-
Capturing DVCPRO50 vs 10-bit Uncompressed
Hey everyone –
Some of my colleagues capture DVCPRO 50 footage to 10-bit Uncompressed instead of DV50. Is there a benefit to doing this?
I’ve always thought that would be overkill and a waste of disk space since DVCPRO50 is only going to be as good as DVCPRO50. Kind of like using a $30K Zeiss lens on the front of an S-VHS Handicam.
However, I’ve talked to so many people who capture DVCPRO50 using 10-bit Uncompressed that I’m starting to wonder if I’m wrong, and there really is a benefit.
Any thoughts?
Thanks –
Dan
-
27 Replies
-
Hi Dan,
I think the same than you. I work in DV and DV50 and many times I end up mastering in 8 or 10b Unc, but I always capture with the original codec, otherwise is a waist of HD and you don’t get no benefit.
rafaelPPC G5 2x2Gh 4GbRAM/BlackMagic SD/PMBP 17″Core2Duo 4GbRAM
JVC DTV-17″/FCS2/AE CS3/COMBUSTION/SHAKE -
capturing as your native source is seldom a bad thing.
it certainly won’t improve the quality any to capture it as uncompressed.
But rendering it out uncompressed will keep all your graphics and transitions nice.
-
[Daniel Stone] “Kind of like using a $30K Zeiss lens on the front of an S-VHS Handicam.”
Actually using a good lens will improve any format.
I agree though – capture native and then render the final in a 10 bit Uncompressed.
-
Capturing an 8bit compressed format to a 10bit uncompressed format is just wasting hard drive space for no real benefit.
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
-
Graeme,
People comments often that there are things that can be done with better results, with hardware than with software. I accept that for example when you are digitalizing a Composite Analog video signal. The quality of the filters will mark the quality of the digital film. But we are filtering before go digital.
Once in the digital domain, things change. When we are transcoding a digital movie to a diferent digital format, you may use some hardware that speedup the process but. But that hardware is just running some software. So a CPU with the same software can do it slower but with the same quality. If I want convert dv to 10b Unc, will be faster with an AJA or BM, but won’t yield better picture.
The same happens If we want convert a .mov to a MPG2. You will get the best with a hardware that runs the best software. If not is just speed. What do you think about this.
Thanks,
RafaelPPC G5 2x2Gh 4GbRAM/BlackMagic SD/PMBP 17″Core2Duo 4GbRAM
JVC DTV-17″/FCS2/AE CS3/COMBUSTION/SHAKE -
I think you’ve got to look at everything on a time / results basis. I don’t think there’s a hard and fast rule you can make. There’s good computer software that’s fast, and some that’s slow, and sometimes the slowest makes the best image. In hardware, it’s either realtime or it doesn’t work, and depending upon cost and hardware, it might not be currently possible to do the best current algorithm in realtime, and therefore software, albeit slower, might be better. You pays your money, you takes your choice!
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
-
Thanks for your point about the hardware myth, and the benefits of being patient.
RafaelPPC G5 2x2Gh 4GbRAM/BlackMagic SD/PMBP 17″Core2Duo 4GbRAM
JVC DTV-17″/FCS2/AE CS3/COMBUSTION/SHAKE -
[Graeme Nattress] “In hardware, it’s either realtime or it doesn’t work, and depending upon cost and hardware, it might not be currently possible to do the best current algorithm in realtime, and therefore software, albeit slower, might be better.”
A perfect example is MPEG2 encoding. There was a time, not that long ago, when hardware encoding was not just much faster (realtime), but also demonstrably better quality. Nowadays however, some software encoders are as good or even better than hardware. Of course, they are still not realtime…
David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los AngelesPOST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY™
A forum host of Creative COW’s Business & Marketing, and Indie Film & Documentary forums.
-
[Graeme Nattress] “just wasting hard drive space for no real benefit. “
Oh boy…here I go again playing devil’s advocate. With all due respect to the knowledgeable people on this forum, I disagree.
I know I know, it doesn’t seem like it looks any better on a goofy tv monitor, but I find in practice that when manipulating digital video, it helps to work in higher bit depths as the end product is more clean. Perhaps I am wrong, or perhaps I look too closely? Well for one it’s my job to look closely and for two for the kind of work that I personally work on, working in 10-bit is much better than working dv50, in practice (not only in theory). Green screen is a major concern. Pulling a key in dv50 native (from an SDX900 DV50 camera) and pulling a key in 10-bit is a HUGE difference. The key is better, more smooth and generally more friendly to work with on the edges (and keying is always about the edges). COlor correcting is also a concern. With 10 bits we are able to get much better looking and cleaner results. I also think that people tend to forget that a deck (such as the ajSD93) that feeds DV50 has it’s own hardware to turn dv50 into uncompressed. In turn, your Kona or Decklink card captures that uncompressed signal. Since the hardware is made by Panasonic (who subsequently write the software for it) every ounce (milliliter) of quality is being squeezed from that dv50 tape to turn it into uncompressed by the very people that thought up, designed and built the system…and that’s just for the footage. Adding any graphics and other CG material to your timeline during the editing process, there’s no doubt that 10 bit looks better. I can’t remember the last time I did a project were I simply captured, edited and mastered without manipulating the footage in some way through color correction, graphics, or the like. I agree, there’s no advantage if all you are doing are cuts only edits from dv50 sources, but the minute you start to add filters, graphics and other digital trickeries, 10 bit holds up much better, in my little humble opinion.
Also, from this 10 bit uncompressed master, you can now make DVDs and web movies with better results. I find that any subsequent format you make from a 10 bit master will hold up much better the rigors of further compression and manipulation then if you edit from a native timeline. Camera native codecs are good to capture with in camera. Once you move out of the camera, it’s time to move to higher quality, or that’s what I have found anyway. With the ioHD I am looking to completely bypass camera native codecs in general if I can at all help it.
Jeremy
-
I’m sorry, but that’s just twaddle. When you do an effect on a clip in FCP, if you have the timeline set to high precision rendering, the clip us “upped” on the fly to 4:4:4 32bit float. When it’s rendered back, it can be set to render back to uncompressed or whatever.
Think of it like this, with DV50 footage on an uncompressed 10bit timeline:
DV50 -> 32 float 4:4:4 -> effects -> back to 10bit uncompressed.
or if you capture DV50 to uncompressed it goes like:
DV50 -> UC10bit 4:2:2 0> 32 float 4:4:4 -> effects -> back to 10bit uncompressed.
And that’s why it only just wastes disk space. As for the SDI feed on a deck doing a better job than the software codec, I’ve not seen that – you’d have to show some evidence for that.
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up