Shooting with an FX, will either Vegas or Premiere Pro do this?

Thanks

Vegas will, yes. Premiere Pro can too. You'll be best off if your workflow in Vegas is:
1. Shoot HD
2. Capture/Convert with Cineform
3. Bring HD into a Vegas timeline
4. Let Vegas downconvert


If you are working in Premiere, just downconvert in the camera. You'll lose a little quality, but Premiere's resampling tools aren't that wonderful when compared to Vegas.

I know that Vegas users want to feel satisfied with their choice of NLE, and that it is difficult for you with the constraints placed on you at times, but I have not personally had any quality problems using HDV footage in a DV project within Premiere Pro.

The ability to zoom in a bit and pan around HDV footage often outweighs the convenience of using DV downconverted in the camera. And the footage looks fine to me.

We all love having Spot around, but he is just a tad prejudiced towards Vegas. It isn't a big problem, but please understand that he might, now and then, voice an opinion that is not based on fact as much as hearsay.

An easier way would be to switch the output from HDV to DV and capture that way. But you CAN'T do an offline in DV then online in HDV.

heath

This thread is about shooting HDV, downloading and editing DV then redoing as HDV using the same EDL (offline in DV, 'online' in HDV):

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39934

It would appear that at this time some software is able, assuming that the hardware behaves like the Z1 and uses the same timecode for the DV output as for the HDV output.

GB

<<<-- Originally posted by Steven Gotz :

We all love having Spot around, but he is just a tad prejudiced towards Vegas. It isn't a big problem, but please understand that he might, now and then, voice an opinion that is not based on fact as much as hearsay. -->>>

Steven,
You missed the point COMPLETELY. Premiere does not have good resampling tools. Period. I'm not the only one finding this, and it's not just a Premiere thing, either. No tool has resampling features as good as Vegas does at this time. Search the web, you'll find many who have found as I have.
To reiterate;
IF you are using any NLE other than Vegas, then let the camera do the resample. ANY NLE, not just Premiere. But if you are using Vegas, then resample rather than downconvert. It costs time, but the quality is much better.
If you want to compare quality, let's do it. Several others have done so.
The reason Vegas has superior resampling tools is because it uses the same algorithms for video resample as it does for audio. Audio is much more critical than video in terms of fooling the ear vs fooling the eye.
If you have exceptionally high end video resampling tools such as a Teranex or FlipFactory setup, or a Snell and Wilcox box, then use those instead.
I also use Premiere Pro, and am quite comfortable with it's strengths and weaknesses. I don't see it's resampling as a weakness when compared to other tools, excepting Vegas. On the audio and resampling side of the discussion, Premiere Pro sucks compared to Vegas. There are other places Premiere Pro is better than Vegas, and if you wanna look around this forum or other forums I moderate, you'll find that I've said that on many occasions, with specifics as to where I think PP is superior.
I'll see your 'hearsay' and raise you a 'demonstrable fact.' :-)

Steven,

After reading your rant on Spot ("We all love having Spot around, but he is just a tad prejudiced towards Vegas."), I checked out your web-site listed under your tag-line.

Is there any chance you are "a tad prejudiced" toward PremierePro?

Absolutely. There is no question that I am a Premiere Pro user. But I have never made derogatory comments toward Vegas. Nor, in this case do I see any problem in Premiere Pro.

I have taken a hard look at the footage downconverted in the camera, and downconverted in Premiere Pro. I certainly don't see a problem with Premiere Pro. While it is certainly possible that Vegas is better in this respect, to say that Premiere Pro sucks is just plain wrong.

Perhaps the workflow Spot chose was different than what I used? Using the Cineform AVI in a DV project has proven to be more than adequate to the task.

I would, however, be happy to take a look at his proof.

Just look through this forum, the DMN forum, and the Vegas forum. You'll find plenty. If someone wants to host files for HDV, we can put those up too.

Or, you could just do as many others have done, and resample the footage in Vegas and Premiere Pro. Where you're missing the point is that if you capture HDV using Cineform for either application, then downsample to SD in Premiere and Vegas from the SAME .avi file, you'll find that Premiere is softer and slightly less saturated than the Vegas file is. Of course, you can do this same thing with Pinnacle, Avid, Media Studio Pro, or Final Cut. In all these apps, you'll find that downsampling in the camera is a better option.
You've got a cam, you can use the Cineform demo and the Vegas demo. I'm not interested in fighting a debate with someone who apparently isn't willing to be open minded about such a trivial thing. Try it for yourself.
"more than adequate" doesn't mean that it's an accurate and clean downsample. The whole point is to get the best video possible, as close to the quality image that the HDV cam shot in the first place, right?

I'll agree, using the word "sucks" wasn't appropriate, since Vegas is the only software tool that excels at this particular function. I've since edited/amended my original post. Vegas always has been great for upsample and downsample, it's the main reason that Sony, MGM, and Paramount have been using it for years as an upsample/downsample application, and a good part of why Sony Pictures acquired the software in the first place. Premiere is a great app, no doubt. But it's not as good as Vegas at resampling/downsampling/upsampling.

Thanks to all who have tried to help. I have now tried downconverting in the camera (FX1) and it compresses the picture into 4:3. I was hoping to simply crop the sides, or retain a 16:9 but in SD. Is there any way to do either of these?

Thanks

Paul...

4:3 letterboxed, 4:3 anamorphic or 4:3 with the ends cropped off?

I'm not sure what anamorphic means, but letterbox or cropped sides would be acceptable. I don't want distortion.

Paul,
HERE (http://www.moronthrottle.com/images/16x9to4x3.jpg) is an image that will show you what each of those conversion types will look like. The image on the left represents your HDV footage...the one on the right is the 4:3 downconverted.

If you make a project in Premiere, for example, and tell it that it is a 16x9 project you can use your anamorphic footage and it will look correct. If you author that to DVD when played in a DVD player on a 4:3 TV it will look letterboxed but be better than using the letterboxing method of conversion since it retains all of the possible resolution for the image not for the two black bars.

Lemme know if that clears it up for you. If not we can help with more answers. : )

PSA:

You can't use the word "Sucks" here.

I almost got kicked out for that. *CHEESE*

- ShannonRawls

Thanks Sean, sorry to be so dense, but I'm still not certain that I understand.

I am using Premiere Pro 1.5 and an FX1. I am shooting in HDV for the day when HD editing is cheap and an HD-DVD/Bluray player is a household item.

For now, I want to release on DVD for playback on eith a 4:3 or 16:9 tv.

Are you saying to set Premier to 16:9, set the camera's TV Type to 16:9 and DV out and that the DVD authoring software will correct the anamorphic appearance that I see when editn in Premier?

Will almost all current DVD software do this?

Thanks

>You can't use the word "Sucks" here.

Well now - let's have full disclosure here. It wasn't just "sucks", that you said.

In that SAME sentence you said ... um... "audio" and ... ahhh ... "HDV". No wonder it got you in hot water!!!