How do you guys downrez HDV to SD so that it keeps most of its clarity and sharpness? Most DVD's I have seen look almost as sharp as an HDV file, so how is it done?
(I have seen this topic before but I can't find it now)
Thanks

I just do it straight across. Sometimes I'll add just a tad of unsharp mask when doing it, but otherwise...in Vegas, straight across.

in Vegas, straight across.Forgive my confusion, I'm sorta new at this. When you mean straight across, do you mean, you take the HDV downconversion straight from the camera to SD on Vegas? Or do you work in the DV intermediary and do a "straight across" downconversion only when exporting to a DVD format or other file?

My understanding (albeit limited) was that working in HDV and a DV intermediary codec (like Cineform) and then downconverting to SD when making a DVD or final file was the best way. I read somewhere on DVXuser that a straight HDV to SD downconvert from the camera to the software didn't produce that nice an image -- worse than say a higher end prosumer SD like DVX100. (But I could've misread that.)

Forgive my confusion, I'm sorta new at this. When you mean straight across, do you mean, you take the HDV downconversion straight from the camera to SD on Vegas? Or do you work in the DV intermediary and do a "straight across" downconversion only when exporting to a DVD format or other file?

My understanding (albeit limited) was that working in HDV and a DV intermediary codec (like Cineform) and then downconverting to SD when making a DVD or final file was the best way. I read somewhere on DVXuser that a straight HDV to SD downconvert from the camera to the software didn't produce that nice an image -- worse than say a higher end prosumer SD like DVX100. (But I could've misread that.)

I'll take either the m2t to SD, or the CineForm to SD. As far as the comment regarding the DVX etc...I hope you misread that, but you may not have. I recently have read a couple posts that were so far out in the ether it made my head spin.

Shooting HDV and allowing Vegas to downsample produces an SD image superior to anything I've seen, including SD footage from the new XDCAMs.

...I read somewhere on DVXuser that a straight HDV to SD downconvert from the camera to the software didn't produce that nice an image -- worse than say a higher end prosumer SD like DVX100. (But I could've misread that.)An HDV downconvert from WHAT camera? On my Sony HVR-Z1U the downconvert from HDV 1080i to SD from the camera is awesome. Clearly better than anything an SD camera could have produced. Sony Vegas does a slightly better job at downconverting than the Z1 but I’ve read the Premiere Pro does NOT! So if you’re using Sony Vegas, you can get the absolute best quality by capturing as M2T and letting Vegas downconvert. If you are using Premiere Pro you will get the BEST quality from a Z1 by downconverting with the camera. I can’t speak for other cameras.

~jr

Kevin

I presume you are asking about workflow details. If not I apologise for my pedantic response. I’m somewhat new to this also but for what it’s worth here’s what I do:

I place the Cineform avi on the timeline in Vegas 6c with File, Properties set using the HDV 1080-60i (1440x1080, 29.970 fps) template. I do what little editing I need to do then select all the video then go Edit, Switches, and check Reduce Interlace Flicker, then go File, render as, save as type: MainConcept MPEG-2 (*mpg) then template: DVD Architect NTSC Widescreen video stream leaving the default settings as is, i.e. no audio and video rendering quality: Good. I render with those settings then come back and render the audio separately as an ac3 file ready for creating a Vob file in DVD Architect.

Now having said that I have no idea if this is the ‘best’ workflow but I’m impressed with the quality. I trust my comments are of use and would be most grateful if someone can suggest a superior workflow.

John, why would you not choose Best for video quality?

Maybe it is just my footage, but I noticed a straight render from HDV to SD makes it look like it was shot in SD.
Having seen SD that certainly does not look like it was shot in SD, I am wondering how to get this very sharp, clear look.
I thought maybe there were some plugins or setting that I could use.
Thanks

Good question Kevin! I recall reading somewhere, I seem to recall someone, maybe it was David Newman, my apologies if it was not, saying that ‘best’ is barely noticeably better than ‘good’ and it takes longer to render but I might be confused; wouldn’t be the first time!

Hopefully someone will post the absolute ‘best’ workflow in detail, as in step by step beginning with Cineform’s avi and ending with a DVDA compliant mpeg2 file, as I’m all ears and keen to learn. This kind of discussion about HDV and Vegas is so why I’m here.

