HVR A1 video files

[Michael May]

Hello,

I've been reading this forum for the past several months and the information I found was very helpful. I finally made the decision to buy a HVR A1 and wanted to post a few video files to help others make an informed decison. Please keep in mind that I turned my camera on and walked outside so my camera skills are not very polished yet, but its the quality of the camera I wanted everyone to see. Here is one of the links:

www.mbdigitalworks.com/video/sgt-HD-v2.wmv 56MB | 1280x720p

I wanted to compare this to the JVC HD100 that shoots 720p because the video from that camera really looks nice, but the price is too steep for beginners like myself. Not to mention the numerous technical/reliability problems that have popped up with the JVC camera. The video has not been modified/color corrected in post, just converted to 720p.

I will post another thread with raw videos, exact details, workflow and also problems with Cinfeform in a seperate post, but here is basically what I did to get started:

1. Set the camera to auto.
2. Recorded a few minutes in 1080i.
3. Captured the video using Vegas 6.0c
4. Rendered to a HD Windows Media Video file (using the HD 720p template)

This is my first post, so I hope I made a good impression! Please let me know if there is anything specific I can do to help out. I will be out of town next week, but when I get back, I will post additional information.

Thanks,

Michael

[Ray Boltz]

Very interesting. The video you shot with your HRV-A1, looks much better than any I have seen here using the HRV-Z1. The texture looks much smoother (natural). Could you post some in 1080i using your dog and yard again, so I can compare? I was going for the new Canon, but may just start out with an A1. I could put the money I save getting an A1, toward upgrading my computer anyways. I use Vegas 6.0c now for just SD. Thanks, Ray

[Eric Gorski]

nice clip.. that does look very smooth and less digital then alot of video footage.. cute dog too.

[Joel Holland]

Michael, I would love to take a look at the sample video but your bandwidth limit has been exceeded. When you get a chance, please dump it on the ftp account I created for you, and then readers of this forum can jump on and download it using my bandwidth which is plentiful:

ftp://ftp.footagefirm.com
username: michael
password: video

Post a message letting readers know when the video is on the server so we can grab it.

Thanks!

- Joel

[Michael May]

I just got back into town and read the posts that my bandwidth limit had been exceeded. I apologize for the trouble and I added another 5 gigs of bandwidth to my site, but that still may not be enough. Joel was nice enough to give me some space on his server so the file has been uploaded to his server now. Please use his site to download the video.

Joel, can I also post a 1080i file and the original file on your server?

Here is my 2 cents worth:

1. 720p looks better to me than 1080i, but I know that may be a subjective rather than objective matter. This maybe the reason why my .wmv and the HD100 files looks so good.

2. I built a media system at work based on the BenQ PE7000 DLP projector that natively displays 1280x720p. I wanted to get the HD100 but because of the $5000 price tag and technical problems, I was forced to choose another camera. I gambled on shooting with a Sony 1080i camera and then converting it to 720p. For me 720p was better for several reason: better picture (my opinion only) and easier editing, playback and storage due to the smaller resolution compared to the 1080i format.

3. The HVR-A1U has enough features for me, but not too many that I'm overwhelmed. I will use this camera to learn the basics and then upgrade later if/when I need to. Ray, you said it perfectly. I could have bought a high-end camera but not have any money left over for accessories. I figured I would be better off by getting the A1 and using the extra money to buy a good shotgun mic and lighting setup. I hope this helps.

Thanks,

Michael

[Joel Holland]

Michael,

Thanks for posting the clip. Please go ahead and post the 1080i file, the original and as many more as you'd like. I've got plenty of space and bandwidth.

Also, your observations about the A1 are very helpful as I'm trying to find a good HDV camera to start playing around with before upgrading.

- Joel

[Ray Boltz]

Michael,
Thanks for re-posting the sample. I'm really impressed by the way it looks. I just read a post that the HVR-Z1 will not work through the firewire input on one of the newer Sony TVs. I have a XBR 960, and if anyone using the HVR-A1 and you have the same model TV as I do, does it work with the firewire input? Ray

[Joel Holland]

My main question--which I'm sure has been covered a million times elsewhere--is which resolution to go with for the most universal acceptance in the industry? It seems like many of the higher end HD cameras are going with 720p, so why are the prosumer HDV cameras going 1080i? Any ideas on which standard will eventually take control?

From a purchasing standpoint it seems like it is easier to downres from 1080i to 720p than the otherway around. Does this make sense?

- Joel

[Pierre Barberis]

I understand you get that A1 cam, and you are wondering "What should be my archives made of, and which forlmat do i distribute TODAY ?"

As far as Archives, i think the best is either to keep the Cineform encoded AVIs ( big big disk needed, or dozens of DVDs) or to keep the MPEG2-TS strem ( one third the volume, and the best you can keep. The beauty is that your NLE can "trim" the unneeded files, once you are sure you get it all...( as least Premier does).
Or you can produce some MPEG2 after your edits ( but pick an excellent encoder, and you will have three conversions ( m2t=>AVI=>AVI=>m2T)

As far as distribution, i suggest you encode in TWO or THREE formats. As a PC user i still find that the combination of TMPGenc with WMV is the best , because you can easily batch encodings. With the proper settings , WMV results are VERY good, may be some day the H264 will challenge this, but it is -in my opinion - NOT the case as of today..

