Capturing in Pro Res

John Cash · September 12th, 2007, 07:10 AM

Jim, what about posting your clips for web delivery? This is when I start to "expirement" with different codecs. By going with HDV I want to deliver a large clear crisp product that can be downloaded and stored on any PC/or Mac with broadband. I am interested in the smallest file possible while still maitaining a full screen for viewing. Thats when I start messing around just to see where it goes.
You are correct in staying with the same workflow for DVD but it is fun to play and It does teach you.....some good things ...but some bad things too.
By changing workflow and rendering , exporting to the web I like to see file size and clarity from each codec and which ones work and which ones dont.
I dont have any formal training and I dont do this for a living..only a hobby. By asking questions here and at other forums ,going home and applying that knowledge I am learning. And Learning something beats watching sitcoms or sports all night in my book.
Now it is true that sometimes I work for days on something only to send it to the trash can...but even then I gained something.

Jim Fields · September 12th, 2007, 10:37 AM

John,

When exporting for web, I use one of 2 places.. Stage 6, or you tube.

Due to my living an hour away from the closest client, I put their montage, or sometimes entire project on the web for them to preview. If it is short like a montage under 10 minutes, I use You Tube. If it is longer, or small text and other details need to be seen better, I use Stage 6.
Stage 6 is DIVX, I found an easy and fast work flow to get QT to DIVX and up on the web.
You Tube, I just export an iPod movie from compressor and upload to you tube. The client knows the You Tube content is lower quality and does not have a problem with it.

Both of those save me alot of time.

Scott Shama · September 12th, 2007, 11:51 AM

Like we keep saying, edit native HDV. AIC isn't native, it's AIC. It's another codec. It also takes up a ton more hard drive space than HDV.

Scott

Robert Ducon · September 20th, 2007, 11:50 AM

You could capture HDV (since that is the source codec, and it's not going to get any better than it is) and then convert to AIC or ProRes or JPEG, etc.

I'd stick with HDV if you're fine with it - import the HDV via FireWire, edit HDV and finish the project in HDV.

I often shoot HDV, then import it (as HDV) then convert the HDV to JPEG or ProRes. Why? Using a Filter that I added into FCP, I 'upconvert' the chroma (colour information) to something closer to 4:2:2 (instead of HDV's 4:2:0). This is getting technical, but it improves/reduces the artifacts in the colour I see in HDV.

http://www.nattress.com/Products/fil..._Sharp_Int.htm

If this has never been an issue for you, ignore it and just keep to an HDV workflow! HDV is an impressive codec, as it's brought HD to the masses.

September 20th, 2007, 11:50 AM	#19
Robert Ducon Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Victoria BC Posts: 400	You could capture HDV (since that is the source codec, and it's not going to get any better than it is) and then convert to AIC or ProRes or JPEG, etc. I'd stick with HDV if you're fine with it - import the HDV via FireWire, edit HDV and finish the project in HDV. I often shoot HDV, then import it (as HDV) then convert the HDV to JPEG or ProRes. Why? Using a Filter that I added into FCP, I 'upconvert' the chroma (colour information) to something closer to 4:2:2 (instead of HDV's 4:2:0). This is getting technical, but it improves/reduces the artifacts in the colour I see in HDV. http://www.nattress.com/Products/fil..._Sharp_Int.htm If this has never been an issue for you, ignore it and just keep to an HDV workflow! HDV is an impressive codec, as it's brought HD to the masses. __________________ Mac + Canon HV20

September 12th, 2007, 07:10 AM	#16
John Cash Major Player Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: San Diego CA Posts: 253	Jim, what about posting your clips for web delivery? This is when I start to "expirement" with different codecs. By going with HDV I want to deliver a large clear crisp product that can be downloaded and stored on any PC/or Mac with broadband. I am interested in the smallest file possible while still maitaining a full screen for viewing. Thats when I start messing around just to see where it goes. You are correct in staying with the same workflow for DVD but it is fun to play and It does teach you.....some good things ...but some bad things too. By changing workflow and rendering , exporting to the web I like to see file size and clarity from each codec and which ones work and which ones dont. I dont have any formal training and I dont do this for a living..only a hobby. By asking questions here and at other forums ,going home and applying that knowledge I am learning. And Learning something beats watching sitcoms or sports all night in my book. Now it is true that sometimes I work for days on something only to send it to the trash can...but even then I gained something.

September 12th, 2007, 10:37 AM	#17
Jim Fields Major Player Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Fort Worth Texas Posts: 247	John, When exporting for web, I use one of 2 places.. Stage 6, or you tube. Due to my living an hour away from the closest client, I put their montage, or sometimes entire project on the web for them to preview. If it is short like a montage under 10 minutes, I use You Tube. If it is longer, or small text and other details need to be seen better, I use Stage 6. Stage 6 is DIVX, I found an easy and fast work flow to get QT to DIVX and up on the web. You Tube, I just export an iPod movie from compressor and upload to you tube. The client knows the You Tube content is lower quality and does not have a problem with it. Both of those save me alot of time.

September 12th, 2007, 11:51 AM	#18
Scott Shama Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Beaverton, Oregon Posts: 399	Like we keep saying, edit native HDV. AIC isn't native, it's AIC. It's another codec. It also takes up a ton more hard drive space than HDV. Scott