Music Video... Is HD A Good Choice? at DVinfo.net

Joel Blumer · July 13th, 2005, 11:10 AM

I have been asked to produce/direct a music video for a local band, and I am wondering whether HD would a good way to go. I am looking for an alternative to film but with nearly the same results, the film alone would require a huge budget (not that HD is cheap either).

I have read many articles about HD 24p, but I am wondering if it would be possible for some experts to help me through the confusion. I am considering renting either sony's cinealta, or panasonic's varicam, but I need help through all the confusion, including... 1080 sony vs. 720 panasonic (panasonic appears to be cheaper, but is it worth losing the resolution?). I also need help concerning good HD lenses(prime vs. zoom), HD Monitors, Matte boxes and Good filters, Lighting for HD, and everything in between.

Also, for post production, I am wondering if a power mac g5 dual 2.7 with Final Cut Studio could handle HD (I don't have one currently but I will by the time production arrives), I know that they advertise HD and native HDV, but can it really handle it? or does it require tens of thousands of dollars of hardware to even edit at low res?? I dont have that kind of money and it would be useless because I do not plan to move to HD permanently.

So whatever you people can help me out with would be great.

Kaku Ito · July 13th, 2005, 11:39 AM

I shoot video on extreme sports and music performances and currently using G5 2.5GHz dual and using FCP5. If you are shooting bands performing, HDV will do good. HDV is not good for very fast panning, but for music, you won't be doing that, also you can plan the camera angle ahead of time anyway, so the extra resolution you get on HDV would really give you extra feeling for the atmosphere.

When I do shooting for the live performance, we usually record the performance with MOTU Digital Perfomer and MOTU 896HD at 24-bit/192Khz format and shoot video with HDR-FX1, HC1 (just got it) and NV-GS400 (at 30 frame mode). After treating the audio with Digital Performer, export the audio tracks as AIFF, then bring it into FCP. Then I would do a rough edit of HDV and DV footage with DV format on FCP, after edit, you can save it as HDV project, then batch capture the footage with HDV to replace.

For the HDV format editing with FCP, you won't need extra hardware, unless you prefer NTSC interlace monitoring. If you do, then add hardware like AJA Kona2 (be carefull that FCP5, Kona2 and HDV only works with 10.4 at this time, 10.4.1 won't work).

There are other cams to consider, especially if you wanna do film feel stuff, but you can probably manipulate that with software.

Tommy James · July 13th, 2005, 09:43 PM

I don't think you are going to lose any resolution if you use the Panasonic Varicam. Progressive high definition video handles motion a lot better than interlaced so the Panasonic if shot at 60 frames per secound will be sharper than the Sony Interlaced. Video is all about handling motion so to judge a cameras resolution by its ability to resolve still images is pointless. 720p is just as sharp as 1080i if not sharper. Sony makes a 1080p camera but it is only 24 frames per secound so it will not be any sharper than 720p at 60 frames. However 24p will give you the film look but 60p will give the more live look. Cheaper HDV also comes in 1080i and 720p flavors.

With music videos a single song will fit nicely on a high definition CD playable on most Windows XP computers. This will make a nice bonus to an audio CD. Most computers have 50 speed CD Rom drives so a high definition video will stream nicely. Also a Data DVD can be used for the playback of high definition videos. although most computer monitors handle high definition videos a computer with a DVI output can be hooked up to an HDTV.

Jack Zhang · July 13th, 2005, 10:32 PM

Just look at TobyMac's "Gone". Shot on 16mm, transfered to FCPHD (4.5), It has the quality of HD but with heavy grain. Now if you use a FX1, with Motion Adaptive Deinterlacing, it should give you a similar result in low light but it would be better than 16mm in daylight. You can watch TobyMac's video in 720p at the Quicktime HD Gallery to compare for yourself.

Douglas Spotted Eagle · July 13th, 2005, 11:15 PM

[QUOTE=Tommy James] However 24p will give you the film look but 60p will give the more live look. Cheaper HDV also comes in 1080i and 720p flavors.
QUOTE]

To argue the point, 24p will give you a film CADENCE but not a film look. Silm look is so much less about 24p than it is about DOF, grain, and saturation.
Further, 60i is sharper than 30p. 60p is sharper than 60i. At least in terms of today's cameras.

