Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AlienQ
DVC PRO HD stream comes in at 100 Mbps.
No matter how ya look at it, for the web thats alot, and a weee bit to much.
3000KBS for net is pretty massive and the quality hangs in very nicely not to mention 16X9 aspect ratio.
If ya making True HD for the players comming out this Xmas go with it but for the net to run with 100Mbs is clearly unnecessary. Most ALL monitors would not be able to tell the difference between the quality of a 100Mbs stream VS a 5000Kbs and maybe a 3100kbs stream on a full frame size.
|
The "100 Mbps" just means that it does not get compressed to hell before you can edit the video. You can still compress it down the the same size as any other HD source as (with similar resolution) after you edit the footage.
I started using the Sony HDV cams one year ago. I actually have owned all 3 modes they put out. For web you can just get the HC1 because you won't be able to tell the difference between that and the Z1/FX1. If you compare the footage of the HC1 and Z1/FX1 on a big widescreen TV the Z1/FX1 completely blows the HC1 away - not even a competition. The HC1 does make a cheap HDV deck though
After shooting and editing hundreds of hours on HDV I would have to say I don't really like the format but I think it is here to stay since so many cheap HDV cams have flooded the market.
The Panasonic that will be out in a few months will not kill the HDV market by any means. The HVX will cost a hell of alot more because of the P2 storage. You can't record DVCPRO HD (with this particular camera) onto tape so that will make the camera about 3x more expensive than the Sony. You could just strap a laptop to your back and record to disk if you want to avoid the P2 storage but that will get old (and tiresome) very fast.
You gotta wonder what all this HDV footage will look like when people begin to watch it on huge widescreen TVs. I bet there will be lots and lots of out of focus shots because you cannot really tell on the small LCD if you have sharp focus. The FX1 peaking feature is a complete joke because they just crippled it on purpose so you would have to buy the Z1 if you want to be visible. Also the same crowd who has gotten away with the amazing low light performance of of the VX2100 is now using the FX1. The FX1 needs lots more light to create a decent image and for the autofocus to lock onto the subject. The days of these guys just showing up on set with a VX2100, wide angle lens, and a little plastic Sony light is over. Time to use some Kino Flos unless you want your video to look dark.
I think most of the HDV content on the web is just a waste of bandwidth and I doubt many surfers will join one site in favor of another just because they see the term "HD" plastered all over the site. I can get just as good as looking of a web video from an SD source as I can from a 750p video from the FX1. Remember that resolution is not everything. There are so many other factors that go into creating a good image then just raw resolution. The extra quality of picture you get with an HD web video (from an HDV source) is not worth the extra download time.
Of course I do agree that if you intend on selling your content to customers who will be watching your content on the HD widscreen TVs then you better be doing it in some form of HD ( or at least a 16x9 SD camera) because people mostly hate it when the picture does not fill up their entire screens. IF the picture does not fill it up their screen then they tend to select "fill screen" in their menu and then your models get scretched (not in a good way). Also, SD looks like shit in comparison to HD when played big TV.
I have my order in for the HVX mainly because I will be using it for mainstream production. If a client expects me to shoot their content with that camera then they will have to pay me more money or else I will just use the Sony.