HDV...thoughts after shooting over 150 hours

At first, I felt all warm and fuzzy about HDV and the wave of really great cameras out there. At work we all got Sony Z1's and since then I have gotten a Canon XLH1. I have shot a little bit with P2s as well.

Overall, I'm not really happy with HDV. THE AUDIO IS HORRENDOUS!!! Calling it weak would be an understatement. I realize the amount of bandwidth used on HDV cameras is mostly dedicated to the video, this really hurts the audio. I have really good mics (Audio-Technica 835ST) and some highend Electrosonic wirelesses(cant remember model number). Even with the audio gain down to -6 db.

Anyway...the video is is great. I really like the Z1. Primarily because I have used it the most and I am able to get the best image quality out of it.

Well have you tried the HVX? I have heard only good things. Im suppose to be getting a bunch of footage uncompressed this weekend and ill let you know how the audio sounds. But the reason i like the HVX is because you got no copied lines and techniacally no capturing either. My buddy shot a music video with it and it came out looking pretty good, i almost thought that it was 16mm that was skipped bleached.

Toolfan - so you're saying the audio on both the canon and sony suck?

Travis - let me know how that goes. It would be interesting to hear about your friends workflow? How many and what size of P2 card is he using.

Also did you shoot AF in reg 16mm or super 16?

(Message edited by dcervenka on May 04, 2006)

its all HDV video. yes the both the canon and sony sux. i have heard the pannys as well and once again...bunk.

you probably have to be an audiophile to notice it. I work for a firm that produces stuff for ESPN and The Outdoor Channel. So audio is EQUALLY as important as video.

Loud sounds translate well, but nat sound is just sad. It seems like all HDV audio has +12 db gain applied to it. VERY VERY HISSY. I'm just use to dsr-390 audio I guess.

we work with Avid. we import it from Sony M1U decks to the HDMI card on the MediaComposeHD. Then its sent to the Unity system. We got a 20 terrabyte server atm.

We dont shoot with any of the gimmick settings on cameras. No cineframe BS or anything comperable. Any effects are done in Avid or AE.

We shoot all our stuff at 1080i/60.

ToolFan - The footage that im getting is for a TV pilot so im sure that the audio well have to be good like your saying. But i will pay attention to any type of imperfections. Well are also shooting at 1080i, well or it might be 720i ill have to double check.

Dave - i believe they have three HVX's each have three P2 cards and one 120 Gb drive that downlaods the files right there. Each night they have to download all the drives.

We shoot AF in reg. 16mm, 8mm, and DV

If you are dealing with only HDV footage and its audio you will probably not notice the difference. If you mix it with DV footage shot with a good camera, you will notice the difference immediately.

I shoot with everything on manual.

Ya for sure, i dont think anyone should really use auto

All the reviews on the audio unit on the HVX that I have read have been very good, claiming it's audio unit is as good or superior to the DVX's (which I know is considered excellent for it's price point.) As far as HDV goes, well that's trying to cram 10 lbs of sh@t in a 5lb bag as far as I'm concerned. Better technology may make it better down the road but given the advances in storage speed and size I don't expect it to be a viable standard once the industry moves totally away from tape based storage. Toolfan, you've been around long enough to know that Sony jumped on HDV because (as with DV and betaSP) they didn't their want prosumer stuff eating into their "cashcow" high end equipment.

absolutely, Rich.

i know the technology is there, but Sony doesnt want a pro/consumer camera with the exact same capabilities of their highend stuff.

As for the the HVX audio, its "ok" at best. I'm just used to better.

Interesting that in a new Canon H1 review by Adam Wilt he's calling the Canon image far superior to the HVX and Sony in spite of the fact it's still recording to an HDV codec (although a propritary Canon one). Seems the CCD's in the Canon are resolving 800 vertical lines vs 540 in the HVX and Sony due to the "coarser CCD resolution" in those two bodies. Of course 800 lines doesn't eliminate the motion artifacts inherent in the HDV compression scheme. Wilt give the HVX good grades for audio in his HVX review but he's never been too critical of audio anyhow as it's not his thing.

but technically the HVX is not HDV, its DVCPRO HD and has more line then the sony and the canon that copies there lines.

THE Canon has SDI out which can be recorded by the appropriate NLE or deck in any HD compatible format including uncompresssed. And the resolution of the chips does play an important part in the final quality of the recorded format even if it's highly compressed. I've seen S-VHS recorded off a high end 3 chip broadcast style cam that looked absolutely beautiful. I remember the JVC KY27 3 chip (2/3rds" CCD's) with DV back I owned in the late 90's recorded a better picture then my DVX100 ever did. The Canon has 1440 X 1080 pixel CCD's while the Sony and HVX have 960 X 540 pixel CCD's. Plus I think Canon's pixel shift technology is better the Sony's at this point. I guess the point is bigger CCD's can sometimes make for a better quality picture in spite of the limitations of the recording format.

I have seen some footage from the Sony Z1 compared to the HVX and to my eye the HVX is the clear winner. Add all the extra features, P2, etc. and its a no brainer to me.

I'm hearing horror stories as well about editing HDV which is more processor/system intensive then any of the Panasonic codecs (DVCPRO50 / DVCPRO HD). The Canon may have the best signal coming off the chips but unless you're recording that via SDI to a better format or you're doing cuts only editing you're stuck with the limitations of HDV when the smoke clears.

My question is, why are you using the audio off of the camera? Don't you have an audio guy with on your shoots?

p.s. Panasonic hands down, Sony made a huge mistake by not making a progressive camera.

Ryan,

I doubt Tool is talking about the builtin mic more likely the audio system itself on the cams mentioned above. I doubt most people shooting with these camcorders are going to record to a separate device with or without an audio guy.

Sorry, I gues I misunderstood... though, I always thought that you could still gain good audio if you had someone mix it strait into the camera. Then again, I'm not an audio guy.

I don't necessarily agree with him but my experience with audio is limited as well. I used to get good results with a shotgun mic as well as laveliers with the DVX100 I had.

After playing with some of the HVX stuff that was shot with a shot gun, Lav and a sound mixer on location. It really doesnt sound that bad, theres no humm or anything. I mean some of it is just bad, but thats because it was at an air field, but besides that it sounded good.

You will notice it when you mix in audio from non-HDV sources.

Also, your problems get worse when you start to mix it for distribution. Especially when you are getting your levels correct to ship on Beta. You have to boost the miniscule digital signal alot higher than a analog signal. This causes the hiss/gain sound.

Obviously you want to use as little audio gain as possible. -12db in a perfect world, but some of the sounds I need are very subtle and I have to boost to 0db on the camera.

Once again, the real problem is getting the signal to broadcast standards with subtle sounds(nature sounds primarily).

Audio for wakeboard videos is about as complicated as it gets!

Let's see . . . . import footage, delete audio track from footage, import music track and edit.

What? you want a voice over? forgedaboutit! LOL

LOL.....I know.
I wasnt gonna say anything at the risk of getting blasted.

Any producer/director will tell you....70% of video, is audio. It takes twice as long to "fix" audio as it does video.

We have been throwing around the idea of using DAT recorders, but the editors are hating it. Cant blame them. Actually, big time production companies(like the ones that do things for the Discovery Channel) are using DAT recorders on their HDV shoots.

ya, DAT's no fun . . .