|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 15th, 2006, 02:48 PM | #31 |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minneapolis Minnesota
Posts: 347
|
Thanks Fred for clearifying. That is very interresting that you had less artifacting by downconverting in your FX-1 before editing. I found that when I was redering output from Vegas, I had the MainConcept HDV coder selected. Last night I used the "DVD Architect widescreen" template and the results were excellent. I still have some of the wavy artifacts, but not any worse then with regular DV, and the sharpness, color gaument, shadow-highlights, are all much better then in a DVD from SD DV. I have Adobe PPro as well, and my results had been equally poor in both Vegas and PPro. I double checked, and I don't see the same/similar error in my Adobe setup, so I'll have to investigate that further. At least I'm up n running with Vegas and HDV :)
|
June 15th, 2006, 03:46 PM | #32 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Elk Grove CA
Posts: 6,838
|
Quote:
I'll make sure I have mine set on wide screen too. Actually, with respect to Vegas Movies Studio, I bought the Platinum version which allow native hdv editing, and had DVD Architect and the stripped down Acid sound program. I have always been a Premiere user, but with all the Vegas hype, I wanted to get a feel for it. I don't believe the Cineform HD codec is used at all when you edit natively in Vegas, whether with this Movie Studio product, or the standard Vegas. My understanding is that you have to use Cineform stand alone HD Connect to actually have access to the the Cineform process. You would know for sure though, if you your HD captured files are .avi files, then you are using one of the intermediate codecs from Cineform.
__________________
Chris J. Barcellos |
|
June 15th, 2006, 03:47 PM | #33 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 337
|
Quote:
The main thing at this point is I am outputing it to HDV tape then later to Blu Ray. Those artifacts and wavy lines are probaby happening in the step when we convert the m2t to a CF codec. We're probably doing something wrong and no one had corrected us so far. |
|
June 15th, 2006, 04:07 PM | #34 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minneapolis Minnesota
Posts: 347
|
Chris + Fred
Quote:
Fred, I am just trying to output to DVD, but if you are getting those effects when outputing to HDV tape - that is really obnoxious. If we are ALL dooing something wrong, then I think cineform needs to come out with a "GUIDE" with step by step instructions and cautions on the pitfalls/errors that are common. I too am looking foreward to being able to output to BlueRay - hopefully soon! |
|
June 15th, 2006, 06:13 PM | #35 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 337
|
Quote:
No, I am getting flawless resuts going back to HDV tape..very identical with the original footage with all the bells and whistles. Its going to DVD is where the problem is. |
|
June 15th, 2006, 07:44 PM | #36 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minneapolis Minnesota
Posts: 347
|
Quote:
|
|
June 16th, 2006, 01:03 AM | #37 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Elk Grove CA
Posts: 6,838
|
Quote:
I am told by Doug Spotted Eagle, and other experts on the board that using Cineform will give you better editing capability and better color handling. I think I have seen occasional evidence where the color had a bit of a temporary tinge at the wrong place, but I have been generally well satisfied with the results. A Cineform file would be 5 times the size for same footage, so if you go that route, you have to plan for a lot more disk space. Add the fact that Cineform's Aspect for Premiere runs about $500.00, or $200.00 for HD Connect for Vegas, and I just haven't gotten into it. So far, except for a couple of tests with Vegas in HDV native editing, I have not really tested Vegas that way. I never have been quite confortable with the Vegas user interface, so I just haven't pushed it there.
__________________
Chris J. Barcellos |
|
June 16th, 2006, 01:47 AM | #38 |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minneapolis Minnesota
Posts: 347
|
Chris, your system and mine are almost identical. That's amazing that you don't seem to need the Cineform. Is the native hdv performance about the same in PPro2 vs Vegas? I agree that Ppro is a more intuative interface, and the help file is far superior. DSE's DVD tutitorials for Vegas are nice, but I'd like to have the explanation right there in print where I can follow it. Going to DVD Vegas seems to allow me to set the bit rate higher then Ppro 1.5 and at least for now, it is givng me good HDV to DVD. I still can't seem to get very good results with Ppro=way too much artifacting. remeber I am using the CF intermediate with both. Ppro 1.5 does not support native hdv editng. One thing I wish Ppro would do, is allow full screen preview on monitor #2. You have to go thru the firewire-camcorder-monitor, at least in ppro 1.5. Is that the same in 2.0? Vegas makes it easy to do that.
