I'm not a proponent of HDV over AVCHD or any other particular video recording format, I just get tired of seeing HDV described in marginal terms when it's really a rather clever technology and helped popularize high-definition video recording for mass use. AVCHD is also a good "entry-level" codec and is clearly gaining popularity for a wide range of uses, including professional video production. I just don't see the benefit of adding the subjective term "entry-level" to this article, but I suppose we've about beat this topic into the ground.
Don't get hung up on comments, what counts is actual article content. Sony itself defines HDV as an entry-level HD standard, period. If you want, I can provide a reference. It was the cheapest and the lowest quality HD standard before AVCHD appeared. AVCHD is no worse than HDV, and no better, these are pretty much comparable standards. The fact that HDV is used for broadcast does not change the fact that this is one of the lowest forms of HD. Anything can be used for broadcast if content is interesting. BBC still considers HDV as form of standard definition video, if you did not know. But BBC is snobbish about that and breaks its own rules often. I am not saying that HDV is bad. I never expressed negative opinion about HDV. I own an HDV camera myself and if you have noticed, I made quite a few edits in this article to expand the information on the subject. Please refrain from any future edits of the HDV page which reflect a bias towards the format relative to other alternatives, especially in the introduction section. Also, do not litter the intro with information that is already discussed and linked to in the article body. Mikus (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I see you made quite a few edits yourself, and you provided a lot of valuable information on the subject. I agree with most of your edits, but you seem to be a proponent of HDV and you sneer upon AVCHD for some reason. I suppose that after Panasonic had released the HMC150 your opinion on AVCHD as inferior standard compared to HDV was changed (tenses?). Anyway, I don't want to continue the stupid fight over couple of sentenses. The intro as I edited it looks clean and un-biased, I added a reference to Sony's own prospectus. All other technical details are discussed in the article, I hope that you will be satisfied with the change. You provided a lot of positive input for the article, I don't want you to think that I am pushing you out. All I want is to make it clearer and more concise. Thanks. Mikus (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Insisting on describing HDV as "entry level" is a biased comment which doesn't help someone understand the format better, and is best left to offline discussions rather than Wikipedia. How Sony defines it for marketing purposes is irrelevant, and you've also mischaracterized the BBC definition - which I have researched. And while AVCHD can be better than HDV at high bit rates it is demonstrably worse at low ones, so with AVCHD you have to know the recording bandwidth to assess the quality level.
I find it amusing that you quoted my advice to you about keeping the HDV intro impartial when you clearly don't wish to do that yourself. If we have to take this to Wikipedia authorities to get a third-party resolution that's fine, and I suspect they'll agree with me that some of your edits are less than neutral. Kwshaw1 (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
HDV is an entry level format, whether you agree with it or not. AVCHD is another entry level format. I am not biased against HDV, I am biased towards everything technical, be it HDV, AVCHD or XDCAM. Accusing me of being biased against HDV is quite amusing to me, I suggest you research all the edits I made to this article.
I saw your latest edit, it has too many buzzwords in two lines. "8-bit", "MPEG2", "4:2:0", "DV", "MiniDV", "720p", "1080i" -- this is just way too much stuff for a user who just wants to know what HDV is. You did not even link to respective articles! I suggest you removing these buzzwords, because all this stuff is discussed later in the body of the article, in better detail, with proper links. All a user has to learn from the intro is that HDV is an (1) HD format (2) for camcorders (3) tape-based. This is pretty much it. If this is what interests a reader, he will continue reading and will find out details.
"Entry level" is a non-neutral term which I removed for impartiality, but for the sake of keeping things civil I've put it back in - and removed some of the technical jargon from the introduction. I do think it's important to mention in the introduction that HDV has two main variations (1080i and 720p), so I've stated that in simpler terms.
"Entry level" is pretty neutral to me, and it is also correct. AVCHD and HDV are two entry-level formats, everything else is verifiably better in technical and visual respects: bit depth, color compression, data rate, etc. I don't know why you are so bothered by this. I did not write that HDV is piece of crap, did I? This would be biased, non-neutral and a plain lie. I have an HDV camera myself and I like it.
I think there are still too many details in the intro, and the language is not as precise as it could be. All the MPEG-2 stuff and 720p/1080i stuff is discussed further in the article. 720p/1080i formats are explained in the overview, literally 7 sentences down from the intro. Mikus (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
"Entry level" is a subjective term which could give some readers a biased impression of what HDV is and what it can be used for. I checked the AVCHD page and noticed you haven't used "entry level" in your revisions there, so why insist on using it for HDV?
