND tv sets. because for you to actually, and technically be HD compliant, you need to be able to support MORE than 10 or 20 HD formats.
2. HDV is HD quality. unless you use broadcast-quality monitors, and compare uncompressed HD to HDV side by side, and have a really trained eye, then you will notice the difference. and by broadcast monitors, i'm talking about broadcast HD monitors - around RM40k for a small one
3. HDV quality is far better than any standard that our tv can show.

My assumptions are, based on what I know, learn and the technical side:
- HDV has better colour than DV
- HDV need more processing power for editing than DV
- 100% No problems using normal DV tapes for HDV
- filesize on pc is 95% no difference using HDV or DV for the same amount of minutes

I say assumptions because through experience, one simply cannot just refer to forum posts of what is good and bad, as there are lots of variables that you cannot calculate that can only be subjected to you. Like in the camcorder thread on why I said one of the biggest thing to consider when buying a camera is not the features or capabilities, but wether it is good to hold IN YOUR HANDS.

Anyways. We just started our first real HDV work, a small wedding event. where I had to turun padang and shoot the thing myself, because 1. it's for a good friend of mine, and as a gift for her and 2. have to test out HDV quality and workflow by myself to decide wether I should force my staff to go and learn HDV now or later

Haven't actually capture the HDV footages to PC yet because of time constraints, but now since I've got my vaio back, I'm going to start doing it tomorrow if possible (FYI some VAIO models cost so much not because of it's overpriced, but has tons of bells and whistles for pros, like no-static noise input output, superb eq, and comes with special vaio edition of premiere (still hate premiere btw, vegas is better IMO ), among others. get it for the piece of mind, or just get a macbook pro


So my question is, have you move to HDV yet? If not, then will you do it soon? or do you find it not worth the extra effort (and money) to move towards the HDV era?

This post has been edited by C-Fu: Dec 10 2006, 12:14 PM

I have been wanting to go to HDV for 2 years now but never had enough budget to buy me a HDV camera that I always wanted (the HVR-Z1 and HVR-V1 comes to mind).

However, my workflow has been in HDV since I upgraded to Core2Duo. Even an E6300 is powerful enough to run it with a few effects running (I'm using Vegas too, powerful little bugger ). Skip the macs, they're just overpriced Intels now.

To answer your questions, yes, I've moved to HDV in post production and yes, it's worth the money. Heck, you can shoot in HDV and downsample to SD and it'll look just the same, if not better.

This post has been edited by d3x: Dec 10 2006, 09:21 AM

I have been handling a DVX 99% of the time since I started freelancing in this field professionally and it is my favourite and most familiar camera so far. Now that I am going to start my own production studios, I was torn between the DVX or HVX. The Z1/FX1 while offering sharp images doesn't impressed me that much for the film look and the V1 is still unproven.

I did shot a feature length movie last year using the FX1.

My feelings on HDV are it looks great!!! Super sharp, full of detail, and clean looking images.

Since it uses DV tapes, the cost remains the same and you are getting something superior to DV.

However, the post production process was the biggest issue last year. It took almost half a year to edit the movie because we have trouble finding a studio with Final Cut Pro 5 to edit HDV. Most studios back then only have Final Cut Pro HD 4.5. Thankfully, as of this year, editing HDV should be no more trouble than edting DV footages.

The drawback with HDV is that it must be enjoyed with other HD technology such as HD TV, HD DVD, or those big *ss MAC LCD.

However, on an SD TV or SD DVD, I personally felt that HDV looks worst than the DVX, the feature that was shot with the FX1 looks great in its native HDV form but after burning it to DVD, it looks really bad. All the detail and resolution are gone and you also get a lot of artififacts that weren't in the original footages. The DVX on the other hand already looks great in its native DV form and still really good on SD DVD.

Go watch Tan Chui Mui's 'Love Conquers All' to see how the DVX will hold up on the big screen. It will go head to head with 35mm on a 10k digital projector.

The DVX102B is going quite cheap these day, almost RM10K difference between the HVX (not to mention the additional workflow costs due to the P2).

The way I look at it, it will be quite a while (at least three to five years) before HD starts catching up here(It took five years for DVD to become really popular and common here), the price for HD stuff ain't really helping either but will drop significantly in a few more years (the DVX will very likely stay around the same before being discontinued)

So at the end of the day, if you want to save some money, stick with the proven DVX. Lots of support, easy to use, relative low operating costs and visual quality that are still up to standard (and still will be for many years).

