The Future of HDV
For several years it seemed that High Definition video would remain too expensive, too bulky, and just too problematic to bring down to the level of desktop computer editing, let alone into camcorders with affordable tapes and transport mechanisms. Indeed, all of those things remain pretty much true for full and uncompressed HD, at least for the moment.
Then, in September 2003 the HDV format was announced, bringing hope that perhaps a technique using MPEG-2 compression could bring HD to the masses in a way similar to DV in the 1990's. This writer was present at the annual National Association of Broadcaster's (NAB) exhibition in Las Vegas in 2004 when the first JVC HDV camcorder was shown, and again in 2005 when Sony unveiled their mysterious unnamed prototype. Debates raged about whether HDV was good enough. It's limitations where examined, sometimes unkindly. Everyone wondered how frame accurate editing could be accomplished with a format that did not store discrete frames. Software and hardware makers alike raced to provide solutions.
Now, in 2007, HDV has won the battle and the race, at least for the moment. Less than four years after the format specification was first proposed, HDV is well supported in a large assortment of both shooting and editing products from consumer through professional levels. Despite strong competition from the new technology AVCHD, HDV appears to be a good investment through the rest of this decade. However, the future value and relevance of HDV equipment is in serious question. There is no crystal ball clear enough to know for certain the winner of the coming format war. As is true of most technology products today, nobody investing in HDV should plan on it having any resale value at all in four or five years.
The Problem
HDV is tied integrally to old technology in two ways:
- MPEG-2 Compression
- MiniDV Tape Storage
In addition, as fans of the new AVCHD format may point out, HDV format stops short of supporting the highest resolution HD televisions and monitors can display (1920 x 1080), allowing for a maximum of 1440 x 1080 (interlaced). However, 1440 x 1080 is the same as standard HDCAM, which was only superceded by full resolution HDCAM SR in 2003. The technology to upsample HDCAM to full 1920 x 1080 HD is well established and supported and applies to HDV. Given all of the other variables, it is likely that even experts will be hard pressed to know the difference visually between HDV and full HD resolution from a static shot.
It's the motion
The motion artifacts present in HDV (especially when panning) are a more serious issue, but software solutions may be able to reduce them. In fact, all media have their own particular limitations. It is the responsibility of the Director of Photography (or videographer) to learn those limitations and use them to best advantage. However, HDV's integral commitment to MPEG-2 compression is likely to be the factor that will limit the life of the format. The world is moving rapidly to the still-evolving MPEG-4 Part 10 AVC/H.264 (M.264) methodologies (used by AVCHD). If quality alone were the only significant factor, HDV might have a market life as long as DV has had. However, HDV began based on an already obsolete compression method, which was a decision made deliberately in order to bring it to market quickly and affordably. All technology is transitional, but some products and techniques have longer lives than others. As progress has speeded up, some new ideas are off the market almost as soon as products hit the shelves. Therefore, it is important to consider the likely life of the underlying science, especially when considering one of the new professional HDV camcorders that can run over $10,000.
Tapeless HDV?
More troubling than HDV's commitment to MPEG-2 is it's marriage to magnetic tape. For years before HDV's introduction, magnetic video tape technology has been on it's way out. Today, tapeless Direct-To-Edit solutions are rapidly hitting the consumer market; from DVD to mini Hard Drives to memory card recording. Yet HDV remains primarily available according to the original storage design: miniDV tapes. For professionals, the problem with tape extends beyond the need to take the time to capture the footage before editing. Increasingly it is becoming less acceptable to have to change tapes. When your competitor has an integrated hard drive with 8 or more hours of space, nothing is missed. If you are stuck with 1 hour tapes, you are going to miss at least 8 minutes of action during the same shooting day. It is impossible to guarantee that the golden moment of the day will not occur while you are fumbling with the shrink wrap trying to get your next tape loaded.
However, HDV is not necessarily limited to tape, and already there are aftermarket solutions that allow connection of your HDV camcorder to a small portable hard drive. This allows you to break the 1 hour barrier, avoid the hassles of tape, and to save all of that capture time with a Direct-To-Edit solution when you get back to the edit suite. In addition, for extremely critical moments, having a tape in addition to a hard drive permits you to save on both media simultaneously, giving you (and your customer) the confidence of knowing you have a backup.
Conclusion
If you have a need to shoot and edit professional HD video on a budget in 2007, HDV is still your best bet. AVCHD is coming on strong, but the best editing solutions for AVCHD may be some months away and may not mature until late in 2008. The assortment of excellent HDV camcorders now available gives you several attractive choices, and you can do frame-accurate editing on all major software platforms from Final Cut Pro to Avid to Canopus, and even using less expensive consumer software. Just be aware that you are buying short-run usage and value. Do not count on being able to recover anything on resale from equipment that may be entirely outmoded in four or five years.
|
