A Bit of a dilema PLEASE HELP...

[Mark Moreve]

Hi Guys,
I have a bit of a dilema, I'm really hoping you can help. I have been asked to shoot and edit an event happening all next week and my client who is from Azerbaijan has asked me if I can supply him with all the footage of the event ( Football games "Soccer " ) and also compile a DVD of the event that he can take home to Azerbaijan, that may get played in a cinema there but he's not to sure about that and if that is the case he really has no idea about the technology involved in showing it. So I'm thinking the best thing I can doo is give him the best quality DVD that I can possibly give him.
Azerbaijan state TV is 16:9 Secam / PAL standard definition.
Now my dilema is this I don't think I should shoot 1920 x 1080 50mb/s as it will cause a nightmare with render times & I don't think any Azebaijan editors are going to be able to cope with its size.
I have thought 1920 x 1080 35 mb/s but now for ease I'm thinking 1440 x 1080 25mb/s as it will take up less storage and render time and it's HDV quality which is still better than DVcam. The only thing is I have been testing loads of workflows today to get xf footage into fcp and edit, export to DVD studio pro and then burn & I can't help but think it looks pretty bad.
So my questions are:
What are your thoughts on 1440 x 1080 @ 25mb/s? Good enough quality??

Please can somebody tell me there workflow rather basically ( so I can understand) that will make this look like a good DVD I feel at the moment it looks a bit pixelish is this because HDV doesn't like Mpeg2 would it be best to go 1920 x 1080 @ 35mb/s

I really look forward to your replies
Many Thanks
Mark

[Doug Jensen]

If the client can't tell you exactly what they want, then I'd shoot with the best settings that the camera allows so I had the most options available to me. That's always been my policy.

BTW, all modern PAL DVD players can handle NTSC DVDs, so there may not be any reason to worry about transcoding to PAL anyway.

[Robert Turchick]

Second that advice...you can always scale down...not up.

Also, look for threads on converting HD to DVD in fcp. It's not straightforward and will look like crap if you follow the logical path. (thanks apple!)
Several paths to success are out there and the one I chose looks perfect but requires a double encode.

[Mark Moreve]

I understand what you are saying about shooting at the best quality possible but the turnaround on this job is overnight and I would have been shooting for 5 days straight amassing a huge amount of HD footage which is going to need to be edited & rendered so full quality is not really a realistic option ( nor is this deadline!) the other point you made Robert is exactly what I mean HD just doesn't look good on DVD and really the only output he is convinced he wants is a DVD so surely I should be working to that. The cinema thing is impossible to work to as he really has no idea what system maybe used. So how about 1920 x 1080 @35mb/s or 1440 x 1080 @25mb/s ?
cheers
Mark

[Mark Moreve]

surely if I work at 1920 x 1080 @35mb/s it will take ages to compress to get onto a dvd ? I have been looking for hdv to dvd solutions and it seems that everyone has this problem but nobody has a solution.
Hmmm maybe I'm using the wrong camera for this job and I should revert to using a dvcam (dsr500) because what I loose in digitising time I gain in DVD encoding it seems

[Robert Turchick]

With that tight of a turnaround, the difference between datarates isn't going to make a huge difference since you still have a long process to get to useable SD files for DVD.

Why not find a device to record directly to SD thus saving a huge amount of time in processing.

You could still bypass tape. I have a Matrox MX02 mini (about $400) which has the HDMI and component inputs. On my laptop I have FCP and can set the Matrox as the input device and also have it scale for SD. Also, this doesn't exclude you from recording the full HD in-camera. That way, you deliver the files you need very quickly yet retain the full-HD just in case.

Certainly there should be some money in the budget to purchase or at the least rent with that many days of shooting.

[Mark Moreve]

Robert that looks like quite an interesting device I'll have a look into it but at 1st glance it seems that you have to have your computer and hard drives and camera all connected to make it work, if I was in a studio I would be probably jumping for joy but I'm going to be filming all over the place in many differant locations.
I guess what I really need is a workflow I can copy to make a good looking DVD from XF footage. I'm being tempted towards 1920 x 1080 @ 35 mb/s now as I'm reading so much about the nightmare that is converting HDV to SD DVD but will it be any easier if I go down the 35mb/s route?

[Doug Jensen]

Originally Posted by Mark Moreve

Iturnaround on this job is overnight and I would have been shooting for 5 days straight amassing a huge amount of HD footage

At some point you have to walk away and tell the client it can't be done while maintaining certain standards of professional quality. I wouldn't touch this job with a 10 foot pole.

Pick TWO of the three elements of production: FAST . . . CHEAP . . . GOOD.
You can't have all three at once.

