HDD or miniDV for extensive editing?

[etibo]

Hi,
what is the better camcorder type for editing? I want to buy a camcorder, and I want to edit my movies in Premiere. I know capturing with a miniDV camcorder is very simple, but is HDD capturing as simple as miniDV capturing? Because I know Premiere doesn't accpet USB, and there's only USB on HDD camcorders.

Thanks

[Richard_G]

MiniDV any day. It isn't the fact that HDD camcorders are any more difficult to capture, but because the manufacturers choose to encode to mpeg before saving on the HDD. MiniDV will transfer (note transfer, not capture, because all you are doing is transferring a DV .AVI file from tape to computer) over Firewire. A HDD camcorder will also not capture but transfer because you are simply treating the camcorder as an external hard drive. Unfortunately, the quality of the file will be much less editable as it is already mpeg.

MPEG is a final output format and not a editing format. Ideal for Joe Public who wants to be able to store months of footage without worrying about tapes, but highly inferior if you intend doing any editing.

[Dubber]

If one plans on editing at all - MiniDV.

[etibo]

Ok, thanks for your answers. So, if I understand, the very best camcorders for editing are miniDV ones, even for 2000$ and above professional camcorders.

[edDV]

Ok, thanks for your answers. So, if I understand, the very best camcorders for editing are miniDV ones, even for 2000$ and above professional camcorders.

MiniDV for SD 720x480i recording yes.

There are sub categories of DV format at the higher end.

DVCAM is the Sony Pro version. It records the same signal but with wider tape tracks.
DVCPro25 is Panasonic's version intended for higher end broadcast use. Again the signal recorded is the same as MinDV.
DV 24p and DV 24pa are special formats for 24p application.

Above these are higher end broadcast SD formats and HDTV. Consumer HD formats are all MPeg2 or MPeg4 which are more difficult to edit. Higher end HD formats (e.g. DVCProHD or HDCAM or uncompressed) cost upwards of $8000.

The Panasonic HVX-200 ($6000 base, $10k typ) is the lowest end camcorder that records DVCProHD.

PS: HDV 1080i or 720p "MPeg2" is widely used at the "Prosumer" level and is well supported by Premiere Pro and Vegas for editing and effects. You will need a fast computer to handle rendering and encoding.

[jgrant83]

Good advice by everyone, I agree. I just thought you might like to know that the 'prosumer' 1080i and 720p mpeg2 for DV format is more commonly called HDV. It squeezes higher definition video onto a regular DV tape. The most popular camcorder in this category is the Sony Z1.

[edDV]

Good advice by everyone, I agree. I just thought you might like to know that the 'prosumer' 1080i and 720p mpeg2 for DV format is more commonly called HDV. It squeezes higher definition video onto a regular DV tape. The most popular camcorder in this category is the Sony Z1.

Unlike DV format, HDV uses MPeg2 with all the decompression editing baggage. At the prosumer level, options exist to improve editing performance.

1. Use a faster computer to handle realtime decompression of the MPeg stream. Utilize GPU acceleration for playback. In the case of Adobe Premiere Pro, a plug-in is available to allow native MPeg2 editing in HD.
See http://www.mainconcept.com/site/index.php?id=7850

2. Use a digital intermediate format like Cineform to convert MPeg2 into a different compressed format that resolves all the frames and performs well for search, scan and scrub but still uses standard disk drives. After editing, encoding and be done to any format.
See http://www.cineform.com/products/Aspect-Prospect.htm

3. Fully decompress the HDV to large, fast video servers for Pro style real time multi-stream editing. This takes an expensive pro level workstation and video server.

With the first option, you work at the speed of your computer with all the limitations of CPU/GPU speed. With the second option, there is a conversion lag to the digital intermediate format but editing/preview is fast from that point. The third option offers the speed of an uncompressed timeline but at considerable cost.

[Cyrax9]

Having just seen 11 projects come out of a TV class, I can honestly comment on these standards, and what I think looks best.

Most students chose to sick with there 4:3 Sony DSR-PDX10s, DCR-VX2000s, DCR-VX2100s, and DSR-PD170s through the school -- I personally own a DSR-PDX10 and can say that 4:3 on this camera is fine, but I purchased my specifically for the fact that it had a 16:9 "Widescreen" mode, DVCAM capabilities which have a noticable decrease in drop-out rate on MiniDV tapes, and the fact that I couldn't afford HD in 2005 when I purchased this camera. I shot my project in 16:9 DV Widescreen.

