I use the MacBook with iMovie HD 06. Which would give the best quality 'DVD' out of the Canon HV20, Panasonic GS500 and the Sony HDR-HC7. Ie. does recording in HD and then making a normal DVD give better results than the best SD cameras?
Most definitely. You can see examples of my HC7 mp4 encodes in Flash video here.I use the MacBook with iMovie HD 06. Which would give the best quality 'DVD' out of the Canon HV20, Panasonic GS500 and the Sony HDR-HC7. Ie. does recording in HD and then making a normal DVD give better results than the best SD cameras?
Most definitely. You can see examples of my HC7 mp4 encodes in Flash video here.
No way would they look anywhere near as good if they had been shot in SD. Plus why would you want to shoot in 4x3 anymore in the first place. Shooting in 16x9 all the time is a must do to conform with the future as well as the HD present.
Same holds true for DVD masters. Start sharper will look sharper even though they net SD.
I use the MacBook with iMovie HD 06. Which would give the best quality 'DVD' out of the Canon HV20, Panasonic GS500 and the Sony HDR-HC7. Ie. does recording in HD and then making a normal DVD give better results than the best SD cameras?
Most definitely. You can see examples of my HC7 mp4 encodes in Flash video here.
No way would they look anywhere near as good if they had been shot in SD. Plus why would you want to shoot in 4x3 anymore in the first place. Shooting in 16x9 all the time is a must do to conform with the future as well as the HD present.
Same holds true for DVD masters. Start sharper will look sharper even though they net SD.
Surely the resolution is the same?
Yes, but the MPEG2 encode can be more efficiant with HDV, as there is more information there to begin with.
SD is gone, I greatly considered the Sony VX2100 before finally choosing the HV20 after realising this allows me to be more future proof. Plus you will always have the HD video archived to tape if you ever got a bluray burner etc. in the future, at least you know you'll have that option.
HDV and DV have the same bitrate (25mb/s) so there's not really any more information to work with. You may have more resolution, but you're losing color information. You also get more artifacts with HDV because it's not a very good codec.
Yes, but the MPEG2 encode can be more efficiant with HDV, as there is more information there to begin with.
No way would they look anywhere near as good if they had been shot in SD.
No way would they look anywhere near as good if they had been shot in SD.
Same holds true for DVD masters. Start sharper will look sharper even though they net SD.
All other things being equal and optimal, yes.Ie. does recording in HD and then making a normal DVD give better results than the best SD cameras?
A very basic way to look at it is when you manipulate your footage, and especially compress it for delivery, you are degrading the quality. If you want to make an SD DVD starting w/HD could give you much more room to degrade your footage before it stats looking bad than if you had started w/an SD source.What does 16:9 have to do with standard definition. I thought the resolution is independent of the size ratio. Why would the picture quality of the HD when copied to a normal DVD be better than the quality of the best SD cameras? Surely the resolution is the same?
Hell no. Footage from a Panasonic DVX-100 or a Canon XL2 is going to look way better on a DVD than footage from a ****** consumer camcorder. The 3CCDs are going to deliver much better picture quality and color depth. Some of the newer SD cameras even have native 16:9 CCDs so you can get an anamorphic 16:9 picture and it will look much better on DVD.
If you want good quality for DVDs and have a budget of around $1000 (the price of those cheap ass HDV cameras), try to get a used Canon GL1 or something. It will deliver a much better SD picture.
HDV is a crap codec and isn't considered HD by any real production companies. It has too many artifacts and lacks color depth. If you want to shoot decent HD, the cheapest option you're going to get is an HVX200 shooting DVCPRO HD on P2 cards. Using a $1000 consumer HDV camera isn't going to deliver.
How about 'cause they are in the market for a sub10k camera system and the HVX200 doesn't meet their workflow requirements?There's a reason why no real professional production companies use HDV.
