-
1440 vs 1920 X 1080 p30
I shoot in HDV which is 1440 X 1080 anamorphic video (PAR 1.33) at p30. When I import to AE, I have a choice of opening a comp at this setting or 1920 X 1080. I know I can’t put back any info that was compressed out by the cam – that said, does it make any difference to AE which of these comp settings I use in terms of the “quality” of the render vis-a-vis any added effects I may employ? (Question is analogous to using a 16-bit project even when the original footage is 8-bits.)If 1920 X 1080 is better, will I lose the improvement if I output back to 1440 for display? If so, should I simply use 1440 from the start? Thanks, Dale
-
4 Replies
-
Edit: Ah! By now I found your reply on h264 editing, which answers my query. I still leave my question here anyway ./edit
“HDV captured in its acquisition codec is a no-no in AE”
I did not know that – but then again I rarely use video.
So what does this actually mean? That I should capture HDV (which I presume uses a MPEG codec) output to something else, like a tiff sequence, before using it in After Effects?
Thanks!
-
Sorry I seem so confused. My camera outputs HDV (which is highly compressed mpeg). That’s what I capture to my PC and that’s what I import to AE (for CC, effects, etc.)and my question relates to should I use it’s native size (1440 X 1080) for the comp or full HD. In either case, I then export it from AE as either an uncompressed avi or QT for use in my NLE (or could go with a TIFF sequence). It’s only after the final edit that I burn (directly) to Blu-ray which, if I understand it, is also mpeg (different version for Blu-ray). I know this much, the file size for a full HD comp is 34% bigger (as an avi) than for anamorphic HD and more difficult to handle. But, I can, if the end result will look any better when seen on a large LCD HD TV. If the final appearance will be the same, why not go with the smaller sizes? Thanks, Dale
-
Dave, I appreciate your “stock” answer wrt HDV. The problem is that some of us who are serious amateurs without the wherewithal to pass off equipment costs to the client through equipment charges or to the Gov through business and depreciation expenses are kind of stuck. To advance beyond HDV requires a large capital outlay that I, for one, can’t afford anytime soon. For now, I need to find a workflow that leads to the best possible results within the limitations of what is affordable.
My video goal is to take the best footage I can, enhance them with the full range of VFXs, and present them to viewers. Until I upgrade my NLE, which I use for the burning process, I’m limited to 720p30. This is considerably lower than 1920 X 1080. However, I am often forced into handheld shots due to where I take my footage – often in places that require high climbing that do not lend themselves to bringing any more equipment than the minimal. Thus, stabilization is an important part of what I do in AE. This almost always requires scaling up some to cover edges. I’m assuming at this point that then scaling down to 720 compensates to a large degree for the softness introduced with the up scaling. So, 720 isn’t too bad from that perspective. As to how that impacts the final picture on the TV, I haven’t done conclusive tests yet as I can’t burn to 1080p30 yet. Dale
-
Dave, let me check out QT Pro – that, I can afford. If I remember right, AE has a media encoder built in, doesn’t it? I’ll look at that tonight.
These days, the main obstacle to general distribution of HD via Blu-ray is the relatively high cost of media and the fact that lot’s of people don’t yet have Blu-ray players. What I’ve been using is a Western Digital media player which will accept any of the multitude of HD formats from 720 p to 1080 i and p from a portable HDD and feeds it directly to the HDMI input on a TV. All but one of my viewing audience has an HDTV (not sure why the one is holding out). I’m hoping to upgrade either my NLE or acquire dedicated software to handle full size HD.
Thanks, Dale
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up