Since Heuris has failed both to release its $600 D-VHS encoder and their $5000 encoder doesn't support the HDV camcorder -- I've been hard at work.

Using ffmpegX with my HDVviaduct plug-in (bundled with 4HDV), you can move the resulting MPEG-2 Program Stream file to:

* any PC via LAN/WLAN
* Virtual PC running on your Mac

Using either, the Womble MPEG2VCR ($120) will CONVERT a Program Stream file to Transport Stream file. (Womble is a PC-only program. There is no OS X program that will convert PS to TS.)

This happens quite fast, even under VPC, because nothing has to be decoded or recoded. No quality is lost.

Now move the TS file back to your Mac.

Then you can use DVHSCap to output the TS file to your HD1/HD10 camcorder.

Unfortunately, while you can record to D-VHS, playback is not acceptable.

You can also output via FireWire to either a D-VHS deck or HDV camcorder -- to transcode to HD YPbPr. Now you can present from a Mac to an HDTV.

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : Since Heuris has failed both to release its $600 D-VHS encoder and their $5000 encoder doesn't support the HDV camcorder -- I've been hard at work.

Using ffmpegX with my HDVviaduct plug-in (bundled with 4HDV), you can move the resulting MPEG-2 Program Stream file to:

* any PC via LAN/WLAN
* Virtual PC running on your Mac

Using either, the Womble MPEG2VCR ($120) will CONVERT a Program Stream file to Transport Stream file. -->>>

Why do we need Virutal PC? Is it necessary? Or even a PC in general?

To recap:

1. 4HDV.
2. SDK17 (from Apple).
3. QT 6 mpeg2 encoder.
4. ffmpegX for?? and you buy it where??
5. mpeg2vcr ($120) that we buy where??

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : Why do we need Virutal PC? Is it necessary? Or even a PC in general?
-->>

Sorry, Womble is a PC-only program. There is no OS X program that will convert PS to TS. I've updated my original post, thank you.

If you don't have a PC:

1. 4HDV ($100)
2. QT 6 mpeg2 Decoder (from Apple $20).
3. ffmpegX ($15)
3. mpeg2vcr ($120)
4. VPC from Apple ($130)

TOTAL $355

HD editing--priceless


4HDV gives you links to where you get all software so you don't need to worry about WHERE now.

FFmpegX is a nice little shareware app. It does not do the actual compression, it is just a user interface for some Unix code (which you can run under OSX) to make DivX, MPEG1, MPEG2 and MPEG4 movies. You have to download some of the Unix code on your own. It's a nice hack, but not very easy to use sometimes. The Unix code reads video directly, not through QuickTime so you can't just toss anything into it.

Actually, it does use QT for decode.

In any case, from FCP one makes a movie (.mov) which is used by ffmpegX.

And the latest version is very easy to use -- with 4HDV docs.

Don't scare Heath with "UNIX code."

The software is written in C, just like Mac applications. And compiled for the Mac.

And, strictly speaking all the code are OS X versions as there are versions for Linux and Windows too.

Remember, without HDVbridge from 4HDV, ffmpegX only does SD--not HD.

> Don't scare Heath with "UNIX code."

Didn't mean to scare. Didn't scare me, shouldn't scare him either. At least for me it has not been a breeze to use, whatever language or compiler was used, but it is usable and you need not be a guru of any kind.

> without HDVbridge from 4HDV, ffmpegX only does SD--not HD.

You mean you need 4HDV to read files from the HD1/HD10, right? I ask because I had no trouble making a 1280x720 Divx file. Took about 20 minutes for a 2 minute file on my 400 MHz G4.

So, it is possible to make an 'HD' slideshow style video, using computer graphics, stills, etc. without even having to have an HD camera! Cool, eh? Of course, it's not really video.

Note: on my Mac the 24p DivX I made would only play at about about 20 fps :-(

--
i.

This solution is still not a Mac solution. I already used it a few weeks back but it is a joint mac-pc solution not that complicated to figure out. On virtual PC unless you have a very fast G4 it is long and highly unstable. I still wait for a Mac solution that involves less than a 5 step compression... Still it is better than nothing... I agree.

<<<-- Originally posted by Eric Bilodeau : On virtual PC unless you have a very fast G4 it is long and highly unstable. Still it is better than nothing... I agree. -->>>

If you do it right it's only 50% longer than realtime. No decoding or encoding is done. Just the change from PS to TS. Nothing unstable about it. I have no idea what you are doing.


And, I have no idea what you mean by "less than a 5 step compression." There is always only 1 decode and 1 recode. That's the key to keeping quality high.

I don't think you are using 4HDV, so you must be using some other scheme.

<<<-- Originally posted by Ignacio Rodriguez : You mean you need 4HDV to read files from the HD1/HD10, right? -->>>

The JVC files are incompatible with the Apple MPEG-2 decoder. So you need HDVbridge to solve this.

And you need HDVviaduct to get HD MPEG-2.

Two blocks and two solutions.