Good question Kevin! I recall reading somewhere, I seem to recall someone, maybe it was David Newman, my apologies if it was not, saying that ‘best’ is barely noticeably better than ‘good’ and it takes longer to render but I might be confused; wouldn’t be the first time!

Hopefully someone will post the absolute ‘best’ workflow in detail, as in step by step beginning with Cineform’s avi and ending with a DVDA compliant mpeg2 file, as I’m all ears and keen to learn. This kind of discussion about HDV and Vegas is so why I’m here.

To Kevin: I'd respectfully suggest it's your footage.
To John: As Edward recently re-posted the information that Sony released back in Vegas 2.0: you'll want to render to Good, unless your project is made up mostly of stills/graphics. http://vasst.com/?v=training/VegasFAQnew.htm#preview has a listing of what Sony has indicated the various render/preview settings are processed as.

Douglas - The thing is, it looks beautiful in HDV. Like how film downrezzed to DVD looks. So I can help but thinking I should be able to come to a better, sharper, downrezzed final product.

Plus I have read a workflow off this board that improved my tests with HDV downrezzing, except I can't find it now. I'll try a yahoo search...

Have you tried downrezzing to 24P or 30P SD? I feel that a downrez to interlaced SD doesn't look as sharp as a downrez to progressive SD. I did some tests recently and the my 24P renders looked really sharp.

Yeah I've tried that. Hmmm, maybe and unsharp mask would help? Ill try some stuff.

Hmmm...

I'm wondering whether any of you guys have considered Bit-rates in your quest for DVD quality improvement?

The Bit-rate default settings for DVD 'Render As' templates in Vegas is not exactly optimum. The 'secret' to any good quality DVD master MPEG2 is to get the Bit-rate as close to maximum as you can get it!!

This is why DVD Shrink can put such good quality on a single layer DVD from a Dual layer "hollywood" double layer disk. i.e. the source Bit-rate is almost at the maximum, yet the compression algorithm has already defined the areas that receive the effects of maximum compression, so when the bit-rate is lowered by DVD Shrink to fit in the smaller space - the compression isn't applied to regions that would compomise quality to the point of being outrageously noticeable... If you have some idea of how JPEG compression operates on a still image; then you'll appreciate how it's motion counterpart works on moving images.

I also understood that the "Good" setting when Rendering a project in Vegas, was not the optimum image quality setting; as it's pixel blending algorithm is "bilinear scaling without integration", where-as "Best" uses "bicubic scaling with integration".

To quote Vegas help notes: "If you're using High Resolution stills (OR Video) that will be scaled down to the final output size, choosing BEST can prevent artifacts".

So here's what I have found to work pretty well... Render As> Select template> MPEG2> DVD Architect WS, then hit Custom> Project tab - Video quality - BEST> Video tab - Video Quality...slide to HIGH - Variable Bit-rate - Two pass - Max. 9,300 - Av. 8,000 - Min. 6,200

If you want to get funky with the other tabs, like the Advanced Video tab - you can... but the only real thing you might find usefull there is the "Allow motion compensation" setting and the "DC co-efficient" setting (that's Colour bit depth!!).

If you want to include sound (or not!!) then use the Audio tab to enable simultaneous audio encoding to the format and Bit-rate you can set...

You may notice that if you use these settings I've outlined; that the template type when you return to the "Save Render As" dialogue box after hitting OK has changed to (Untitled). This means of course; that until you save the adjusted template as a new named template, you have to adjust those custom settings for every DVD level render you make (same thing goes for WMV9 HD output).

The programmers of Vegas create the program so that any clutz can hit a button to render something... and voila!! they've got something to enjoy. That button has the no-pain Default setting applied to it. It's the "I'm not a tinkering, quality addicted perfectionist, who only wishes there was some way to improve what this thing does" type of persons' perfect setting.

You want more from a program - sometimes you just gotta dig...

The "Good" quality setting uses a bilinear resizing method. The "Best" setting uses Bicubic resizing. Anything where you're scaling video looks best using the "Best" setting. I know that using the "Best" setting adds a lot when you are doing photo or title animation and also when you are rescaling video as in 4:3 to 16:9 aspect ratio changes. I suspect it would make a difference in downrezzing as well.

