HD Converted to SD or SD Native? at DVinfo.net

Jay Barnes · June 20th, 2006, 05:21 PM

For a corporate product video shoot using the HD100U that will not be broadcast but will be distributed via DVD and CD, what are the pros and cons of shooting in HDV 30P and then converting to SD compared with shooting in SD?

And am I correct in assuming that an HDV camera like the HD100 will produce a better SD image than a less expensive non-HD camera like the DVX100?

(Sorry to ask questions that have probably been answered elsewhere, but there is so much helpful information on DVI that it's hard to sort through it all.)

Chris Barcellos · June 20th, 2006, 09:43 PM

I'm more famiiliar with Sony HDV cams, but the trend of most discussions on this issue is that you come up with a better finished product by editing in HDV, and rendering to DV or directly to DVD in post. I have seen reports where there were guys complaining that the final product was worse, but the subsequent review of their processes indicated an error was made in the workflow at some point along the line.

Second choice appears to be down converting HDV material, with actually shooting in DV being the final possibility.

Maurice Jolly · June 20th, 2006, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

I'm more famiiliar with Sony HDV cams, but the trend of most discussions on this issue is that you come up with a better finished product by editing in HDV, and rendering to DV or directly to DVD in post. I have seen reports where there were guys complaining that the final product was worse, but the subsequent review of their processes indicated an error was made in the workflow at some point along the line.

Second choice appears to be down converting HDV material, with actually shooting in DV being the final possibility.

jay and chris, here's the skinny. i've been in this conversation before and this is what i know because i've done it. what follows will only apply to fcp5 users.
1. shoot and edit in hdv 720 30p. (fcp5 edits hdv 720 30p natively)
2. when project is finished on timeline, send the whole thing thru compressor (10 bit uncompressed)
3. when you go to dvd studio pro, import the uncompressed project into dvdsp which is now in sd, but very high quality sd.
4. proceed normally in dvdsp as you would on any sd project.

you will love the picture. when downconverted properly, it's way better than shooting in sd.

Joe Bowey · June 20th, 2006, 10:43 PM

I just got back from sedona. AZ and I shot using SD 24pa mode. I don't have the ability to edit HDV now but its nice to have for future. If I was shooting for film then I would shoot HDV but for making dvd's I am using SD mode. I find the video in SD mode is just as good as some travel channel and national geographic shows.
I will post stills shot in SD 24pa here soon. They are just amazing.
I also purchased a polarizer filter while in sedona and what a difference it makes.

Marc Colemont · June 21st, 2006, 01:34 AM

If you can, edit in HDV and export strait to DVD from your timeline. This gives a higher quality then shooting in DV.
For your info here is my workflow on my PC:
- Shoot in HDV25P
- Capture HDV25P through Cineform to Cineform AVI
- Edit in Adobe Premiere Pro 2.0
- Export the timeline to DVD 25 frames 720x576 interleased

The image is more crisp, and the colors are better like when you watch a hollywood DVD. The conversion from progressive to interleased works flawlessly watching the movie on the DVD end-result.

Jay Barnes · June 21st, 2006, 07:06 AM

Chris, Maurice, Joe, Marc: Thanks for your help.

I'm actually an Avid Xpress Pro HD on a PC person, a rare breed around here I'm learning. I've had success with editing HDV in Avid using their DNxHD codec.

The advantage in going HDV through the editing process and then downconverting to SD must be in the codecs that you are using in FCP and the Cineform? Would my experience on different software be very different?

Has anyone tried this on Avid?

Jack Walker · June 21st, 2006, 10:56 AM

I am reading about these issues for my own projects. My finished product is DVD. With the HD100 I want to have SD DVDs now, and then be able to take the finished timeline and put it on HD DVD next year (or when it is available).

Obviously, shooting in HDV in this scenario makes sense.

If only SD is needed, I understand the SD quality is excellent on the HD100. However, if going to DVD, isn't more color information retained when shooting in HDV?

