[Dave Haynie]

The right template to start with is using MainConcept MPEG-2, select the “DVD Architect NTSC Widescreen video stream”. That’s the right frame rate and aspect ratio for 60i 16:9 video to NTSC DVD. This is video-only, you’ll want to render audio as well, probably to AC-3 (you can also render to uncompressed audio like a WAV file, but unless this is a music project, AC-3 is good enough).

If this proves to large for the kind of DVD you’re making, you can edit the template for different MPEG-2 encoding parameters. At this point, you may want to track down one of the 2,307 “Bitrate Calculators” that fill the internet, to help figure out some of the settings.

-Dave

[Dave Haynie]

What version of Cineform are you running?

Sony totally hosed Cineform in Vegas 10… in unbelievable and epic ways.

So, going back to Vegas 9, Cineform was just a plain old everyday video CODEC. You could use in Video for Windows, DirectShow, even Quicktime, and those subsystems were how Vegas talked to Cineform. Worked great, every time.

In Vegas 10, Sony added some additional magic. Not sure what the goals where, but the Cineform people put in a private API, which Vegas is using. This lets Vegas… do… something… it couldn’t do before, presumably.

The problem is, you can’t switch that off, and Vegas and/or Cineform weren’t following best software engineering practices, in several ways. For one, if you’re running a pre 5.something version of Cineform, Vegas 10 will probably just crash. What it SHOULD do is check the version of Cineform, and not try to use the magic new APIs if it sees an older, Video for Windows only version. Alas, that’s not what it does… it just crashes. So after upgrading to Vegas 10 least year, I was pretty much forced to drop another stack of bills on the Cineform upgrade.

That got me to the point where Vegas would load Cineform files. But alas, it still wouldn’t write them. Up until Vegas 10c or 10d, it crashed every single time I tried to write out Cineform. Again, best software practices would offer me a check box somewhere that says “Use VfW for Cineform”, allowing me, the user, to bypass that buggy new stuff and still get my work done… after all, the new Cineform works just dandy, still, in Vegas 9. So I got used to using DNxHD or MXF/MPEG-2 for intermediate files, given that Cineform was essentially rendered useless for most of the last year. I was still having mixed results, even with Vegas 10e… getting crashes or even completely weird rendering results with Cineform, and generally not trusting the two to not screw me over in the future.

But anyway… the answer is probably that you need to upgrade Cineform to get Vegas 10 happy. If you have NeoScene 5.x, download the latest. If not, you may have to buy the upgrade. Had I known all the trouble, I might have just fired up Vegas 9 and converted all my Cineform to DNxHD right there and then (copy those over, remove the Cineform AVIs, and Vegas will ask about replacing them… other than the huge HDD space and rending time, it’s painless).

-Dave

[Dave Haynie]

[Michael Johnston] “This is what I do. Keep in mind I’m using Premiere. I export as a full quality m2t 1440×1080 (for HDV) file and upload it to my YouTube account. Once YouTube processes it, I simply download the 1080p mp4 file from YouTube. It’s the highest quality at the smallest file size. I’ve yet to find a way to export video from my NLE that matches YouTubes quality at such a small file size. “

That’s interesting. I was playing around with alternate H.264 encoders, and found TMPGenc… the modern version of the first MPEG-1/2 encoder I used, back in the pre-DVD days. My concern lately has been a Soccer Team video project, and just that — top quality for lowest bitrate. I had played with both Sony’s and Main Concept H.264 encoders. Both product good results, but Sony’s is really tweaked for Blu-ray and other higher bitrate things, and to date (this is with Vegas 10) doesn’t support VBR. Main Concept does, and 2-pass and all that, but it’s overall a weaker encoder (at least the Vegas version).

Turns out TMPGenc Video Mastering Works is using the open source x264 encoder — same encoder Google uses on YouTube. I had played with this a little using free tools like HandBrake, but never found the overall system reliable enough to form an opinion. But I’m relatively sold on x264, particularly for lower bitrate stuff.