I haven't been using mpg2 compression yet. I've been trying to get a sharp uncompressed downrezzed video first. But Ill try that, Steve.

I found that the unsharp mask works well to bring out the dark parts and sharpness.

I haven't been using mpg2 compression yet. I've been trying to get a sharp uncompressed downrezzed video first. But Ill try that, Steve.

I found that the unsharp mask works well to bring out the dark parts and sharpness.

Don't forget; the whole theory of editing HDV is - the number of processes you can reduce, will increase the final output quality.

That's where the capabilities of Cineform's CFHD intermediate codec come in. Or, for a different take with the same fundamental philosophy of doing as little as possible to the m2t stream there's Gearshifts proxies...

Unless you're using one of these options, you're already degrading the data by rendering to SD. As much as it's "uncompressed", you are losing data straight away in the down-sizing process, and that process must still make "decisions" about which pixels to keep and which to turf...

To then re-compress again with the DVD level MPEG2 is more than double dipping into the pool of available pixel information!!!

Keep in mind, that anything you do to HDV is going to degrade quality - ANYTHING!! It's a bit like audio CD rips of audio CD rips... regardless of how good digital is; there's still data degredation with each action.

That's why it's best to do all your editing/effects/titles etc. in either Gearshift proxy or CFHD AVI format... and the last thing you do is write to DVD level MPEG2. If you don't write a "DVD compliant MPEG2", your DVD authoring application may even attempt to compress all over again - so just be aware of that!!

If it does want to recompress your resultant MPEG2, render your edited clips to CFHD AVI, and load them directly into your DVD authoring app instead. That will keep the source material high quality while allowing the DVD authoring app to create it's version of "DVD compliant"!!

You're absolutely right, I use CFHD AVI intermidiate.

I haven't been using mpg2 compression yet. I've been trying to get a sharp uncompressed downrezzed video first. But Ill try that, Steve.

I found that the unsharp mask works well to bring out the dark parts and sharpness.

This may be your problem. You should always render HDV directly to DVD complient MPEG2 instead of to DV codec format. The reason being that the colorspace is different. Rendering to MPEG2 and avoiding the DV codec stage altogether looks noticably better.

Larry, quick question.

After capturing your HD video in either Cineform codec or proxy codec and working in Vegas with the final destination being MPEG2 for DVD.

Would you work strictly in the HD 1080i template or work in the 4:3 or 16:9 DV template that the final destination will be in.

Especially if I were to mix 2 cameras for the final video, one camera let's say PD170/VX2100 and the other being FX1/A1.

I would be using the HD camera is main and SD camera as cutaway 2nd 3rd camera.

Reading the post, I have to agree with you there about HDV straight to DVD. I have done heaps of testing and the best I can come up with is HDV Cineform straight to DVD using Procoder.

The test is
HDV to DV to DVD
or HDV to DVD.

Go here and have a look for yourselves, I used some grainy underwater footage to test it on.
www.ningalooreefteach.com/HDV.htm
Download the big pics and zoom in with a graphics program.

Paul

Larry, quick question.

After capturing your HD video in either Cineform codec or proxy codec and working in Vegas with the final destination being MPEG2 for DVD.

Would you work strictly in the HD 1080i template or work in the 4:3 or 16:9 DV template that the final destination will be in.

Especially if I were to mix 2 cameras for the final video, one camera let's say PD170/VX2100 and the other being FX1/A1.

I would be using the HD camera is main and SD camera as cutaway 2nd 3rd camera.

You can do it either way. I like to work in the format the footage is in though.

The 'secret' to any good quality DVD master MPEG2 is to get the Bit-rate as close to maximum as you can get it!!

So here's what I have found to work pretty well... Render As> Select template> MPEG2> DVD Architect WS, then hit Custom> Project tab - Video quality - BEST> Video tab - Video Quality...slide to HIGH - Variable Bit-rate - Two pass - Max. 9,300 - Av. 8,000 - Min. 6,200 .

Steve - I read somewhere and my head is spinning looking at all of this - that you should never set the bitrate past 8,000. I notice here that you're modifying the template using two-pass (WHY?) and upping the bitrate. Thoughts? ph

Steve - I read somewhere and my head is spinning looking at all of this - that you should never set the bitrate past 8,000. I notice here that you're modifying the template using two-pass (WHY?) and upping the bitrate. Thoughts? ph

I've seen the odd bit of guff along the lines of "I wouldn't go above 8,000"... and there's many an app that has 8,000 set as the Default Setting. Just because it's the Default Setting doesn't make it the Optimum Setting!!

