HDV vs. SD - Pros and Cons

[pooty13901]

Hi everyone,

I've just spent three hours on this site and a few others trying to narrow down a decision - Stay with a new purchase I've made or take a different route.

I recently got the Canon HV30 and love the HDV quality. However, compressing the video to fit onto a DVD is going to lose quality (of course). What I am not finding out is how much visual quality will be lost. I plan to sell the movies I make to a wide audience. I think that the chance of most people having a DVD player that can support HDV is, at the point in time, relatively low (I could be wrong - what are the stats?)

My question in a nutshell - What yields better end-results of picture quality? Converting 120 minutes of HDV to SD, editing the SD and then burning a finished movie onto DVD; Or going with a higher-end SD camera (say the GL-2) and using that 120 minutes of video to edit, make a movie and burn to DVD.

Please read the next paragraph understanding I'm not complaining or being ungrateful about all the great information that is exchanged on this site. I have been the recipient of many great suggestions and helpful insight several times here....

I'm not looking for personal opinions on the HV30 vs. the GL2. I know they are completely different cameras and each has their pros and cons. And I know that there are a million different opinions on compression programs that I could use to work with the HDV footage to get it able to burn onto a good ole' DVD. I also don't want to know about compression rates and technical specs and what that all boils down to. To be honest, I've read so much tonight I'm more confused than ever.

My real issue is with end result viewing quality for my customers. I'm hoping someone has run into this question and has seen both end reults for themselves. Is it possible for people to just say whether they think I should go with HDV compressed to fit onto a DVD, or go with a prosumer SD camera like the GL2? If it were you, what would you do since it seems like a majority of the general public does not DVD players that can support HDef.

Thank you very much and I hope everyone gets that I'm not being an a**hole with that paragraph up there.

[edDV]

Whoah cowboy.

Explain what you are trying to do.

Is the goal a DVD in the next few months and then you toss the cam?

Are you limited to SD editing/authoring with no end user HD market?

Are you aware the HV30 can shoot 4:3 or 16:9 DV and beat the GL2* at both?

The GL2 was a fine cam for 2004 and three CCD may give good results under certain lighting but try that side by side.


* The GL2 cannot do native 16:9. It masks the sensor. It's OK for 4:3.

[yoda313]

I'd say since you haven't even mentioned the option of buying a bluray burner that standard definition makes more sense.

One thing I'd ask before buying anything is whether or not you can record standard definition on your high definition camera. Is that possible? If so I'd research that before you do anything else. (that is just a wild idea I'd thought I'd throw out there - flame away if I'm dreaming this option up - I haven't bought a camcorder for over 5 years so I'm clueless on the DV generation let alone high def in terms of practical hands on use - I am presenting my opinions based on ease of use and my experience with using high def bluray pressed movies and standard def analog camcorder material).



In the end you still have to process dv to mpeg2 and then author the dvd. The hd video adds more issues with compression settings and downconverting.

To me personally it sounds like sticking with standard definition is the ideal approach. Getting a quality standard definition camera that you would be comfortable with would allow you to stay in the standard definition editing world and limit the conversion hassles that you have already mentioned.

(again I can't imagine you could record standard dv on a high def dv camera but since some essentially use the same tape I thought i'd ask.....).

Hope any of this helps.

I know one piece of advice that is always used in this forum is to do as little compression as possible to preserve the quality of the original source. In that sense sticking in the standard definition world for the destination of standard dvds seems to make the most sense in my mind.

[filmboss80]

You can always take HDV footage and convert to SD widescreen for current DVD release. It will still look good. Archive the original HDV footage for later HD projects. That would be better than shooting in SD today, then trying to upconvert to an HD format in the future. You've got to think ahead, pal.

[edDV]

Assuming HV30, shooting SD DV mode is comfortable and may give a better SD result than downscaling HDV (to be tested). The advantage of shooting HDV is future proofing an HD 16:9 release.

The main issue is whether HDV downscaled to SD is equal or better than shooting SD mode in the cam. Sorry to say I haven't had time to test this in detail.

[yoda313]

Assuming HV30, shooting SD DV mode is comfortable and may give a better SD result than downscaling HDV (to be tested). The advantage of shooting HDV is future proofing an HD 16:9 release.

Woah wait a minute you mean I was right about it shooting in standard def AND high def??? Cool.......

[Silvas]

I have a HV30 and I shoot in HDV 30P then render out to SD for DVD. Looks fantatic.

[edDV]

I have a HV30 and I shoot in HDV 30P then render out to SD for DVD. Looks fantatic.

