BBC HD to Launch Saturday 1st December

That's an unfair comment. Not everybody has a multi-million £ budget. We'd happily use 35mm film cameras if we had the money, but sometimes you just have to use what your budget can cater for. I'm very happy to use JVC/Canon/Sony HDV cameras because if used properly and with a touch of grading in post they produce some brilliant pictures. In any case most techy people forget that 90% of the time the general public don't notice (or don't care about) the difference between one camera and another when its all edited and put on-screen (as long as it's filmed and edited within a certain standard).

It also depends on the user of the camera. Give a beginner a Digibeta camera he's going to make a crap picture. Give somebody like Danny Boyle a Canon XL1s Mini-DV camera and he makes '28 Days Later'. It's all a matter of talent

It wasn't aimed at non-broadcast users of camcorders, and wasn't in any way meant to be an insult.

It was aimed at the broadcast industry - where increasingly corners are being cut to save money at the expense of picture and sound quality. Increasingly shows are being shot on poor quality pro-sumer cameras for no reason other than budget. Similarly, sound is often an afterthought these days, with stuff done almost entirely on personal mics or, worse, camera mics, without a decent sound person on location to sort things out. Rather the editor has to attempt to fix it in the edit - along with poor colour balance, and in some cases even has to fix framing errors using a DVE tool.

It is perfectly acceptable to use miniDV and HDV cameras in situations you couldn't use a decent DSR DVCam, DigiBeta or HDCam/DVCProHD set-up, but increasingly this is not the reason they are being used.

I'm grateful that broadcasters like the BBC and particularly Discovery have quite tight HD delivery specs - as whilst SD has gone down the pan (both on transmission and in production), hopefully HD won't follow it quite so quickly.



Yep - absolutely - if you are making films for learning, for pleasure etc. then you obviously use the best format you can afford, given your budget. 8mm and 16mm were the formats of choice for years, with Hi8 used for some low-budget student movies in days gone by. The advent of miniDV changed this, and now HDV is changing it again. Equally at the higher end HDCam is displacing some low-end 35mm production.



Yep - if you shoot entirely in HDV and can minimise the number of compression cycles the results can look very good. Certainly better than DV, and approaching DVCProHD quality. (Though DVCProHD survives better and is less compressed)

The issue with HDV is that it is inherently incredibly lossy - and the compression scheme is pretty brutal. Any grading is going to make this worse. Graded DV25 is bad enough in SD if you have to push it - and grading HDV is worse... You have less latitude before you start emphasising artefacts not picture.

Yes - it is a step forward from DV 25 in many ways - but they both still have limitations. Some of these may be acceptable to some people, but they are low cost for a reason.

However the limitations remain - small sensors, cheap lenses and heavy compression just aren't suitable for high-quality HD production for broadcast. They ARE suitable when the only option would be an SD DV solution instead to get the same shot in an HD production. Similarly the tape recording is still not really robust enough for broadcast use where you simply can't afford to lose your rushes. (I know people shooting on HDV who are backing up to hard drive as they shoot because they are worried about the consequences of having to reshoot to cope with a drop out - which can be 1/2" worth of pictures on HDV2 1080i material, 1/3" on HDV1 720p AIUI)

They are fine for student productions - and other short films and low-budget independent productions - particularly now 24p native shooting is becoming possible.

I wasn't criticising their use there. I WAS criticising any attempt by broadcasters to shoot HD material on HDV and tout it as a major advance in picture quality.

If I were shooting a low-budget feature with no guaranteed sales or income then I'd, of course, be looking at HDV. However shows made for broadcast are funded differently. If I were buying a camera for a student film-making society then I'd be looking at HDV as well as 16mm.

(If you want to work in the UK broadcast industry you have to know how to operate a Z1 these days as well...)



The "Joe Public" doesn't notice is one I just don't accept. If you followed that then lowest common denominator wins.

There is a reason that you don't see Panasonic and Hitachi studios cameras in UK studios, and you DO see Sony, Ikegami and Philips/Thomson/GrassValley ones. It isn't just EU import duties...



