I'm transcoding HDV footage shot in 24F (on a Canon XH-A1) to a DNxHD codec for edting.  I've heard there is very little difference in these two codecs besides file size.  I'm talking the 8 bit version of 175 too.  Any thoughts?  I'd like to save space if possible, but I don't want to lose quality.

Thanks!

Both have enough data rate to pull the best out of HDV's thin raster. You may get slightly better quality with fine details but it would be tough to see.

Anyway, you can always recapture at 175 later when you picture lock.

Thanks for the info.  I've used 175 a lot and the file size really starts to eat up my drives so I'm going to try 115.  I've done some test and I can see no visual difference between the two.  Since I"m not actually capturing though it would be challenging to go to 175 later.  I'm transcoding the raw M2T files to DNxHD losing all time code reference (since I have no way to capture 24F HDV into my Avid yet). Thanks again.