HD or HDV: that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the
mindflesh to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous disk usage or to take
arms against the compression and by optimising end them?
Although we shot London Voodoo on s16mm film, we decided to
shoot MindFlesh on HD...or..maybe HDV. Our decision to go digitial was
primarily because MindFlesh has lots of effects shots (some greenscreen, some
3D modeling, some digital compositing).
To start down the decision path, we hired two cameras - one from
Panasonic that recorded DVCPRO-HD and stored to P2 cards and the
Sony Z1 which shoots HDV (1080i)
and records to high-spec miniDV tapes. When we got the JVC it came without P2
cards but instead a firewire cable and a portable harddrive: the camera
recorded directly to disc.
Now, recording to disc sounds like an editor's wet dream because
he can just copy over the clips and get started...yeah. Except that the
firewire/hard drive combo was found to be completely impractical (1. camera
firewire ports aren't designed for the rigours of shooting - like, say, an XLR
port - they're tiny and flimsy 2. there's no hard disk mount on the
camera which means the cameraman is supposed to lug around the disc drive. Come
on!). And we found a couple of drop-outs where presumably the data rate
exceeded the disc' ability to store the data.
Next up was the Z1. We'd been warned by the HD gurus and
diehards that HDV had a limited colour range that would bugger up our
greenscreen work; that HDV was a compressed format and the picture quality
would be worse... BUT to be honest, I can't believe that any audience can tell
the difference. I'm convinced that DVCPRO-HD vs HDV is one of those esoteric
debates like "token ring is more efficient than ethernet"...er..yeah,
maybe on paper but for all practical and commercial concerns (1. audience
experience of picture 2. cost 3. risk 4. post-production process) HDV won
for us.
