How many Real Estate agents have a HD/HDV (high def) video camera?

Yes but it is not ideal for most online video because it creates massive file sizes that need big time compression.  For the web and streaming video it WAY overkill for my applications.

Robert

There are a bunch of factors that have to be taken in consideration.  One helpful piece of knowledge is that all makes and models do not perform the same under different conditions.  In a few situations, certain SD models can out perform some HDV models.  There are a few single chip  "HDV" models that aren't any better than mini-DV in my opinion under any conditions.

It's a factor of the what chips are in the camera and how the images are processed. This can vary not only manufacturer by manufacturer but also model by model...and yet all are still "HDV".

Performance in lower light situations is very important to our work...so we stick with HDV models that do well under indoor and low light conditions.

Hope I didnt confuse things too much... 

Tony

One problem is that in order to truly view it in Hi-Def, you pretty much have to burn to a Hi-Def disc and then play on it on a Hi-Def DVD player on a Hi-Def TV...  Few people have both so it wont get seen in all of its 'Hi-Def glory' all that often.  It will sooner or later be down-converted to 'SD quality' anyway to be viewed easily on the net.  For this reason I do shoot in HDV, but down-convert to SD for the net and editing purposes.  I keep the original tape with the Hi-Def capture, you can still play them back directly to a Hi-Def TV and it really does look spectacular.  While this is good for home movies and such, it doesn't really do much for the real estate stuff.

@A. Grey- I hear you on the 'low light performance' issue....  Care to share some of your favorites cameras for this?

I am not familiar with the entry level HDV cameras that are available, but I can tell you that at the mid level price range of camera ($5000 to $9500), HDV outperforms any SD counterpart. 

Low light is one of the only considerations where HDV can struggle, but the simple solution is don't shoot in low light. And the differences are marginal at best...something for techies to argue over.

The 1440 x 1080 is the same amount of information as a 1920 x 1080, but upon playback, the aspect ratio  of the pixels are changed on the horizontal, and the picture takes on the familiar 16 x 9 widescreen. It's not just a consumer method... it is the same formula used in XDCAM which is Sony's Cinealta camera line that starts at about $15,000.

Even when downconverting to a SD output, an HDV originated source is superior. This is due to the fact that first of all, you are starting out with more information,.. secondly... HDV handles the colorspace better. You don't need to see the final result in true HD to realize the benefits of an HD (HDV) workflow.

To shoot in HD allows for some exquisite conversion to Flash, Quicktime, or WMV.

To maximize the process, you need the right tools. One thing that is not mentioned is the interlacing issue. Most HDV cameras capture an interlaced image, but to view on an LCD screen for online display...your final edit needs to be de-interlaced. Most softwares provide a crude method of doing this which essentially cuts your resolution in half. More sophisticated programs achieve fantastic results. 

Even in an SD world, HDV is the preferred workflow.

My homepage has a clip that addresses some of this. It was shot on a Sony HVR-Z1U (a mid-low level camera), edited...then the final output de-interlaced and resized, then converted in Flash 8.