So the reason most commercials and many TV shows are shot on film, even though the final destination is SDTV is what again...Exactly. If you want the best quality SD picture spend the money on a dedicated SD camera
This is a flawed argument. For example, ProRes delivers on-line quality, compressed HD at uncompressed SD file sizes. Not that HDV is anywhere as clean as ProRes, but more compression doesn't necessarily mean less quality.Actually there is less information available. You are attempting to store a higher resolution image in the same amount of space as DV. This means that in order to do so the image needs to compressed to an even greater degree losing out on detail and colour information.
Which brings me back to what I first said about "all other things being equal and optimal." There are a lot of things in play into the image quality of video (a large part of it is the person behind the camera). You can't cherry pick one aspect of a video workflow and declare that "workflow A" is better than "workflow B" because of that one piece of information taken out of context. It would be like saying Computer A is faster than Computer B because Computer A has more a CPU w/a higher clock speed. Well, that may or may not be true but you can't make that decision until you take into consideration the rest of the hardware specs on the two machines.I don't know about that, because that doesn't look that spectacular to begin with. Some of my home videos look better. Were they edited with iMovie?
When talking about sub 10k cameras the camera itself, not the recorded format, is largely the limiting factor. All of the prosumer cameras in that price range perform w/in an arms reach of each other. Each one is compromised in one way or another and no camera system is way out in front or lagging way behind. The HV20 has really taken off w/35mm adaptor indie crowded 'cause of it's small size, low price, and the surprisingly good sensor Canon put into it and if you watched Flags of Our Fathers there were some Z1U's used in the scene where the Marines stormed the beach.
How about 'cause they are in the market for a sub10k camera system and the HVX200 doesn't meet their workflow requirements?
So the reason most commercials and many TV shows are shot on film, even though the final destination is SDTV is what again...
So the reason most commercials and many TV shows are shot on film, even though the final destination is SDTV is what again...
This is a flawed argument. For example, ProRes delivers on-line quality, compressed HD at uncompressed SD file sizes. Not that HDV is anywhere as clean as ProRes, but more compression doesn't necessarily mean less quality.
That's true and I probably generalized professional production companies too much. But I've read before that places like BBC are never going to accept anything shot on HDV. But most of the stuff they do is on film or formats like HDCAM or something anyways.. It all depends on the budget.
In the end, however, it matters much more on the skill of the videographer than the equipment he's using. You could have the best camera but if you don't know what you're doing, you'll end up with shakey footage with quick amateur zooms/pans, washed out backgrounds, and bad audio (kind of like the video multimedia linked to).
For what it's worth Discovery HD treats cameras like the Z1U and HVX200 the same (not more than 15% of footage in program can come from them), AFAIK.That's true and I probably generalized professional production companies too much. But I've read before that places like BBC are never going to accept anything shot on HDV. But most of the stuff they do is on film or formats like HDCAM or something anyways.. It all depends on the budget.
Some of the comparisons you and Cromulent were making were based on cameras way out of the OPs price range too.Well film is all uncompressed and offers the best possible quality. But that's way out of budget for ordinary people.
The only thing I think the GL1 would have an edge on is low light sensitivity because of its lower pixel density.If you're looking to get the best picture for SD DVDs and you have a budget of around 1500 bucks (which is what the OP seems to want), you're either going to go with a consumer HDV cam like the HV20 or HC7, or a "prosumer" SD 3CCD camera like a GL1, you're probably going to get better results out of the GL1 because of the 3CCDs.
Agreed.In the end, however, it matters much more on the skill of the videographer than the equipment he's using.
That is a very good point. I guess I should have been clearer. HDV employs a form of compression which is no where near as good as ProRes 422. It is very lossy in terms of quality in comparison.
I guess what I was getting at is that HDV uses an inferior form of compression compared to other codecs.
I would recommend capturing and editing in SD until you have a delivery method for HD. It'll be SO much easier on your processors! Your Macbook will not be happy with you encoding HD. Can it do it? Yes. Will it take forever? Yes. Start with SD and edit SD until you have a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD burner.