HDV as Close-ups in SD project at DVinfo.net

Eric Lagerlof · May 8th, 2008, 11:07 AM

I've been using using the same footage imported as both DV SD and HDV, using the SD footage as the 'wide shot' footage and then using the HDV footage, at anywhere between roughly 50% and 100% size for 'close-ups'. This has been for shooting 'labor of love' theatrical peformances with only one camera- an FX-1. Works OK, but editing the HDV footage is slow and capturing the footage 2x, once for SD and once for HDV is a bit overwhelming on HDD space.

Anyone out there have some workflow improvement suggestions? Mainly, I'm trying to be able to edit mixed resolutions on the timeline at real speed. I was hoping Cineforms' Aspect might help, but it doesn't seem to be the answer I was hoping for. Has anyone tried editing with the Sheer Video codec? Any other ideas? Matrox, BTW, is beyond my budget, currently.

Adam Gold · May 8th, 2008, 11:17 AM

There are lots of solutions, but none are cheap. I just recently shot a couple of theatrical productions using 6-8 cams each. I'm using Adobe CS3 with Aspect HD. The real-time multicam switching in Premiere worked great. But that assumes you have four cams (the max it will take at one time).

Can you rent or borrow more cams (and shooters)? The multicam option is one of the best ways to speed up your workflow, but doesn't help with the mixed resolution issues.

EDIT: After reading your other thread I understand your issues a little better. I think what you're trying to do is admirable but shooing with only one camera is adding a lot of complexity to your projects. Unless your performers are absolutely perfect you'll get a lot of variation from show to show and trying to match shots from different shows will likely be a nightmare. And personally I would do everything in HD and only downconvert at the last minute. I'm not sure mixing SD and HD in a project buys you much, and seems to be creating issues for you.

For the last show I did we shot six performances and even so, used only one for the backbone of the show DVD, using bits from other perfs as cutaways and coverage to mask our mistakes. But even so I think it would have been nearly impossible without shooting and editing multicam.

Eric Lagerlof · May 8th, 2008, 12:48 PM

Adam, you're multi-cam solution IS the ideal way to go. However, no moola.

The performances are by a children's theatrical school, to which my granddaughter attends. The DVD price is pretty much fixed at $25 per, of which I get $20. So figure $200-$400 per class/performance. About enough to pay for my granddaughter's tuition. So buying a 2nd camera, or investing in anything at the $1,000 and above level is out and hiring a 2nd camera/cameraperson is out for the same reason.

My workflow would be ok, except this summer they are doing 10 classes/shows instead of the usual 6. In the end I'll probably just have to cut down on my cutaways, so to speak.

Bill Engeler · May 8th, 2008, 02:15 PM

Eric -

It seems to me you have 3 choices:

1. Continue as you are doing, spending a lot of time capturing.

2. Only capture in HDV. Use HDV settings for the entire project. For "closer" shots, just enlarge the shot on the HDV timeline. Yeah, it won't look good if you finish in HD, but when you downconvert to SD at the very end, everything will look the same. The only problem here is if your system can't handle HDV very well. This leads to...

3. Spring for Cineform Aspect. The strain on your system won't be so great (but the files are larger), and you can edit as in choice 2. The initial outlay might be worth the time you save.

Happy shooting!

Eric Lagerlof · May 8th, 2008, 05:31 PM

Bill, the idea of 'blowing up' the shots in HDV and those shots looking OK upon SD export doesn't hold. David Newman suggested this in another post as well, and I have tried the concept both with and without Aspect, which I have a trial copy of. David mentioned that using an interlace codec, such as my FX-1's 1080i, causes the problems. We've been going back and forth in the Cineform Showcase forum. Thanks for the suggestion though.

Lloyd Coleman · May 8th, 2008, 05:59 PM

Eric,

I have been watching this thread and the one on the Cineform forum. I am the one you referenced in that thread. I am able to zoom in using HD footage that still looks great when exported to and SD project, but only one way.

I put HD footage on an SD timeline in Premiere CS3. If I scale to 45% it fills the whole frame. I can scale up to 100% and it still looks good. I have tried using Cineform and could not make it look as good. I tried using an HD timeline in Premiere and it does not look as good. I tried using Premiere Pro 2 and it looks very soft (that is what made me upgrade to CS3).