In the past, I’ve mostly hosted online content from my own server. But it’s getting more complex. Some viewers can view in full HD, others don’t have the bandwidth for SD, and still others want to watch on their mobile devices. Last year, I put a same-day edit of a Wedding on YouTube — created a custom account, just for the wedding. This was of course limited to YouTube’s 15 minute policy (or was it 10 minutes last year), but it was enough.

This year, I’ve been putting whole soccer games there… on my account, I’m one of the lucky few with an original “Director’s Account”… unlimited length videos. Maybe the only reason to use YouTube 🙂 When this feature was created, it was fairly useless, since their upload limit was 100MB. In modern times, though, it’s very usable. A useful feature, too, is making a video link-only. So it doesn’t get displayed to “followers” of your account, but anyone with the link can view it.

I’m not sure about the commercial aspect — the Soccer project is “charity work” (eg, my daughter’s the goalie, and as long as I shoot the games, my life remains a good one). It’s not as if YouTube is even slightly non-commercial these days, but I’d certainly look into it before using it for paying jobs on a regular basis.

On the other hand, I messed around with programming my website to offer Flash and a few HTML5 options last year, and found very little success. Some supposedly HTML5 browsers failed completely, but even Flash and H.264 are becoming some kind of issue, with Chrome, Firefox, Opera, and iOS (just to name a few) rejecting these in various incarnations. The hosting services have people working to keep things compatible as possible, even the extent that portable devices without Flash may still launch a custom YouTube player. Depends, of course, on how visible the video needs to be.

-Dave

[Dave Haynie]

I think you’ll find $200 cars on Craigslist, too. Doesn’t mean you’re going to trust it to get you there. Same principle, too. And similarly, if you got into an actual car dealer and rave about how you can get a $200 car, he’ll write you off as a nut, point off that they do not sell $200 cars, and send you on your way.

When I do a job, I’m selling a much better car. And because of that, it’s more expensive. If someone thinks they’ll be happy with the $200 car, hey, it’s a free country. But that price has no effect on me… if that’s all this guy’s shoot is worth to him, it’s clearly a waste of my talents. And I’m hardly claiming to be the best around 🙂

-Dave

[Dave Haynie]

[Gary Huff] “You are right it’s not simply from AVCHD. The AF-100’s sensor is primarily designed for video (unlike HDSLR) so there is no moire or aliasing like the Canons, plus a bit better on the resolution side”

I wouldn’t read too much into the “designed for video” idea. Yeah, the camera as a whole, like any video camera, is nicely adapted for video, versus any HDSLR, which is optimized for SLR use. Things like the variable frame rate help push it into real pro territory. Keep in mind, the video feature in the 5DMkII was originally kind of a “because we can” thing… they didn’t even bother doing 24p until, based on the huge response to the camera, they dropped that into an upgrade. DSLRs haven’t exactly remained frozen since the initial release of the 5DMkII. Though Canon’s still locked into the stupid 12 minute/4GB limit, even on exFAT cards. This is the primary reason I could never use an HDSLR as my primary video camera. But hey, if you’re used to 35mm film reels…

The sensor, though… same sensor used in the Panasonic GH1, I believe… it’s a 12Mpixel 1/2 frame Four-Thirds sensor (Micro-FourThirds configuration, but that’s only the lens mount… sensors on four thirds cameras are all the same size). If you’re after that cinematic depth of field, this won’t be quite as good as the Canons. The new Sony NEX-FS100, on the other hand, slightly larger sensor than the Canons. With that said, I’ll admit all my current camcorders are Pannys, and my SLRs are Canons, going back to film. So I’m unlikely to care. Much.

