Bride's Complain

[Dave Blackhurst]

It seems to me that you're talking about SD cameras and source footage - you can't create what isn't there. Perhaps some sharpening in post or a plug in, but again you can only work with what you started with.

If the bride wanted HD, she should have asked for it so you could explain the difference. But to me I can't figure out how you can take 480-576 lines of resolution and fudge it up to 1080 lines without losing something in the translation? I know "upconverting" players supposedly do this sucessfully, but I'm guessing it works better from a commercial DVD that started at a higher source resolution so somehow there's more to interpolate?

[Richard Wakefield]

no, no, no....i can watch any of my old SD-shot DVDs, from 2 years ago, with my upscaling DVD player, and it's brilliant! i know it sounds impossible, but just try it! it fills inbetween the lines, so you're gaining, not losing.

[Ethan Cooper]

Originally Posted by Richard Wakefield

no, no, no....i can watch any of my old SD-shot DVDs, from 2 years ago, with my upscaling DVD player, and it's brilliant! i know it sounds impossible, but just try it! it fills inbetween the lines, so you're gaining, not losing.

that's my experience too, wonder why some people are saying SD could never look good upconverted to HD. I don't get it. Sure HD, edited as HD, encoded and burned as HD to a Bluray looks better, but in no way does any of the SD stuff I've shot and seen upconverted look bad or unacceptable. Maybe if you're sitting 2 feet from the screen, but at normal viewing distances it's fine.

[Monday Isa]

Originally Posted by Ethan Cooper

that's my experience too, wonder why some people are saying SD could never look good upconverted to HD. I don't get it. Sure HD, edited as HD, encoded and burned as HD to a Bluray looks better, but in no way does any of the SD stuff I've shot and seen upconverted look bad or unacceptable. Maybe if you're sitting 2 feet from the screen, but at normal viewing distances it's fine.

The problem could be stretching and playing it in the right aspect ratio. Especially if it's 4:3

[Walt Paluch]

I had the exact same problem.

Here is what you can do to fix it. Use the codec apple422 hq and it WILL improve the look. It does take a long render. You might have to upgrade your software.

"Here is the real problem" , so many are watching hd tv that they think there wedding is going to look like HD TV and it will not. You have to be up front with your brides and make it known before hand other wise this will bite you many times.

Remember vhs c, then Hi 8, then we all went to Mini dv then to hd. I just give them a blu-ray any way and there happy.

[Jeff Kellam]

For the future:

Im not familiar with your cameras, but if they shoot in widescreen, capture, edit and author the project as NTSC DVD widescreen. Even if the B&G are not widescreen now, they will be in the future. A wedding DVD is a forward looking product.

Be sure that the video render uses CBR at the maximum bit rates you are comfortable with, say 9,500 video, so you essentially have a super-bit DVD product. My agreement has a disclaimer that the DVD may not play on older players.

The super-bit DVD gives a "good as you can get" SD product. However, a 65" screen is a challenge beyond what could be expected from any non-HD wedding video. A 65" HDTV is probably rear projection if it is even a few years old. Those are just not flattering to non-studio produced SD video.

Also, like Monday said, make sure she is watching in the right aspect ratio.

[Jose Dominguez]

No, the original footage is 16/9 DVcam format from a 2/3-3CCDs cameras. I believe the problem is on the setting on her 65in Plasma. Her blu-ray player is a panasonic and as per my research it is very good and it has upscaling in it.

[Monday Isa]

Originally Posted by Jose Dominguez

No, the original footage is 16/9 DVcam format from a 2/3-3CCDs cameras. I believe the problem is on the setting on her 65in Plasma. Her blu-ray player is a panasonic and as per my research it is very good and it has upscaling in it.

Agreed if it was shot 16X9 on 2/3" CCDs. I bet ya it's the darn composite cables going to the tv from the bluray player ^_^ that'll ruin the picture quick.

[Jose Dominguez]

I don't know how good magic bullet instant HD is, but for $100.00 I am going to buy the plugging for FC and make her a blu-ray to get it over with. The bottom line she did not booked me for an HD package and now she is not happy with SD.

[Robert M Wright]

My guess is the problem lies more with the player's/television's deinterlacing than with the upscaling. I'd suggest delivering a (high quality) deinterlaced version.

[Edward Phillips]

This is veering off the original point but if you have a HD package to offer then I'm curious as to why are you still shooting and offering SD packages? It's the same effort for the most part to shoot in HD and future proof it and keep something like this from happening again.

Instead of spending the $100 on Instant HD you could buy a Western Digital Media Player for your client and you could play the video without any DVD compression.

[Nicholas de Kock]

I have a WDTV, I've done some scientific tests (well actually I just watched some TV one evening).

Test #1: Play a 300Mb SD episode of Lost on my 32" LG
Test #2: Play a 1Gb HD episode of Lost on my 32" LG

Results: Both looked identical, I don't know if its the WDTV or my 32" LG doing the up-scaling both versions look pretty decent, from my viewing distance I can't really tell them apart. On my 22" PC monitors the difference is night & day.

[Alex Atamanskiy]

I would ask her how does it look compared to Blockbuster's DVDs, it should be very close to your wedding DVD on the same screen, regardless of size, SD is SD. And by the way, I always make progressive DVDs, to keep up with Blockbuster's...