HDV Video isn't as cheap to work with as it appears.

Question

Ya know something folks? I'm reading so many people shooting some flavor of HDV and becoming dissappointed with it for one reason or another.
I think a lot of it comes from the fact that monitoring externally in HD isn't cheap, shooting it isn't much more than quality DV, but editing it isn't. It's a the big buried "secret" the HDV manufacturers aren't publicizing... why? because HD montors and gear to allow for this monitoring to happen can more than double the cost of shooting the stuff.
So I guess I'm saying that if you intend to go to HD, then consider that you have to also upgrade your editing system to work with it properly. Just today I've read 3 posts in this forum about quality issues with HDV files. Every one of these folks are judging the quality of the image in their Canvas... which isn't designed to let you see all the quality you have no matter what the format... Computer displays aren't designed to work with interlaced video either... they can be adpated to do so, but it's a $1,000 price tag on top of the display itself, and it's not optimal because you can't setup a computer display like you can a pro video monitor.... that's another discussion I guess.
DV was an easy jump from VHS in the low end of video. You could use SD monitors for external viewing and you could use a deck or camera to send an analog signal to it.
This can't be done with HDV... And to see what you have going before delivery you HAVE to monitor your video externally. This can EASILY cost another $3,000 or more to do it. Now the answer is simple... SPEND THE MONEY, or trust that it's looks OK. (Trusting it is less expensive, but scary to say the least - I don't recommend it, but it's better than shooting DV and forgetting HD all together I suppose.
A nice LCD HD TV set would be better than naught... but don't forget the cost of the box or capture card to allow a signal to be sent to it... optimally? the real cost of doing this on a professional level starts at about $6,000... Kona card and Panasonic/sony LCD HD pro monitor, and even then, a professional colorist would tell you it's not good enough.
Jerry

Answer 1

Progressive scan looks better on a computer display, but it doesn't correct for the gamma differences between computer displays driven by computer display cards and monitors... meaning the color won't be spot on. So I'd still recommend that if you want to use a computer display, a decent setup for this would be a 23" Cinema Display and Matrox's MXO to drive it with, which does help with the gamma correction.
I recently reviewed this setup for the COW magazine, and it was pretty good... I compared bars on my CRT to the bars shown on the CD, and they were very close after setting up my Cinema Display to match them as close as I could with my old eyes. Still not as optimal no doubt. As the step up from this, which would be a Panasonic LCD, the 17" is OK, but the 26" is better because you can actually see a pixel for pixel display. AND you can setup these monitors with a blue only button like any pro monitor. (you'd still need the Matrox if you don't have an HD capture card).
Setup from that? a Kona 3 card, Which will cross convert any flavor of HD to uncompressed or what have you... And with a mini converter from them, you can also capture HDV as DVCPROHD or uncompressed HD (which would be lossess). Now were talking about $7,000. Even Panasonic will say it's not good enough for "critical" color correction. Sony's LCD HD pro monitors aren't any better don't think, and they not only cost more, but Sony doesn't tout them as being good enough for "critical color correction". They are talking about an improvement here in that price range in the next gen monitors though... we'll see probably by NAB this year.
If you went this way, and wanted the best of the best, you'd also need a fast disk array to work with uncompressed HD. This will set you back another 5k minimum... Told ya, the "hidden" costs of working in HD are indeed pricey...
I'd recommend the Matrox and a 23" CD for anybody doing prosumer or consumer work.. it's good enough for non critical work done for non broadcast. Broadcast starts with the Matrox and the panny LCD... and big time best in the world? Well NOW we're talking an HD CRT. Sony sells them, and the ones large enough for the job are like $35,000!!!!
Ya know, when you work in the "bleeding edge" it's just not cheap.
This will all get less expensive over time, and the sooner it gets there, the better I'd say.
One thing that really gets my goat is the sheer number of digital formats. I think the Japanese have made this such a confusing thing, and it's all for THEIR benefit. Hey, if there was only one flavor of HD, they couldn't sell 10 video machines for each of the high end edit bays out there. They really got hurt when NLE's came of age, and mulitple deck editing systems went the way of the dodo... I think that's why they make so many different formats, so the pro post houses still have to buy a bunch of machines to satisfy the market. Sony's been losing money hand over fist in Pro video, and I think that the market is just fed up with the price tags they ask for their equipment. Panasonic is leading the way with less expensive gear and bonking Sony pretty bad I think. DVCPROHD is good enough for a lot of shows...
In any event it's content that matters the most by far. You can have the prettiest picture imaginable, but if the content of your show isn't compelling, it's gonna fail. Great content even though it's being shown in less than the best picture quality, will win the awards hands down EVERY TIME.
Sorry, I digressed, but I'm just in the "mood" right now.
Jerry