Shooting Transcode to SD DVD
-----------------------------------
HDV 4:2:0 SD Mpeg 4:2:0
DV 4:1:1 SD Mpeg 4:1:0 (effectively)

I am asking the question: Isn't twice as much color information retained in the Final SD DVD when shooting in HDV (over DV)?

Bill Parker · June 21st, 2006, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maurice Jolly

jay and chris, here's the skinny. i've been in this conversation before and this is what i know because i've done it. what follows will only apply to fcp5 users.
1. shoot and edit in hdv 720 30p. (fcp5 edits hdv 720 30p natively)
2. when project is finished on timeline, send the whole thing thru compressor (10 bit uncompressed)
3. when you go to dvd studio pro, import the uncompressed project into dvdsp which is now in sd, but very high quality sd.
4. proceed normally in dvdsp as you would on any sd project.

you will love the picture. when downconverted properly, it's way better than shooting in sd.

Does this mean you are avoiding an extra compression or are you simply delaying the compression? What I've been doing is sending my HDV projects through Compressor (MPEG 2 60 min. high quality) and then importing those compressed files into DVDSP and burning from there. Am I adding unnecessary compression? Thanks.

Maurice Jolly · June 25th, 2006, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Parker

Does this mean you are avoiding an extra compression or are you simply delaying the compression? What I've been doing is sending my HDV projects through Compressor (MPEG 2 60 min. high quality) and then importing those compressed files into DVDSP and burning from there. Am I adding unnecessary compression? Thanks.

bill,
i don't have my g5 set up and haven't for two and a half months. but anyway from what i remember when you go to compressor, you click on the dropdown box where all the different formats are. find the one that says advanced (something) and go down that dropbox to 10 bit uncompressed. it will look better than the 60 min. high quality you've been doing. now as to your question of avoiding or delaying compression? i don't know. but i do know that it looks way better than anything else i've tried.

Stephan Ahonen · June 25th, 2006, 11:13 PM

The one advantage I can think of for shooting SD is you get the 60Hz field rate of NTSC, resulting in smoother motion. If you need the video-smooth motion, though, I'd actually shoot HDV-SD60p instead of DV so you get HDV's color sampling.

Tom Hardwick · June 26th, 2006, 12:12 AM

I switch the Sony Z1 to DV SP (not even DVCAM) for the simple reason that coming back from a wedding with 5 one-hour tapes I can get the DSR-11 to do all the donkey work and not clock up head hours on the Z1 doing the dreary down-conversion.

OK, I realise that I lose a smigen of picture quality, but I guess the bride's looking for imagination and flaire rather than pin sharp boring bits.

tom.

Steve Benner · June 26th, 2006, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay Barnes

Chris, Maurice, Joe, Marc: Thanks for your help.

I'm actually an Avid Xpress Pro HD on a PC person, a rare breed around here I'm learning. I've had success with editing HDV in Avid using their DNxHD codec.

The advantage in going HDV through the editing process and then downconverting to SD must be in the codecs that you are using in FCP and the Cineform? Would my experience on different software be very different?

Has anyone tried this on Avid?

I have Xpress Pro for MAC, soon to be HD, and it does not support HDV 24P in any way, shape or form.

The advatage though to shooting HD is that the picture quality is 4X that of SD. It is the same concept that films use. They shoot at high quality and then down convert it to DVD. The picture is better because of the intial higher resolution.

That said, even in SD this camera is amazing.

Bill Parker · June 26th, 2006, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maurice Jolly

bill,
i don't have my g5 set up and haven't for two and a half months. but anyway from what i remember when you go to compressor, you click on the dropdown box where all the different formats are. find the one that says advanced (something) and go down that dropbox to 10 bit uncompressed. it will look better than the 60 min. high quality you've been doing. now as to your question of avoiding or delaying compression? i don't know. but i do know that it looks way better than anything else i've tried.

