|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 10th, 2009, 05:19 AM | #1 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Burlington, Ontario
Posts: 67
|
How to get the best SD image from these cameras?
Do you record in HD and down convert or simply record in SD?
|
April 10th, 2009, 05:51 AM | #2 |
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Veenendaal, Holland
Posts: 225
|
If you record in HD and have to downconvert for any practicaL reason, you can always later pick up the footage again to produce in HD.
That will not be possible of course, if you shoot in SD. |
April 10th, 2009, 11:35 AM | #3 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Posts: 28
|
If your deliver medium is SD (DVD), the simplest workflow is to shoot in SD. There are some workflows that can deliver better results by downconverting from HDV to SD but they are not native to any of the NLEs so unless you know what you are doing, it is best to stick with SD the whole way down the delivery chain.
|
April 10th, 2009, 12:12 PM | #4 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Woodinville, WA USA
Posts: 3,467
|
Gosh, I couldn't disagree more. I'm with Jo on this one. Having done it both ways, I can tell you the results are vastly superior if you keep the whole process in HDV until you burn the disc. It's two steps in Premiere -- that's as close to native as possible -- and the SD DVDs come out way better than anything shot in SD mode on even the best cam. At least for me.
|
April 10th, 2009, 12:16 PM | #5 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 8,425
|
Barron, you might want to avoid shooting in HD and downconverting with the camera for the best image. I hear that the downconversion process is not as good as if you were to say, render HD to SD in Vegas, etc.
|
April 10th, 2009, 01:26 PM | #6 |
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Newbern, TN
Posts: 414
|
I'm with you Adam, HD all the way to the burn.
__________________
Tim |
April 10th, 2009, 02:40 PM | #7 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Nicosia, CYPRUS
Posts: 1,080
|
Quote:
Stelios
__________________
My Blog: http://steliosc.blogspot.com "I hope for nothing, I fear nothing, I am free" Nikos Kazantzakis |
|
April 10th, 2009, 02:50 PM | #8 |
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Veenendaal, Holland
Posts: 225
|
Oh I do not need a rock steady proof to show that. I know what I've seen, The DVD, burnt from HD footage in a HD project in Vegas beats the quality of downconversion prior to the actual burning. And I am sure that this is not only the case in Vegas, but in all apps.
And it's not only mee asuring that, but I have read that repeatedly. |
April 10th, 2009, 04:43 PM | #9 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 48
|
There is a similar case in audio. If you record, mix and master audio at 24-bit, and then create the final 16-bit CD from that 24-bit master, the results are way superior to if you did the whole project at 16-bit, largely for reasons of accuracy.
*Especially* if you are doing colour corrections or any other video processing, using the highest resolution material you can should ensure the FX have good material to work on, and this should be superior than doing the same processes on lower resolution video. Bottom line is to try it yourself both ways, and see whether your own material (and workflows) benefits most from which method. |
April 10th, 2009, 05:16 PM | #10 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Woodinville, WA USA
Posts: 3,467
|
Quote:
But in practice I find that anything you do in post degrades your footage a little bit, especially when you are re-rendering things like effects and such. Starting from a higher base gives you better quality throughout the process, and any degradation is happening to a higher "level" of quality that is mitigated when you downconvert. The way I like to think of it is as if HDV is five gallons of water in a five gallon bucket, and DV is one gallon in a one gallon bucket. If you carry the big bucket around and some sloshes out, you still have more than enough to fill the one-gallon bucket. More literally, lets say you're working with 1080 footage. You do some stuff, maybe re-encode or re-render and you lose 5% of your apparent resolution through degradation. It shouldn't happen as this is all digital, but we all know sometimes it does. So now you have an apparent resolution (how it looks to your eyes) of about 1025. Do this a few times and maybe it ends up looking like 925 or so. You then downconvert at the last minute to 480 and you still have 480 because your earlier losses are below the perceptible limits of the new resolution. If you'd converted to SD or shot that way from the beginning, each bit of loss would add up and to your eyes it might look like something in the neighborhood of 410 lines of resolution or so, which *is* visible. I've been accused of being all wet on this, but that's my experience. Viewing my DVDs done this way shows they are virtually identical to the BD versions on a 65-inch screen. You can tell they're not HD, but the difference is slight. Always keep the highest quality you can for as long as you can. Besides, now you have an HDV master you can simply burn to Blu-Ray if you suddenly need one. If you have a PC that can handle HDV easily, I don't see any downside to doing it this way. In Premiere with Prospect, a simple "Export to Encore" results in near HD DVDs for me. But as always, your mileage may vary. |
|
April 10th, 2009, 08:32 PM | #11 |
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Corpus Christi, TX
Posts: 640
|
I agree with the others. Shoot in HD. Edit in HD. Output to DVD with a good program like Adobe Encore and get as close to Blu-Ray quality as possible.
|
April 10th, 2009, 11:35 PM | #12 |
Trustee
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Nicosia, CYPRUS
Posts: 1,080
|
OK guys this is what I will do. Shoot in HDV, edit in HDV and then burn in DVD.
Then do the same thing, same scene, shoot in DV, edit in DV and burn in DVD. Get a few friends over some drinks show both videos on the same big LCD screen and ask them if they notice any difference and see. This will be interesting... It's not that I don't want to shoot in HDV, its because I know that my clients, so far, want the finished product in DVD with no intention to change it in the foreseeable future. Besides editing in DV (with my PC) is quicker. Stelios
__________________
My Blog: http://steliosc.blogspot.com "I hope for nothing, I fear nothing, I am free" Nikos Kazantzakis |
April 10th, 2009, 11:44 PM | #13 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Woodinville, WA USA
Posts: 3,467
|
Your results will probably depend upon how many drinks they have.
Just be sure you don't tell them which is which and do proper A/B switching. Or just burn both versions to the same disk with random changes. |
April 11th, 2009, 02:59 AM | #14 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Nicosia, CYPRUS
Posts: 1,080
|
Quote:
Cheers Stelios
__________________
My Blog: http://steliosc.blogspot.com "I hope for nothing, I fear nothing, I am free" Nikos Kazantzakis |
|
April 11th, 2009, 09:42 AM | #15 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Burlington, Ontario
Posts: 67
|
Rendering to SD and out-of-the-camera conversion to SD are two good points Jeff. In my mind, I was picturing the render method. I'm testing both and should have a frame grab from each very soon.
|
| ||||||
|
|