Default is "computer speak" for "will work for even the most inept operator" setting - the "we hope there's no way this klutz can screw this up and try to blame us because our setting pushed their underpowered, below specification hardware beyond it's limits" kind of formula taken by those who've become immune to the litigation emboldened incompotents they are sometimes forced to deal with.

Same case for Dual/Two-pass or however your favourite encoder wants to label it... Default setting is usually Single Pass. However; the second pass is an opportunity (at the cost of longer encode times - with the gamble that it won't optimize any further) for the encode algorithm to further refine the compression; reducing artifacts etc. Sort of like a 'second bite of the cherry'.

If you're concerned about the resulting file size from using increased bit-rate with CBR, then use VBR - but always adjust the Default Settings for Max., Av. and Min. because they are inevitably set woefully low.

If you've got the quality and bitrate in the original - why throttle the quality of what you make with it by not maximizing the final products' bitrate also?

I've seen the odd bit of guff along the lines of "I wouldn't go above 8,000"... and there's many an app that has 8,000 set as the Default Setting. Just because it's the Default Setting doesn't make it the Optimum Setting!!



Steve - I used your settings to render HDV 60i to SD DVD. The result looks pretty good - where I think I could tell the difference was in the lighting. With more light - as usual - the picture is pretty darn sharp. I did not use an unsharp mask as suggested but might. The only other question I have is in the property settings for the Vegas project. Since ulimately I am going to DVD 29.97 interlaced using the template should I set de-interlace method to NONE in the project properties? I always use blend and if I know I'm going to 24p then yes that would make sense. Or is Vegas smart enough to bypass this setting UNLESS you're going to progressive output? ph

Is Vegas smart enough to bypass this setting UNLESS you're going to progressive output? ph

I haven't used a piece of software yet that was smart enough to over-ride an inappropriate setting!!

If you render an interlaced final - blend mode should be "None"...

Only ever use blend mode when heading to progressive output.

If you preview your rendered interlaced DVD level MPEG2 on computer screen, remember that you're viewing it on a NON-interlaced device, so use VLC if you're unsure of whether you have a player that can automatically account for interlaced footage!!

I haven't used a piece of software yet that was smart enough to over-ride an inappropriate setting!!

If you render an interlaced final - blend mode should be "None"...

Only ever use blend mode when heading to progressive output.


Yes. I was so used to keeping the BLEND on because I was also playing with 24p - which this particular project is not. It looks good and as I work with other pieces I will be sure to leave the De-Interlace set to NONE. tks for your help. ph

I've been converting HDV to SD straight off the camera onto Vegas and it looks great. Does HDV to cineform codec then to DVD looks any better than doing it straight off the fx1/z1???

I've been converting HDV to SD straight off the camera onto Vegas and it looks great. Does HDV to cineform codec then to DVD looks any better than doing it straight off the fx1/z1???

Were you using any editor other than Vegas, I'd say convert at the camera.
But Vegas does a much better conversion than does the camera...so let Vegas do the conversion if you can manage it.

I've been converting HDV to SD straight off the camera onto Vegas and it looks great. Does HDV to cineform codec then to DVD looks any better than doing it straight off the fx1/z1???

As Douglas mentioned above, it's sorta agreed amongst those of us who've taken the time to do the tests and check the results... that Vegas does a better 'down-convert' than the camera's encoder.

If you want the opportunity to organise your clips into a form that would be almost impossible to shoot dirrectly to tape, and colour correct or maybe adjust sound levels, add 5.1 audio, background music or commentary, transitions, titles and just about anything that you'd consider an enhancement to the raw video; before going to DVD ... you'd need to work in Vegas with HDV clips with an intermediate editing format or proxies.

Bottom line. If you are happy with exactly what's on tape, you could get away with the camera downsampling - just be prepared to be disappointed with how much better HDV edited correctly before downconversion using either CFHD avi or Gearshift proxies looks.

I've also actually wondered... as you NTSC guys end up with marginally less data in SD than those of us in PAL lands - would downconverting 1080i 60 NTSC to PAL 720x576 25p for DVD production provide a marginally better DVD quality?

