same thread, but this time HDV

[David Battistella]

Bob,

I think that many of the basic princeples still apply. You are never going to make an HDV tape look any better. You are just going to prevent it from getting worse. What are the possible workflows.

I have not done tests, but we can be fairly sure that HDV does not re-capture frame accurately. This has huge effects on workflow.

You could:

1. Capture HDV and edit HDV incoporating all graphics etc. Then you could render your HDV timeline, output it to HDV and transfer to HDCAM or SR. OR drop a HDV timeline into an 10 bit uncompressed sequence and render the finished timeline in 10 bit uncompressed (I am not sure the QT codecs will let youdo this)

2. Capture HDV and edit HDV NOT incoporating all graphics etc. Then you could render your HDV timeline, output it to HDV, recapture at 10 bit uncompressed and add titles etc. and then transfer to HDCAM or SR. This would give you cleaner graphics workflow.

3. Transfer all HDV to DVCPRO or HDCAM, offline at DVCPRO100 and Recapture at 10 bit uncompressed. (this workflow gives you some security in that if you loose your media you can frame accurately recapture.

HDV, DV, DVC codecs are all built and designed with the firewire digital transfer protocol in mind, so these data streams look really good when they are captured via firewire, it is designed to be a “lossless” workflow and the data rates are low enough to handle it. It’s hard to call them unprofessional because you basically have to say that all of these codecs are not for professional use. we know that there is a ton of marketing hype and that we can always get more pixels, but to discount these formats and the workflows they are designed for is not really fair.

The industry is changing, in very much the way advertizing saw boutique shops enter the fray. The big boys of advertizing said that they could never compete and the quality of the work would never be up to snuf. Then the boutiques became the big award winners and it turned out that people wanted to buy their thinking rather than their gear. It is not hard to see a model for what is happening in our business. Look at what desktop publishing did to the print industry. Did that mean that everything done on a mac and printed on a laser printer was crap? Of course it did not. There is a lot of information out there and people are making choices based on their needs, what makes them professionals is how they think and the product they deliver. In some cases it is about the gear, in some cases it isn’t.

Just two cents.

David

[Walter Biscardi]

The only thing I’ll add here is that the little bit of HDV I’ve seen does not have near the image quality of DVCPro HD. It looks closer to DV than HD so I’m thinking the codec will not hold up very well at all with filters and graphics renders. The DVCPro HD codec holds up very well with filtering and renders.

Frame accuracy will certainly be an issue so if you want to stay clean and pristine, and uncompressed workflow will most likely be the way to go with this format.

With the 1200A (DVCPro HD) you do get frame accurate captures using RS-422 so it’s not an issue there.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Creative Genius, Biscardi Creative Media
https://www.biscardicreative.com

Now in Production, “The Rough Cut,” https://www.theroughcutmovie.com

“I reject your reality and substitute my own!” – Adam Savage, Mythbusters

[Oliver Peters]

Remember that native HDV work in FCP5 requires that major portions of the timeline have to be rendered to reconstruct the IBP cadence – even if it is cuts-only. This is a lossy process, even if it is relatively clean. I’m not sure if anyone has thoroughly tested the frame-accuracy of these decks. For instance, if you offline using HDV or DV, will a batch recapture using DVCProHD or Uncompressed HD be frame accurate? Then there’s the drop-out issue.

You may be better off dubbing to a 1200A first and then using those select tapes as your new sources.

Sincerely,
Oliver

Oliver Peters
Post-Production & Interactive Media
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com

[Mark Maness]

Ok, guys… I understand exactly what you are saying, but I’ve got a question and I want to see what the experts say. We’ve recently acquired the Sony HDV system as a secondary camera (cost effectient) and I’m trying to fine that best way to use it since HDV is not very friendly when mixing with other formats. You’ve mentioned that capturing via component is better than firewire, and I would have to aggree that sounds very plausible. BUT, when you hook up your HDV machine via the component output, are you using the firewire port for machine control? Our post house ( very small one) has a AJA IO and AJA Kona2. At the moment, we are still SD video but with plans to go HiDef in the very near future. How would I have to hook up my HDV for the best workflow for this (SD video)?

Here’s the other wench that I’m dealing with. Our primary format is Sony XDCAM, a tapeless format. Its absolutley awesome in quality but mixing it with HDV isn’t seeming to work as well as we thought. I thought the theory sounded great and even Sony thought this would be great. But FCP 5.0 with its HDV support and IMX support isn’t quite up to snuff compared to their claims in advertising and at NAB in Las Vegas. So the major problem for me would have to be, how can I make this work without losing resolution? And I know the answer is, I’m trying to do too much with mixing and SD format with HDV. I have to downconvert to DV which meas loss of resolution.

So…. I guess what I’m getting to is that DON’T mix HDV with SD video (especially a higher resolution (picture sharpness) SD video).

That’s my question and my two cents, all within one post!

_______________________________

Wayne Carey
Schazam Productions

[Gary Adcock]

[Wayne Carey] “So…. I guess what I’m getting to is that DON’T mix HDV with SD video (especially a higher resolution (picture sharpness) SD video).”

Wayne it’s do not mix HDV with HD footage.
The Sony Zu1 HDV camera shoots incredibly well when down converting the HDV content to Standard Def.

gary adcock
Studio37
HD and Film Consultation

[Mark Maness]

Yeah, you’re right, Gary. What I meant was that compared to a higher resolution SD such as XDCAM, downconverted HDV (to me) doesn’t look any better that standard miniDV like that of the Canon XL1. Mind you, that I don’t have any problems with the Canon XL1. My company used a couple XL1s for the last three years as a main form of acquisition. But my problem tends to be that DV has much more dense black levels than the SD video of the XDCAM shooting IMX 50.

I know it sounds like I’m bashing HDV but I’m not. I’m just venting some of the issues I’ve noticed when comparing it to Sony’s XDCAM at IMX 50. Yeah, I do realize that’s not a fair comparison but its the only one I have to compare. And all of this is just my thoughts. My whole purpose is to see what your thoughts were on this.

_______________________________

Wayne Carey
Schazam Productions

[Gary Adcock]

[Wayne Carey] “I know it sounds like I’m bashing HDV but I’m not.”

well I do… unless of course I am going to SD.

I do not like it because I work in 24p and FCP’s version HDV does not support 24 frame content –no not from any HDV camera not even the new JVC ProHD.

gary adcock
Studio37
HD and Film Consultation

[Mark Maness]

I would have to agree. That was a disappointment for me, too. You would think that Sony would come up with a 24p version to gain supprot of the low budget small production houses. At least, Sony should have made it sort of work like the Canon and Panasonic DV cameras. I’m sure you are like the rest when I say that we are dissappointed in FCP 5.0 because we were told all of this stuff that it could do and it does but just barely. That was kinda a like a new sports car coming out on the market and finding out after you bought it that it only had a little 4 cylinder engine in it. Kinda dissappointing.

_______________________________

Wayne Carey
Schazam Productions