HDV to SD. Best method?

[Phil Hamilton]

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

I just do it straight across. Sometimes I'll add just a tad of unsharp mask when doing it, but otherwise...in Vegas, straight across.

What has been your experience with this effect in Vegas 6.0c? I get pretty good renders to 24p DVDA or NTSC interlaced DVDA mpegs. I am finding that the interlace footage crawls a bit but the 24p footage does not but looks a little more blurry - I guess due to the deinterlace method of BLEND.

Would the unsharp mask really help and exactly what is the effect and setting that seems to provide maximum benefit before looking really bad?

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Robert Kirkpatrick

I read somewhere on DVXuser that a straight HDV to SD downconvert from the camera to the software didn't produce that nice an image -- worse than say a higher end prosumer SD like DVX100. (But I could've misread that.)

I'd say that DVXuser is rather biased against HDV, and that their reviews downplay how good HDV looks when recorded and handled properly. And unless the DVX100 is a native widescreen camera it can't match HDV on that point, which is one of the best things about the HDV format. The future of video is definitely widescreen footage whether it's SD or HD, so any camera that doesn't have true widescreen recording capability is basically old news. Call me when a prosumer DV camera can produce a widescreen image like this: http://www.videomem.com/hdv/yosemite_720p.wmv .

Regarding the original topic of this discussion, I capture my HDV footage to the Canopus HQ format, edit at HD resolution, then output to widescreen SD MPEG2 using Procoder Express. You can see some examples here: http://www.videomem.com/HDV/encoding...comparison.htm

[Peter Jefferson]

ive tried numerous methods, but i find that capturing straight at M2t into Vegas then converting to cineform works best.. i dont like how i lose my timecode though.. :(

anyways...
once captured and converted, i keep the capture file as a veg file, as Vidcap doesnt capture HDV, i actually keep a Veg file with all capture datails...

from there i start a new project and take it from there using cineform... once i finish my edit i just render out as one big AVI... then using Mainconcept encoder, or even DVD Architect, i usually get really good results..
I just dont liek interlaced material...

[Phil Hamilton]

Originally Posted by Peter Jefferson

from there i start a new project and take it from there using cineform... once i finish my edit i just render out as one big AVI... then using Mainconcept encoder, or even DVD Architect, i usually get really good results..
I just dont liek interlaced material...

Peter - I do pretty much the same and create a cineform AVI from the M2t as well. I work with this AVI. Then, from there I go directly back to tape in HDV format - or - I go directly to the DVD Architect mpg template for widescreen. If you render first to one big AVI are you not losing a generation of quality? I don't see the necessity for rendering to one large AVI since you have your original cineform AVIs. I'm either going back to HDV tape or to DVD Architect. tks.

[Steve Crisdale]

Originally Posted by Phil Hamilton

If you render first to one big AVI are you not losing a generation of quality? I don't see the necessity for rendering to one large AVI since you have your original cineform AVIs.

Yes... but having already converted to CFHD AVI, any generational loss from rendering a complete AVI of a finished project to CFHD AVI, should be so minimal that it would be very, very difficult to spot.

It's doing anything to the original M2T files, or any MPEG based files that are generated from the source material that's the "big no no"!!

Mind you anything that reduces the possibility of quality reduction, as well as the time taken for an extra step, is good news in my book!!

[Jim Rog]

Hello

I have just read over these 3 pages yet i still do not see anyone say what are the best settings please could someone tell me what settings i should choose in vegas when starting a new project and what settings i should render to get the maximum quality. i am happy with the camera quality so i just want to edit it in vegas then save that onto a DVD at the very best quality i need to output to PAL my camera is FX1 PAL please help me with the settings.

thank you

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

We'll just start here, and you'll likely get a lot of varying opinions.

1. Capture as M2t or as CineForm, depending on the speed of your computer, and whether you have CineForm or not.
2. Open an HDV project template in Vegas.
3. Edit in either CineForm or m2t (I don't believe in editing m2t, but we'll keep this a simple post)
4. Render to DVD Settings you normally use.
5. Play your DVD and make lotsa money.

[Fred Foronda]

converting from the camera looks fine to me plus the added scene detecton which you don't get with vegas 6 when capturing the m2t (arrrghhh).

[Jim Rog]

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

We'll just start here, and you'll likely get a lot of varying opinions.

1. Capture as M2t or as CineForm, depending on the speed of your computer, and whether you have CineForm or not.
2. Open an HDV project template in Vegas.
3. Edit in either CineForm or m2t (I don't believe in editing m2t, but we'll keep this a simple post)
4. Render to DVD Settings you normally use.
5. Play your DVD and make lotsa money.

Thanks

But i am unsure what to choose from the list there are many output settings 720 is this good? will this keep the same quality from the camera?

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Fred Foronda

converting from the camera looks fine to me plus the added scene detecton which you don't get with vegas 6 when capturing the m2t (arrrghhh).

To each his own, I guess. I see a tremendous difference, and even built a streaming file to demonstrate the differences.
Jim, as far as output settings/project settings, if you're shooting with the Z1, you need to set your project properties to 1080i. That's what the media properties are. If you want to output to 720p, that's fine too.

[Jim Rog]

Hi Douglas thank you

It’s the FX1 PAL i got so if i set it to output to 1080i PAL this will give the same quality as the original footage once rendered out?

Thanks

[Fred Foronda]

Okay I did my own test. Edited a footage both in Vegas. I used the same footage. One used with the camera doing the conversion and the other using Vegas to convert it. I burned it to a dvd and played it on a good old fashion CRT tv. It looks the same. I am doing this as a hobby and majority of you are professionals so maybe its just me. I am not trying to question or diss you Mr Eagle or anyone here but I am just sharing infos and putting my contributions on these boards.

I guess both have pros and cons. Did I already mentioned how I don't like how Vegas didn't include the scene detection on HDV??

Thanks

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Jim Rog

Hi Douglas thank you

It’s the FX1 PAL i got so if i set it to output to 1080i PAL this will give the same quality as the original footage once rendered out?

Thanks

Assuming you keep everything clean in your color correction, etc...yes, it will be the same.

Fred,
I didn't take your post as a dis...but I also can't see how anyone can possibly not see the difference.

http://www.vasst.com/streaming/HDV_downconvert.mpg is a single stream, standard def file at low resolution compared to avi. The difference is huge. The first half of the file is HD all the way til it's rendered to the mpg file, the second half was converted with the camera.
FWIW, my last name is "Spotted Eagle", not "Eagle." :-)

[Fred Foronda]

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

Assuming you keep everything clean in your color correction, etc...yes, it will be the same.

Fred,
I didn't take your post as a dis...but I also can't see how anyone can possibly not see the difference.

http://www.vasst.com/streaming/HDV_downconvert.mpg is a single stream, standard def file at low resolution compared to avi. The difference is huge. The first half of the file is HD all the way til it's rendered to the mpg file, the second half was converted with the camera.
FWIW, my last name is "Spotted Eagle", not "Eagle." :-)

Was the digital zoom from the camera or or the NLE? I noticed the difference when you zoomed in to the duck.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Fred Foronda

Was the digital zoom from the camera or or the NLE? I noticed the difference when you zoomed in to the duck.

Like the titling says, it's a digital zoom, performed by the NLE. However, you can see the artifacting immediately on the duck head in the camera convert file, long before the zoom occurs. It only becomes more visible in the zoom.