Do you record in HD and down convert or simply record in SD?

If you record in HD and have to downconvert for any practicaL reason, you can always later pick up the footage again to produce in HD.
That will not be possible of course, if you shoot in SD.

If your deliver medium is SD (DVD), the simplest workflow is to shoot in SD. There are some workflows that can deliver better results by downconverting from HDV to SD but they are not native to any of the NLEs so unless you know what you are doing, it is best to stick with SD the whole way down the delivery chain.

Gosh, I couldn't disagree more. I'm with Jo on this one. Having done it both ways, I can tell you the results are vastly superior if you keep the whole process in HDV until you burn the disc. It's two steps in Premiere -- that's as close to native as possible -- and the SD DVDs come out way better than anything shot in SD mode on even the best cam. At least for me.

Barron, you might want to avoid shooting in HD and downconverting with the camera for the best image. I hear that the downconversion process is not as good as if you were to say, render HD to SD in Vegas, etc.

I'm with you Adam, HD all the way to the burn.

Gosh, I couldn't disagree more. I'm with Jo on this one. Having done it both ways, I can tell you the results are vastly superior if you keep the whole process in HDV until you burn the disc. It's two steps in Premiere -- that's as close to native as possible -- and the SD DVDs come out way better than anything shot in SD mode on even the best cam. At least for me.

Adam, Sorry but I disagree with you there. How come the results are vastly superior if you down convert to SD? Please explain why. Don't you loose anything in the process? I would have thought that keeping it all the way in SD the results should be better. Is there any technical person out there who can explain to us or tell us who is right (with test results if possible) .

Stelios

Oh I do not need a rock steady proof to show that. I know what I've seen, The DVD, burnt from HD footage in a HD project in Vegas beats the quality of downconversion prior to the actual burning. And I am sure that this is not only the case in Vegas, but in all apps.
And it's not only mee asuring that, but I have read that repeatedly.

There is a similar case in audio. If you record, mix and master audio at 24-bit, and then create the final 16-bit CD from that 24-bit master, the results are way superior to if you did the whole project at 16-bit, largely for reasons of accuracy.

*Especially* if you are doing colour corrections or any other video processing, using the highest resolution material you can should ensure the FX have good material to work on, and this should be superior than doing the same processes on lower resolution video.

Bottom line is to try it yourself both ways, and see whether your own material (and workflows) benefits most from which method.

Adam, Sorry but I disagree with you there. How come the results are vastly superior if you down convert to SD? Please explain why. Don't you loose anything in the process? I would have thought that keeping it all the way in SD the results should be better. Is there any technical person out there who can explain to us or tell us who is right (with test results if possible) .

SteliosI'm not a technical expert so I can't explain it fully, and in theory you should be right -- there should be no difference.

But in practice I find that anything you do in post degrades your footage a little bit, especially when you are re-rendering things like effects and such. Starting from a higher base gives you better quality throughout the process, and any degradation is happening to a higher "level" of quality that is mitigated when you downconvert.

The way I like to think of it is as if HDV is five gallons of water in a five gallon bucket, and DV is one gallon in a one gallon bucket. If you carry the big bucket around and some sloshes out, you still have more than enough to fill the one-gallon bucket.

More literally, lets say you're working with 1080 footage. You do some stuff, maybe re-encode or re-render and you lose 5% of your apparent resolution through degradation. It shouldn't happen as this is all digital, but we all know sometimes it does. So now you have an apparent resolution (how it looks to your eyes) of about 1025. Do this a few times and maybe it ends up looking like 925 or so. You then downconvert at the last minute to 480 and you still have 480 because your earlier losses are below the perceptible limits of the new resolution. If you'd converted to SD or shot that way from the beginning, each bit of loss would add up and to your eyes it might look like something in the neighborhood of 410 lines of resolution or so, which *is* visible.

I've been accused of being all wet on this, but that's my experience. Viewing my DVDs done this way shows they are virtually identical to the BD versions on a 65-inch screen. You can tell they're not HD, but the difference is slight. Always keep the highest quality you can for as long as you can. Besides, now you have an HDV master you can simply burn to Blu-Ray if you suddenly need one. If you have a PC that can handle HDV easily, I don't see any downside to doing it this way.

