Dan Robinson
Most HDV cameras have native 1440x1080 CCD or CMOS chips, with a few (notably the Canons) having native 1920x1080 chips. However, the HDV format frame is anamorphic 1440x1080, which means the pixels are rectangular rather than the normal square pixel. When you grab an HDV frame and import this bitmap into a graphics editor like Photoshop, it will appear 'scrunched' horizontally. This is because the graphics editor wants to dispaly the image in square pixels. When you resize it to 1920x1080, it will have the correct aspect ratio.
The full-sized 1920x1080 chips on the Canons will only yield a native 1920x1080 image through the HD-SDI outputs on the higher end models. But when the image is written to tape in HDV, it is saved as 1440x1080 - so HDV negates any benefit of a full-sized chip.
The main obstacle to higher bandwidth and higher quality HD is computer hard drive speed and processing power. If it weren't for that, everything new today would be hard-drive based with much better datarates than HDV. The MiniDV tape transport mechanisms are cost-effective, which is why they are still in widespread use and production. The problem is they have a limited 25mbps bandwidth stream, hence the compression rate of HDV. Until the industry gets away from tape and into affordable hard drive-based cams, (which will be many years from now), HDV will have to do.
The consensus, despite its limitations, is that HDV is 'true' and sufficient HD. Remember that all current cable and over-the-air broadcast HD and the up-and-coming HD-DVD /BluRay drives are compressed at the same datarate as HDV, in some cases even less with broadcast HD! Even if you're shooting on HDCAM for the Discovery Channel, it's going out on the cable at 25mbps anyway! Barring high-motion video, HDV looks excellent on a HDTV and is leaps and bounds better than any SD camera.
The full-sized 1920x1080 chips on the Canons will only yield a native 1920x1080 image through the HD-SDI outputs on the higher end models. But when the image is written to tape in HDV, it is saved as 1440x1080 - so HDV negates any benefit of a full-sized chip.
The main obstacle to higher bandwidth and higher quality HD is computer hard drive speed and processing power. If it weren't for that, everything new today would be hard-drive based with much better datarates than HDV. The MiniDV tape transport mechanisms are cost-effective, which is why they are still in widespread use and production. The problem is they have a limited 25mbps bandwidth stream, hence the compression rate of HDV. Until the industry gets away from tape and into affordable hard drive-based cams, (which will be many years from now), HDV will have to do.
The consensus, despite its limitations, is that HDV is 'true' and sufficient HD. Remember that all current cable and over-the-air broadcast HD and the up-and-coming HD-DVD /BluRay drives are compressed at the same datarate as HDV, in some cases even less with broadcast HD! Even if you're shooting on HDCAM for the Discovery Channel, it's going out on the cable at 25mbps anyway! Barring high-motion video, HDV looks excellent on a HDTV and is leaps and bounds better than any SD camera.
Last edited by a moderator:
I've seen it on smaller HD sets but have yet to watch it on the bigger sets. I mainly bought the camera to 'future proof' things, knowing it might be 3 years before the video shot on it can be used for anything.