HDV cameras at a few thousand more gives you HD and DV but if you are going to end up downsampling it to DV, it kinda defeats the point. DV on those sony cameras just doesn't look as good as the DVX and worst when downconverted from HDV.

Eh who voted for the last option?

I'm a student, shooting my corporate video soon so DV it is. Even the college hasn't move on to the HD platform yet (as far as I know).

We did have a group who did their corporate video using a HDV camera (the prosumer one, forgot which model, Sony FX1 I think). It looks slightly sharper (it was compressed to MPEG 2 for my viewing) but I'm belive the technique and skill has more of to do with the overall quality of the video which was good.

C-Fu, may I ask what HDV camera are you using?

This post has been edited by mysticaldodo: Dec 14 2006, 01:04 PM

Which college are you from? As far as I know, there are no colleges here with proper HD facilities yet. Most are still using the DVX, XL series, and the Sony PD150/170.

The FX1 looks really good in its native HDV form but really bad when it has been downconverted to SD.

But I do agree that technique, composition, has a lot more to do with making a video look good.

Most people do not even notice the increased resolution provided by HDV.

From Lim Kok Wing University College here

Right now, my focus is on getting a steadicam (learn to make myself when I got time).

This post has been edited by mysticaldodo: Dec 21 2006, 03:08 PM

Still very expensive to start with

absolutely love the Z1

but got myself a FX1e as well got that one first, before Z1 was released.

superb camera IMO. No matter how sucky sony and sony's tech can be, they are always the one who set the technological shift - from the first great digital camera, to the betacam, to the great hdv (fx1 la what else ), to the hdd cams, etc.

dunno about you guys, but I have absolutely no problems with downconverting HDV to SD, both via post or via the builtin cam feature itself. Just remember who your friends are - twixtor, cinema tools, nattress, film gamma, and your best friends - magic bullet and lumiere HD.

I am guilty of overusing Magic Bullet

I'm debating between Twixtor and another program? Sigh...

Have you tried using a 35mm film adapter yet?

Still waiting for a good place to sell or rent them in KL. For a realistic price. Let me know if you found one

And what is the range of your realistic budget?

Why don't you DIY?

Because I'm a producer first, businessman second. or first Engineer a far, far third

Hundreds a day, for an adapter is not realistic for me Make one for me if you can, and I'll buy it from ya

What exactly do you use Twixtor for? I know someone who uses it for deinterlacing but
isn't it mere scan line blending like the one found in AE? (it says so on their website)

In any case, do you deinterlace your video and what program do you use?

edit. Playing around with Fieldskit now. Still alot to learn.


Is it true you need minimum dual core to edit HDV?

This post has been edited by mysticaldodo: Jan 12 2007, 03:33 AM

I started a thread earlier on on HDV. Someone was dissing me about DV still being the best video format.

I have had a HDR-HC1 for 1 yr 3 month now. Love it to bits. Editing is a breeze on C2D Macbook using iMovie HD. I shot my wedding footage using it.

I couldn't say that I'm impressed with Sony's later HD incarnation. I'm wary about the MPEG4 compression used.

The AVCHD? It's still fairly new. Not something that anybody would use for production (aka moneymaking) purposes yet, IMO.


I tried with a normal P4. slow as hell. But workable, but not real-time lah.
When people say "oh minimum Pentium quad-core" or something, it means you need that for (your editor's) peace of mind

I got myself a dual dual-core CPU setup


"In any case, do you deinterlace your video and what program do you use?"
Depending on the needs as well as the kind of footage, slow-mo or fast motion. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. You wanna do 24p from 25/30fps then you gotta deinterlace!

We are a Toaster post company No premiere allowed hehe.

got my self dual quad cores,,, with a 3rd quad coming... got the HDR-HC3 super cheap (RM 1.8k)... sony has not abandoned HDV... the new HDR-HC7 uses the new 3MP cmos

This post has been edited by BeastX: Jun 21 2007, 07:12 PM

You've been hibernating?


Yes, I just only recently learned how to obtain slow mo footage from progressive footages. I'm not sure whether my method is good enough, need to play around more. But I have to convert from 25p to 60p and slomo from there in AfterEffects. I don't dare to try Twixtor, I'm scared I might like it and I definitely don't wanna splurge on something like that yet.

Whats a Toaster post company?