In Premiere with Prospect, a simple "Export to Encore" results in near HD DVDs for me.

But as always, your mileage may vary.

I agree with the others. Shoot in HD. Edit in HD. Output to DVD with a good program like Adobe Encore and get as close to Blu-Ray quality as possible.

OK guys this is what I will do. Shoot in HDV, edit in HDV and then burn in DVD.
Then do the same thing, same scene, shoot in DV, edit in DV and burn in DVD. Get a few friends over some drinks show both videos on the same big LCD screen and ask them if they notice any difference and see. This will be interesting... It's not that I don't want to shoot in HDV, its because I know that my clients, so far, want the finished product in DVD with no intention to change it in the foreseeable future. Besides editing in DV (with my PC) is quicker.

Stelios

Your results will probably depend upon how many drinks they have.

Just be sure you don't tell them which is which and do proper A/B switching. Or just burn both versions to the same disk with random changes.

Your results will probably depend upon how many drinks they have.

Just be sure you don't tell them which is which and do proper A/B switching. Or just burn both versions to the same disk with random changes.

Come and join us Adam. We provide the ouzo and scotch and some delightful Cypriot snugs..."Or just burn both versions to the same disk with random changes" That's an excellent idea! I will try that. Thanks

Cheers
Stelios

Barron, you might want to avoid shooting in HD and downconverting with the camera for the best image. I hear that the downconversion process is not as good as if you were to say, render HD to SD in Vegas, etc.
Rendering to SD and out-of-the-camera conversion to SD are two good points Jeff. In my mind, I was picturing the render method. I'm testing both and should have a frame grab from each very soon.

Come and join us Adam. Funny you should mention that. In an hour I leave for Athens to shoot a doc for the next month. So I will almost be in your neighborhood.

In terms of your test, you might also want to include the third option: Shooting in HDV but downconverting upon capture.

While we are discussing this, I submit it is important to keep things in context when shooting and editing.

What is the project and how important is it that is be absolute best?

It is clearly MUCH simpler if you are delivering in SD to shoot in SD. If you really think you are going to deliver in HD later, shoot in HD. Or if you need a demo, shoot in Hd and make your BR demo.

I shot a wedding with my FX1000s in 16:9 SD and it looks great. It might have been improved if I had shot in HD, but how much? Is it worth the extra effort in post? It is debateable.

One thing is for sure, you certainly don't lose anything by shooting in HD. But how much is gained is not so clear if you're going to downconvert.

...It might have been improved if I had shot in HD, but how much? Is it worth the extra effort in post? It is debateable.

that's exactly my point Jeff. In any case I will proceed with my test mentioned earlier.

Stelios

The particular advantages/disadvantages of the DV and HDV codecs also come into play depending on what you're shooting, camera motions, and light levels. HDV is prone to certain artifacts with large amounts of motion in your image (pans, trees in the wind, waves), so DV can have an advantage IF your final product is at SD resolution. I've found HDV output from my Z1 is much more likely to get blocky on pans at +12 dB gain in bad lighting, but that isn't an issue in DV. DV also has better sound encoding, although my ear and subject material can't tell the difference.

I believe HDV has better color space, so recording and editing in HDV (or a high-def intermediate codec) should have better color originally and hold up better for corrections. And the five gallon bucket analogy is definitely applicable to maximizing resolution of your final product.

I've seen previous threads claiming an advantage to filming in HDV and downconverting to DV in camera for editing (vs. filming in DV). I haven't tested this workflow very much, but theoretically it seems like it should be the worst of both worlds. HDV artifacts downconverted into DV color space and resolution.

Bottom line: experiment with everything, and use what looks good and works well in your workflow.

-Terence

I look forward to hearing about your test, Stelios.

Here are the stills:

Picasa Web Albums - Barron - HD to SD (http://picasaweb.google.com/cynbar/HDToSD#)

Wow Barron, what a drastic difference!

Thank you for posting those!

Hi Barron,
Are both those shots taken from the Veags timeline using the snapshot function?
Are these raw?
Which one looks better to you?