July 13th, 2005, 11:10 AM	#1
Joel Blumer New Boot Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Allison Park PA. Posts: 6	Music Video... Is HD A Good Choice? I have been asked to produce/direct a music video for a local band, and I am wondering whether HD would a good way to go. I am looking for an alternative to film but with nearly the same results, the film alone would require a huge budget (not that HD is cheap either). I have read many articles about HD 24p, but I am wondering if it would be possible for some experts to help me through the confusion. I am considering renting either sony's cinealta, or panasonic's varicam, but I need help through all the confusion, including... 1080 sony vs. 720 panasonic (panasonic appears to be cheaper, but is it worth losing the resolution?). I also need help concerning good HD lenses(prime vs. zoom), HD Monitors, Matte boxes and Good filters, Lighting for HD, and everything in between. Also, for post production, I am wondering if a power mac g5 dual 2.7 with Final Cut Studio could handle HD (I don't have one currently but I will by the time production arrives), I know that they advertise HD and native HDV, but can it really handle it? or does it require tens of thousands of dollars of hardware to even edit at low res?? I dont have that kind of money and it would be useless because I do not plan to move to HD permanently. So whatever you people can help me out with would be great.

July 13th, 2005, 11:15 PM	#5
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	[QUOTE=Tommy James] However 24p will give you the film look but 60p will give the more live look. Cheaper HDV also comes in 1080i and 720p flavors. QUOTE] To argue the point, 24p will give you a film CADENCE but not a film look. Silm look is so much less about 24p than it is about DOF, grain, and saturation. Further, 60i is sharper than 30p. 60p is sharper than 60i. At least in terms of today's cameras. __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

July 13th, 2005, 11:39 AM	#2
Kaku Ito Trustee Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo Posts: 1,382	I shoot video on extreme sports and music performances and currently using G5 2.5GHz dual and using FCP5. If you are shooting bands performing, HDV will do good. HDV is not good for very fast panning, but for music, you won't be doing that, also you can plan the camera angle ahead of time anyway, so the extra resolution you get on HDV would really give you extra feeling for the atmosphere. When I do shooting for the live performance, we usually record the performance with MOTU Digital Perfomer and MOTU 896HD at 24-bit/192Khz format and shoot video with HDR-FX1, HC1 (just got it) and NV-GS400 (at 30 frame mode). After treating the audio with Digital Performer, export the audio tracks as AIFF, then bring it into FCP. Then I would do a rough edit of HDV and DV footage with DV format on FCP, after edit, you can save it as HDV project, then batch capture the footage with HDV to replace. For the HDV format editing with FCP, you won't need extra hardware, unless you prefer NTSC interlace monitoring. If you do, then add hardware like AJA Kona2 (be carefull that FCP5, Kona2 and HDV only works with 10.4 at this time, 10.4.1 won't work). There are other cams to consider, especially if you wanna do film feel stuff, but you can probably manipulate that with software.

July 13th, 2005, 09:43 PM	#3
Tommy James suspended -- contact admin Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 214	I don't think you are going to lose any resolution if you use the Panasonic Varicam. Progressive high definition video handles motion a lot better than interlaced so the Panasonic if shot at 60 frames per secound will be sharper than the Sony Interlaced. Video is all about handling motion so to judge a cameras resolution by its ability to resolve still images is pointless. 720p is just as sharp as 1080i if not sharper. Sony makes a 1080p camera but it is only 24 frames per secound so it will not be any sharper than 720p at 60 frames. However 24p will give you the film look but 60p will give the more live look. Cheaper HDV also comes in 1080i and 720p flavors. With music videos a single song will fit nicely on a high definition CD playable on most Windows XP computers. This will make a nice bonus to an audio CD. Most computers have 50 speed CD Rom drives so a high definition video will stream nicely. Also a Data DVD can be used for the playback of high definition videos. although most computer monitors handle high definition videos a computer with a DVI output can be hooked up to an HDTV.

July 13th, 2005, 10:32 PM	#4
Jack Zhang Inner Circle Join Date: May 2005 Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada Posts: 3,053	Just look at TobyMac's "Gone". Shot on 16mm, transfered to FCPHD (4.5), It has the quality of HD but with heavy grain. Now if you use a FX1, with Motion Adaptive Deinterlacing, it should give you a similar result in low light but it would be better than 16mm in daylight. You can watch TobyMac's video in 720p at the Quicktime HD Gallery to compare for yourself.