If you are willing to upgrade to CS3 you can do what you want to do with just capturing 1 time in HD and using the same footage on the timeline for both the wide and zoomed shots, however, it does put quite a strain on your machine and you need to have a fairly fast one to make the workflow tolerable.

Good luck.

Eric Lagerlof · May 8th, 2008, 07:12 PM

Lloyd, thanks for piping in. Your comments solve a question in regards to your earlier thread. Actually, blowing up the HDV footage up to 100% in PPro 2 in an SD timeline has been OK for me, pretty sharp as long as I was in good focus. I'll try the CS3 trial and see if it sharpens up more.

But the comments in that earlier thread about blowing up HD footage in an HD timeline, (capturing once and editing in an Aspect accelerated project), was what got my interest up, and apparently, especially with interlace footage, that is very workable. Oh well.

Lloyd Coleman · May 8th, 2008, 07:20 PM

I don't think the trial will allow you to work with HD material, but you can try it. Maybe it was exporting from HD to SD that was the problem and not scaling in the SD timeline. If it looks good to you then it is problably O.K. because the the problem in PPro 2 was very noticable.

Eric Lagerlof · May 8th, 2008, 08:42 PM

Good point about the trial software-HDV codecs will almost surely not be included. It sounds like the only way to do this is the way we have been doing this. Any acceleration will be by brute CPU power, like a dual quad, for which gain I'd have to upgrade to CS3 anyway... Or Matrox, again a hardware thing, and again too expensive.

Shawn Kessler · May 8th, 2008, 09:16 PM

two words FINAL CUT

Jarrod Whaley · May 8th, 2008, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn Kessler

two words FINAL CUT

And what do you suggest that wouldn't require Eric to buy a new computer?

Eric Lagerlof · May 8th, 2008, 11:43 PM

Jarrod, thanks for looking out for me budget-wise. However, I edit on a macbook with bootcamp, and I do have FCP, so I can swing both ways.

Shawn, I tried to mix formats in FCP sometime ago and it wasn't pleasant. I find the 'snappy' editing experience I want slower in FCP than in PPro. (I'm editing dance and music theater mostly, so realtime response for music beats, is important.) And as others have noted, resizing HDV in a SD-DV timeline meant some pretty ugly video.

However, I'm not as experienced in FCP's ins and outs as I am in PPro, so if you have a workflow suggestion, I would love to hear it.

For me, what might work is having one HDV clip in an SD/DV project that I could edit resized to about 45% so it fits the SD frame, editing in REALTIME. Then, when I want my 'Close-Up' shots, I can resize and reposition the clip upt to 100% without any softness once exported as a SD movie for a SD-DVD. Got workflow suggestions as to how to do that with realtime editing performance?

Ervin Farkas · May 9th, 2008, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn Kessler

two words FINAL CUT

One word: Edius.

It's the only real mixed-format NLE. Capture only once, in HDV, start your SD project, import the footage, Edius will resize it automatically. Do your rough cut, leave the "full screen" clips as they are. Change the layout to "original size" and snap the 3D PIP effect to the ones you want blown up, then pan/scan throughout the entire frame as you like.

Eric Lagerlof · May 9th, 2008, 02:35 PM

Ervin, I like your idea, although Edius ain't cheap, Canopus has been strong on quality codecs for a long time, perhaps more so than editing systems.

I'm also going to see about Speed Edit from NewTek, also multi-format. Why NewTek doesn't have a trial version is beyond me, but I'm near a local reseller so I'll give that a try. If anyone has used Speed Edit I'd love to hear from them. My present circumstances make the price difference important, especially as I can get Speed Edit with an educational discount for around $300.

I'll give the Edius a try too. For this large group of projects coming up, where speed and disk space are big issues, the feature depth of either FCP Studio or Adobe's Studio package aren't important, so these options may be just the ticket.

Jiri Fiala · May 9th, 2008, 03:45 PM

Be aware though that SpeedEdit could be completely different from what you are probably used to. I don't get it. And I tried several times.

And Edius is not that expensive. You may not need its high-end Broadcast flavour. There is also Edius Neo for newcomers, which is like 200 bucks.

