|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 4th, 2009, 05:38 PM | #16 |
Trustee
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 1,945
|
Thanks Rob, good info. I never even knew that guide existed since I always shoot 4:3 for SD projects.
|
March 4th, 2009, 07:55 PM | #17 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Woodinville, WA USA
Posts: 3,467
|
Quote:
Better than shooting DV in the first place? It seems to me that keeping your res as high as possible for as long as possible in the workflow should yield you the best picture in the end. Let's just say that every step in the process results in a loss of x% quality (however you define quality). It's better to have those losses off a higher base, so it's still way better than DV when you render to DV. If you start out in DV, every degradation takes it lower below the spec. If you mean why is it better to downconvert in cam than via software later, a lot of feedback I've seen has been that the cams just do a better job of this, but I'm sure it depends on the software you have to do the downconvert in your PC. But if Ken says he can't tell the difference, then I believe him and either way should be fine. In any event, it's never made any sense to me to shoot in DV mode in an HDV cam, as in my opinion the most important attribute of and HDV cam is that it's, well, HDV. |
|
March 4th, 2009, 07:58 PM | #18 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Woodinville, WA USA
Posts: 3,467
|
Quote:
Unless you like the look of 30p, I can't see any reason to convert 60i to it. Even so, if you like that look that's how you should shoot. Experiment with your new cam; only you know what you like best. |
|
March 4th, 2009, 08:21 PM | #19 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 1,945
|
Quote:
The major 4:3 DV differences in the Z5 relative to the 2100 are in color, exposure and detail. Those differences, in my opinion, are certainly more significant than the differences between starting in HDV and down-rezzing to SD either in-camera or in editing. But hey, we each look at things differently and whatever works for you. |
|
March 4th, 2009, 08:30 PM | #20 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Woodinville, WA USA
Posts: 3,467
|
Sorry, I didn't put it well. I was agreeing with you. When I said "way better" I didn't mean one way was way better than another, only that even bad HD is much more than 480 lines, so downconverting to SD from even bad HD is better than DV that has been degraded by the same amount... if in fact any degradation exists, which these days isn't all that likely.
For me, I just do everything in HD and actually make a BD .iso in case someone wants one, then downconvert and burn off all the SD DVDs. So I have the best of both worlds... but it took me getting a PC that was more expensive than my car to be able to do it. |
March 4th, 2009, 08:43 PM | #21 |
Trustee
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 1,945
|
OK, I got it Adam. I know one extremely good reason for starting with HDV (even if you know the final project will be SD) is for future marketing. I think Jeff mentioned this and my friend who also owns the Z5 has also thought this was a good idea.
That to me is one of the tremendous things about the CF Recorder. You can keep your project in HDV on tape and do a rapid transfer to your editing program in DV from the CF Recorder if you'd rather do it that way than in your editing program. |
March 4th, 2009, 09:24 PM | #22 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 427
|
Quote:
It's much more flexible. |
|
| ||||||
|
|