One of the nicest things about the Sony HDV cams is that you can still work in SD today. You can capture / edit / deliver SD in 4:3 or widescreen today without having to upgrade your pc hardware or software. Then, when you're ready, you can deliver the same project in HD.

The future is clear. The future is HD, regardless of what cameras we own today. So, if you're going to buy a camera now, it just makes sense to buy one that can do SD now if that's what your business is, and that can do HD in the future whenever your business warrants it. You are future-proofing your purchase and your projects this way. I know the big question is limited delivery options, but you're asking about buying a camera, which is a pretty major purchase for most of us. If you're buying today, buy HDV.

As far as success in editing - Vegas 6 can do it handily, especially with a little help from GearShift from VASST. Do a search on this forum for more info on GearShift and HDV. There are also many posts about minimum vs. optimal hardware requirements for editing HDV, but by using GS you can probably get away with what you have for awhile.

Good luck, let us know what you decide!

David

EDIT: jr, I was writing when you posted, otherwise I wouldn't have repeated so much of what you said, DOH!

One response to your question is this: What are you going to use the camera for? Hobby (fun) or business?

If you're buying your camera for business reasons, I'd be reluctant to advise HDV. Here's why. When we buy a piece of equipment for the business, it's important to us that we recover the cost in a timely manner -- a couple of years at most. Our business consists of production work for contractors, construction companies, clients who develop training and promotional materials, and theatrical performance companies.

HDV isn't yet a part of the thinking of our clients. They have no need for it and most have no means yet of watching video shot in this format. The general public, in our experience here in Seattle, is still firmly rooted in the 4:3 format, and this is especially true in the corporate world which, until very recently, was still asking for projects delivered on VHS tape. We see it to be equally true for the "community, wedding and school type video projects" which you mention. We work nearly every day editing with both corporate clients and the general public. Both groups bring us material shot in Hi8, digital8 and miniDV; these folks are a long way from HDV.

So for us to buy HDV cameras wouldn't make sense economically. We use PD150s, which serve our needs admirably. If I had to replace one of these right now it would be with a PD170. Only when we start to get enough demand for HDV will we consider moving in that direction.

If you're buying a camera for "fun," and especially if you're buying it for bragging rights, however, that's an entirely differenct story. Cost effectiveness isn't a factor: you're just interesting in having a neat new toy to play with.

If you've been editing SD with Vegas you know what a joy that is.
Since I don't edit in HDV I'll leave others on this bb to comment on the ease/difficulty of this undertaking.

Jack

Thank you very much for your comments. I can always count on this forum for great advice.

Taking that leap of faith is not my strong point. I'm guilty of going with proven technology 99% of the time.

I didn't realize (or didn't read good) that I could downconvert from HD to SD through the camera. That solves one question. I was really worried about being able to handle the footage easily. That along with the continued emergence of HD and the fact that we will all end up there sooner or later.....that seems to make the logical choice to go with the Z1. I don't want to limit myself. I don't want to "re-buy" in 2 years. And I want the best bang for my buck.

Thanks for your time. I believe I will pursue the purchase of the Sony Z1.

Thanks again.

Thanks Jack.....I was posting while you were posting.

Although the video work I do "is as a business", it is not my main business. I don't expect to re-coup my money. The type of folks I deal with are the same with video from different formats and probably don't know the first thing about HDV. However, I agree with the other comments that I may be limiting myself in the very near future if I choose to go with the PD170.

As I mentioned, as long as I can easily downconvert then I think I will go with the Z1.

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. Very insightful.

> EDIT: jr, I was writing when you posted, otherwise I wouldn't have repeated so much of what you said, DOH!

Well that just proves the point doesn’t it?

Not to beat a dead horse because the sale is made (ok, can I just kick the horse once? ;-)) Others will read this post in the future so having correct information will be important.

I understand the sound business advice given here:

> When we buy a piece of equipment for the business, it's important to us that we recover the cost in a timely manner -- a couple of years at most.

However, I cannot follow the logic of this statement?

> So for us to buy HDV cameras wouldn't make sense economically. We use PD150s, which serve our needs admirably. If I had to replace one of these right now it would be with a PD170. Only when we start to get enough demand for HDV will we consider moving in that direction.

Street price for the Sony PD170 is $3,100. Street price for the Sony FX1 is $3,100! How does spending as much for older technology as you could have for the newest technology make good economic sense? And if your customers start demanding HDV by the end of next year, did it make good economic sense to buy a $3,100 camera that only lasted one year?

This just doesn’t hold water. There is no economics involved when both costs the same. I realize the question was about the Z1 and you could make the same argument about buying the FX1 vs the Z1. But given that the PD170 and FX1 cost the same, and the downconverted image of the FX1 is superior to the SD image of the PD170, it is bad economic sense to invest in SD technology at this time.

With all due respect (and I mean this sincerely), these are the words of someone who doesn’t own an HDV camera and hasn’t been blown away by the superior quality that even the DV out of this camera has. IMHO, if your customers only want DV and you want your DV to look better than your competitors. Shoot HDV and downconvert to DV. Your quality will be a step above the competition even in a DV market.

~jr

Try this thread
http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=421032
This Jaws doc is being shot in SD on a Z-1

Actually, the JAWS doc was shot in HDV, and downconverted to DV on a Z1.
Just want to be clear on the workflow...But these guys are shooting for future use, so it's shot as HDV, captured as DV.

JohnnyRoy: A point well taken. I haven't used either of Sony's new HDV cameras.
And it does make sense to buy the most up-to-date technology, given that these cameras can down-convert to DV and that the price is virtually identical.

Jack

I currently shoot everything in HDV with a Z1. Capture via Connect into a 1440x1080i project. Edit et al, and deliver a widescreen SD DVD. I then turn over the original m2t tapes, an EDL, and an archieved (save project with trimmed media) project burned to DL Data DVDs to the client. My message to them is, when we update this project it WILL BE HD.

In the meantime, I'm learning HD well in advance of most of my local competition. Soon, for example, bet on it, HD Weddings will be the format of choice. Might as well start the learning curve now.

BTW, SD widescreen rendered from a Cineform Connect project is wonderful quality. Get the Z1.

Darryl - Colorado

Lots of other threads on this subject, if you want more info. Just use the search button. Here's one I started a few months back:

Give me reason to buy VX-2100 instead of FX1?

My workflow is identical to Darryl's.

Darry'l, do you capture both medium HDV - CF/AVI and M2T via Connect? Also, what are your average render times (simple fades etc.) with your 4800x2? Are you using Vegas to render or ProCoder?

I have owned VX2100, PD170, DVX100A, GL2 and FX1, Z1. Both FX1, Z1 outperform all of the cameras listed other than super low light and the VX2100/PD170.

Duncan

Most of the material I edit / post is shot on a 570, last project contained some footage from the HC1 and well the 570 stuff blows it out of the water at SD. I know, $20K camera and glass Versus $3K camera so it certainly isn't a fair comparison and whoever was using the HC1 certainly wasn't as competant as the guy behind the 570 plus lighting was interiors at night.
What does that mean for anyone asking the HDV vs SD question?
Well unless you got a lot of brass HDV is still the only choice, HiDef is perhaps still a little ways off but 16:9 isn't but there's no afforable 16:9 SD cameras. If Sony bought out a 16:9 PD170 that MIGHT change the equation for those who are shooting events stuff.
Bob.

Duncan: yes to the medium HDV, I'm not bothering with the m2t at this point I do archive the original tape though, as a hedge against the unknown future.

I'm just batch rendering the DVDA3c widescreen NTSC and audio right out of Vegas6c, complete with nested vegs BTW.

Don't really have any objective render times, I'll track what I get if you'd like -- but that frame count register FLYS by.

Darryl

Darryl:

So you are using the Main Concepts (MPG2) render with nested Vegs at standard 16:9 NTSC DVD?

Also, if you do get a chance next time you are rendering a 5 or 10 minute clip, take a look at the elapsed time when done and post if you could. Thank you.

