HDV footage file sizes

Discussion in 'Digital Video' started by LukeTruth, Aug 30, 2009.

  1. LukeTruth macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    #1
    An hour of standard DV footage takes up about 10-11GB of space on the hard drive once captured. High Definition takes up four times that, correct? How much memory does an hour of HDV take up?

    Thanks.
     
  2. Erendiox macrumors 6502a

    Erendiox

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2004
    Location:
    Brooklyn NY
    #2
    There are many, many different forms of HD. The HDV codec itself takes up the same amount of space as DV, which is why you can fit the same amount of HDV footage onto miniDV tapes. When you capture HDV footage, it's generally going to be decompressed into something like AIC (Apple Intermediate Codec) so that it can be edited. Your guess of 4 times the size is probably pretty close.
     
  3. TheStrudel macrumors 65816

    TheStrudel

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    #3
    HDV = roughly 13.6 GB/hour of footage. It can be captured natively - at the same size - in Final Cut, or you can convert it, and space consumed depends on whether you're using AIC, or ProRes, etc.
     
  4. LukeTruth thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    #4
    Does capturing it natively mean a lower quality image than the decompressed/converted ones that take up roughly 4 times the space?
     
  5. Erendiox macrumors 6502a

    Erendiox

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2004
    Location:
    Brooklyn NY
    #5
    The quality will be the same whether you capture it natively or decompress it. The difference is that your computer has to work harder to manipulate the footage natively since it's encoded.

    In an nutshell:

    Native footage = smaller file size and more CPU power required for render/playback

    Decompressed footage = bigger file size but less CPU power required for render/playback

    Also, keep in mind that many applications will not be able to manipulate native HDV footage AT ALL, especially older versions of iMovie and FCP/FCE.
     
  6. TheStrudel macrumors 65816

    TheStrudel

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    #6
    If you have a faster computer, you might as well work with it natively, unless you need to bring it into Color or something. I've always gone natively and had no real issues, but I edit on a Mac Pro.
     
  7. matteusclement macrumors 65816

    matteusclement

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    victoria
    #7
    I have a imac with 2ghz core2duo, 4 gigs ram and a heap of external HDD space.
    I use the native format fine but have wondered if rendering speeds would be faster with the AIC format.
    HDV = less HDD space but more CPU
    AIC= more HDD space but less CPU
    So would the same apply to rendering?
    Anyone have feedback on this?
     
  8. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #8
    Just a quick clarification of terms here, what you are talking about is transcoding (going from Format A into Format B). Decompression is what happens on the fly so the computer can playback the footage.


    matteusclement,
    Yes, all other things being equal AIC should render faster than native HDV.


    Lethal
     
  9. matteusclement macrumors 65816

    matteusclement

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    victoria
    #9
    LETHAL
    Yeah, "if all things equal" is right.
    I guess I will have to try it one day because if I can save time on rendering, then I would be really happy. The iMac purchase didn't have HD in mind. DAMN! :eek:
     
  10. matteusclement macrumors 65816

    matteusclement

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    victoria
    #10
    LUKE - what program?

    the program will make the difference too.

    imovie imports in AIC
    FCP can do AIC or it can do HDV
     
  11. TheStrudel macrumors 65816

    TheStrudel

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    #11
    AIC is leagues faster for rendering and really any kind of editing. It's not nearly as compressed - AIC isn't long GOP compression, so it'll almost always be faster. It'll also take up a ton more space, though.
     
  12. LukeTruth thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    #12
    I use FCE 4.0 mostly but I just got FCP 6.0.6.

    BTW, I'm working with a MBP 15" Aluminum with 2.4 Core 2 Duo and 4GB RAM.

    Do you think that will support native footage? I'm asking because I'm trying to decide whether to buy a $799 Canon Vixia HV40 and slapping a decent shotgun mic rather than spend $1449 on a used Canon GL2 or something similar that has a better lens, 3CCD, etc but shoots in standard format. HDV seems like the way to go as long as I don't get in over my head regarding storage and editing time/capability.
     
  13. matteusclement macrumors 65816

    matteusclement

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    victoria
    #13
    HV40 instead of GL-2

    NNNNOOOOOOOOO!

    Okay... maybe.
    I have the HV30 and it's sexy.
    HD and 24p is awesome sauce BUT the 3CCD factor gives you good low light and more of that "broadcast look".
    BUT just incase you do go HV40, your computer can handle it.

    HDV is a slippery slope.
    Unless you have Blu Ray capability, there still seems to be little point.
    I'd say in a year, perhaps that slope will level out.
    I feel that from a "semi-pro" view that a SD 3CCD will be better than a HD 1CCD.

    I am sure people will see it differently.
     

Share This Page