May 8th, 2008, 11:07 AM	#1
Eric Lagerlof Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Pacifica, CA Posts: 348	HDV as Close-ups in SD project I've been using using the same footage imported as both DV SD and HDV, using the SD footage as the 'wide shot' footage and then using the HDV footage, at anywhere between roughly 50% and 100% size for 'close-ups'. This has been for shooting 'labor of love' theatrical peformances with only one camera- an FX-1. Works OK, but editing the HDV footage is slow and capturing the footage 2x, once for SD and once for HDV is a bit overwhelming on HDD space. Anyone out there have some workflow improvement suggestions? Mainly, I'm trying to be able to edit mixed resolutions on the timeline at real speed. I was hoping Cineforms' Aspect might help, but it doesn't seem to be the answer I was hoping for. Has anyone tried editing with the Sheer Video codec? Any other ideas? Matrox, BTW, is beyond my budget, currently.

May 8th, 2008, 09:16 PM	#10
Shawn Kessler Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Ofallon missouri Posts: 123	Apple two words FINAL CUT

May 8th, 2008, 11:17 AM	#2
Adam Gold Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woodinville, WA USA Posts: 3,467	There are lots of solutions, but none are cheap. I just recently shot a couple of theatrical productions using 6-8 cams each. I'm using Adobe CS3 with Aspect HD. The real-time multicam switching in Premiere worked great. But that assumes you have four cams (the max it will take at one time). Can you rent or borrow more cams (and shooters)? The multicam option is one of the best ways to speed up your workflow, but doesn't help with the mixed resolution issues. EDIT: After reading your other thread I understand your issues a little better. I think what you're trying to do is admirable but shooing with only one camera is adding a lot of complexity to your projects. Unless your performers are absolutely perfect you'll get a lot of variation from show to show and trying to match shots from different shows will likely be a nightmare. And personally I would do everything in HD and only downconvert at the last minute. I'm not sure mixing SD and HD in a project buys you much, and seems to be creating issues for you. For the last show I did we shot six performances and even so, used only one for the backbone of the show DVD, using bits from other perfs as cutaways and coverage to mask our mistakes. But even so I think it would have been nearly impossible without shooting and editing multicam.

May 8th, 2008, 12:48 PM	#3
Eric Lagerlof Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Pacifica, CA Posts: 348	Adam, you're multi-cam solution IS the ideal way to go. However, no moola. The performances are by a children's theatrical school, to which my granddaughter attends. The DVD price is pretty much fixed at $25 per, of which I get $20. So figure $200-$400 per class/performance. About enough to pay for my granddaughter's tuition. So buying a 2nd camera, or investing in anything at the $1,000 and above level is out and hiring a 2nd camera/cameraperson is out for the same reason. My workflow would be ok, except this summer they are doing 10 classes/shows instead of the usual 6. In the end I'll probably just have to cut down on my cutaways, so to speak.

May 8th, 2008, 02:15 PM	#4
Bill Engeler Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Brussels, Belgium Posts: 162	Eric - It seems to me you have 3 choices: 1. Continue as you are doing, spending a lot of time capturing. 2. Only capture in HDV. Use HDV settings for the entire project. For "closer" shots, just enlarge the shot on the HDV timeline. Yeah, it won't look good if you finish in HD, but when you downconvert to SD at the very end, everything will look the same. The only problem here is if your system can't handle HDV very well. This leads to... 3. Spring for Cineform Aspect. The strain on your system won't be so great (but the files are larger), and you can edit as in choice 2. The initial outlay might be worth the time you save. Happy shooting!

May 8th, 2008, 05:31 PM	#5
Eric Lagerlof Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Pacifica, CA Posts: 348	Bill, the idea of 'blowing up' the shots in HDV and those shots looking OK upon SD export doesn't hold. David Newman suggested this in another post as well, and I have tried the concept both with and without Aspect, which I have a trial copy of. David mentioned that using an interlace codec, such as my FX-1's 1080i, causes the problems. We've been going back and forth in the Cineform Showcase forum. Thanks for the suggestion though.