Yep - though the oft-quoted "28 Days Later" example is a bit of a red herring, as the shooting style was inherent in the treatment of the film.

Shooting Planet Earth on an XL1 instead of a Varicam or an HDCam is the reverse argument, or Cranford or Bleak House on a 1/3" sensor device...

Ah i see, sorry I misread your point. Totally understand.

I think it's because of the fact that HD is still a niche market that the standards remain quite high. But as soon as every other channel becomes HD and the broadcast compression will be increased even more so, the standards will drop soon enough. Enjoy these times while you can i think. We will get to a point where a Sky HD transmission will look no better on one TV than a proper SD-DVD does on the same TV i'm sure.

As for HDV, i'm starting to realise your point also. The only stuff i've created for transmission has been shot on higher formats in SD, but since HDV is such a highly compressed format, the more you shove it down the production line through grading etc until you get to transmission a lot of quality is going to be lost as opposed to higher formats with higher bitrates that can take that process a lot better. The only stuff i've made in HDV has been straight to DVD, so i can see what you mean.

I do agree most definitely about sound too. Especially on BBC Local you often get interviews, pieces to camera done on camera mics. Again all down to budget isn't it since the advent of Video Journalists.

EDIT - incidentally i've just caught a repeat of Charlie Brooker and have just spotted the shots of him on the sofa where he moans about things look extremely grainy and sound very tinny, what do you reckon those were shot on?

No worries - thought you had grabbed the wrong end of a not very clear stick.


I'm in two minds about this. Sure - the pressures to reduce transmission costs and put out more content (C4 HD+1 anybody?) for the same cost will exist. However HD is sold on its picture quality at the moment - though this could be an argument for letting SD quality drop yet further (Ofcom thinking you can get 9 channels of decent SD into 24 Mbs doesn't sound hopeful on that front...)

Whilst Sky Movies HD have to compete with HD-DVD and BluRay for eyeballs - I think the quality may remain high. Sky's SD movie channels (as opposed to the others on DSat) remain pretty OK in quality terms - I think they realise they are competing with DVD as much as anything after all. (They have 5.1 sound in SD as well for similar reasons)



Some HD channels may chose this - wouldn't be surprised if ITV didn't push the boat out in bitrate terms, their SD satellite service is easily the worst amongst the BBC, ITV, C4 and Five. C4 is a bit better in SD - and I suspect they care a bit more still. Five used to have the best SD DVB-T and DSat quality of them all - on Freeview it is now easily the worst at times.

I HOPE the BBC and Sky continue at their current quality on satellite - I suspect the BBC and other OTA HD providers may have to drop to 720/50p on DVB-T2 when it arrives...


I think the issue is that the compression is good on first gen stuff to the naked eye - and nobody in their right mind would use HDV as an editing codec, so it is going to be converted to another codec for post. However the damage has been done on initial recording - so the minute you try and pull some detail out of the lowlights in the grade, you're probably going to find some nice artefacts. Similarly if you are shifting the colour balance a bit, and trying to pull detail out of areas that there wasn't much, you'll see the same.

You get the same with DV if you aren't careful.



Ah - presumably you shot in DV rather than HDV then? If you're mastering for DVD - i.e. staying SD - then unless you need an HD master for future-proofing - you'd be much better off using the HDV camera in DV mode. The recording will be more robust, and less compressed, and may well end up looking better. (You've effectively moved the SD->HD conversion to the beginning, not the end, of the chain)

The BBC recommend using HDV camreas in DV mode if you are shooting for SD for these reasons.



Often a lack of training - or "can't be bothered-ness" in some cases - is the cause. The former is money of course - the latter is what happens when you ask someone to use craft skills that don't actually interest them. Whilst a professional sound person or camera person has chosen that career and takes pride in doing their best work possible each day, some multi-skillers may not, and just do the least they can get away with - as they don't enjoy the process. Sad - but true - though nowhere near universal. Some VJs and many self-shooters take a great pride in their craft skills in all areas, and can deliver excellent results. Not all do - and even those that try may not be given the time to.



I wonder. Z1s or PD170s would be my guess...