THE DIGITAL-FORMAT OPTIONS SUMMARIZED

There are several important issues to consider when deciding on the best digital format to use in your production, especially if converting to film. Format choice is always a complex question, as there are many variables to consider in terms of quality, price, availability, flexibility, relative production value etc.

A lot of people use the term "digital" and the format "DV" (aka "mini-DV") more or less interchangeably. But the digital-camcorder universe is far wider than just this consumer or prosumer format. There are about a dozen distinct digital formats available these days, all with different pros and cons, levels of quality, and, of course, price ranges. So lets try and look at the big picture, and see what digital options we have now days.

Here are your basic choices of digital formats, divided into three main groupings representing progressivly increasing steps in overall quality and price: (1) Low-end, (2) Mid-level, and (3) High-end.

THE DIGITAL FORMATS:

(1) Low-end: Your options start with mini-DV, DVCAM (Sony) and DVCPRO 25 (Panasonic) at the lowest end of the digital scale. These formats are all related, and are very similar in terms of quality (actually pretty much identical, because the technologically is fundamentally the same). Relatively speaking, these formats have the fundamental advantage of being an exceptionally cheap way of producing what is essentially broadcast-quality images and sound.

(2) Mid-level: The mid-level formats, in roughly ascending order of quality, are DVCPRO 50 (Panasonic), and D-9 (a.k.a. Digital-S from JVC) which are also closely related technologies and very similar (more or less identical) in quality. And the extremely interesting variant from Panasonic called DVCPRO 50 Progressive. Then there is Betacam SX (from Sony) using a MPEG-2 compression scheme, and Digital Betacam (Sony) which is the highest quality in the Standard Definition digital formats (SDTV).

(3) High-end: Best of all are the High Definition formats, now including the HDCAM and DVCPRO HD formats (and soon D-9 HD). The HD formats all have an aspect ratio of 16:9, whereas all the Standard Definition formats are usually 4:3 (but can be 16:9 as well). The most popular choice for High Definition shooting are the Sony HDW 700/A or "HDW-F900 CineAlta" camcorders. But Panasonic has now released a 24p multi-frame-rate camcorder model AJ-HDC27V, and more choices will become available soon (including D-9 HD from JVC).

WHAT THEY OFFER US:

(1) Low-end formats: DV and it variants, namely DVCAM and DVCPRO, will give you the same sort of image quality as traditional Betacam SP, but with all the advantages of digital. It is definitely "broadcast quality". You can buy DV gear for a fraction of the price of Betacam SP equipment. You can also perform high-quality "online" editing in consumer-grade, home computers. The results are just as good as the more professional (and expensive) alternatives like Avid etc. So in a nutshell, this is the basis for all the excitement about these new digital formats ...... simply amazing bang for the buck. But at the same time you need to keep in mind that these formats lack many of the higher-end professional features in the camcorders themselves, and also in post production.

(2) Mid-level formats: These formats are aimed primarily at the broadcasting market for originating television news and current affairs. The idea is to update the current analog formats to reap the basic advantages of digital production. The marketing strategy is to offer an alternative to the very firmly entrenched analog Betacam SP format, which has dominated this market area for about 20 years now. Also, these formats are often found in a more semi-professional environment in institutions like colleges and universities etc. In this case, it is designed to replace analog formats like Super-VHS, and the exceptionally long-lasting 3/4inch U-matic format.

(3) High-end formats: Because High Definition really rivals the quality of 35mm on a big screen, then this is the most logical one to consider for a theatrical release (on film or large-screen digital projection). And because this is a format for the future, the marketing life of a production can be extended or expanded considerably. The demand for High Definition product should expand rapidly in the next few years, and will ultimately become the (expected) main-stream format.

THE CAMCORDER OPTIONS:

And within each of these three main groupings, you have more expensive and less expensive camcorder options. The more expensive cameras offer better and more extensive features that enable to user to better exploit the full potential of each of the formats listed above. Generally speaking, you could say you have (1) Basic, (2) Medium, and (3) Top-end quality camcorders in each category.

Using the DV format as a point of illustration, the "Basic" category normally has 1/3-inch CCD's, and cost up to about $5000; the "Medium" category has 1/2-inch CCD's and cost up to about $10,000; and the "Top-end" category has 2/3-inch CCD's, and cost up to about $17,000.

You can get DV or DVCAM camcorders ranging in price from roughly US$700 to over US$15,000. The range of features offered are from purely consumer orientated to fully professional, with the so-called "prosumer" models in between. Obviously, the more expensive camcorders with better lenses and electronic features are capable of higher-quality images and sound, compared to the cheaper models. This is despite the fact that they are all using exactly the same format. Many people loose sight of this fact, and assume all DV cameras are more or less created equal in terms of quality, and also in terms of operational features. But the quality varies from good, to better, to best. And some camcorders are much better suited to certain applications than others e.g. drama or documentary, hand-held or tripod, video-style or film-style production, tape release or film release, 4:3 or 16:9, and so on.