Cheers

It is clearly MUCH simpler if you are delivering in SD to shoot in SD. If you really think you are going to deliver in HD later, shoot in HD. Or if you need a demo, shoot in Hd and make your BR demo.

I'm with Jeff on this one, and I use my Z1 to record in 16:9 SD when I absolutely know for sure that the project will only ever be wanted on DVD.

Of course downconversion has to happen somewhere. If you shoot in SD your camera downconverts on the fly from chips to tape. If you shoot in HDV it downconverts on the fly out through firewire, and of course the last resort is to downconvert the edited HDV timeline.

The latter (assuming you have a decent NLE system) will give you very slightly better looking pictures, but good looking images owe far more to photographic experience than they do to downconversion algorithms.

My filming of weddings and events mean I only have one crack at the whip, and the safest way is to record in SD. I've had people come crying to me saying that HDV dropouts have ruined important parts of their film. When I ask why they filmed in HDV when they knew for sure they were delivering on DVD, I don't have much sympathy for the, 'it gives better pictures' reply.

It's not better if you have half-second dropouts, now is it? As in any business, we're here to deliver the goods. This means reducing the variables as much as possible. Use one piece of wire, not four pieces joined with connectors.

tom.

@Jeff: I was surprised too.

@Simon: The snapshot was taken from the Vegas timeline using the Best/Full setting.

It's worth me doing another test and scribbling down things like what my render settings and camera settings were. Starting out, I assumed the Vegas render would be better. But it looks to me in this situation as though the *in camera* conversion retained more detail.

I've had lots of fun tweaking with sharpness and gain and gamma lately. From what I've read, most people want the picture looking great straight out of the cam. Not me. I want the greatest dynamic range (or latitude) captured to bring into a serious editor. Then the fun really begins.

Tom, I've had two instances of drop outs when filming in HD that that ruined critical portions of video. It had not occurred to me that filming in SD would eliminate this issue.

I am absolutely going to be more selective in shooting HD from this point onward.

Thanks.

It certainly doesn't eliminate the issue Jeff, but it makes it far more correctable. If you've happened upon a bad tape then recording in SD means you can repair the 'sparkly' frames individually in Photoshop - as I'm sure we all have. If you've shot an important event in HDV and suffered the complete loss of 15 frames or so, you'd better plan on emigrating.

If you've happened upon a bad tape then recording in SD means you can repair the 'sparkly' frames individually in Photoshop - as I'm sure we all have. If you've shot an important event in HDV and suffered the complete loss of 15 frames or so, you'd better plan on emigrating.

Personally I've had fewer problems with dropouts from my HDV cameras than I did with my DV ones, but that may just be good luck. The surest way to guard against dropouts from any camera is to have a second camera rolling at all times, typically from a different angle - which also makes for a more interesting video.

It certainly doesn't eliminate the issue Jeff, but it makes it far more correctable. If you've happened upon a bad tape then recording in SD means you can repair the 'sparkly' frames individually in Photoshop - as I'm sure we all have. If you've shot an important event in HDV and suffered the complete loss of 15 frames or so, you'd better plan on emigrating.


Recording to tape and a CF unit is surely where it is at for all of us. Best of both worlds.

That may be true. I was spoiled with my old VX2100 and PD150s. NEVER had a single issue in nearly one hundred weddings, with the FX1000 dropped frames are a constant source of worry. My first wedding with my new Sony I had a broken clip that occured at the worst possible time, at at a subsequent wedding the same thing happened, right at the point where the bride and groom were being introduced.

Well so far (touch wood, and I have filmed nearly 20 events) I never had any dropped frames with my Z5. Ofcousre 90% of these were recorded in SD and most of them were also recorded on the MRC1 as well.

Stelios

Well so far (touch wood, and I have filmed nearly 20 events) I never had any dropped frames with my Z5. Ofcousre 90% of these were recorded in SD and most of them were also recorded on the MRC1 as well.
Stelios



I have filmed about 40 hours now on the FX1000 via tape and had no dropped frames.

I certainly will be getting a CF unit soon though.

