Downconversion of HD footage at DVinfo.net

Jeff Harper · December 15th, 2008, 01:39 PM

M2t files...when producing a SD disc with with footage shot in HD does it matter if you downconvert via the cam when uploading files to the PC or when rendering from the timeline?

Jason Robinson · December 16th, 2008, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

M2t files...when producing a SD disc with with footage shot in HD does it matter if you downconvert via the cam when uploading files to the PC or when rendering from the timeline?

As far as I know, doing it in cam is faster (no computer down convert step) and takes up less HD space, but I only have one project recorded to HD that uses m2t, and I haven't touched it yet.

Jeff Harper · December 16th, 2008, 04:07 PM

Thanks Jason. I ended up rendering the original HD files to plain NTSC widescreen, seemed to work fine. Since the files are the same size, it now occurs to me that there is no reason to down-convert from the camera...it's pointless. I just edit the files and render into the desired format and therby retain the original quality.

Darrin Ward · December 16th, 2008, 04:15 PM

If you capture in HD you have the option to zoom in some if needed without affecting the image quality after downconvert to SD. The SD picture quality will also be better in my opinion.

Jason Robinson · December 16th, 2008, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darrin Ward

If you capture in HD you have the option to zoom in some if needed without affecting the image quality after downconvert to SD. The SD picture quality will also be better in my opinion.

The SD crop of HD footage is one MAJOR benefit, IMO. You can almost make a static camera look like two different cameras shooting the same footage. Full frame gives wide angle, SD crop looks like a tighter angle and a second cam shooting the same footage.

If I had an HD cam, THAT is what i would be doing. Especially because I have not had a single bride request HD from me. The downside is of course less low light performance (from what I've heard) so there is a trade off.

Jeff Harper · December 17th, 2008, 01:46 AM

That is a good point Darrin, more flexibility in post. That is exactly what I needed to hear to know which way to go.

As far as cropping Jason, SD vs HD has to do with resolution, and I think you are referring more to 16:9 vs 4:3.

Jason Robinson · December 17th, 2008, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

That is a good point Darrin, more flexibility in post. That is exactly what I needed to hear to know which way to go.

As far as cropping Jason, SD vs HD has to do with resolution, and I think you are referring more to 16:9 vs 4:3.

Nope. If you display a SD frame on top of a HD frame, the SD frame will be much smaller (note that you have to not resize / stretch). If you keep the SD frame at native SD frame sizes, then the SD frame size will be 720x480, while the HD frame size will be 1920x1080. Plenty of room to fit an SD frame at native resolution in there.

Jeff Harper · December 17th, 2008, 01:31 PM

I see what you're saying...I guess I'm still figuring this out. They are indeed different sizes!

December 15th, 2008, 01:39 PM	#1
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Downconversion of HD footage M2t files...when producing a SD disc with with footage shot in HD does it matter if you downconvert via the cam when uploading files to the PC or when rendering from the timeline?

December 16th, 2008, 04:07 PM	#3
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Thanks Jason. I ended up rendering the original HD files to plain NTSC widescreen, seemed to work fine. Since the files are the same size, it now occurs to me that there is no reason to down-convert from the camera...it's pointless. I just edit the files and render into the desired format and therby retain the original quality. Last edited by Jeff Harper; December 17th, 2008 at 01:49 AM.

December 16th, 2008, 04:15 PM	#4
Darrin Ward New Boot Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Conway, AR Posts: 13	If you capture in HD you have the option to zoom in some if needed without affecting the image quality after downconvert to SD. The SD picture quality will also be better in my opinion.

December 17th, 2008, 01:46 AM	#6
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	That is a good point Darrin, more flexibility in post. That is exactly what I needed to hear to know which way to go. As far as cropping Jason, SD vs HD has to do with resolution, and I think you are referring more to 16:9 vs 4:3.

December 17th, 2008, 01:31 PM	#8
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	I see what you're saying...I guess I'm still figuring this out. They are indeed different sizes!