Having said that, two groups of students shot their projects in HD. One group used a Sony consumer-level HDV camera (I can't remember the model number, but it's discontinued and had several professional features lacking only about two that a pro-level camera would have -- it had a CMOS chip instead of 3CCDs and was discontinued when Sony started developing more "prosumer" and more "consumer" camera models.) with several professional features on it that put it at the high-end of the consumer market and the low-end of the professional camera market. Another group of students used a Panasonic AGHVX200 and shot in DVCProHD. I shot my project in NTSC 16:9 DV Widescreen. Here are my basic notes on what I saw on every camera:

4:3 DV on a Sony VX2000: Looks like 4:3 DV on any 3-CCD DV Camera, it was shot on DV Tape, and transferred into Adobe Premiere Pro and Apple's Final Cut Pro HD programs. There was no difference in the quality of the footage during editing, but it rendered much faster on a Mac running OS X than it did on a comparable PC running Windows XP.

16:9 DV Widescreen on a Sony PDX10: Footage looks exactly what it sounds like -- DV video in Widescreen prior to filters and the like. One major "flaw" that was noticable on ALL Widescreen projects, be they SD or HD, was that they would "chug," or "lag" if you will, in Premiere Pro while editing with warbly audio and jittery frames. I can safely say this is a Premiere Pro problem -- the same Widescreen footage played fine in Final Cut Pro HD on a Mac, iMovie, Quicktime, and Windows Media Player which should say something about the flaw being a Premiere Pro problem. Either live with it, shoot in fullscreen, or don't use Premiere Pro -- just a heads up if you see this happening. I should note that my footage was shot in DVCAM mode, but as I mentioned, some footage was shot in HDV and DVCProHD so your filming format is irrelevant -- the error is program-specific here.

HDV: The first thing you'll notice is that like all HD formats, HDV is natively 16:9. HDV can be recorded onto any MiniDV tape, so if you're on a budget this is great. The guys using HDV were using consumer-level Panasonic MiniDV tapes and had no problems with them. The one problem with the camera was that there was a glitch in the CMOS battery which kept saying the camera had moisture in the tape compartment (which was totally false, it was drier than the Arizona desert in the summer,) and as a result, it wouldn't load tapes. Once I mentioned this to my friends, we were able to find the pin-hole reset button and reset the CMOS chip -- problem solved. Despite being only a one CMOS chip camera, this thing still ran circles around anything with 3-CCDs (it makes me want to try a 3-CMOS chip camera now,) that I saw, and the PQ was absolutely gorgeous, even prior to processing. I'd definitely consider HDV if you're a consumer or semi-professional -- it's becoming a bit more widely accepted, and it's not as bad as people say it is. I'd heard all of the rumors about HDV before, but after seeing it in use, I can honestly say that the problems with it are blown out of proportion and much rarer than they're made out to be.

If you're interested in seeing footage shot on this HDV Camera, please visit web.mac.com/thediscounts -- the Teaser and Trailer are Streaming HD Quicktime Videos shot on the HDV Camera -- you may have trouble viewing them if you don't own a Mac though. The photos were also taken on the HDV Camera if you want to use stills as a reference.


DVCProHD: I'll say this, I love the HVX200, but it has one fundamental flaw that I absolutely REFUSE to overlook: You CANNOT shoot DVCProHD to the MiniDV Tapes this camera is capable of using -- the tape deck is only useful if you're shooting in SD or downconverting from HD to SD. As a result, all HD Footage must be shot on Panasonic P2 Flash cards and these are small (about 8 minutes total across two of them in 1080i,) and expensive making them self-defeative. Show me a cheap 1TB P2 Flash card and I'll buy this camera, otherwise give me the option to use tapes in HD. I'm personally hoping for an HVX300 to come along and fix this problem.

Idiotic engineering flaw in an otherwise flawless camera by Panasonic aside, the HVX200's HD capabilities are remarkable. While it's not really a flaw, the use of 3-CCDs instead of one, let alone three CMOS chips puts it on par with the Sony HDV camera I mentioned before. CMOS just blows Charge-coupled devices out of the water and Panasonic's use of CCDs rather than CMOS is irksome, but by no means troublesome. The image on this camera is exceptional -- especially using 24P, and the video truly looked like it was from a TV Drama.

I loved the DVCProHD footage the HVX200 produced, but if you want it to look cinematic, you'd better be willing to invest in a copy of Magic Bullet software. You're going to want to filter everything to make it look "less digital" or people will know you're shooting Digital Video since it's too harsh. I was able to see the video from this camera both before and after it had filtering from Magic Bullet software applied to it, and I can honestly say that once the Magic Bullet filtering was applied properly (emphasis on properly -- under-filtering will make your video look yellowed out like old film, additional filtering will make it look excellent though,) I couldn't tell this apart from a theatrical film shot on 2K or 4K film.

If numbers are of any interest to you, DVCProHD doesn't capture "true HD" either, or rather, it downsamples the video for storage, be it on a P2 Flash card or a DVCProHD tape, however, DVCProHD is the closest to "true" HD (1920x1080i/p) that you're going to get, so you might as well consider this the best there is even if it does downsample.

