Quality Question at DVinfo.net

Shaughan Flynn · August 18th, 2005, 04:55 PM

I have a Z1. I shoot some test footage in 1080i. Gain turned off. Manual exposure. Shutter speed at 60. Flicker turned off. Steadyshot turned off. Camera is mounted on a tripod.

I capture into Premiere Pro 1.51 with no downconversion (Project set to HDV defaults). I take the clip and toss it in the time line and export the movie with the Cinepack codec.

When I look at the resultant footage it looks great. Until I pan. Even a slow gradual pan. No zooming. At that point I get these very nasty edge artifacts. The edges of everything look hideously jagged.

I have tried just letting the camera set the exposure and I get the same results.

Anyone have any pointers here for this?

Douglas Spotted Eagle · August 18th, 2005, 05:26 PM

If you're watching on a computer monitor, seeing jags is expected. Is that what you're doing? Convert the project properties to progressive for editing.

Boyd Ostroff · August 18th, 2005, 05:29 PM

This is a much discussed topic around here....

I am not yet editing in HDV with my Z1, but I shot some 1080i footage the other day. Right now I'm looking at it on a Samsung 22" LCD widescreen monitor through the 1080i component video connection.

I have a long slow tripod mounted pan from a mountain top across a wilderness horizon that has pine trees in the foreground, and lots more pines vanishing off into the haze in the distance. This would seem like the kind of complex moving detail that others are saying HDV can't handle well.

It looks great on the monitor, I don't see any blocky breakups or interlace artifacts. Now my screen is 1280x720, so maybe that's why I don't see any problems? I'll need to upgrade to FCP 5 before I can easily capture HDV, and maybe that will reveal some problems that don't show through the component output.

Jim Montgomery · August 18th, 2005, 05:40 PM

Check that when you render that the source footage is set to upper field first.

Jim

Shaughan Flynn · August 18th, 2005, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

If you're watching on a computer monitor, seeing jags is expected. Is that what you're doing? Convert the project properties to progressive for editing.

How do you mean? I am *blush* new to Premiere :)

Here is a section of a frame that illustrates the effect I am seeing:

http://www.netnance.com/Z1.jpg

That is the edge of a picture frame that I panned past.

Boyd Ostroff · August 18th, 2005, 07:48 PM

Seeing such a tiny postage stamp sized image out of context doesn't tell me much. But that appears to be the normal results of shooting motion with an interlaced camera, and not anything related to the Z1 or MPEG2 compression.

This webpage discusses interlaced images in SD, but the principles should be the same: http://www.100fps.com/

Shaughan Flynn · August 18th, 2005, 08:09 PM

OK, I changed that pic so that you can see the picture frame better. And this is with a slow pan - very slow. If I take the component output of the camera and play the tape into my HDTV it looks steallar.

Jim Montgomery · August 18th, 2005, 08:17 PM

Go to Export Movie, select Settings, Keyframe and Rendering, and be sure that Upper Field First is selected in the Rendering Options

Shaughan Flynn · August 18th, 2005, 08:27 PM

It is, Jim. Has been all along.

Stacy Rothwell · August 19th, 2005, 07:23 AM

Shaughan,

Is there any chance you're looking at this via firewire on your HDTV and it looks messed up?

Right after I bought my Z1 and used Premiere Pro 1.51 I discovered that anything I edited, then rendered back to the Z1 and played HDV Firewire out into my HDTV set had the fields reversed. But, if I played it back via component analog, the fields were fine.

Turns out that Adobe had a bug in a DLL file that, even though the fields were written to the tape in the correct order (upper first), one of the bits in the firewire header was mistakently left to lower (DV and SD material). So, the result was even though the material had the correct field order the TV was "told" to reverse it when using HD firewire.

I got a new DLL to test and it was fine. I can only assume they silently changed the 1.51 upgrade package with the fix.

Anyway, just curious if that was your problem.