[Doug Jensen]

Originally Posted by Robert Turchick

Also, look for threads on converting HD to DVD in fcp. It's not straightforward and will look like crap if you follow the logical path. (thanks apple!) Several paths to success are out there and the one I chose looks perfect but requires a double encode.

Totally disagree with that characterization. It is straightforward and easy. I shoot HD for DVD everyday and the results via FCP look great. I'm pretty sure anyone who has seen one of my training DVDs would agree that the DVD looks good. It is not hard to create very nice DVDs and it does not require any big workarounds, special plug-ins, extra hardware, or massive rendering times. It's really pretty easy to get great results.

Everyone's welcome to their own opinion, but I just wanted to offer an alternative point of view.

[Garrett Low]

I'd agree with Doug on this and walk away from the job unless he's willing to pay you an arm and leg. There's no way you're going to be able to get any decent type of edit done on 5 days worth of footage overnight. It will take you all night long just to review the footage and get a rough together and that will probably still be 5 times too long to fit onto a DVD.

I also would say that it is not true that HD converted to SD "just doesn't look good". I don't usually cut n FCP but I have and have seen spectacular looking results from HD footage converted to DVD.

Just my opinion but it sounds like a setup for failure.

-Garrett

[Mark Moreve]

Okay, great had a chat with the client and he is now fully aware that it is impossible to turn this job around so quickly so I have left it with him that I will do it as quickly as I possibly can and Fed ex it over to him & he is happy with that. Result!
On another note though I really need your help as I have been trying for two days now to make up a work flow from Xf footage at 1920 x 1080 35 mb/s & then compress onto SD DVD. You guys are saying you have good work flows, Robert you say you have a two pass encode system & Doug you say that it's quite straight forward. Well I'm having a bit of a tough time here so would really appreciate a step by step work flow to get from 1920 x 1080 @ 35mb/s to SD DVD PAL all at 25fps. If you wouldn't mind helping out it really would be appreciated.
Many Thanks
Mark

[Doug Jensen]

Hi Mark,

Most of my XDCAM to DVD workflow is described on this page of my website:

NOTE: GO TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE
Vortex Media: VIDEO & PHOTO Tools and Training

XF files are exactly the same as XDCAM files, so it's the same workflow whether I'm editing Canon or Sony footage. As you can see, it's pretty straightforward with no secret settings or additional steps. I'm completely happy with the results I get.

[Mark Moreve]

Doug,
Just wanted to say a big thank you I'll try out your method. Here are my thoughts.
Shoot 1920 x 1080 35mb/s PAL @25fps
Import into FCP as native using plugin NOT Pro res 422
Set Sequence settings to DV PAL Anamorphic 48 khz
Do not change settings when asked by FCP on 1st edit ?
Export to QT movie not self contained & current settings
Follow the rest of your settings

I really hope this works and Thanks once again it's really appreciated
Mark

[Mark Moreve]

OK tried it that looks pretty good THANK YOU :-)

[Robert Turchick]

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

Totally disagree with that characterization. It is straightforward and easy. I shoot HD for DVD everyday and the results via FCP look great. I'm pretty sure anyone who has seen one of my training DVDs would agree that the DVD looks good. It is not hard to create very nice DVDs and it does not require any big workarounds, special plug-ins, extra hardware, or massive rendering times. It's really pretty easy to get great results.

Everyone's welcome to their own opinion, but I just wanted to offer an alternative point of view.

I should have clarified that most of the material I do for DVD pushes the limit of what a single layer disc can hold. There is a significant quality difference in using the logical method to make a 150 minute disc and the method I use. I used to get terrible artifacting and blockiness before. Others have tried the double encode and have had great success too.

I'll have to try your method but the issue is that the client want's the edit in HD. I suppose dropping the HD edit into a new timeline would work though.

Oddly I'm in the middle of the same project I developed my workaround for...for the third year in a row! And when we were in the thick of it back on the first one, a software engineer who wrote proprietary encoding software for the company I used to work for came up with the method and a good explanation as to why it works.

Essentially there's two areas to address when going from hd to SD for DVD.

Scaling and encoding.

The method I use scales the full res hd file to an 853x480 h264 file first. The scaling creates artifacts which h264 encoding handles much better than mpeg2. Once that's done, I encode to mpeg 2 and all is well. I end up with a very clean DVD at the 3.7mbps setting and have actually squeezed 158 minutes onto a single layer since the mpeg 2 encoder didn't have as much work to do. The mpeg 2 encode runs much faster than similar length material that originated in SD. (I used to do a lot of VHS to DVD transfers)
I'm not an engineer or encoding expert but it seems to make sense why it works.

Since the OP seemed to need tons of footage tranferred to DVD, my initial instinct was to try to stuff the discs as full as they could go!