[dlefebvre]

Does anyone know the difference between Sony's HVRZ1U and HDRFX1?

Beside the price, the lens and electronics seem to be the same on both models.

[QuadG5Man]

The difference is the Z1 has xlr inputs for audio, and different shooting modes, but they are very similar.

[msuper69]

One thing they both have in common is a maximum resolution of 1440x1080 which is not the highest HD resolution of 1920x1080. Kind of disappointing.

[dlefebvre]

I kwon it doesn't compare to real HD but it's much better than DV. And for about the same price as a PD-170. I'm looking to replace my Canon GL-2. I do short films, I don't intend to do Broadcast quality HD.

[k2director]

I wouldn't say HDV is much better than DV. If you're priority is resolution, then, yes, HDV has superior res. But if you want to manipulate the footage (color correct, composite, etc.), then you should consider the fact that DV video uses much less compression than HDV does. And HDV's greater compression makes it more difficult to manipulate an image with satisfactory results (some would even say the same of DV video, which makes you wonder what they'd have to say about HDV).

Before jumping on the HD bandwagon, just remember the limitations today--ie, once you shoot and edit HDV, how will you distribute it? Today, there are 3 options: A) compress it into a digital file and put it on the internet (big file, longish download times), B) record it back to HDV tape and play it on an HD TV directly from your camera (kind of a pain), and C) broadcast video (not likely unless you're working on a pro project). In other words, you can't just burn HD to a convenient DVD and pop it in any DVD player. For that, you'll have to wait until HD DVD players start to arrive later this year, and into next year.

You may already be aware of all this. But I notice a lot of people just get carried away by the excitement of shooting HD, and don't really think about the overall gameplan.

[loki74]

k2director: i believe that the limitation you refer to is the cutting limitation caused by the nature of the Long-GOP compression used. That is, typically cuts can only be made at the ends of a GOP, as opposed to on any frame. This is extremely inconvenient, but Final Cut Pro 5 is capable of creating cuts on any frame, within a GOP or not.

That being said, you probably shouldt do HD unless you plan to transfer to film. For anything DVD or broadcast, you want to keep in SD, lest you want to lose a great majority of your audience. Like k2director said, HD DVD is not quite here yet, and people will not only need an HD DVD player, but also an HDTV Monitor set. Once again, not a whole lot of people.

I say if you want to go to the big screen, go ahead and wait for the JVC GY-HD100U to come out this July/Septemberish. Then you can get 720p24 framerate/resolution natively for optimum transfer to film, without having to bother with telecine or de-interlacing. Otherwise, go ahead and get a Canon XL2 or Panasonic DVX100 or 100A. The jump to HD is only worth it for the big screen.

[k2director]

loki74: Nope, I wasn't refering to any GOP issues. I was refering to the fact that HDV video uses the MPEG-2 compression codec, which is a high compressed format (the same as is used in today's DVDs). MPEG-2 generally creates sharp imagery at very small fize sizes, but it achieves the small file sizes by tossing out a lot of "extra" image data that is helpful for manipulating the image further (ie, color correction, etc.). For news gathering and some documentary applications, MPEG2's highly compressed format is fine. But for other jobs where stylizing or manipulating the imagery is desireable--ie, narrative films, commercials, etc.--MPEG2's extreme compression can indeed a stumbling block.

As for the GOP editing; you know, most video editors have now figured out how to edit HDV competently. On the Mac, both Final Cut Express HD and iMovie HD do it (as well as Final Cut 5). iMovie and FCE do it by first converting the HDV into an intermediate format (which you can edit with frame accuracy) and then "exporting" that intermediate format back to HDV when you want to record your final edit back to HDV tape (this export process takes unusually long because it has to redo all the GOP frames for your entire film). But the process still results in frame-accurate editing. Final Cut 5 is a little different; it works with HDV natively, without converting it into an intermediate format. The benefit is that there's no or little risk of image degradtaion through format converstion, and it also results in quicker Print to Tape operations (GOP data was to be rewritten only at cut points in your video, and where you've applied effects to clips).

[k2director]

One more thing: if you're really serious about HD, you might look into Panasonic's upcoming HVX-200 camera (due out by Xmas). Among other things, it shoots in DVCPRO HD at 1920x1080, 24p, and DVCPRO HD is much less compressed than HDV. Plus, it also shoots standard def video with very little compression (much less than DV video). The camera will be $6K, but shoots HD onto P2 memory cards, not tape, which will require another $2000-$4000 investment. In other words, it's a pricey camera, but for what you get, is actually a pretty stunning deal. Check out www.dvxuser.com's dedicated HVX forum for more.

[dlefebvre]

I'm aware of the issues about HDV. It's for now a close format and a highly copressed one that is. I manage a post-production department for a tv broadcaster (we only work with digital betacam and HDCAM). So far the only thing I can tell about MPEG-2 is that it's a more efficient compression scheme. For a specific bitrate, you get better result with MPEG-2 than with an iframe compression scheme. Also a good friend of mine who works for a private post-production house told me about tests they did with HDV. It's not that great compared to a real HD source, even DVCPro HD, but we all suspected that. Panasonic's P2 is very interesting, but for now who would spend $2000 - $4000 on a memory card to only get 16 minutes of DVCPRO 50 or 8 minutes of DVCPro HD? From what my friend was telling me, Sony's HDV camera produced a better result than any DV camera they tested when they used the DV output of the Sony HDV camera. For now I would use it only as a glorified DV camera and be future proof. Or maybe I should get a P2 and wait for the price of memory cards to go down to shoot in a more decent HD format. I'm a little more confused than I was on the issue but it's all good. Thanks for your input.

[matrix_x]

they are essentially the same, just a few small differences in modes and input configuration