"Entry level" is not subjective. There is no cheaper and least-capable HD standard than HDV/AVCHD. This is funny that you cannot accept HDV being entry-level even after being pointed to Sony's own marketing materials. Are you holier than the Pope? ;-) But if this bothers you this much, let's remove it, along with 720p/1080i numbers. As I have said, these numbers are introduced 7 sentences further in the article. Really, your sentence "There are two main variations of HDV (1080i and 720p) as described in the details provided below." does not add any information to the subject besides referring to the body of the article. If you could add something that is broad and acceptable enough for an unprepared user, yet is not repeated in the body of the article, that would be great. At the very least, we can add a similar statement about trademark: "HDV and HDV logo are trademarks of Sony Corporation and Victor Company of Japan, Limited (JVC)." Oh, HDV is not a standard. There is no international standard body that devised it. HDV is a format, or specification, proprietary to Sony/Canon/JVC/Sharp. Mikus (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree that HDV is a basic or "entry level" HD format, but using that term in the introduction adds a connotation which could be misunderstood by a casual reader - and you haven't explained why you used this term on the HDV page but not the AVCHD page. HDV is an HD recording format which can be successfully used for a wide range of purposes, so what's the point of calling it "entry level" unless it's your intention to downplay it's usefulness?
If you'd like we could try to work up new wording explaining the differences between HDV and other HD formats, but that's a slippery slope where someone is likely to complain it's biased.
I put it there because I was updating the intro and came across Sony's materials that define what HDV is, this is it. I am totally ok with it not being there. But you are now showing bias towards HDV by saying that yes, it may be entry-level, but nevertheless is used by professionals. :-) Professionals use anything that works for a task. The HMC150 made many pros and amateurs switch from HDV to AVCHD and they are happy with tapeless workflow. They could not afford P2 or SxS workflow, but the HMC150 gives them image quality comparable to HDV along with tapeless workflow. I am not saying that AVCHD is holy grail, I am saying that pros accept AVCHD with fast pace. HDV is used in pro productions not because it is better than AVCHD, but because there was no alternative to it. With the HMC150, and with SxS card hack for the EX, and with soon to be released JVC HM100, viable alternatives have emerged. I think you are singling out HDV as a better of um, entry-level formats, but this is not the case. It simply was the first entry-level HD format, and this is why it trickled down (should I say up?) into professional use.
Your comments above suggest that you consider "entry-level" a term normally inconsistent with professional use, which is why I objected to using that term in the definition. Your new write-up is both fair and reads better than what we had before, so I think we're making progress.
I'm not saying HDV is better than anything else, but it was a breakthrough solution which revolutionized affordable HD video production for many independent companies. As such it deserves better than to be described as "entry level", hence my insistence on a purely impartial opening sentence. I think we've achieved that.
Good progress on HDV, but why ruining my AVCHD efforts? I spend god knows how much time licking out the history section, and you removed all the stuff I put it, calling it "unnecessary precursor information". Huh? This is the History section, and it is always interesting, where AVCHD came from. The section clearly shows, that it comes from XDCAM. The Hitachi bit already was there, I put it there long ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AVCHD&oldid=214501086 Then I removed it, because Hitachi camcorders are Blu-ray camcorders, not AVCHD. For some, no difference, I suppose, but these are different formats nevertheless.
- Your history of AVCHD didn't make a good case for MPEG4 recording evolving from an MPEG2-based format and was hence confusing, plus it implied a timeline for AVCHD which was at least two years ahead of when Sony and Panasonic began working on it. I've updated the page to include your original history comments in a more comprehensive context, describing the development of AVC technology and tapeless recording as parallel phenomenon. We might also add something about Panasonic P2 and other tapless formats to round out that aspect of the history.
HDV is "non-HD"
"As previously requested, please try to keep your comments on the HDV page more neutral. For example, the use of the term "non-HD format" may be an accurate reference to some broadcast standards documents, but it's potentially confusing given that HDV *is* an HD recording format whether the BBC and PBS accept it as such or not."
- Please take time to read before jumping to conclusions. The article does say that HDV is HD on DV tape, this is established right in the first sentence. The "non-HD" is not my term, it is the term used by respective broadcasters. I specifically noted, that this is how a particular broadcaster treats this format, and provided exact links. This can be confusing only for those who cannot read a whole sentence. These are not my words, so don't accuse me in being biased. I just bought the V1U myself, so relax. If I did not care about HDV I would not spend that much time on the article. The format has its positive and negative sides, and wikipedia is not intended for glossing over negatives. I provided proper links and did not misquote the source.
"I continue to wonder why you put so much emphasis on the negatives of HDV without posting similar comments for other recording formats like AVCHD - which also doesn't satisfy the BBC and PBS HD"
- Feel free to add a relevant chapter to AVCHD article if you have reliable links, I mean links to the specs of reputable TV producers and broadcasters, not to blogs. Also, make note of this article: http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/article.php/25 It shows that AVCHD @ 21 Mbit/s holds better than XDCAM EX @ 35 Mbit/s, and mind you that XDCAM EX is significantly better than HDV, the latter is only 25 Mbit/s. Mikus (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)