Mark Grant · August 19th, 2005, 07:48 AM

Anyway, that's obviously just standard, ordinary everyday interlace artifacts. Play it in a program which deinterlaces and you won't see those lines anymore (though pans may appear to stutter as you lose half of your temporal resolution unless the program is smart enough to display both fields at twice the normal frame-rate).

Shaughan Flynn · August 19th, 2005, 07:55 AM

I was using the component out to look at it on my HDTV (where it looked great). I am going to shoot a bunch of SD footage tonight on DVCAM and then bring that into Premiere. The output that I need to generate is a QT file for the web and finally a DVD. I dont really need HD at the moment. I just started playing with it last night after I figured out to set the driver for the AV/C Subunit to the Sony D-VHS driver.

One thing I hate about Premiere is that it only lets you burn DVD - I cant create menus and other content (that I am aware of). It would be nice if it just output content that I could bring into a DVD authoring package to build the menus and then burn that to DVD - But that is a topic for another thread. Don't want to de-rail my own thread here :)

Any tips on outputting a high quality QT file for the web would be greatly appreciated though. And any tips on capture as well :)

Thanks everyone for all of your help here. I GREATLY appreciate it!

Shaughan.

Colvin Eccleston · August 19th, 2005, 12:07 PM

Unless it HAS to be Qt, you will get far better results in WM9.

Shaughan Flynn · August 19th, 2005, 12:27 PM

WM9 - Do you reccommend a particular codec for outputting to WM9? Or just the standard Microsoft one?

Colvin Eccleston · August 20th, 2005, 01:37 AM

I am using the settings on the microsoft site.
If you want to use QT look for daniel's postings on VideoUniversity.
Anyway, for the web, I use WM9, variable or constant (doesn't make much difference), full frame rate, 1/4 or 1/3 movie size, between 768-1500 bitrate, 100 quality. I am just starting to test 1280x720 for dvd. Cineform has some pointers on their site. I think the bitrate has to be 7000-10,000 depending on movie dimensions. One good thing about using WM is that you can import that file into After Effects and twiddle the sharpness and colour so it looks as good as the original.

August 18th, 2005, 04:55 PM	#1
Shaughan Flynn Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 272	Quality Question I have a Z1. I shoot some test footage in 1080i. Gain turned off. Manual exposure. Shutter speed at 60. Flicker turned off. Steadyshot turned off. Camera is mounted on a tripod. I capture into Premiere Pro 1.51 with no downconversion (Project set to HDV defaults). I take the clip and toss it in the time line and export the movie with the Cinepack codec. When I look at the resultant footage it looks great. Until I pan. Even a slow gradual pan. No zooming. At that point I get these very nasty edge artifacts. The edges of everything look hideously jagged. I have tried just letting the camera set the exposure and I get the same results. Anyone have any pointers here for this?

August 18th, 2005, 05:26 PM	#2
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	If you're watching on a computer monitor, seeing jags is expected. Is that what you're doing? Convert the project properties to progressive for editing. __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

August 18th, 2005, 05:29 PM	#3
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	This is a much discussed topic around here.... I am not yet editing in HDV with my Z1, but I shot some 1080i footage the other day. Right now I'm looking at it on a Samsung 22" LCD widescreen monitor through the 1080i component video connection. I have a long slow tripod mounted pan from a mountain top across a wilderness horizon that has pine trees in the foreground, and lots more pines vanishing off into the haze in the distance. This would seem like the kind of complex moving detail that others are saying HDV can't handle well. It looks great on the monitor, I don't see any blocky breakups or interlace artifacts. Now my screen is 1280x720, so maybe that's why I don't see any problems? I'll need to upgrade to FCP 5 before I can easily capture HDV, and maybe that will reveal some problems that don't show through the component output.