So the higher up the scale you can get, the better the quality ....... and therefore the better the quality (especially) when blowing up to film, or for large-screen digital projection.

FORMAT LIMITATIONS:

There is a real limitation with the massively popular mini-DV and DVCAM formats, that is not immediately apparent. You will see it in the wider shots. The real test for any mini-DV system is wide angle and panorama compositions. The reality is that the format does not really have enough resolution for wide-angle and panorama shots. In these types of shots, there is often much more detail than the format can resolve. On the other hand, it does a really great job with medium and closer shots because these tend to have less detail. The resolution looks great with the medium and closer shots, and you see this especially when converted to film. So just to illustrate this point, mini-DV can give a really great close up of a leaf, but does a relative poor job of the whole tree. Similarly, a person's face looks great, but a landscape is much less spectacular.

The trouble with the mini-DV format is that you are blowing up an image smaller than half the size of your little finger nail, to fill a huge cinema screen that is maybe 40 or 50 feet across. So you see everything ....... especially all the limitations and problems of the DV format. As a general rule of thumb, the image doesn't get more grainy as you magnify it or "blow it up" (which can be aesthetically very pleasing to the eye), but it gets more soft and mushy and defuse. Also because of the limitations of the compression scheme, you see where it can't reproduce the image properly. These are called artifacts. You see all the problems with making and structuring the images. These things are more or less invisible (or largely go unnoticed) on a TV or monitor screen, but become very obvious on a big cinema screen. Same applies to large-screen digital projection of these images as well.

My general advise, is that it is best to try as capture as much "quality" as you possibly can at the shooting stage in terms of resolution by using the best format you can afford or get hold of, then creatively get the precise look you want during the post production when you have more control. You can not add back something that is not there in the first place.

WHAT IS GOOD OR BAD DIGITAL QUALITY?

Digital has the ability to look pretty good even at relatively lower levels of absolute quality. It is not like the difference between Super 8, 16mm, and 35mm film where you see big differences in grain size for example. Unlike film, you usually don't see the building blocks used to structure the images with digital technology. Digital images certainly don't get more or less grainy as the basic quality goes up or down. When you compare the images produced by a range of DV or DVCAM camcorders from very cheap to more expensive models, they all look pretty good in a way (especially when viewed on a small screen like a video monitor, or regular TV set). But as you magnify the image, say by projecting the images via a digital projector onto a large screen, the lower-quality digital images get more soft and mushy looking by comparison. It is perhaps similar to the way the world looks to us as we get older, and start needing glasses to see more clearly. The images/world still look/s good in a way, but everything is not as "sharp" as it could be. I suspect younger people will be more aware of these differences in digital quality, as they have much sharper eyesight generally speaking.

We only begin to see the way digital images are structured, when the compression technology is pushed to the limits of acceptable quality i.e. by trying to compress it too much. Then we see something called 'artifacts', mixed in with the images as they grow softer and more diffuse looking. But this effect is a constant in the DV format, as the amount of compression is fixed by the format definition. This is more of a problem when you compress to variable data-rate compression schemes like MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 etc., for example when making a DVD, or an equivalent type of disk.

THE BEST CHOICE?

As I said before, choice of format is always a complex question with many variables to consider in terms of quality, price, availability, flexibility, relative production value etc. Funnily enough, there may not be such a big price difference between shooting the various digital formats in terms of the overall budget. Camera rental and tape stock being the main factors at the shooting stage ..... tape cost for example ranges from about $10 to $80 per tape from the low-end to the high-end, roughly speaking. But on the other hand, there is a very big jump in image quality between, say, mini-DV and High Definition. Also the most expensive step in terms of budget, namely converting the digital to film (if you need to do this), costs a similar (or exactly the same) amount whether you are converting (or "blowing up") a low-end, or a high-end, digital format. The other big area of cost differences is post production, and the differences here may be less than you anticipate (not to mention the added benefits of great deal making, and so forth). And some formats are poorly supported in post, and may end up being unusually expense, and therefore becoming a false economy (e.g. the JVC and Panasonic mid-level and high-end formats). So there are several penny-wise and pound foolish issues to sort through in choosing the best format for any particular project.

BEST CAMCORDER?

