Talk:HDV

message: Just thought you should know that. MC Dupree (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: JVC is the only manufacturer of 720p HDV cameras. This article is about HDV, rememeber? Mikus (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey Mikus, JVC isn't "THE ONLY" manufacturer of 720p cameras 

message: This section needs a little more data: exactly what is the bitrate of the compressed audio, and is there any sourcing data for the claim that (in the original version) the audio compression fools even people who claim to hear artifacts in 320kbps MP3 or (in my edited version) that the resulting audio is almost identical to the uncompressed audio? Are there any disputes about that? cluth 08:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interframe coding is not required when using MPEG-2. Itraframe coding with MPEG-2 is perfectly legal. Actual uses: Sony IMX, Ikegami 100 Mbit/s MPEG-2, certain formats offered by Focus Enhancements. Same with AVC: you can have interframe AVCHD as well as AVC-Intra. Mikus (talk) 05:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  HDV Compression 

message: "the spatial resolution of the human eye is less sensitive to differences in horizontal resolution than vertical resolution.
Do we have a reference for this? [[[User:Efbasham|Efbasham]] 07:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horizontal vrs Vertical resolution 

message: I refer to the recent reversion, and my attempts to scale down (not entirely exclude) mention of the Panasonic HVX200 camera in the History section.
This camera is NOT an HDV camera. Why then must an entire paragraph be devoted to it in the "history of HDV"? I do believe it is relevant, but only insofar as it shows that a major player in the "prosumer" camera market decided NOT to go for the HDV standard, but try a different approach altogether.
It is relevant, but I think it is confusing to include it as it currently stands, because the average reader may assume that this camera is a slightly different kind of HDV camera.Anselan
The HVX200, if mentioned at all, should be described as an alternative to HDV for entry-level HD production - and hence should not be listed in the section labeled "HDV history." (Kevin Shaw, Aug. 7, 2007)
I also think it's really odd that a P2 card is compared to a MiniDV tape. I am tempted to change or remove the comparison... Burbble (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Panasonic HVX200 camera 

message: The comparison to (ATSC) broadcast HDTV were, in my opinion, off the mark.  The bitrate of ATSC is limited to ~19 Mbps, whereas HDV/1080i is 25Mbps. But that is ONE factor out of many more, equally important factors.  The HDTV-broadcast chain includes some pre-processing (deinterlacing, spatial filtering, de-noising, etc.), and the broadcast MPEG-encoder operates under a different set of rules (closed GOP, GOP-size, etc.)  The conclusion is that while HDV/1080i's bitrate exceeds ATSC, it does not necessarily mean a superior picture.
* My intention was to make clear the fact that any motion artefacts on HDV are absolutely negligible compared to the very obvious MPEG artefacts that viewers in the UK are familiar with on SD (Freeview) broadcasts where the bitrate is only 2 to 4Mbits/s. This is partly because any defects on HD will be on a finer scale, but also because the bitrate allocated to these broadcasts tends to be too low. --Lindosland 12:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HDV vs. brodcast HDTV 

message: Hi I've got an article about choosing an HDV camera for certain purposes:
http://www.creativevideo.co.uk/public/articles.php?article=10
Fuutott 09:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choosing your ideal HDV Camcorder 

message: The deinterlacing and web section is rather poorly written to be frank. For example, it claims that PC's don't support interlaced content properly which AFAIK isn't true since a number of options are available for realtime deinterlacing including hardware accelerated. And of course, PC users do have the option of doing non-real time deinterlacing. I don't know how these compare to plasma but they are there. Another problem section:
:It is not impossible to achieve good results though, if the correct methods are used to deinterlace the footage. See the examples on this page. The showcase material is of course all from film, and therefore 24p to begin with, avoiding the deinterlace problem.
This appears to be saying it's possible to achieve good results (which isn't a surprise), look at the examples. But wait, the examples weren't actually deinterlaced... Say what?
I actually question whether this section is needed and if it is, in such depth. This appears to be related to HD video and interlacing and the web in general. Not HDV specifically. As such, I would suggest it's best covered in another article Nil Einne 10:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deinterlacing and web section 

message: I have a few suggestions as to how we may make this article even better.
# As somebody mentioned above, if a camera is not true HDV, then it should be omitted from the article.  e.g. the Panasonic DVCPRO HD cameras.
# The discussion on MPEG 2 should only go so far as to say that HDV uses Long GOP MPEG-2 at 25mbps, and any other technical details related to recording MPEG 2 to tape (i.e. tape dropout, etc).  Any discussion of MPEG-2 should use the standard MPEG-2 nomenclature, i.e. I frames, B frames, P Frames, where relevant.  The term "key frame" should not be used in this article at all, seeing as "Key Frame" has a different meaning depending on the context, and in the context of Video it can refer to animation key frames as well as I frames.  The structures and other in-depth technical details of MPEG 2 should be referenced to the article on MPEG 2.
# The "Overview" section is probably a little too broad for an overview section.  There are several redundancies between that section and the "HDV Compression" section.
# Perhaps the "Notes regarding specific camcorder models" section should be expanded to include Canon's 24F and 30F (instead of 24P and 30P) formats on their pro camcorders (XH-A1, XH-G1, XL-H1).  Once I get my XH-A1 and have worked with it a while, I will add to this section.
# Perhaps we should add a section about HDV in relation to other HD formats such as HDCAM and AVCHD.
# I agree that the "Deinterlacing and Web" section should probably be removed, seeing as it has very little to do with actual HDV and more to do with HD Video and Non-linear editing.
These are just some suggestions.  Opinions?  If there is no feedback on these, I will begin implementing some of them soon.
Dormous 16:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies and Redundancies 