Anyone out there know how much a 32 gig card will cost? Approx.

Assuming 32 gig will give one around 150 minutes in SD.

How many minutes in HD?

As I have mentnioned in other posts I have a bad camera. My second camera doesn't have issues, only the first one.

....Anyone out there know how much a 32 gig card will cost? Approx.

Assuming 32 gig will give one around 150 minutes in SD.

How many minutes in HD?

Martin, Have a look a this post:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/sony-hvr-mrc1k-cf-card-recorder/115817-transcend-32gb-133x-flash-cards.html

Whether you record in SD or HD the recording minutes are the same.

Stelios

Picasa Web Albums - Barron - Shed HDV-SD t... (http://picasaweb.google.com/cynbar/ShedHDVSDTests#)

The render settings in Vegas Pro 8.0c were MainConcept MPEG-2.
Template: DVD Architect 24p NTSC video stream

The camera settings were
Gamma: Cinematone1
Blk Comp: OFF
Knee: Low
Color mode: Cinematone1
Color level/phase/depth: 0
WB Shift : 0
Sharpness: 0 and -7 as noted on the pics
Skintone dtl: OFF

It still looks as though the in camera conversion has a *tad* more detail. There was more difference between the two methods in my first test when the sharpness was at +7.

I'm finding that it is necessary to increase the quality using Frame Controls (the terminology in Apple's Compressor product) when doing the conversion from HDV to SD to make the SD DVD. This DRAMATICALLY increases the processing time, roughly 14 hours on an 8way system set up as a cluster.

Also you can get a 32Gb Ridata 233x card for $105 at supermediastore.com. They are working well for me.

I'm finding that it is necessary to increase the quality using Frame Controls (the terminology in Apple's Compressor product) when doing the conversion from HDV to SD to make the SD DVD. This DRAMATICALLY increases the processing time, roughly 14 hours on an 8way system set up as a cluster.

Also you can get a 32Gb Ridata 233x card for $105 at supermediastore.com. They are working well for me.

OK guys this is what I will do. Shoot in HDV, edit in HDV and then burn in DVD.
Then do the same thing, same scene, shoot in DV, edit in DV and burn in DVD. Get a few friends over some drinks show both videos on the same big LCD screen and ask them if they notice any difference and see. This will be interesting... It's not that I don't want to shoot in HDV, its because I know that my clients, so far, want the finished product in DVD with no intention to change it in the foreseeable future. Besides editing in DV (with my PC) is quicker.

Stelios

Remember this?

Well, finally I did the test last night with some friends ( 8) that I have invited over and showed them a DVD mixed with scenes filmed in HDV and DV and marked those scenes in numbers, gave them a piece of paper with the numbers on the one side with two columns marked HDV and DV and all they had to do is to place an X next to the numbered scene if , to their judgement was filmed in HDV or DV. Guess what? I had 6 scenes, 3 HDV and 3 DV, I got the following:
Scene.... HDV... DV
1. HDV.... 3x... 5x
2. HDV.... 4x... 4x
3. DV..... 2x... 6x
4. HDV.... 5x... 3x
5. DV..... 6x... 2x
6. DV..... 4x... 4x

Explanation Note: If you take Scene No.1(shot in HDV) 3x=3 guys though that it was HDV and 5x=5 guys though it was DV

It seems from the above (for me at least) that the results are the same whether you shoot in HDV or DV and render to DVD.

Stelios

I found the same thing, no difference, at least no noticeable difference.

Stelios - well done - an interesting test and result.
What I'd like to see is the same test to find out whether downconverters make that much difference if you're watching a DVD into a big new 1080P TV.

OK, I know they do for test-chart zonies, but for real filmmakers?

1) Take an HDV camera and film in DV (i.e. downconvert between chips and tape).

2) Same camera but film in HDV and downconvert in the camera.

3) Same camera, downconvert the timeline.

I'm guessing the worst downconversion will give the best looking DVD if that disc is boosted by being played in an upscaling DVD player, say.

tom.

Well Tom someone else must do these tests now. I have done my part:-) Maybe you or Jeff. No more beers left in my fridge (for the moment)...lol

Stelios