The big win in the AF100, in theory anyway, is that, in front of that sensor, it sports an optical anti-aliasing filter, which you don’t have in an HDSLR. That helps to reduce resolution, sure, but also aliasing noise… which, worse-case, is the moire pattern noise that’s sometimes visible in HDSLR video. The HDSLR is designed to shoot stills at full resolution, so it can’t have the anti-aliasing filter, unless you swapped one in… you’re going to see the aliasing, at the very least, when the original 18Mpixel is resized to 2Mpixel. Most normal smaller-sensor pro video cameras don’t have this issue, since they’ll just have sensors that exactly match the video resolution.

The other issue is that, even with the filter, there’s still money business going on. You want at least 8Mpixel of sensor detail to allow for pixel bucketing rather than Bayer interpolation. Given the 12Mpixel and original aspect ratio, I bet it’s just about 8Mpixel when masked to 16:9. That color interpolation, while not as bad as going from the 18-21Mpixel sensors on the Canon, will lead to some anti-aliasing evil you wouldn’t have on a normal 2Mpixel 3-chipper.

They don’t do anything to deal with the “jello” effect, other than the differences between cameras in general (faster CMOS processing of the image, less time for movement, less jello). The problem isn’t specifically CCD vs. CMOS, but the fact that CMOS sensors built so far use a rolling electronic shutter, rather than a global shutter. A CMOS sensor designed specifically for video could support a global shutter. CCDs do, largely as a means of reducing other problems — they effectively buffer the whole image. The problem with that is that there are actually twice as many charge coupling devices as you’d need for the sensor alone, so it gets expensive. And it would, for a CMOS sensor too. Another option would be to use a mechanical rather than electronic shutter, though CMOS sensors pretty need an electronic shutter anyway to do noise cancellation (the entire sensor gets a zero light exposure, which eliminates all patterned noise inherent in the sensor).

AVCHD is not a higher-end version of H.264, not even slightly. Like most MPEG specs, H.264 (aka AVC, aka MPEG-4 Part 10) is simply a compression scheme, not a whole spec. AVCHD was defined specifically for consumer cameras, to fully specify the rest of the format, for easy editing support. AVCHD 1.x is limited to 24Mb/s encoding, 1080/60i, 1080/24p, 720/60p, 720/24p… curiously, 1080/30p isn’t actually supported… if you have that in your camera, you’re actually getting 1080/60i encoding. The AVCHD spec was drawn as a proper subset of the Blu-ray spec. Since it was originally for recording on DVDs (as I said, it was for consumers), the original version allowed only 18Mb/s video, and that’s still the limit on DVD. The other characteristics — you get a whole BDMV style file system as part of the spec, though it’s technically not exactly BDMV, there are a few trivial differences. The video of course is stored in an MPEG-2 transport stream, and audio must be encoded in AC-3, video in H.264 (Blu-ray, obviously, allows other video and audio options).

Most HDSLRs encode H.264 in a Quicktime wrapper, which is also very standardized, but not limited in the rates supported by AVCHD. There’s nothing intrinsically different about the H.264 that’s encoded… it depends on the camera. Many AVCHD camcorders only encode at H.264 Main Profile, some do encode at High Profile, which can be ever so slightly more efficient. Another constraint of AVCHD… it had to work with Class 4 SDHC cards… even the new version, AVCHD 2.0, which officially supports Panasonic’s 28Mb/s 1080/60p mode (and some goofy 3D stuff too) still maintains that Class 4 support.

There are a few quirks in dealing with Canon, anyhow, while I think Panasonic, in HDSLRs and Camcorders, pretty much goes by the book. For example, Canon is using full swing YUV in their H.264 encoding, but many if not most decoders assume that any YUV encoding is automatically studio swing. What you’re looking for in the Canon’s (and some other HDSLRs, including Panasonic’s) is a limit in the types of Intraframes the encoder will create. H.264 supports three kinds of frames: I (independent), P (predictive), and B (bidirectional). If you’ve seen camcorders that record in AVC-Intra, they use I-Frames only, usually recording 4:2:0 at 50Mb/s or 4:2:2 at 100Mb/s…. it’s kind of a glorified version of DV or Motion JPEG… each frame is separately encoded.

