-
HDV to DVD in CS3
Greetings,
Let me apologize right off the bat if I’m beating an already dead horse, but I can’t seem to find a concrete answer.
I’ve done searches on both the Cow and other forum sites, but seem to find conflicting results.
I know that with CS2, the problems with the Adobe Media Encoder were well documented when it came to converting HDV projects to DVD.
So, my simple question is this: Has this issue indeed been addressed with CS3? Is the encoder improved? Will an HDV project end up looking better on a DVD that it would have with CS2? Will it still be recommended that I buy 3rd party conversion software?
OK, OK, I realize that was actually 4 questions, but they’re basically the same! If anyone has tested this out and wouldn’t mind sharing the results, I’d love to hear from them.
For that matter, any input or information will be greatly appreciated!
thanks much
-
6 Replies
-
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Dunno -
To the last question, Cineform Aspect HD would be recommended for speed of editing.
Vince
-
Thanks Harm and Vincent…
Couple of follow ups. First, Harm, let me rephrase that last question and redirect it to you. Are you comfortable enough with the CS3 encoder to use it exclusively? Or, would you feel better using something else?
Vincent, would the Cineform Aspect HD help with the editing speed only? Does it have any impact on encoding?
I’m using a Matrox RTX2 in my system, so up to this point I’ve been happy with the editing speed. (Harm, I know from extensive forum searches that you’re not the biggest Matrox fan! Feel free to offer any opinions. I’m new to just about everything and not anywhere near being set in one particular way. I’m always happy to gather as much info and as many opinions as possible.
Right now I’m simply trying to get my HDV footage from beginning to end looking as good as possible.
Thanks again!
-
I have several options to encode with. I have Procoder, CinemaCraft Basic and AME. I nearly always use AME. It suits me fine. Procoder is a great encoder, but has given some problems with Encore in the past. CinemaCraft gave, at least to my eyes, a rather soft look, but that is purely personal opinion. I do use it occasionally for exporting video only, but for the audio I use the Surcode plug-in to export 5.1 sound exclusively.
On the Matrox RT-X2 I can not give you an honest opinion, since I have no experience with it. As you may have surmised from my previous posts, I am not a big fan of Matrox. I bought the RT-X100 as a replacement for my DVStorm2 which was no longer supported by Canopus for use with PP. I only had trouble with the Matrox card and it now functions as a great door-stopper. Their insistence on using UFF (upper field first) instead of LFF (lower field first) complicated matters drastically. Secondly, and again this is personal taste, I did not like the user interface (the same problem I have with Edius, which is now gathering dust in my garage).
There was a time when Canopus with their capture cards had an enormous advantage over Matrox, they continued support with new software releases of Adobe, 5.5 > 6.0 > 6.5 > PP1.0. That stopped. Matrox however changed every time a new version of Adobe software was released, going from the RT-X10 > RT-X100 > RT-X2 and stopped support for the older cards. With the advent of more capable CPU’s it no longer makes much sense to invest in Matrox anymore, especially since they are likely (based on their historic behavior) to introduce a new RT-X3/4 card for the upcoming CS4 version of Adobe.
Just my $ 0.02
-
Thanks for the info, very interesting stuff.
On the UFF vs. LFF issue…I’ve noticed that and have had to deal with it. Is it mainly a matter, as you say, of complicating things, meaning you have to be aware of it and make appropriate settings, etc. or is there some sort of advantage or difference with LFF?
Just curious. Thanks again for the input.
-
You just have to be aware of it, there is no advantage of one being better than the other. The problem however is that when using different authoring packages, you have to compensate or at least check assumptions made by the applications for field order. It is very easy to forget to check the correct field order and you end up with a coaster.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up