Duncan

Dgrob makes a great point, "My message to them is, when we update this project it WILL BE HD."

I've been working with a client that has had some proprietary media format problems (Beta SX - very tough to find someone that has that deck and getting it dubbed is a real pain in the butt) in the past and came to us to "future proof" archival footage for them.

They didn't care about the HD so much, although it was a big plus, they just wanted to be able to go back and use the footage for the next five or ten years. That of course means HD & 16 by 9 - we said we can do it in HDV & cheaper than the standard def guys. it was a great selling point and really helped us get the gig - which turned into even more work from them. HDV, much like Vegas, is like having your own secret weapon!

Yoyodyne

Exactly Yoyodyne, exactly. Darryl

Will post a sample render time the next time out. Darryl

I am doing the samething. I have 3 Sony vx2000's and love them. I am going to purchase 1, or 2 new cameras this year, but I am going to go with the SONY HDV. It is the future and I will have it for me when I need it. For a few dollars, more, I will have at my hands HD:) If I buy another vx2000, or PD170, I am buying what may be on it's way out. Spending that amount of money, which doesn't include the new format, doesn't make sence.

>>>Street price for the Sony PD170 is $3,100. Street price for the Sony FX1 is $3,100<<<<

Not really comparable. Other than HD-SD issue, Pd 170 is a much better camcorder since it has many more options and pro XLR mic inputs. So with the FX1 you need to spend more $$$$ if you need good sound, therefore FX1 would cost more and still would not be up to par in some things, with pd170. So, if you are going to need a real sound options and spending extra money, it's Z1 vs pd170. FX1 is out of the equation here. I would not buy it, for the same reason I never considered VX2000 and went straight for pd150.

If you can get away with, don't need those extras, then FX1 is OK, but as the situation was with vx2000, everybody eventually ended up buying XLR adapters and adding things, so would have been better off buying pd150 in the first place.

As I previsouly said, I can always count on this forum for great advice. It is by far the best forum on the internet!

Thanks to all for their insight. I appreciate all your time and efforts.

Thanks.

Rather than "HD vs. SD?" I think a better question (as is the case with almost any new technology) is this: "Upgrade now or later?"

I would agree with the posts on this thread that say that buying a brand new, pro-level DV camera doesn't make sense. However, if you're reasonably happy with the quality of your SD DV camera (as I am with my 4-year-old PD-150), I don't see any pressing need to upgrade just yet. You may be able to "limp along" (if you can call it that!) with your current setup for a while yet. (Especially if, like me, you're primarily engaged in producing DVDs for the home video market.)

HD delivery systems simply aren't there, and we're still in the first generation of HDV cameras. As drool-inducing as the current crop of HDV offerings from Sony, Canon, Panasonic and JVC are, they're only going to get better and cheaper in the months to come as new models come out.

Don't be fooled by the low price tag on HDV cameras, either. Last time I looked, when you factor in camera, a new editing workstation, big SATA drives, a HD-capable monitor, HDV VCR, and a digital audio recorder (remember: HDV audio is WORSE than DV!), you're looking at a $10,000 investment. Prices may have come down a bit since last I checked, but it's still sizeable. Prices on this stuff, as always, will only come down as time goes on.

While things look like they are heading towards HD, it's not entirely clear to me yet that HDV is the new format of choice, or merely a transitional stage to something else (tapeless? a less lossy HD codec? a cheaper form of an existing pro HD format?)

So, as always, it comes down to how willing you are to be on the "bleeding edge" vs. sticking with "tried and true." The market you're in will, also, no doubt, help you make your decision. Corporate presentation, commercials, broadcast, even high-market wedding video and others with deep pockets and a need for a gee-whiz approach will no doubt be moving into HD very quickly.

DVDs and mass-market will likely move more slowly, to allow market peneteration to catch up. Curiously, I'm seeing more demand for low-resolution 320x240 web/iPod/cel phone/PSP-type applications than I am for 1920x1080 hi-def. It will be interesting to see how these two competing consumer trends shake themselves out.