May 8th, 2008, 05:59 PM	#6
Lloyd Coleman Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Posts: 256	Eric, I have been watching this thread and the one on the Cineform forum. I am the one you referenced in that thread. I am able to zoom in using HD footage that still looks great when exported to and SD project, but only one way. I put HD footage on an SD timeline in Premiere CS3. If I scale to 45% it fills the whole frame. I can scale up to 100% and it still looks good. I have tried using Cineform and could not make it look as good. I tried using an HD timeline in Premiere and it does not look as good. I tried using Premiere Pro 2 and it looks very soft (that is what made me upgrade to CS3). If you are willing to upgrade to CS3 you can do what you want to do with just capturing 1 time in HD and using the same footage on the timeline for both the wide and zoomed shots, however, it does put quite a strain on your machine and you need to have a fairly fast one to make the workflow tolerable. Good luck.

May 8th, 2008, 07:12 PM	#7
Eric Lagerlof Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Pacifica, CA Posts: 348	Lloyd, thanks for piping in. Your comments solve a question in regards to your earlier thread. Actually, blowing up the HDV footage up to 100% in PPro 2 in an SD timeline has been OK for me, pretty sharp as long as I was in good focus. I'll try the CS3 trial and see if it sharpens up more. But the comments in that earlier thread about blowing up HD footage in an HD timeline, (capturing once and editing in an Aspect accelerated project), was what got my interest up, and apparently, especially with interlace footage, that is very workable. Oh well.

May 8th, 2008, 07:20 PM	#8
Lloyd Coleman Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Posts: 256	I don't think the trial will allow you to work with HD material, but you can try it. Maybe it was exporting from HD to SD that was the problem and not scaling in the SD timeline. If it looks good to you then it is problably O.K. because the the problem in PPro 2 was very noticable.

May 8th, 2008, 08:42 PM	#9
Eric Lagerlof Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Pacifica, CA Posts: 348	Good point about the trial software-HDV codecs will almost surely not be included. It sounds like the only way to do this is the way we have been doing this. Any acceleration will be by brute CPU power, like a dual quad, for which gain I'd have to upgrade to CS3 anyway... Or Matrox, again a hardware thing, and again too expensive.

May 8th, 2008, 11:43 PM	#12
Eric Lagerlof Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Pacifica, CA Posts: 348	Jarrod, thanks for looking out for me budget-wise. However, I edit on a macbook with bootcamp, and I do have FCP, so I can swing both ways. Shawn, I tried to mix formats in FCP sometime ago and it wasn't pleasant. I find the 'snappy' editing experience I want slower in FCP than in PPro. (I'm editing dance and music theater mostly, so realtime response for music beats, is important.) And as others have noted, resizing HDV in a SD-DV timeline meant some pretty ugly video. However, I'm not as experienced in FCP's ins and outs as I am in PPro, so if you have a workflow suggestion, I would love to hear it. For me, what might work is having one HDV clip in an SD/DV project that I could edit resized to about 45% so it fits the SD frame, editing in REALTIME. Then, when I want my 'Close-Up' shots, I can resize and reposition the clip upt to 100% without any softness once exported as a SD movie for a SD-DVD. Got workflow suggestions as to how to do that with realtime editing performance?

May 9th, 2008, 02:35 PM	#14
Eric Lagerlof Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Pacifica, CA Posts: 348	Ervin, I like your idea, although Edius ain't cheap, Canopus has been strong on quality codecs for a long time, perhaps more so than editing systems. I'm also going to see about Speed Edit from NewTek, also multi-format. Why NewTek doesn't have a trial version is beyond me, but I'm near a local reseller so I'll give that a try. If anyone has used Speed Edit I'd love to hear from them. My present circumstances make the price difference important, especially as I can get Speed Edit with an educational discount for around $300. I'll give the Edius a try too. For this large group of projects coming up, where speed and disk space are big issues, the feature depth of either FCP Studio or Adobe's Studio package aren't important, so these options may be just the ticket.

May 9th, 2008, 03:45 PM	#15
Jiri Fiala Major Player Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Brno Czech Republic Posts: 453	Be aware though that SpeedEdit could be completely different from what you are probably used to. I don't get it. And I tried several times. And Edius is not that expensive. You may not need its high-end Broadcast flavour. There is also Edius Neo for newcomers, which is like 200 bucks.