Predictive frames encode a set of motion vectors that can be applied to the previous frame to mostly encode that P frame. They then store just the differences, which is usually very small. B frames work the same way, but can be based on either prior or next frame, so they can be a little smaller still. The Canons all use only P and B frames. Some HDSLRs did this at 17Mb/s (some of the early Pannys, I think) and yeah, poor quality video. But the 44Mb/s (average) of the Canon, this produces better quality video than 50Mb/s AVC Intra. You’re not going to better that with IPB encoding at 24Mb/s. Thing is, both of these are superior to HDV and other forms most of us are used to, so we tend to be pretty happy with either one. Though the Canon HDSLR video is a bit computationally easier to edit native than full IPB video.

There’s also no requirement that AVCHD encoders produce IPB video, either… that’s entirely up to the implementation. IPB, IP, and I-only video are all legal H.264 video streams. It’s also the case that H.264 encoders have been improving yearly. I’ve been playing with H.264 cameras for six years or so, and until about 2009, they didn’t compete with MPEG-2 cameras. It’s not the spec, it’s the ability of the on-camera signal processor to do this encoding for about 3W of power. It’s the manufacturer’s experience with the algorithm. It’s even the video you’re shooting… AVC and MPEG suffer with fast motion, but higher bitrate cameras may deal better with high detail, low motion scenes that stymie a lower bitrate encoder. And it’s still pretty true that this year’s model does a better job than last year’s, though it’s settling down.

I think the AF100 is a fine model, but it’s not the last word in video. And I think there was a great deal of disappointment that Panasonic didn’t go further… like, why not an AVC Intra 50 output option. Seems like “a simple matter of software”. That’ll work just dandy to a Class 8 or Class 10 SDHC card… but I guess that might eat into Panasonic’s P2 market. Can’t have that 🙂

-Dave

[Dave Haynie]

I would not recommend an HDSLR as the primary camera for event work. Hey, nothing against the HDSLR… I have a Canon 60D myself, love it, there’s nothing like it in low light anywhere near my budget. But I also have two Panasonic 3-chip camcorders. And crazy bits of sound gear.

The big issue with the Canon is time: it’s going to stop recording every 10-12 minutes. You can re-start it, but this is unacceptable for event work. I’ve shot weddings that had hour-long ceremonies… back in the tape days, 83 minute tapes became my very good friend for event work. I can shoot three+ hours on the Pannys at full quality, without worries about missing something.

You also have other issues… the HDSLRs don’t generally auto-focus during a shot. The 60D can be told to auto-focus, or you can manually focus. I’d manually focus from a tripod on a fixed subject anyway, particularly in low light, but in a run-and-gun situation, the HDSLR is going to be out of focus, most likely.

Built-in audio on an HDSLR is like built-in audio on any camcorder… bad. Only more so. For most any event, I put a field recorder or two (Zoom H4n, Tascam DR-1) in a good location, and record the whole schmeggie in high quality, maybe even with external mics, depending on the venue. This doesn’t just absolve the camcorder of most audio work (the shotgun on my Panny might deliver better audio on some things), it gives me a sync track for editing time. So I have no issues starting and stopping each camera, any time that makes sense. Even more of an issue once you add an HDSLR to the mix.

And yeah, there are some cameras that deliver 30 minute or even unlimited video. Though be careful… some of these are crunching it as small as camcorders to, 24Mb/s versus the 35-50Mb/s of a normal HDSLR… so you’re not necessarily getting full HDSLR quality.

The other thing.. you do need completely different workflow with an HDSLR or two as your primary camera. Adding one to an existing camcorder workflow, I believe, is much less trouble… the 60D just becomes my B/C camera. For now…

-Dave

[Dave Haynie]

Well, if it were me… I’d be using Vegas, and the 1920×1080 would mix and match just dandy, in native H.264, with the MPEG-2 at 1440×1080. But if I did actually need to convert, I’d start the conversion out now, to my RAID, and order a project drive, 2TB or so (about $80… my PC has one 3.5″ SATA and two 2.5″ SATA “cartridge” drive bays, which lets you use any old SATA drive like an old fashioned cartridge drive), for the actual editing (RAID’s on FW800, not as fast as internal SATA).