1-demux, 2-uncompress, 3-edit, 4-recompress, 5-re-mux, looks like at least 5 steps, not counting capture, transfer to VPC, transfer back to mac and transfer to the HD10. As for the unstability and speed issue it does not concern the process itself but virtual PC, it is much faster to do it on a linked PC.

> This solution is still not a Mac solution. I already used it a few
> weeks back but it is a joint mac-pc solution not that complicated
> to figure out. On virtual PC unless you have a very fast G4 it is
> long and highly unstable. I still wait for a Mac solution that
> involves less than a 5 step compression...

Well you can wait, but I firmly believe HD is important to Apple so you will not need to wait long. I could bet they are already working on a solution. Once QuickTime and Apple's MPEG2 codec are updated for HDV, working with this standard will be as easy as working with DV is today.

<<<-- Originally posted by Eric Bilodeau : 1-demux, 2-uncompress, 3-edit, 4-recompress, 5-re-mux, looks like at least 5 steps. -->>>

Language problem. You said ""less than a 5 step compression."" The key word being Compression.

Yes, there are many steps. But,now matter how you slice it most of these will have to be done.

I'm not a unix loser, well, actually I am. I just had to defend my honor. ;-)

Still sounds like a lot of trouble for editing, but until Steve creates a different solution, or when someone has one, looks like we have to do all the steps.

BTW, how big is a one second file of HDV? Compressed and uncompressed?

I know DV is 3.6 mb per second, and I think that's compressed...

Back to my DVD...Shoot me now...Maybe I'll just cough up the cash to have someone else do it.

heath

<<<-- I could bet they are already working on a solution.

Once QuickTime and Apple's MPEG-2 codec are updated for HDV, working with this standard will be as easy as working with DV is today. -->>>

Of course they are working on a solution. And they have told me it will be as "easy as DV."

But that's why it's not like you describe. Transport Stream into FCP is not hard. You can get TS into Vegas right now.

Now ask a Vegas editor how fast the TS plays? Not only is it not realtime--it plays way under 30fps. So how are you going to edit?

Clearly Apple will not be able to stop there. It's got to make a realtime solution. 4HDV is already realtime. That means not a simple converter. FCP needs to really work with MPEG-2.

Then you need to get TS out. Which means Apple has to get a TS encoder. Really, an HD MPEG-2 encoder + a TS muxer. Heuris charges $5000 for this.

This will all take time. If we're lucky, MacWorld. Otherwise NAB 2004. Plus, Apple may prefer to wait until the Sony arrives as it is likely to be 1080i.

Ask Aspect how long they have been working. And 480p isn't even here yet.

I expect FCP V5 next year. And, it may be G5 only.

That's because HDV isn't at all like DV. Very different.

compressed HDV (720) is about 2.4 MB/s and uncompressed is about 65 to 70 MB/s, pretty heavy, around 4GB a minute.

Steve's got a point here, it might just be a G5 solution (for realtime) and it should take some time but they will work around the clock to be the first to offer a complete solution like DV.

And when one hour of uncompressed HD is compressed to Windows Media Video 9 the size is about 4GB. Would fit on a DVD. Hmmmmm. Although, at the lowest bit rate that would keep the image looking decent -- around 6.5Mbps -- it would take the average computer around 70 hours to encode it!
On the issue of Vegas, do I understand it right that even though Vegas *will* work with transport steams, the reason for demuxing using MPEG2toDVD is that this enables Vegas to preview in *realtime*?

Not to get off subject, but I hope they don't come out with FCP 5 next year. what a waste of money. I'll skip 4 altogether then.

heath

> Steve's got a point here, it might just be a G5 solution (for realtime)
> and it should take some time but they will work around the clock to
> be the first to offer a complete solution like DV.

Yes. Perhaps in the mean time they can have something soon that uses proxies in JPEG or DV, renders HD and works on G4.

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : Not to get off subject, but I hope they don't come out with FCP 5 next year. what a waste of money. I'll skip 4 altogether then.

heath -->>>

I purposely did NOT require v4 because I suspect many have not upgraded from v3.


Working with both HD and MPEG-2 is a big effort. 4HDV divides the job into stages. With a enough compute power one would not need to do so.

I think the G5 -- perhaps a dual G5 -- will be Apple's key to realtime CAPTURE and EDITING of HDV.

You could say HDV and the G5 are made for each other.

Of course, that leaves out PowerBook folks.

By the way 4HDV makes the files you edit with MUCH smaller. You can edit on a G4 Powerbook. And leave source on a big FW drive.

Apple has been known to promote a new solution while leaving current products behind. I have the reverse incentive. That's why 4HDV has a long life.

> Apple has been known to promote a new solution while leaving
> current products behind. I have the reverse incentive.
> That's why 4HDV has a long life.

Good! 'cause in the third world buying a new computer every two years is just not possible for most of us.

If the intent is to distribute a production via DVD, is it possible to use the JVC to capture HD quality footage in 720P mode, down-convert to SD and edit in 16:9 realtime, but with the idea that at a later date (once full realtime HD editing is problem-free) retain the option to edit and output the original tapes in HD mode?