I still favor 29.97i in most cases but do your thing.

[pooty13901]

Hi Everyone,

Wow! Thanks for the quick replies. And I'm glad no one took my "demands" the wrong way. I was really worried it was going to read badly. I appreciate several statement made in the responses.

1. I did know the HV30 recorded in DV mode. That's one of the reasons I went for it. Unfortunately, I've tried that out and it doesn't look too good (in my opinion. From everything I had read I was expecting a lot more sharpness, even in DV mode).

2. I think my demographic audience may be a little slower with having Blu-ray of HDDVD compatible players. What with the economy and all, I think the move to those items is slow across the board.

3. I tried shooting in HDV and then downloading as SD. Did not look good in my opinion. Seriously, the footage looked similar in quality to an old Sony DCR-TRV460 I used to use.

4. Have not tried shooting in 30P and then rendering out to DVD. Maybe I'll give that a shot.

Thanks everyone!

[pooty13901]

On #4 above - I did just do a test with 30P HDV. It looks good but it has that "jumpiness" that isn't good for what I shoot. I'll be out there shooting fast moving objects. I like a nice smooth feel to the video and I don't think I'm going to be getting that from 30P.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Unfortunately, fast moving objects is where HDV (and MPEG2 in general) falls down - especially if done on-the-fly inside the camcorder. Personally, since your target is standard def DVD, I'd shoot in DV and then encode to MPEG2 - this gives you greatly control over the compression and ensures that the encoding is being fed I-frames only with no pre-existing motion blocking artifacts.

There's an easy way to do a side-by-side comparison (assuming the Canon can do what my Sony can): record HDV to tape and, at the same time, capture DV via FireWire. Then capture the tape. You'll have HDV and DV of the same scene under exactly the same conditions etc. Put both through your DVD encoding process and pick the best for your particular needs.

[edDV]

...
There's an easy way to do a side-by-side comparison (assuming the Canon can do what my Sony can): record HDV to tape and, at the same time, capture DV via FireWire. Then capture the tape. You'll have HDV and DV of the same scene under exactly the same conditions etc. Put both through your DVD encoding process and pick the best for your particular needs.

I agree you must do the comparison for each camcorder. It isn't all a format issue but how the camcorder processes to HDV or DV.

I have an HV20 and also own a Sony PD-150 (DVCAM) that is on a long term loan in the field. When I get it back I intend to do a side by side test of the HV20 in HDV and DV mode vs the PD-150.

So far I've tested the HV20 vs. a Sony HDR-Z1U and the HV20 did surprisingly well but the Z1U luminance processing knee and white balance gave much better exposures. The HV20 needs more manual tweaking to get similar exposure. I suspect the same will be true vs. the PD-150.

For pooty13901, if future HD release is low priority, I think you may be better off investing in a good used Sony VX-2000/2100 or PD-150/170 which are well proven SD broadcast standards (often used for SD cable reality programming). You can find good ones in the $1000-2000 range. These have 3xCCD optimized for DV/DVD 4:3 aspect ratio. They are not as good for shooting 16:9 SD. For that you will pay much more.

[dun4cheap]

After reading through bits and peaces, I strongly recommend shooting in HDV of SD. Even if you are exporting to DVD. Here are some reasons why.

1. You can pan and zoom on your HD footage.
2. I edit in HD, then export. This way I have the option to export to SD or HD whether it is DVD, HD-DVD or a streaming format for SD or HD.
3. You Archived TAPES with your original footage for the future, which source would you prefer SD or HD. (My bet, HD)

The key here, is you should work with the best source possible. SD is a 720x480 source no matter how you cut it. HDV is 1440x1080 rectangular pixel, at least twice the source resolution of SD.

Depending on your editing application, I use Avid Liquid 7, so I edit from an HDV timeline. When I am complete I either export it as a DVD or I fuse it and use Stusio 11 to autho a Blueray or HD-DVD with my footage.

If you are maintaining a relatively high bit rate export I think you will be very pleased with the process, even when exporting to DVD. Now if you are looking to squash 2 hours of dvd video on a single layer dvd then you get what your asking for, a highly compressed video.

I use the HV10, HV20 and HV30 along with digital stills from my 10mpx Canon XTI.

[edDV]

The key here, is you should work with the best source possible. SD is a 720x480 source no matter how you cut it. HDV is 1440x1080 rectangular pixel, at least twice the source resolution of SD.

But resolution isn't the only issue. HDV and DV have the same bit rate so increased compression artifacts come with higher resolution. Assuming an equal camera, HDV has 2x H compression and 2.2 V compression vs. DV. DV also has no interframe compression so is better for motion.

