Why? Uncompressed or HDV / DVCProHD at DVinfo.net

Tim Snyder · January 19th, 2007, 04:53 PM

I know that uncompressed and HDV / DVCProHD has been discussed. But, as I have searched through the threads extensively, I haven't found an answer.

Why would one want to go uncomressed vs. HDV / DVCProHD / Firewire types of compression?

The reason I ask is that I am considering an HD card of some sort. Mainly so that I can monitor HD out of my system. I do not have a raid. I am interesed in Shane's raid on a budget idea. I think it was Shane. But why do I need to go to this?

What are the advantages? I understand that you eat up more HDD space, I also understand that it takes more power to play back, etc. etc. But in the final product, DVD, Web Delivery, etc, do you gain quality by going uncompressed.

Or is this just a cool way to get extra money from a client? Which I can understand as well.

I guess this question would go for SD as well.

thanks so much in advance. This board has been uber helpful in the expansion of my knowledge and the shrinking of my checkbook :)

Tim

Nick Jushchyshyn · January 19th, 2007, 09:40 PM

If you have a camera that can SHOOT uncompressed (like a CineAlta F950) the images do start out with higher quality and are especially useful if you're doing visual effects like greenscreen compositing.

If the camera itself is only generating 4:2:2 output to begin with, then capturing uncompressed doesn't really improve that signal.

Shane Ross · January 20th, 2007, 02:32 AM

Yeah, it was me who has the inexpensive RAID ideas:

http://lfhd.blogspot.com/2006/12/dar...sata-raid.html

And I just added a new component:

http://lfhd.blogspot.com/2007/01/mod...iet-tower.html

The only reason to go UNCOMPRESSED HD is if you shoot with it, like the HDCAM SR or Cine Alta. But only for ONLINING. Offlining I'd suggest the DVCPRO HD codec. And I will ALWAYS recommend DVCPRO HD codec and camera above the HDV stuff. Far superior...in every way.

Now..why raid? Well, for HDV or DVCPRO HD you don't really need it. But the faster drives you have, the more RT effects and more streams of video you can do. With a FW400 drive you can do only 1 stream of DVCPRO HD. With a 5 drive raid that runs 230MB/s...you can get 6 or so streams.

Depends on what you are doing.

Andy Mees · January 20th, 2007, 03:27 AM

Far superior...in every way.

Does that include raw data rate? ;-)

Shane Ross · January 20th, 2007, 03:34 AM

You mean direct from camera into the editing app via a capture card? I don't have first hand experience. But ADAM WILT did tests. I believe that the CCDs are better on the HVX than most, but that the Canon HDV camera performed the best.

It is the recording format that is the achilles heel...Mr. MAN OF TOMORROW

Andy Mees · January 20th, 2007, 05:17 AM

only yesterday's man of tomorrow, but that will do!

Tim Snyder · January 21st, 2007, 10:45 PM

So I guess what I am reading here is that I will not see a significant increase in quality, if at all.

So my $1000 to $2000 dollars will be better spent elsewhere.

I hope I understood that.

thanks for the help, once again great advice and this time I get to save some money.

Tim

Alden Miller · January 22nd, 2007, 02:28 PM

sorry to hijack, but i am in a similar boat. My next project will have a lot of green screening. I figured shooting HD is the best way to go for keying and such. What would you suggest for editing purposes. Can I edit lower quality offline and key effectively? Or should I be editing HD to key, then must it all be online editing?

BTW planned on using Shake to key and composite

Thanks

Shane Ross · January 22nd, 2007, 03:16 PM

YOu can edit at a lower quality if you have storage issues. Just know that your key at lower res will be temporary and when you capture the footage at full res you'll need to do the keying properly.

Or, if you know the parts you are going to key, capture those elements at high res, perform the key, then export a master clip, then downconvert that clip for the offline cut, and relink to the full res version when you online.

Drew Curran · January 23rd, 2007, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shane Ross

And I just added a new component:

http://lfhd.blogspot.com/2007/01/mod...iet-tower.html

Shane
Thanks for this little tip. I've just ordered one. I'm sick of slicing my fingers on the PC case when moving the cables!!

Some one would make a load of money if they marketed the PC case external SATA store...

Andrew

Shane Ross · January 23rd, 2007, 11:47 AM

Great Drew.

Yeah, that was a good find.

Kevin Shaw · January 24th, 2007, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shane Ross

And I will ALWAYS recommend DVCPRO HD codec and camera above the HDV stuff. Far superior...in every way.

Technically that's not an accurate statement, since DVCProHD is more compressed horizontally than HDV is. Plus not all cameras are created equal, so you're not going to get as sharp an image from an HVX200 with 960x540 sensors as you would from Canon HDV cameras with 1440x1080 sensors. That said, it seems to be generally agreed that DVCProHD is preferable for some purposes, and HDV has some practical limitations.