August 18th, 2005, 05:40 PM	#4
Jim Montgomery Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Vero Beach Posts: 392	Check that when you render that the source footage is set to upper field first. Jim

August 18th, 2005, 07:48 PM	#6
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Seeing such a tiny postage stamp sized image out of context doesn't tell me much. But that appears to be the normal results of shooting motion with an interlaced camera, and not anything related to the Z1 or MPEG2 compression. This webpage discusses interlaced images in SD, but the principles should be the same: http://www.100fps.com/

August 18th, 2005, 08:09 PM	#7
Shaughan Flynn Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 272	OK, I changed that pic so that you can see the picture frame better. And this is with a slow pan - very slow. If I take the component output of the camera and play the tape into my HDTV it looks steallar.

August 18th, 2005, 08:17 PM	#8
Jim Montgomery Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Vero Beach Posts: 392	Go to Export Movie, select Settings, Keyframe and Rendering, and be sure that Upper Field First is selected in the Rendering Options

August 18th, 2005, 08:27 PM	#9
Shaughan Flynn Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 272	It is, Jim. Has been all along.

August 19th, 2005, 07:23 AM	#10
Stacy Rothwell Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 112	Shaughan, Is there any chance you're looking at this via firewire on your HDTV and it looks messed up? Right after I bought my Z1 and used Premiere Pro 1.51 I discovered that anything I edited, then rendered back to the Z1 and played HDV Firewire out into my HDTV set had the fields reversed. But, if I played it back via component analog, the fields were fine. Turns out that Adobe had a bug in a DLL file that, even though the fields were written to the tape in the correct order (upper first), one of the bits in the firewire header was mistakently left to lower (DV and SD material). So, the result was even though the material had the correct field order the TV was "told" to reverse it when using HD firewire. I got a new DLL to test and it was fine. I can only assume they silently changed the 1.51 upgrade package with the fix. Anyway, just curious if that was your problem.

August 19th, 2005, 07:48 AM	#11
Mark Grant Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Saskatoon, Canada (was London, UK) Posts: 138	Anyway, that's obviously just standard, ordinary everyday interlace artifacts. Play it in a program which deinterlaces and you won't see those lines anymore (though pans may appear to stutter as you lose half of your temporal resolution unless the program is smart enough to display both fields at twice the normal frame-rate).

August 19th, 2005, 07:55 AM	#12
Shaughan Flynn Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 272	I was using the component out to look at it on my HDTV (where it looked great). I am going to shoot a bunch of SD footage tonight on DVCAM and then bring that into Premiere. The output that I need to generate is a QT file for the web and finally a DVD. I dont really need HD at the moment. I just started playing with it last night after I figured out to set the driver for the AV/C Subunit to the Sony D-VHS driver. One thing I hate about Premiere is that it only lets you burn DVD - I cant create menus and other content (that I am aware of). It would be nice if it just output content that I could bring into a DVD authoring package to build the menus and then burn that to DVD - But that is a topic for another thread. Don't want to de-rail my own thread here :) Any tips on outputting a high quality QT file for the web would be greatly appreciated though. And any tips on capture as well :) Thanks everyone for all of your help here. I GREATLY appreciate it! Shaughan.

August 19th, 2005, 12:07 PM	#13
Colvin Eccleston Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 93	Unless it HAS to be Qt, you will get far better results in WM9.

August 19th, 2005, 12:27 PM	#14
Shaughan Flynn Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 272	WM9 - Do you reccommend a particular codec for outputting to WM9? Or just the standard Microsoft one?

August 20th, 2005, 01:37 AM	#15
Colvin Eccleston Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 93	I am using the settings on the microsoft site. If you want to use QT look for daniel's postings on VideoUniversity. Anyway, for the web, I use WM9, variable or constant (doesn't make much difference), full frame rate, 1/4 or 1/3 movie size, between 768-1500 bitrate, 100 quality. I am just starting to test 1280x720 for dvd. Cineform has some pointers on their site. I think the bitrate has to be 7000-10,000 depending on movie dimensions. One good thing about using WM is that you can import that file into After Effects and twiddle the sharpness and colour so it looks as good as the original.