If 16:9 HD release is a priority I agree with your observations. The 4:3 DVD release takes the quality hit. But if 4:3 SD is the priority, a 3CCD SD semi-pro DV camera should look better for a 4:3 DVD.

Pick the right tool for the task.

[dun4cheap]

Sorry, I cannot agree to recommending someone to shoot at 4:3 in any resolution any longer. In particular with any of the new cameras. Now shooting in SD mode is obviously an option, but still it is rare that I have seen HDV footage ever turn out worse then SD footage.

The canon HV series does really well with sports. It does exceptionally well in lower light situations as well. You are more app to see pixelation caused from poor encoders which can be caused from all types of sources. SD, HD, HDV, etc...

[edDV]

Sorry, I cannot agree to recommending someone to shoot at 4:3 in any resolution any longer. In particular with any of the new cameras. Now shooting in SD mode is obviously an option, but still it is rare that I have seen HDV footage ever turn out worse then SD footage.

The canon HV series does really well with sports. It does exceptionally well in lower light situations as well. You are more app to see pixelation caused from poor encoders which can be caused from all types of sources. SD, HD, HDV, etc...

I stick by use the right tool for the job. Sometimes that will be HDV, DV, DVCPro, XDCAM, HDCAM or even film.

Next issue for DVD release is should one rent of buy the cam, audio, lighting? If you rent something like a SD DVCPro for sports or a DVX-100 or 200 for film style, you will run rings around an HV20/30 or PD-170 for picture quality. Most DVD productions do the field shoot in a few days/weeks but take weeks/months in post production.

[dun4cheap]

Ed,

In any event I hear what you are saying and the comparison of compression over none compression is correct.

It would be nice to shoot HD in a non compressed format but the file sizes would be huge. More importantly though would be the amount of data that would need to be transferred.

[edDV]

Ed,

In any event I hear what you are saying and the comparison of compression over none compression is correct.

It would be nice to shoot HD in a non compressed format but the file sizes would be huge. More importantly though would be the amount of data that would need to be transferred.

The pros shoot as close to uncompressed as possible but this is very expensive. All these formats exist for different budgets and goals.

[Soopafresh]

I like the ability to shoot in HD, deshake and crop, then supply the DVD encoder a high quality image for processing.

SD DV has an unappealing graininess to it (not the cool kind you get with film), at least to my eyes. Denoising looks terrible if needed. There's just less information to work with.

[edDV]

I like the ability to shoot in HD, deshake and crop, then supply the DVD encoder a high quality image for processing.

SD DV has an unappealing graininess to it (not the cool kind you get with film), at least to my eyes. Denoising looks terrible if needed. There's just less information to work with.

I think that relates to the camera you are using for DV. You don't see this graininess on Dicovery Channel do you? They use either Sony or Panasonic camcorders exporting the same DV25 format (DVCAM/DVCPro). Much of the early Discovery HD Theater programming was shot in HDV format (HDR-Z1U) although some was DVCPro-HD, HDCAM or film. Today the higher end formats are the rule rather than the exception.

[Soopafresh]

You're right about that. I was referring to DV files from consumer grade cameras. 8)

[hiptune]

I like the ability to shoot in HD, deshake and crop, then supply the DVD encoder a high quality image for processing.

I agree, with HDV you have some lead way to more post processing with little degrading, it hold up being blown up better, or color corrected.

And if you need smooth action, you should 29.97 rather than 24p. That problem solved if you have any light going for you.

[2Bdecided]

I get stunning SD (DVDs) from HDV. (PAL HV20 HDV 50i). I use AVIsynth for the conversion. The in-camera conversion isn't very good, and some NLEs are a bit useless too.


However, for shooting fast moving sports, you might find the HV20's rolling shutter causes you problems.

To have a problem, you have to be panning the camera too quickly, or bouncing it a little too abruptly. They're not things you'd do in "professional" looking footage, but you never know.

http://www.hv20.com/ should tell you more than you need to know.


Professional SD cameras have features which you won't find on the HV20, and work better in low light. The HV20 is a consumer camera. I think you probably know whether you want a consumer camera or a professional one! That said, the HV20 has some nice tricks available. In good shooting conditions the two might look similar in SD, but in really lousy or difficult shooting conditions the pro camera might save the day.

I wouldn't shoot SD for myself (and I don't even have an HDTV - looks nice on the PC though, and gives useful cropping/processing options sometimes), but if you're doing paid SD projects now HD might not be important to you.

Budget for a better PC to edit HD.

Cheers,
David.