Pete Schwab · January 24th, 2007, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alden Miller

BTW planned on using Shake to key and composite

Just FYI - i don't think shake supports HDV so you have to transcode to DVCPRO HD or the Apple Intermediate Codec or something else before shake can look at it.

Alden Miller · January 25th, 2007, 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete Schwab

Just FYI - i don't think shake supports HDV so you have to transcode to DVCPRO HD or the Apple Intermediate Codec or something else before shake can look at it.

Thanks Pete.. I will double check that before shooting :P

January 19th, 2007, 04:53 PM	#1
Tim Snyder Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Louisville KY Posts: 188	Why? Uncompressed or HDV / DVCProHD I know that uncompressed and HDV / DVCProHD has been discussed. But, as I have searched through the threads extensively, I haven't found an answer. Why would one want to go uncomressed vs. HDV / DVCProHD / Firewire types of compression? The reason I ask is that I am considering an HD card of some sort. Mainly so that I can monitor HD out of my system. I do not have a raid. I am interesed in Shane's raid on a budget idea. I think it was Shane. But why do I need to go to this? What are the advantages? I understand that you eat up more HDD space, I also understand that it takes more power to play back, etc. etc. But in the final product, DVD, Web Delivery, etc, do you gain quality by going uncompressed. Or is this just a cool way to get extra money from a client? Which I can understand as well. I guess this question would go for SD as well. thanks so much in advance. This board has been uber helpful in the expansion of my knowledge and the shrinking of my checkbook :) Tim

January 19th, 2007, 09:40 PM	#2
Nick Jushchyshyn Major Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA Posts: 548	If you have a camera that can SHOOT uncompressed (like a CineAlta F950) the images do start out with higher quality and are especially useful if you're doing visual effects like greenscreen compositing. If the camera itself is only generating 4:2:2 output to begin with, then capturing uncompressed doesn't really improve that signal. __________________ Nick Jushchyshyn Matchmoving, Compositing, TD imdb

January 20th, 2007, 02:32 AM	#3
Shane Ross Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Los Angeles, USA Posts: 539	Yeah, it was me who has the inexpensive RAID ideas: http://lfhd.blogspot.com/2006/12/dar...sata-raid.html And I just added a new component: http://lfhd.blogspot.com/2007/01/mod...iet-tower.html The only reason to go UNCOMPRESSED HD is if you shoot with it, like the HDCAM SR or Cine Alta. But only for ONLINING. Offlining I'd suggest the DVCPRO HD codec. And I will ALWAYS recommend DVCPRO HD codec and camera above the HDV stuff. Far superior...in every way. Now..why raid? Well, for HDV or DVCPRO HD you don't really need it. But the faster drives you have, the more RT effects and more streams of video you can do. With a FW400 drive you can do only 1 stream of DVCPRO HD. With a 5 drive raid that runs 230MB/s...you can get 6 or so streams. Depends on what you are doing.

January 20th, 2007, 03:27 AM	#4
Andy Mees Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Posts: 645	Far superior...in every way. Does that include raw data rate? ;-)

January 20th, 2007, 03:34 AM	#5
Shane Ross Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Los Angeles, USA Posts: 539	You mean direct from camera into the editing app via a capture card? I don't have first hand experience. But ADAM WILT did tests. I believe that the CCDs are better on the HVX than most, but that the Canon HDV camera performed the best. It is the recording format that is the achilles heel...Mr. MAN OF TOMORROW

January 20th, 2007, 05:17 AM	#6
Andy Mees Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Posts: 645	only yesterday's man of tomorrow, but that will do!

January 21st, 2007, 10:45 PM	#7
Tim Snyder Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Louisville KY Posts: 188	So I guess what I am reading here is that I will not see a significant increase in quality, if at all. So my $1000 to $2000 dollars will be better spent elsewhere. I hope I understood that. thanks for the help, once again great advice and this time I get to save some money. Tim

January 22nd, 2007, 02:28 PM	#8
Alden Miller Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 92	sorry to hijack, but i am in a similar boat. My next project will have a lot of green screening. I figured shooting HD is the best way to go for keying and such. What would you suggest for editing purposes. Can I edit lower quality offline and key effectively? Or should I be editing HD to key, then must it all be online editing? BTW planned on using Shake to key and composite Thanks

January 22nd, 2007, 03:16 PM	#9
Shane Ross Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Los Angeles, USA Posts: 539	YOu can edit at a lower quality if you have storage issues. Just know that your key at lower res will be temporary and when you capture the footage at full res you'll need to do the keying properly. Or, if you know the parts you are going to key, capture those elements at high res, perform the key, then export a master clip, then downconvert that clip for the offline cut, and relink to the full res version when you online.

January 23rd, 2007, 11:47 AM	#11
Shane Ross Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Los Angeles, USA Posts: 539	Great Drew. Yeah, that was a good find.