It is very hard to advise anyone about what particular camcorder to buy or use. It is a bit like telling you which car to buy, or how to decorate your living room ........ everyone has different ideas, requirements, and opinions about this. The "best" camcorder depends on a lot of factors that are quite specific to each user. For example, what sort of production you are undertaking, and later, what sort of distribution you plan or anticipate (tape, disk, broadcast, film etc.). Also the feel of the camera when you handle it personally is also an important consideration. And for some people, even the basic "look" of the camera is a factor i.e. the physical aesthetics of a camcorder, or how it looks to you (or to others), which I find a valid concern also. Without a doubt, it is a difficult choice, as the differences tend to be subtle in each price group, and there is no clear overall "winner". The "best choice" for you may very well be based on quite personal or subjective factors (......just like buying a car, or decorating your living room).

DV verses DVCAM

DVCAM is a slightly improved variant of the DV (or "mini-DV") format. I guess you could call it the more professional version of the format. DVCAM is a special format only available from Sony, while the hugely popular DV (or "mini-DV") format is supported by a wide range of manufacturers.

Let me start by saying there is absolutely no difference in the image quality between the two formats. In both cases, the type of video signal being recorded on the tape is precisely the same. So you don't shoot DVCAM to get higher quality video. So why do people use it? What are the difference?

The tape speed is 50% faster. I'm not really sure of the advantages of this increased tape speed? Perhaps there is slightly more reliability in recording and reading the data stream accurately? And it would make it a bit less prone to the effects of tape dropouts perhaps, which is not usually much of a problem with digital anyway.

But more importantly, you have a choice of tape cassette sizes. The smaller, standard mini-DV size, and a larger size that is perhaps a little more robust. So it can be a big plus point that the larger DVCAM cassettes makes longer recording times possible - up to 3 hours compared to the standard 40 minutes. This can be important in some applications.

And the sound on DVCAM is described as being "locked" to the image, rather than "floating". This is not about sync as such. All mini-DV and DVCAM audio runs in perfect sync with the images. However, "locked" means there is a more precise relationship between each individual frame of image, and the corresponding "frame" of sound on the tape. The advantage of this "locked" type of sound is that during editing, it can result is much cleaner audio edits at the cutting point. However, I understand that Non Linear Editing systems convert all sound to this "locked" type during the capturing process to a computer. So this makes it a bit of a non issue really. But maybe there is a slight advantage in recording "locked" audio at the shooting stage perhaps?

I also understand there is a slightly better timecode system used on DVCAM. Timecode plays no fundamental role in Online editing, which is how these formats are mostly handled during the editing process. But in an Offline / Online situation, then the quality and flexibility of the timecode is important. So a possible advantage here for some users perhaps? Although to Offline / Online with DVCAM probably means dubbing all your original tapes to another format (such as Digital Betacam), and these could be striped with clean professional-standard, continuous timecode at the time of dubbing. Then you could make tape copies for Offline editing purposes from these new masters. In this case, the original DVCAM tapes would be archived, and would only needed in an emergency. The new Digital Betacam dubs would effectively become your camera original tapes, with it own unique timecode (generated at the time of dubbing and after the shooting).

So in summary, there is little direct advantage of the DVCAM format for the majority of users. The longer recording times being the most significant of these perhaps. However, there is another important point to consider. There is a much better choice of the more professional camcorder options available in the DVCAM format, including options with true or native 16x9 CCD's. So to get the better camcorders could mean opting for the DVCAM format, by default. Unfortunately, even the best mini-DV camcorder models usually lack the highest level of professional features.

But if you are a camcorder user in the under US$5000 price range, then DVCAM offers you very little advantages indeed. In fact, a disadvantage in the sense that the tape stock is effectively more expensive (and shorter running). Also DVCAM facilities are harder to find in the prosumer post environment (such as a DVCAM deck), and this could be a hindrance as well. If you are buying your own equipment for a home-based studio, then DVCAM will cost you significantly more money.

My general advise is that DVCAM is not worth the extra expense if you are a typical prosumer user, but it would be a good idea in a higher level, more professional set up. You certainly need DVCAM to get the best camcorders and best post facilities (like decks etc.).

Native 16:9

The term "native 16x9" refers to a CCD sensor which is truly "widescreen" in shape. So of course, much wider than the regular 4x3 shaped CCD's that we are familiar with in the lower-end consumer and prosumer markets. 4x3 is the same shape as a regular TV screen. Another way of expressing the regular-TV screen shape, is to say it has an aspect ratio of 1.33 : 1. (You arrive at this number by dividing 4 by 3, and rounding off the result to two decimal places). However, the shape of true or "native" CCD chips are as wide, and as high, as the shape of the new HDTV screens. 16x9 CCD's are fully covered with an array of pixels from top to bottom, and from one side to another. So they have a lot more pixels available to capture a widescreen-shaped image, compared to the more square-shaped 4x3 CCD's in cheaper camcorders. Once again, another way of expressing this shape in the world of videography, is to say it has an aspect ratio of 1.78 : 1. (You arrive at this number by dividing 16 by 9, and rounding off the result to two decimal places).