Were you using any editor other than Vegas, I'd say convert at the camera.
But Vegas does a much better conversion than does the camera...so let Vegas do the conversion if you can manage it.


Hmm thats a hard choice. For one, I like the scene detection if I convert from the fx1/z1.

I just do it straight across. Sometimes I'll add just a tad of unsharp mask when doing it, but otherwise...in Vegas, straight across.

What has been your experience with this effect in Vegas 6.0c? I get pretty good renders to 24p DVDA or NTSC interlaced DVDA mpegs. I am finding that the interlace footage crawls a bit but the 24p footage does not but looks a little more blurry - I guess due to the deinterlace method of BLEND.

Would the unsharp mask really help and exactly what is the effect and setting that seems to provide maximum benefit before looking really bad?

I read somewhere on DVXuser that a straight HDV to SD downconvert from the camera to the software didn't produce that nice an image -- worse than say a higher end prosumer SD like DVX100. (But I could've misread that.)

I'd say that DVXuser is rather biased against HDV, and that their reviews downplay how good HDV looks when recorded and handled properly. And unless the DVX100 is a native widescreen camera it can't match HDV on that point, which is one of the best things about the HDV format. The future of video is definitely widescreen footage whether it's SD or HD, so any camera that doesn't have true widescreen recording capability is basically old news. Call me when a prosumer DV camera can produce a widescreen image like this: http://www.videomem.com/hdv/yosemite_720p.wmv .

Regarding the original topic of this discussion, I capture my HDV footage to the Canopus HQ format, edit at HD resolution, then output to widescreen SD MPEG2 using Procoder Express. You can see some examples here: http://www.videomem.com/HDV/encoding_tests/comparison.htm

ive tried numerous methods, but i find that capturing straight at M2t into Vegas then converting to cineform works best.. i dont like how i lose my timecode though.. :(

anyways...
once captured and converted, i keep the capture file as a veg file, as Vidcap doesnt capture HDV, i actually keep a Veg file with all capture datails...

from there i start a new project and take it from there using cineform... once i finish my edit i just render out as one big AVI... then using Mainconcept encoder, or even DVD Architect, i usually get really good results..
I just dont liek interlaced material...

from there i start a new project and take it from there using cineform... once i finish my edit i just render out as one big AVI... then using Mainconcept encoder, or even DVD Architect, i usually get really good results..
I just dont liek interlaced material...

Peter - I do pretty much the same and create a cineform AVI from the M2t as well. I work with this AVI. Then, from there I go directly back to tape in HDV format - or - I go directly to the DVD Architect mpg template for widescreen. If you render first to one big AVI are you not losing a generation of quality? I don't see the necessity for rendering to one large AVI since you have your original cineform AVIs. I'm either going back to HDV tape or to DVD Architect. tks.

If you render first to one big AVI are you not losing a generation of quality? I don't see the necessity for rendering to one large AVI since you have your original cineform AVIs.

Yes... but having already converted to CFHD AVI, any generational loss from rendering a complete AVI of a finished project to CFHD AVI, should be so minimal that it would be very, very difficult to spot.

It's doing anything to the original M2T files, or any MPEG based files that are generated from the source material that's the "big no no"!!

Mind you anything that reduces the possibility of quality reduction, as well as the time taken for an extra step, is good news in my book!!

Hello

I have just read over these 3 pages yet i still do not see anyone say what are the best settings please could someone tell me what settings i should choose in vegas when starting a new project and what settings i should render to get the maximum quality. i am happy with the camera quality so i just want to edit it in vegas then save that onto a DVD at the very best quality i need to output to PAL my camera is FX1 PAL please help me with the settings.

thank you

We'll just start here, and you'll likely get a lot of varying opinions.

1. Capture as M2t or as CineForm, depending on the speed of your computer, and whether you have CineForm or not.
2. Open an HDV project template in Vegas.
3. Edit in either CineForm or m2t (I don't believe in editing m2t, but we'll keep this a simple post)
4. Render to DVD Settings you normally use.
5. Play your DVD and make lotsa money.

converting from the camera looks fine to me plus the added scene detecton which you don't get with vegas 6 when capturing the m2t (arrrghhh).