My thinking is that the SD mode display of the original HD footage may be superior to SD originated footage, and that it may be possible to complete a project now in SD mode using available DV tools without completely abandoning the original HD footage; essentially saving the HD for later.

If this assumption is correct, would editing in SD mode (from HD native footage) solve all of the current editing problems?

Thanks for your insight,

Brian

> My thinking is that the SD mode display of the original HD footage
> may be superior to SD originated footage, and that it may be possible
> to complete a project now in SD mode using available DV tools
> without completely abandoning the original HD footage;
> essentially saving the HD for later.

I don't think the result from recompressing MPEG2 to DV will be better than what you can get from a native DV 16:9 camera. So if quality for today is the priority it might not be a good idea to use HDV. Then again the quality loss from recompressing might not be that bad. In general, I think your idea makes a lot of sense. I decided to hold off on HDV for now and bought a cheaper native 16:9 DV camera. That was before I knew about 4HDV and this site. I would think that if production speed and SD quality are the priority, like if doing some local ENG, use DV from start to finish because you will not care much for the original footage in 6 months anyway. But if you have time and are doing documentary work, fiction, etc., stuff that will have value in the future, then spend the extra time and use HDV. Mine is the later case but I unfortunately came to realize this recently, after buing a DV camera. Not that I am unhappy with the SD gear in itself, but knowing that in three years from now my footage will have a role similar to what VHS footage has today in a DV world is, well, not very inspiring.

Ignacio,

Despite some slow parts, my old 400 mhz G4 TiBook helped me touch up my movie for DVD, cut a short film, an 18 minute doc (most of it) and a couple of both long and short video projects for friends and family. Good computer! DVD Studio Pro 2 is a different story...But you should be able to edit 4HDV, albeit slowly.

heath

Heath,

If memory serves me correctly, your production was shot in color, but displayed in B&W. Was this film shot in HD?

Does it make sense to shoot HD now and edit in SD for distribution on DVD, but with the idea that your HD footage may at a later date have a future, i.e. be re-edited at full resolution?

I'm looking for a way to balance the desire to create a full length zero-budget feature with the HD10u's reality, and putting off editing the HD footage for later appears to be the solution provided I can have it both ways: Shoot in HD, downconvert to SD for easy editing, and output on DVD, and if a distributor likes what they see, still be in a position to return to the original HD footage.

What do you think? And isn't it true that the HD cannot reside on the DVD anyway?

Well, two of my films, a feature (SKYE FALLING) and a short (PUSH/PULL) were shot on DV, a Canon XL-1 (along with a GL-1 on PUSH/PULL). SKYE is in both black and white and color, PUSH/PULL is only in color. I shot everything in color, but someone has told me I may want to try shooting in B&W for my next film. Something about the image when going from color to B&W.

I remember, about 4 or 5 years ago, Jorge Lucas, el director de STAR WARS (sorry, taking Spanish in college right now) said he wouldn't go to DVD with SW until the Blue Laser HD DVDs were out. Well, demand beat that and now the Blue (and Red) Laser HD DVDs are here (or soon enough). But regular DVD-R, DVD-5 and -9 can't do HD. You'll have to go to SD. I know, the T2 Extreme Edition DVD that came out in early June 2003 claims the original film is in HD on the second disc. And you need Windows XP Pro (!) with a minimum 2 ghz (!!) machine to watch it. Apparently it's with Windows Media 9 (is that the right name), which is the Windows HD standard, I guess. Who knows if it really is HD or not. I don't have XP Pro. But we do at work...I wonder how fast our desktop machines are...? (We have Apple FCP edit systems, fyi--TV news).

A lot of that stuff is still alien to me, and even though I'm shooting a short film on the HD10 (full report after we wrap), I'm not moving too quick to edit. Mostly because I don't have the $400 needed to do so with FCP. The good news is, a friend of mine, who wants to work with me on a future, much higher-budgeted project, who shoots with a CineAlta and VariCam, is DP-ing, so this should really make for a good "test."

heath

Steve, with 4HDV, you mentioned that the editing files are smaller than uncompressed HD. How is this accomplished? By reducing the size of the uncompressed HD? Or is the m2t file converted directly to this other (smaller) file you mentioned (i.e. skipping the total deompression step)? And *what* are the files you'd be using (i.e. their file extension)?

<<<-- Originally posted by Dave Largent : Or is the m2t file converted directly to this other (smaller) file you mentioned (i.e. skipping the total deompression step)? And *what* are the files you'd be using (i.e. their file extension)? -->>>

I'm not sure what you mean by "total decompression."

To work in realtime the TS must be demuxed and decompressed and recompressed to a proxy movie (.mov).

This file is smaller by a factor of 10.

So you can keep the MPEG-2 files on a FW disk while you go edit on your powerbook. You won't need them till all your realtime editing is done.

Ah-you need to take the audio with you!