Maurice,

My problem with this approach is that once I go through Compressor at 10-bit uncompressed, I can't take those files into Toast. I burn in Toast because it allows me to burn at 1X (DVDSP only burns at a set speed (8x?)). When I build in DVDSP from the 10-bit uncompressed files, I no longer get the Video_TS and Audio_TS folders which I can then import into Toast. The 10-bit uncompresses creates a folder (building through DVDSP) the says simply MPEG. Toast doesn't recognize that and won't burn it for me. Maybe Toast has an update for something like this?

I don't know if that makes sense to anyone. It certainly has me confused. I may be doing something wrong. The reason I use Toast for burning is that burning at the slower speed seems to make my DVDs play better on more machines, particularly the older models.

Thanks.

Jay Barnes · June 27th, 2006, 11:31 AM

Since my original post on the quality of downrezzed HDV vs. SD, I came across a video clip from the JVC HD100 site that does a side by side comparison. The video is quite convincing although to Stephan's point, the clip doesn't have any panning in it.

http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/v...&feature_id=19

Tim Gray · June 27th, 2006, 01:57 PM

Not sure how much I trust the clip from JVC. It gets the idea across, but the magnitude of the improvement seems off to me. Going from HD -> SD does give you a bump up from the 4:1:1 sampling of DV - 4:2:0 downrezzed to SD gives you a pretty good picture. With HDV's 4:2:0 sampling, you have a color resolution of 640x360, which isn't too far off from SD res of 720x480. Thats a good thing. DVD color resolution (unless I'm completely off base) is 360x240.

We've been taking our HDV into Final Cut, converting to AIC and editing to that, and the exporting directly from the Final Cut timeline using Compressor. Compress is set to DVD 16:9 and out comes MPEG2 footage that you can bring into DVD studio and burn a dvd. No real dicking around with converting footage, etc - Compressor does the HD->SD conversion for you. I'm sure you can get better quality using some other system, but it seems pretty good to me.

One thing to consider. If the final output is SD, DV is a lot easier to work with. Dropouts aren't as noticeable, it's easier space wise, it's easier to edit, and you can just hand the tape off at the end of the day. Those might out weigh the increase in quality by shooting in HD.

With that said, I think the HD100 produces a pretty good SD image.

June 20th, 2006, 05:21 PM	#1
Jay Barnes New Boot Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Boston, Massachusetts Posts: 15	HD Converted to SD or SD Native? For a corporate product video shoot using the HD100U that will not be broadcast but will be distributed via DVD and CD, what are the pros and cons of shooting in HDV 30P and then converting to SD compared with shooting in SD? And am I correct in assuming that an HDV camera like the HD100 will produce a better SD image than a less expensive non-HD camera like the DVX100? (Sorry to ask questions that have probably been answered elsewhere, but there is so much helpful information on DVI that it's hard to sort through it all.)

June 20th, 2006, 09:43 PM	#2
Chris Barcellos Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Elk Grove CA Posts: 6,838	I'm more famiiliar with Sony HDV cams, but the trend of most discussions on this issue is that you come up with a better finished product by editing in HDV, and rendering to DV or directly to DVD in post. I have seen reports where there were guys complaining that the final product was worse, but the subsequent review of their processes indicated an error was made in the workflow at some point along the line. Second choice appears to be down converting HDV material, with actually shooting in DV being the final possibility. __________________ Chris J. Barcellos

June 20th, 2006, 10:43 PM	#4
Joe Bowey Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Glendale, AZ Posts: 217	I just got back from sedona. AZ and I shot using SD 24pa mode. I don't have the ability to edit HDV now but its nice to have for future. If I was shooting for film then I would shoot HDV but for making dvd's I am using SD mode. I find the video in SD mode is just as good as some travel channel and national geographic shows. I will post stills shot in SD 24pa here soon. They are just amazing. I also purchased a polarizer filter while in sedona and what a difference it makes.