Let me try and put some perspective on the native 16x9 issue, by looking at the big picture. Only a tiny fraction of mini-DV and DVCAM camcorders are native 16x9. So on the lower-end of the digital scale, there are virtually no choices except for a very small handful of the more expensive models (listed below). But as you move up the digital ladder to the middle category, I'd say possibly half(?) the options are native 16x9 broadly speaking. These are the 50Mbs formats like DVCPRO 50, D-9 and Digital Betacam. But with the next step up the ladder to the high-end digital formats, they are all native 16x9. This is because 16x9 is the only aspect ratio available in the HD formats. All HDTV formats are 16x9 across the board. There is no 4x3 in the Hi-Def arena ...... meaning the 4x3 aspect ration simply doesn't exist in the HD world. However, Standard Definition Television (SDTV) allows for both aspect ratios, and the market is flooded with 4x3 camcorders as they are much cheaper to manufacture, and therefore have the most attractive price tags for consumers.

As many lament, it is a pity that there are not more native 16x9 camcorders in the mini-DV and DVCAM world. I believe I can count the number of native 16x9 mini-DV and DVCAM camcorder options that are available on one hand (literally). They are mostly DVCAM cameras, and they are mostly the more expensive models available within the format. However, there is one significant exception ..... what I'm calling the "the entry-level" 16x9 camcorder. It is JVC's model GY-DV700U. It has the bigger 2/3-inch CCD's recording in the mini-DV format. This is the cheapest native 16x9 camcorder available from what I understand. In many ways, great bang for the buck!!!!

All this will change as Standard Definition Television (SDTV) slowly disappears from the general landscape. Then 4x3 will be just as strange in the video world, as 4x3 is in the world of film-based cinema today. Virtually nobody shoots 4x3 film anymore, but rather 1.85 or 2.4 anamorphic etc. And soon nobody will shoot 4x3 video anymore either, or not in a mainstream sense at least.

If I wanted to be a little controversial, I could tout that native 4x3 is dead!!!! In other words, it doesn't make a lot of sense to invest in "old fashioned" 4x3 CCD cameras anymore, especially if you are thinking of the future. It also makes little sense if you are thinking of projecting in a cinema-like environment, like public screenings or at film festivals etc., let alone for a fully fledged theatrical release. But native 16x9 cost more of course, so price is a big consideration.

A rep from Sony made an interesting point about native 16x9 CCD's from a manufacturing point of view. He told me it will be a long time before we see native 16x9 CCD's in lower-priced camcorders. He said to make native 16x9 CCD's is only practical with the larger-sized 2/3-inch chips right now. The reason for this lies with the ratio of acceptable chips to faulty chips, in the manufacturing process. The number of rejected chips would simply be too high, even with a chip that is the next step down in terms of size, namely 1/2-inch chips, let alone 1/3-inch or 1/4-inch chips. So they could make 16x9 versions of these smaller-sized CCD chips, but the level of discarded chips would not make it an economic proposition from a manufacturing point of view. So a 1/2-inch native 16x9 CCD camcorder, might have a similar price tag as a 2/3-inch model. This would be clearly unacceptable in the market place. In time, improvements in the manufacturing processes may make native 16x9 CCD's cheap enough to include them in prosumer camcorders with prosumer price tags. How long will this be? ...... that's anybody's guess.

These are the three main native 16x9 camcorder options in the DV/DVCAM world at the moment. They are listed in ascending order of quality, features and price.

1. ("Entry level") JVC GY-DV700U

2. (Next best) Sony DSR-500WS, and the newer DSR-570WS *

3. (Very best) Sony DXC-D30 (and newer DXC-D35) dockable camcorders equipped with a DVCAM recording back (DSR-1)

(Note* The DSR-570WS is basically the same camera as the DSR-500WS, but it can be easily adapted for use as a studio camera with a CCU (Camera Control Unit) for multi-camera shooting.

By the way, 4x3/16x9 switchable models are a different thing entirely (or non-native 16x9). The wider screen shape is derived by electronic processing of the output of a normal 4x3 CCD. This technique varies a little bit from manufacturer to manufacturer, and some are better than others. But usually there is a significant loss of over all resolution. The "cheat" is usually no better than just a straight cropping of the image in the first place.

Peter Gray
(near Los Angeles)
P.O. Box 5132
Pine Mountain Club, CA 93222
United States of America
telephone: +1(661) 242-1234

dp@petergray.org