So which camera format would I choose? I'd probably go with the Panasonic AGHVX200 for it's ability to shoot DVCProHD and standard DV footage onto MiniDV tape. This is the best of both worlds, and flash cards can only get larger and cheaper. On the flip side, HDV looks just as good for static shots and some motion footage, is less expensive, and doesn't require either expensive DVCProHD tapes or expensive P2 Flash cards. Show me a Panasonic AGHVX300 with the ability to record DVCProHD to tape and three CMOS chips (I'd even settle for one,) though, and you'll have me sold on DVCProHD without giving HDV a second thought, as it stands though, you can definitely do a LOT with HDV, hence why I included the link to my friends' film's website -- if you can view their stuff, it really shows what the HDV Camera is capable of capturing. Unfortunately, my friend who shot in DVCProHD doesn't have a website with streaming HD for comparison.

A final note on HD: There is no such thing as "true HD" in any standard -- if it's off of film, it's analog which subsequently removes the idea of HD being a "digital" standard. While you can have analog HD, it's probably not what you (or most people alive) think of when you're asking for HD formats. DVCProHD is the de facto industry standard, NBC's news rooms use the Panasonic AGHVX200 for all of their news gathering making it a very popular ENG camera. The HVX200 does what all other (and I do mean ALL other) DVCProHD cameras do, which is downsample the recorded HD Video's resolution. In contrast, HDV retains the HD resolution, but compresses it to death using MPEG-2. Each format has its own way of achieving an HD Image -- DVCProHD uses intraframe compression and downsamples the video, however since intraframe compression is very light, this isn't noticable -- HDV uses MPEG-2 compression and doesn't downsample the video, but unlike intraframe compression, MPEG-2 compression is extremely lossy and overcompressed. Think of HDV and DVCProHD as two roads that are both very different but they both take you to the same place, that's how HDV and DVCProHD operate, they both achieve HD, just using a different method to do their compression. On a final note, while it's true HDV uses MPEG-2, don't be afraid of using this for distribution -- DBS Sattelites from DiSH Network and DirecTV both send MPEG-2 streams to your home and most cable companies using digital transmissions are using MPEG-2 as well. While I'd say go with DVCProHD, if budget is an issue consider HDV, if you don't care about HD, any MiniDV tape format will do, if you want a semi-professional camera, go with something that has 3-CCDs, if you're just recording birthdays and family vacations and need a cheap solution, anything in Best Buy will do, I have a very nice $500 dollar 1-CCD camera that most people couldn't distinguish from my 3-CCD camera if I had it set properly.

I hope this helps you out, and don't forget that if you're using Premiere you're going to be stuck with your Widescreen footage "chugging" should you ever shoot 16:9, and should you use the XLR inputs on some cameras, such as the Sony PDX10, you're going to wind up with only usable channel of sound -- Premiere Pro doesn't recognize anything recorded from the second XLR input and this has been a recurring problem for people in the college who've had to take their video into Avid to extract audio and then edit it in Premiere. (I've yet to meet anyone who likes Avid anymore in the TV Department -- most of the students are fans of Final Cut Pro, and some of them as well as most of the staff prefer Premiere Pro.) My advice? If you know you're going to be shooting in Widescreen or any HD format consider purchasing a Mac and running Final Cut Studio 2 on it -- if you must have Windows purchase a copy of Windows XP and use Boot Camp. I know one person doing this for gaming online and he says it's identical to his old Windows PC when he wants to play games -- I know another guy running "Parallels" and he has similar remarks about the ability to run Windows so don't be afraid to go with a Mac. If you can't afford a new machine, I ironically suggest using Avid for Windows for the sole fact that it doesn't chug with Widescreen footage, and it recognizes the XLR inputs that Premiere doesn't. Having used all three programs (Premiere Pro the most heavily since it's what the courses I've taken are taught in, and subsequently what our labs have.) I can honestly say I prefer Final Cut Pro HD, and the only reason I'm not using FCP HD only right now is that our labs had no Macs in them with FCP access for students -- once I buy my Mac Pro with OS X 10.5 in the fall I'll be purchasing Final Cut, and Premiere Pro for OS X since I have so much stuff saved from Premiere Pro, and have used it more frequently. I'll probably use FCP HD more often, but for 4:3 footage Premiere Pro is fine. If you're shooting 4:3 SD videos such as Weddings, you shouldn't have any problems, it's when you get into Widescreen, HD, "Documentary" (I hate that term -- call it Applied Field Production instead,) Film Production, etc., etc. in HD and are freelancing that Premiere's shortcomings become readily apparent -- it's not a bad program, it's just not as good as the other two of the "three A's" known as Apple, Avid, and Adobe.