-
Converting from SDI 422 to HD
What is the best way to create an HD master for PBS when the show was captured in standard definition 16:9 SDI 422 and edited in 10 bit uncompressed?
Edited in Final Cut Pro 7.03 – 56:46 length.
Would like to create HDCAM tape masters and files for distribution.
Thanks for your help
-
8 Replies
-
Compressor is the best software solution in FC, but if you wan’t to get something better do it with hardware. An AJA, Black Magic or Matrox will do a better upscaling and in real time.
Many HD desks (I guess HDCAM too) can up/downscale. Talk with the people will print the HDCAM tapes.
rafael -
Best to recapture all the tapes via a Kona card. Hardware upconvert is superior to software upconvert.
SD 16:9? That isn’t a format that exists on tape. Either anamorphic or letterbox.
Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
Yes the projects are anamorphic. From an aesthetic point of view, would it be better to do some sort of “letter box” with the 16:9 image to reduce softness? What will give us the best on-air look?
-
I’m a bit confused by your statement that “That isn’t a format that exists on tape. Either anamorphic or letterbox.”
I have a BetaSP camera that shoots 16:9 in addition to 4:3 and has a wider chip (ie higher pixel count) than the non-16:9 versions. In 16:9 it plays back full screen on a 16:9 monitor and squeezes the horizontal to fit when viewed on a 4:3 monitor. (Of course it likewise stretches the horizontal in 4:3 mode when played on a 4:3 monitor.)
Is this not 16:9 SD? And if not what is it?
Paul Keyserling
Big Pictures
Beaufort, SC -
[Paul Keyserling] “I have a BetaSP camera that shoots 16:9 in addition to 4:3”
I’m sure it shot anamorphic to tape. Wider chip…I do recall the cameras having that. But the tape format is always 4:3, so the 16:9 image was recorded 4:3, and flagged as 16:9. So that the 16:9 monitor would know “hey, this is 16:9.” the 4:3 monitors played back what was recorded onto tape.
[Paul Keyserling] “Is this not 16:9 SD? And if not what is it?”
Anamorphic 16:9…not full raster. That’s the only difference. Squeezed, not full sized.
Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
[David Hutto] “From an aesthetic point of view, would it be better to do some sort of “letter box” with the 16:9 image to reduce softness?”
No. Letterbox 16:9? Not unless you want it to look 1.85 to 1, which is how feature films are presented.
[David Hutto] “What will give us the best on-air look?”
Recapture the SD as HD via a capture card that can do the upconvert via hardware…and the 16:9 should fill the HD frame fine.
Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
It’s anamorphic 4×3 SD.
-
AJA in my experience do a better upscale, although I have not seen Matrox upscaling compared. I used to have a Decklink and it’s up/down scaling wasn’t as good as AJA.
My HDCam 1800 machine doesn’t up scale but it does a great downscale – as good as the AJA. Hopefully your timeline is anamorphic which gets stretched our to square pixel in the upscale to HD.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up