June 21st, 2006, 01:34 AM	#5
Marc Colemont Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Belgium Posts: 695	If you can, edit in HDV and export strait to DVD from your timeline. This gives a higher quality then shooting in DV. For your info here is my workflow on my PC: - Shoot in HDV25P - Capture HDV25P through Cineform to Cineform AVI - Edit in Adobe Premiere Pro 2.0 - Export the timeline to DVD 25 frames 720x576 interleased The image is more crisp, and the colors are better like when you watch a hollywood DVD. The conversion from progressive to interleased works flawlessly watching the movie on the DVD end-result.

June 21st, 2006, 07:06 AM	#6
Jay Barnes New Boot Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Boston, Massachusetts Posts: 15	Chris, Maurice, Joe, Marc: Thanks for your help. I'm actually an Avid Xpress Pro HD on a PC person, a rare breed around here I'm learning. I've had success with editing HDV in Avid using their DNxHD codec. The advantage in going HDV through the editing process and then downconverting to SD must be in the codecs that you are using in FCP and the Cineform? Would my experience on different software be very different? Has anyone tried this on Avid?

June 21st, 2006, 10:56 AM	#7
Jack Walker Trustee Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Burbank Posts: 1,811	I am reading about these issues for my own projects. My finished product is DVD. With the HD100 I want to have SD DVDs now, and then be able to take the finished timeline and put it on HD DVD next year (or when it is available). Obviously, shooting in HDV in this scenario makes sense. If only SD is needed, I understand the SD quality is excellent on the HD100. However, if going to DVD, isn't more color information retained when shooting in HDV? Shooting Transcode to SD DVD ----------------------------------- HDV 4:2:0 SD Mpeg 4:2:0 DV 4:1:1 SD Mpeg 4:1:0 (effectively) I am asking the question: Isn't twice as much color information retained in the Final SD DVD when shooting in HDV (over DV)?

June 25th, 2006, 11:13 PM	#10
Stephan Ahonen Major Player Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 512	The one advantage I can think of for shooting SD is you get the 60Hz field rate of NTSC, resulting in smoother motion. If you need the video-smooth motion, though, I'd actually shoot HDV-SD60p instead of DV so you get HDV's color sampling.

June 26th, 2006, 12:12 AM	#11
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I switch the Sony Z1 to DV SP (not even DVCAM) for the simple reason that coming back from a wedding with 5 one-hour tapes I can get the DSR-11 to do all the donkey work and not clock up head hours on the Z1 doing the dreary down-conversion. OK, I realise that I lose a smigen of picture quality, but I guess the bride's looking for imagination and flaire rather than pin sharp boring bits. tom.

June 27th, 2006, 11:31 AM	#14
Jay Barnes New Boot Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Boston, Massachusetts Posts: 15	Since my original post on the quality of downrezzed HDV vs. SD, I came across a video clip from the JVC HD100 site that does a side by side comparison. The video is quite convincing although to Stephan's point, the clip doesn't have any panning in it. http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/v...&feature_id=19

June 27th, 2006, 01:57 PM	#15
Tim Gray Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Media, PA Posts: 144	Not sure how much I trust the clip from JVC. It gets the idea across, but the magnitude of the improvement seems off to me. Going from HD -> SD does give you a bump up from the 4:1:1 sampling of DV - 4:2:0 downrezzed to SD gives you a pretty good picture. With HDV's 4:2:0 sampling, you have a color resolution of 640x360, which isn't too far off from SD res of 720x480. Thats a good thing. DVD color resolution (unless I'm completely off base) is 360x240. We've been taking our HDV into Final Cut, converting to AIC and editing to that, and the exporting directly from the Final Cut timeline using Compressor. Compress is set to DVD 16:9 and out comes MPEG2 footage that you can bring into DVD studio and burn a dvd. No real dicking around with converting footage, etc - Compressor does the HD->SD conversion for you. I'm sure you can get better quality using some other system, but it seems pretty good to me. One thing to consider. If the final output is SD, DV is a lot easier to work with. Dropouts aren't as noticeable, it's easier space wise, it's easier to edit, and you can just hand the tape off at the end of the day. Those might out weigh the increase in quality by shooting in HD. With that said, I think the HD100 produces a pretty good SD image.