HD vs DV

I just made a file that was HD, Motion JPEG4, full 100% quality, and it was 81MB. I made another render setting it at DV, 720X480, 60% quality, thinking I could make a smaller version to send to someone to see. It came out at 120MB. When I viewed them both, the DV looked better than the HD, in the QT player. Is that just because I am not seeing the HD on an HD player and an HD TV? How did it get bigger? Can someone explain any of this to me?

Different codecs produce different results... JPEG is a lossy codec and DV is not.

Quick time has problems with anamorphic and interlaced footage. The source of HD Mjpeg was interlaced or progressive? It might be a fields order problem. What do you mean by HD? 1920x1080, 1080x720? or else?

Interlaced, 1920X1080 :)

I am wondering which HD camera to buy, for the outdoor wildlife clips that i deal with. with all my clips on PAL from DIVICAM, i feel am losing out. The technology is not yet fully appreciated in Kenya and we cant find HD's here.Dapoopta mentions Canon HV30 as ideal for this conditions. Any other input? any good 3ccd sony HD low priced but good for stock footage?

If you are used to dealing with DV and tapes, I highly recommend the HV30 or the newer HV40. They have outstanding quality, great vibrant color and high quality.

I personally prefer tapeless, so I went with the Canon HF11. I've found the video quality to be fantastic (not great in low-light, but I rarely shoot anything in low-light).

Thanks guys, HV30, or 40 will be. Any rough idea on the cost? what about VIXIA HF 200F, how is the perfomance of this one?

I don't know what overseas costs are, but the new HV400 runs $799 here in the states.

Had my father not got me the HF11 as a present, I would have purchased the HF20 (same as HF200, but with 32 GB built in memory). It's outstanding and has incredible color and clarity. But, like it's HF11 cousin, it has issues with low light. And being tapeless, it records in AVCHD which requires quite a bit of computing power to edit natively. Fortunately, I have an extremely powerful computer. :)

Bushman- Given your subjects you would definitely benefit from interchangeable lenses. The Sony EX 3 would be great for you, but set you back around eight grand US. You might hold off and see what happens with the Red Scarlet, it's supposed to be out soon and might be a good fit. In another post you mentioned HDV, I think that would be a mistake. That format gets only a tiny percentage of the monthly sales here. Regular DV does much better.

Topeka Design- DV is in fact a very lossy codec. fyi

markoconnell: I think you will find the majority of 1080 clips on here are in fact from HDV video camera's. There was a forum thread a while ago as to why this was so, but I can't remember the details.