We'll just start here, and you'll likely get a lot of varying opinions.

1. Capture as M2t or as CineForm, depending on the speed of your computer, and whether you have CineForm or not.
2. Open an HDV project template in Vegas.
3. Edit in either CineForm or m2t (I don't believe in editing m2t, but we'll keep this a simple post)
4. Render to DVD Settings you normally use.
5. Play your DVD and make lotsa money.



Thanks

But i am unsure what to choose from the list there are many output settings 720 is this good? will this keep the same quality from the camera?

converting from the camera looks fine to me plus the added scene detecton which you don't get with vegas 6 when capturing the m2t (arrrghhh).

To each his own, I guess. I see a tremendous difference, and even built a streaming file to demonstrate the differences.
Jim, as far as output settings/project settings, if you're shooting with the Z1, you need to set your project properties to 1080i. That's what the media properties are. If you want to output to 720p, that's fine too.

Hi Douglas thank you

It’s the FX1 PAL i got so if i set it to output to 1080i PAL this will give the same quality as the original footage once rendered out?

Thanks

Okay I did my own test. Edited a footage both in Vegas. I used the same footage. One used with the camera doing the conversion and the other using Vegas to convert it. I burned it to a dvd and played it on a good old fashion CRT tv. It looks the same. I am doing this as a hobby and majority of you are professionals so maybe its just me. I am not trying to question or diss you Mr Eagle or anyone here but I am just sharing infos and putting my contributions on these boards.

I guess both have pros and cons. Did I already mentioned how I don't like how Vegas didn't include the scene detection on HDV??

Thanks

Hi Douglas thank you

It’s the FX1 PAL i got so if i set it to output to 1080i PAL this will give the same quality as the original footage once rendered out?

Thanks

Assuming you keep everything clean in your color correction, etc...yes, it will be the same.

Fred,
I didn't take your post as a dis...but I also can't see how anyone can possibly not see the difference.

http://www.vasst.com/streaming/HDV_downconvert.mpg is a single stream, standard def file at low resolution compared to avi. The difference is huge. The first half of the file is HD all the way til it's rendered to the mpg file, the second half was converted with the camera.
FWIW, my last name is "Spotted Eagle", not "Eagle." :-)

Assuming you keep everything clean in your color correction, etc...yes, it will be the same.

Fred,
I didn't take your post as a dis...but I also can't see how anyone can possibly not see the difference.

http://www.vasst.com/streaming/HDV_downconvert.mpg is a single stream, standard def file at low resolution compared to avi. The difference is huge. The first half of the file is HD all the way til it's rendered to the mpg file, the second half was converted with the camera.
FWIW, my last name is "Spotted Eagle", not "Eagle." :-)

Was the digital zoom from the camera or or the NLE? I noticed the difference when you zoomed in to the duck.

Was the digital zoom from the camera or or the NLE? I noticed the difference when you zoomed in to the duck.

Like the titling says, it's a digital zoom, performed by the NLE. However, you can see the artifacting immediately on the duck head in the camera convert file, long before the zoom occurs. It only becomes more visible in the zoom.

Like the titling says, it's a digital zoom, performed by the NLE. However, you can see the artifacting immediately on the duck head in the camera convert file, long before the zoom occurs. It only becomes more visible in the zoom.

Based upon everything I've read in several forums I see absolutely no reason to let the camera downconvert your HDV footage. Just capture the HDV and get the best resolution possible and then and only then start messing with it. Of course this assumes your original footage is not 24p or 25p or something like that. I have the HDR-HC1 and two options - HDV M2T or downconverted AVI capture.

DSE - Would you agree for the most part on this or can you identify a situation where lettiing the camera down convert is the best option? ph

DSE - Would you agree for the most part on this or can you identify a situation where lettiing the camera down convert is the best option? ph

Well...If you're using FCP and don't have any scaling plugs...then I'd let the camera downconvert. FCP5 is better, but it's still not the greatest scaling tool out there...I haven't had an opportunity to play with my Avid Express HD yet to comment on whether that might be better as well.

I forgot to mention that I am using Sony Vegas 6.0c. With that certainly capturing the HDV first seems the best way to go. ph

Hello

why would anyone want to go from HD to SD? the benefit is?

Because there is no HD delivery method for the masses at this time. In a few months, yes. Today? No.