message: The article currently says "HDV has the potential to look extremely good on the Web, using 6 to 8 Mbits/s as demonstrated on the Microsoft WMV HD showcase site".  This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, since HDV uses older MPEG-2 coding technology while WMV HD is a much more modern codec design.  It should therefore be clear that the fact that some level of quality can be achieved with some number of bits per second using WMV HD does not indicate that the same quality can be achieved with HDV (i.e., MPEG-2) at those bit rates.  In fact it should probably be taken as evidence that such quality cannot be achieved at those bit rates with HDV.  Perhaps the statement is meant to say something else, but I don't know what it was attempting to say. -Pangolin 05:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HDV and WMV confusion 

message: I have cleaned up the ever-(r)evolving Canon HV-line section: reformatted the text, official product links have been moved to the external links, links have been added to Wiki product pages, added HV40 and removed Vimeo from HV30's 30P references due to the fact that Vimeo's enco0der is locked at 24 fps.Szlevi (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canon 

message: I restored the Product section, deleted by KelleyCook without leaving any comment here. He claimed WP:NOTCATALOG but the policy specifically mentions listing things that hasd great influence on the subject or are notable some other way.Szlevi (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Product section 

message: * "DV cassette tape" is the official term, see the reflink.
* "Direct to disc recording" is a marketing term, while the generic name for storage media is "hard disk drive". 
* I believe that "on-camera" is more up to the point in this particular case.
* No need to empasize "video" tape, it is obvious, we are talking about tape-based video format.
* "onto file-based tapeless camcorders" makes no sense at all. The point is recording on tape and onto file-based media on the SAME camcorder, not using several camcorders. Mikus (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted good faith edits 

message: These comments were added to the article by CDMIKELIS:
--
(*) Most of editing software can't cut exactly as GOP structure is, so recompressing of clip is done even when using only plain cuts. Real life editing requires at least some titles. So recompression is unavoidable in any real life situation and compressing footage again in HDV (22,5:1) degrade quality. Probably hard to see for untrained eyes when footage is made in ideal light, but again most real life siatuation (indoor, etc) with a lot of noise involved, suffers with every compression.  Keeping original footage (on HDV tapes, or m2t files on HDD) and edited "project" or EDL, is recommended for later use. It can be always compressed to than needed format, from original; making only ONE(**) generation. 
(**) A generation or recompressing is made at every rendering; if multiple filters or titles (or picture in picture) is used, that means so much "generations" of footage. Here is where good intermediate codec is better option: one generation to much less compressed intermediate codec is better than making 5-6 re-compression in MPEG-2 during editing process and final re-compression to even more compressed HDV.
--
* First, this is not a forum or an email thread, you cannot throw in your comments like this, you must integrate them in the article and provide sufficient proof.
* I integrated your comment about long-GOP nature of HDV. Indeed, even with straight cuts non-destructive editing can be done only by cutting between GOPs. I use Vegas, I don't know whether it is able to do that. On another hand, VirtualDub allows doing just that: it allows skipping over GOPs and cutting out unneeded fragments, then saving back to a stream with no recompression. VirtualDub may not even know much about the encoder, it just cuts out full GOPs from a container file, so all it really has to know is how the container works. Such an editing is lightning fast. tsMuxer has similar functionality too, though I am not sure whether it works on a container level, or on encoder level, it does not explicitly offer "cut on GOP" option, but in my experience trying to cut up to a millisecond does not work, tsMuxer always pads a bit. So I suppose that it works on GOP margins as well. Cannot prove it though.
* Your comment on creating a separate generation for each filter if native video is used has no merit. Why MPEG-2 would be re-rendered between the effects, while say Cineform does not? After all, both of these are encoding methods, and any half-decent NLE should work universally with either. From what I know, most decent NLEs decode source video into uncompressed format internally as they go on, then apply ALL filters to this uncompressed video and then either display the result (in preview mode) or send it to a renderer (in render mode). So there is no real benefit for using intermediate codecs besides maybe some speed advantages, and also for sending your half-finished renders to other guys, so whenever multiple re-rendering is actually needed, it would hold better than MPEG-2. Please do not add this controversial (at best, though I think it is simply incorrect) "information" back to the article. If you want to argue, please post your finding here first. Maybe they do hold true for SOME NLEs. Mikus (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by CDMIKELIS 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on HDV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090216151329/http://www.hdv-info.org/page2.htm to http://www.hdv-info.org/page2.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090417054513/http://www.hdv-info.org/trademk.htm to http://www.hdv-info.org/trademk.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516114103/http://dhd.discovery.com/guidelines/gallery/guidelines.pdf to http://dhd.discovery.com/guidelines/gallery/guidelines.pdf
*Added  tag to http://books.jvcservice.com/Download/903683488/LWT0278-001B-H.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100809075542/http://www.cnet.com.au/hd-tv-resolution-explained-339271051.htm to http://www.cnet.com.au/hd-tv-resolution-explained-339271051.htm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120803113147/http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/sony-hvr-v1-hdr-fx7/82350-explained-24-verses-24a.html to http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/sony-hvr-v1-hdr-fx7/82350-explained-24-verses-24a.html
*Added  tag to http://www.papahui.com/download.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726021243/http://www.ukscreenassociation.co.uk/news/articles.htm?aId=1670 to http://www.ukscreenassociation.co.uk/news/articles.htm?aId=1670
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040923122525/http://www.hdv-info.org/ to http://www.hdv-info.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified