What HDV Camcorder to buy?

[Devil]

Thou protesteth too much! Sounds like you are trying to justify your purchase

[neonbob]

Thou protesteth too much! Sounds like you are trying to justify your purchase

When it comes to capturing my children on tape... believe me... no justification is needed what so ever. One time moments that can never be seen again otherwise. I want nothing but the best.

Either way, comments like the one you have made here are not helpful, grown-up, or needed. You choose to avoid the wonderful world of hi-def, and you are entitled, but please do not be angry at those who choose to take advantage of the prsent day technology.

[ebone]

I'll promise all of you something:

I really enjoy my high def camcorder today.

And I'll really enjoy this camcorder or whatever High Def camcorder I have in 5 years.

[Jerry Jones]

Sorry, you are off on a tangent. No one is suggesting MPEG-2 is dying. HDV using MPEG-2 may perhaps be - I don't know, you don't know, Jerry doesn't know, either.

It's clear that MPEG-4 -- especially H.264 MPEG-4 -- is replacing MPEG-2 because H.264 MPEG-4 consumes less bandwidth while delivering superior quality.

For example, APPLE's take: http://tinyurl.com/8875c

Fujitsu:

http://tinyurl.com/y7aajl

Fujitsu expects H.264 will become the mainstream in the industry as the replacement for MPEG-2 and (older) MPEG-4 technologies.

The other problem with MPEG-2-based HDV has been motion artifacting as explained by these articles:

1. http://tinyurl.com/eqnzu

"Motion, especially fast-moving and detailed motion as in sports footage, presents quite a challenge for the real-time MPEG encoders in standard HDV cameras."

"It¡¦s a challenge HDV can often meet, but not always."

"This is the downside of HDV¡¦s impressive MPEG compression efficiency."

2. http://tinyurl.com/h6qwu

"Shooting with the Sony HDR-FX1, we noticed that the image quality, although generally very good, becomes a bit noisy (or blurred) when we panned with the camera."

"Actually, this is quite typical for MPEG-2 compression, even in HD broadcasts, as we noticed in the Summer Olympics broadcasts."

"With the HDR-FX1, the blur/noise is more visible because it features a less expensive codec."

"Using an HD-SDI converter, we then hooked up the camera with a portable HDCAM deck (SONY HDW-250)."

"This let us bypass the MPEG-2 codec (with a transfer rate of 25 Mbps) and, instead, record uncompressed HD (with a rate of 140 Mbps)."

"This resulted in a higher image quality with relatively clean pans."

"Based on our experience, we also recommend minimizing horizontal movement (panning) as much as possible in order to maintain a clean image."

"If you need to pan (and want to maintain the image quality), always pan as slowly as possible!"

3. http://tinyurl.com/zn7c3

John Beale -- author of the famous Web site about the old Sony DCR-TRV900 -- now uses HDV camcorders, but when he down-converts to standard definition, he has to apply blur filters to the down-converted HDV to overcome unique issues (click the preceding link to read about those).

4. http://tinyurl.com/bedru

Wikipedia:

"Compared to more expensive HDCAM and DVCPRO HD equipment, HDV suffers from significantly more spatial and temporal (motion) artifacts."

"As a consequence of interframe (temporal) compression, HDV editing is more complex, and introduces greater distortion at the splice point (due to the interdependence of adjacent video frames.)"

"Compared to conventional SD DV, HDV offers a much higher spatial resolution, so most observers are willing to accept the artifacts in exchange for a higher-definition picture."

5. http://tinyurl.com/y2fhan (by DV MAGAZINE's Adam Wilt)

"MPEG-2 codec artifacts occasionally noticeable," according to Adam Wilt.

He was reviewing the $6,295 JVC GY-HD100 HDV camcorder.

6. http://tinyurl.com/guz3s

Check out any professional broadcasting trade publication and you'll read numerous articles about how MPEG-2 equipment is already being replaced by MPEG-4 equipment.

Two codecs are "hot" in 2007:

1. JPEG 2000 (wavelet)
2. H.264 MPEG-4 (Panasonic's "AVC-Intra")

The really cool thing about the Panasonic "AVC-Intra" codec is that it's an I-Frame codec... much easier to edit.

As you know, even today's most powerful computers have to work hard to edit "long GOP" formats such as HDV.

Unlike MPEG-2, H.264 MPEG-4 is *scalable.*

That means it can be used across the spectrum... from tiny cell phones all the way up to full-blown high definition video.

Both high definition video formats ("HD DVD" & "Blu-ray Disc") support H.264/MPEG-4.

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

[cgould]

Other compression codecs efficiency advantages over MPEG2 are certainly valid, and will likely be the (near) future codecs (see HD-DVD/BluRay as mentioned.)
However, as neonbob has noted, there is certainly advantage to having very workable HD camcorders *now* with HDV, to record high-quality footage of events now & for future, and be able to work with it now. On current computers. (And as a nice future/back-compatible fallback, will work seamlessly as miniDV either natively or down-rezzed.)

My P4-HT 3GHz PC cannot smoothly playback anything more complex however, than 1080i MPG2 (and that mostly w/ VLC player, not WMP.)
MPEG4 quicktime stuff or even some WMV-HD, stutters to death.
Many HTPC etc. computers/display devices may have similar troubles with such advanced codecs. I know, time to upgrade, but it's a factor.

As always, the best recommendation is to really understand what you need&want, and buy what works best for *your* needs, within your budget, at the time (but with an eye for the future.)

For me, I needed to replace my damaged Optura Pi DV camcorder, plus was starting to be unsatisfied with the DV resolution on my HDTV.
For the same $1000 price as I bought it years ago, the Canon HV10 gave me a small, great HDV camcorder, which could still use & play back my same DV tapes, with incredible picture quality, and sufficient controls/features for my "kids/trips home movies" type needs.

I happen to prefer (H)DV tape, over disk formats, for my workflow/needs- since tape is cheap, plentiful, backwards-compatible, portable, easily swappable, and a great backup medium. I have a big backlog of tapes lying around of captured footage not yet edited/burned to DVD, but it's OK- I don't really need to capture/edit/burn my footage immediately eg for a client. Time isn't money, the memories are priceless instead.

Also importantly, I don't have to "free up" my storage media to make room for new footage, like with a harddrive or memory card- I just buy another cheap tape. And then I can keep that footage (and memories) forever. Sure, capture & ffwd access is slow, but...
Having faster-than-realtime capture and random access is a great feature from harddrive/memory card/DVD media; but, find me a tiny 13+gb swappable harddrive or disk for <$5 first, before I switch (I know DVD DL is close/cheap already... but not the minidiscs...)

For others , who have immediate-result clients and fast capture/editing needs, and can eventually throw away/recycle the master media, AVC-style codecs on drive/disk media is obviously better.
Intraframe codecs allowing frame-accurate snappy fast-cut editing w/ perfect/complex transitions, are also obviously more critical for such client/usage needs. Those types of users will also need more pro features such as mic inputs and manual controls, and they can afford the matching $4-10k cameras... and a few firewire/removable drives to store footage

For more professional footage, likely with fast action, complicated camerawork and transitions, higher-bandwidth/compression codecs are more important.

For me, gorgeous sharp archival-type movies w/ little editing, and easy/cheap (archival) storage, is more important, and all I need.

If you have a similar modest need, and/or prefer to have that need fulfilled now, then HDV should be fine for you.
If you need the other style, then maybe AVCHD or future codecs/formats are better.

It's kind of too bad that right now the consumer tape format is tied into MPG2, would be perhaps great if they put AVC type advanced codecs on tape since for me the tape format is almost more important than the specific codec used (ability of my computer to handle more notwithstanding...)
but I'm not sure if tape (or even the recordable DVD/disk formats), have the read/write speed to support higher-bandwidth codecs? eg aren't Sony's AVC cameras currently underutilising the spec'd bandwidth? (of course, in future if the media can handle it, they can increase it, but..)

[Jerry Jones]

Yes.

Sony's AVCHD camcorders *are* utilizing a relatively low data rate.

So are the Panasonic AVCHD camcorders.

They can do that because they know that H.264/MPEG-4 compression is going to perform about as well as HDV at half the data rate.

If they were to utilize AVCHD's full 24 Mbps data rate, they could easily deliver higher image quality than HDV.

So what they're doing -- bottom line -- is protecting their HDV camcorder lines from internal competition.

Yes, I agree with all you've said.

It all boils down to individual needs/desires.

For many, the HDV route is best.

For others, the AVCHD route is best.

And for others, like me, it's best to wait for another couple of years.

You know, I was just blown away by something I saw on the Engadget Web site a few moments ago: a laptop computer that costs -- get this -- more than $7,000!!

http://tinyurl.com/y65ku6

Most would probably agree it's an amazing laptop.

But the price is ridiculous -- especially when you consider that in two years laptops like this will probably be selling in discount electronics stores for under $1500.



Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

[devo_111111]

Well. I hope that helps you figure out which camcorder to buy?

[snowjohn]

I have had the SR1 for 2 months now. I am very satisfied with the camera and what it can do. Goodbye tapes! I have years of old tapes that have yet to be converted (thus loosing quality) to MP2. Having the original footage stored on a hard drive is the only way to go. I buy external HDs (320G for $150) and transfer all video to the drive for storage. Never a problem with access of files or looking for old footage anymore.

Biggest complaint? No AVCHD editor. Sony, who makes the camera and has the software - Vegas - doesn't even have a codec! So I am storing the .mts2 on the hard drive to await the codec for editing later. Meanwhile, I convert to MP2 and use it that way.

LG has now announced a dual format HD player. End of arguement on which format will dominate. In the meantime, I will get a PS3 (for my son of course!) to run the HD work once the codec is in place!