So which format ? I usually do TWO:
1/ Best version :1080p (deinterlacing the AVI by cineform ) at the max speed a standard - and cheap - DVD can handle ie 9500 Kbps. The image is perfect - to my eyes - even with fast movement (a motor boat speeding on rough sea, etc..) and you need to find a real 1080 screen or projector - rare and expensive - to it justice. But , you know, two years from now this will be common, and you would regret not to have made it. You might even keep only that version, which contains the very details of your footage.. The drawback is that at this definition and bandwith you need a really FAST CPU not only to encode it but also to PLAY itt..ako 3.2 MHz or above

2/ Second version: 720p at a speed between 4500 and 6500 kbps, depending upon the type of images you get.This will be reasonnably compact ( circa 2h on a DVD) and will play on pratically all modern CPUs - It plays very well on my low end portable.. This format is also read by the DVDs which claim they play WMV ( like the JVC SRDVD-100U ), but do not support -yet, hopefully- 1080. As of today this format gives the best quality you can get on current displays , LCDs, Plasmas, Affordable projectors.

3/ THIRD Version: i often encode in a definition which is "one fourth" of the original, ie 720*540 ( with non square pixels ) at a reasonnably low speed ( 1500Kps is perfect, some would accept 1000kps, best shot is probably Variable Bit Rate circa 1200Kbps. I dont know why , but the result is amazingly good . May be the fact that you are using EXACTLY one half of the definition makes image preservation better.. It definitely provides a format convenient to SEND or DOWNLOAD files over the net with amazing quality , better in my opinion that SD and definitely better that the SD downsizing done by the camcorder it self ; Try it , it was a good surprise. And you could also store ako 8hours on a single DVD..

Hope this will prove usefull. Experiment and enjoy !!

[Michael May]

The 1080i file has been posted to Joel's site. The file was only edited to shorten the length/size (166MB) and has not been modified in any other way. I rendered it as a HDV 1080i mpeg file (Vegas preset) so the workflow is: mt2 capture, then m2t render. When I get the chance, I will recapture the same footage, but only capture a minute to try to reduce the file size. I will then post the raw mt2 file.

Most of the posts in the forum suggested using Cineform as a capture and intermediate format tool. I used it, but ran into a few problems.

1. I would start capture, but it would give me an error and I would have to start capture a second time. I was then able to capture the video.

2. After capture, my computer would act sluggish and would require a reboot to return to normal.

3. About 50% of my captures would result in strange artifacts or dropouts and the captured video was useless.

4. I really couldn't tell the difference between a Cineform intermediate file and one captured with Vegas.

Can anyone share their experiences? I was only working with one video stream at a time and I only compressed it once so I may not have had the opportunity to take advantage of Cineform.

Thanks,

Michael

[Michael Liebergot]

Originally Posted by Michael May

The 1080i file has been posted to Joel's site. The file was only edited to shorten the length/size (166MB) and has not been modified in any other way. I rendered it as a HDV 1080i mpeg file (Vegas preset) so the workflow is: mt2 capture, then m2t render. When I get the chance, I will recapture the same footage, but only capture a minute to try to reduce the file size. I will then post the raw mt2 file.

Most of the posts in the forum suggested using Cineform as a capture and intermediate format tool. I used it, but ran into a few problems.

1. I would start capture, but it would give me an error and I would have to start capture a second time. I was then able to capture the video.

2. After capture, my computer would act sluggish and would require a reboot to return to normal.

3. About 50% of my captures would result in strange artifacts or dropouts and the captured video was useless.

4. I really couldn't tell the difference between a Cineform intermediate file and one captured with Vegas.

Can anyone share their experiences? I was only working with one video stream at a time and I only compressed it once so I may not have had the opportunity to take advantage of Cineform.

Thanks,

Michael

Michael what are your system specs, as that might be a problem with straight capture/coversion on the fly using just Cineform. Many have reported better results by capturing and then converting using ConnectHD in Vegas. Also GearShift is a good option for working with Proxies.

BTW, there shouldn't be much if any difference between how the Mt2 and Cineform files look form each other, just how they handle while editing. As the Cineform uses the same colorspace, but the files (although much larger than DV or Mt2) let you edit like in DV and won't choke your computer as well as won't degrade with editing and rendering like working with just MT2 files.

[David Watts]

Joel,

Do you mind if I post some samples from my hc1 to you site?

David

[Michael May]

My system specs are:

Asus P4P800 motherboard
P4 3.06 Ghz processor
1GB RAM
160GB Western Digital hard drive (O/S and apps)
160GB Western Digital hard drive (audio/video only)
ATI 9550 256MB dual output video card
RME Multiface soundcard
numerous external hard drives
Windows XP home edition (latest updates and service pack)

Thanks,

Michael

[Joel Holland]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Joel,

Do you mind if I post some samples from my hc1 to you site?

David

Yes, please post your clips. And if anybody else reading this string would like to post anything, feel free. We have plenty of space and bandwidth.

- Joel

[Michael May]

I posted another 720p .wmv file on Joel's site, shot with my A1. This clip has fast moving cars which has been a topic of discussion before. It was very gray and overcast so I used the color correction tool in Vegas to add a little blue to the video. Here are my thoughts about the clip.

1. If you use the tripod to track the cars it looks very good.
2. If a car is about 75ft-100ft away, it still looks pretty smooth.
3. If a car is less than 50ft away, moving faster than 30mph, close to 90 degrees angle from the camera, and you don't track it, it starts to get a little blurry.

#3 might be just that I have everything on auto and my lack of experience in shooting fast moving objects.

Still, with bad overcast lighting and my inexperience, the video still looks really good.

Enjoy,

Michael