We'll its late, goodnight - PK |
June 16th, 2006, 03:47 AM | #39 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Bath, England
Posts: 119
|
Paul, Chris, and Fred:
A few points about the Cineform Codec in Vegas/Vegas Movie Studio Platinum: 1. A Cineform Codec is included with Vegas 6 (and VMS Platimum 6). You don't need to buy Connect HD. (The advantage in using Connect HD is you can capture directly to Cineform in one step). 2. If you are capturing and editing the native HDV, then the CineForm codec is not involved. 3. To use the Cineform Codec provided with Vegas, you first capture the HDV, then in a separate step render a Cineform intermediate file, and edit that. 4. If the edited footage is flawless when you render HDV back to m2t/print to tape, and you only see problems when rendering down to SD DVD, then I don't think the problem can be with your Cineform settings. 5. Using the Vegas Cineform codec, I find they are generally about 3 times the size of the original m2t (not 5). |
June 16th, 2006, 07:58 AM | #40 | |
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stockton, UT
Posts: 5,648
|
Quote:
__________________
Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com |
|
June 16th, 2006, 10:21 AM | #41 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Elk Grove CA
Posts: 6,838
|
Quote:
1. If you look at my post, and follow the thread, you will discern that I am responding to another post asking about editing native HDV and I was referring to the Native HDV editing and some color problems associated with it as reported by you and others. I was not criticizing Cineforms product. I was merely reporting that in editing in HDV native, I had noticed and occasional color problem- exactly what you and others have indicated, and I was only confirming that. 2. I am confused about Cinefrom as an available codec in Vegas 6. Are you saying I should have it with VMS Platinum too, as reported by Mark Bryant above ? 3. As far as doing projects in HDV, I clearly stated that I had only done tests in Vegas Movie Studio. That doesn't mean I haven't done projects using native HDV editing in Premiere Pro. 4. File size: I will stand corrected on the multiplier. It has been some time since I used the trial version, but the point is that it does use significantly more space and I was pointing out that that should be planned for. Again, I am not slamming the product. I was only pointing out what needed to be done.
__________________
Chris J. Barcellos |
|
June 16th, 2006, 11:00 AM | #42 |
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stockton, UT
Posts: 5,648
|
Movie Studio also has the CineForm codec installed with the product.
You keep saying "significantly more space." It's approx 3 times the space. It's HD. Understand that even at 3 times the space, it's insignificant compared to other compression schemes. It's HD. It's big. It's 4 times the resolution for less than 4 times the file size. Do the math. This is where it gets frustrating. You want 4 times the pixels in the same amount of space. I realize I'm being combative, but just stop for a second and think about what's happening in this discussion. It's been sidetracked, and sidetracked in part because some folks aren't understanding that: 1. HDV is 4 times the pixels of DV. 2. HDV is same raw file size as HDV, but that file format was never intended to be edited. the mere words "Native HDV editing" should be banned from our vocabulary, because it's marketing hype. MPEG is a lousy editing format at small bitrates. HDV *barely* gets into the acceptable bitrate for editing. This is why CineForm, Canopus NX, Apple AIC, and several other DI's exist. Because it's the smart way to work. But some folks want the size of HDV to match the size and experience of editing DV. Ain't gonna happen. No way, no how. It's a LOT more information. Ain't no free lunch. And on a slower computer, native HDV isn't going to happen anyway. Not in Premiere, Vegas, Canopus, Apple, etc, etc. Comparing Premiere Pro 2 to VMS is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? You're comparing a 79.99 software to a 499.00 software.
__________________
Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com |
June 16th, 2006, 11:29 AM | #43 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Elk Grove CA
Posts: 6,838
|
Quote:
If you are in the actual business of video production for a living, then you do what you have to to deliver a top product. But this thread was clearly a hobbiest level discussion. Nobody has said that it is better to edit in HDV native. I do edit that way, and I'll be darn, I actually have access to transitions, color correction, slow motion processing, and all the other things associated with editing when I edit HDV native. And with my generic set up, I do so relatively trouble free, at least to the level I need it, and that is what I reported. I believe DVInfo includes consumer oriented users, and is not limited to professional level users. Am I wrong about that ?
__________________
Chris J. Barcellos |
|
June 16th, 2006, 11:49 AM | #44 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Elk Grove CA
Posts: 6,838
|
Quote:
I actually upgraded 1.51 to 2.0 to get the capability. I still have 1.51 on the system to if I want to use Cineform Codec to capture with. As far as being more intuitive, I'm sure others will tell you Vegas is more intuitive. For me, I have used the Premiere interfaces for about 5 years, so I'm used to their look and feel.
__________________
Chris J. Barcellos |
|
June 16th, 2006, 10:18 PM | #45 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Amstetten Austria
Posts: 140
|
challenges of HDV editing?
Quote:
What are the main differences between editing DV and HDV with the the help of CineForm in Vegas? |
|
| ||||||
|
|