With a 2TB project drive, that’s enough space for 22 hours converted to Cineform or DNxHD-144, so I would imagine that’s enough for at least one flavor of ProRes (which I don’t use). Or use MPEG-2 at 1920×1080 2:2:2 MXF 50Mb/s, which would take half the space of Cineform or 1/3 the space of the DNxHD.

My point being, you’re a professional, right. Tools are not a question. If your editing workflow needs the room for all those intermediate files, you better get that room. Or change workflows… but not before or during a project. I don’t even buy the hot new upgrade of my NLE or other critical tool until I’m a project boundary.

-Dave

[Dave Haynie]

[Aaron Cadieux] ” Football game films should always be shot at a wide angle to capture all of the action. This should be the rule whether you’re shooting an entire team, or shooting an idividual play. I make sure the kid I am shooting is always visible in the shot, but I am careful not to zoom in tight on him. Zooming in tight creates multiple problems. College recruiters want to see how the player is reacting to what’s going on around him. In this player’s case, he is a slot receiver. Coaches want to see how he is reacting to what the quarterback is doing. “

Yup. I’ve been shooting High School soccer for nearly as long. And the coaches absolutely want to see a wide shot, at least for games where I have that vantage (the higher the better). I shoot for the whole team, so I’m not typically worred about covering a single player, but I suppose that if I wanted an individual demo reel, I might cut to SD as well… that could work. Though I shoot in 720/60p… much better for smooth motion, or slow-motion in the case when I’m editing a highlights reel.

-Dave

[Dave Haynie]

[Chip Thome] “PS…if Daddy’s got money to burn….he also probably has a real good lawyer too. :-)”

If he’s only got $50 or less to spend per hour for hired guns, I wouldn’t worry so much about his lawyer.

But I agree… if you were contracted to deliver the demo reel, the footage is yours, lock, stock, and barrel. If you’re shooting specifically for him, that sounds like a work for hire, unless you have a contract saying otherwise. Or perhaps, a general understanding that he doesn’t own the footage (eg, are you deliving the raw footage, or just the demo reel, as part of your agreement).

-Dave

[Dave Haynie]

If you really need shoulder mount, get shoulder mount. The problem is, it’s only good for shoulder mount or tripod mount — too bulky, most likely, for use handheld, or on Glidecam/Steadycam. Particularly light ones such as those you’re looking for.

I think the Panasonic AG-AC7 is a mixed bag (I’m a Panasonic guy these days, too… but read on). It’s definitely a consumer-priced shoulder mount… Panasonic always has one of these. This is an update of the AG-HMC70, pretty much.

And it was the fairly unique property of being a flash-based model that can shoot either in AVCHD or plain old timey DV — to standard SDxx memory cards. But with all that bulk, you’re still stuck with a 3.5mm mic input — not XLRs (the HMC70s one saving grace: XLRs). It only does 60i, which is kind of retro these days; sometimes you want 60i, but I’m shooting far more 720/60p or 1080/24p these days. If your main target is DVD/BD, 60i isn’t a big deal.

Of more concern is the single 1/4″ CMOS sensor. Nothing wrong with 1/4″ CMOS sensors — each of my Panasonics has three of them. But just one? That’s a consumer imager there, and you will suffer in low light. Curiously, the HMC70 was a 3-chip camera… my main complaint was that it was limited to something like “HG” mode, 13Mb/s or so recording rate. The AG-AC7 also supports Panasonic’s HA mode, which is their top-level consumer mode (other than on models that support 1080/60p recording), at about 17Mb/s.

You’ll spend a bit more, but I’d definitely take the AG-HMC80 over this. But it’s nearly twice the price, about $2200. The advantage: this is a real AVCCAM model… it’s 3-chips, XLR inputs, better glass, full range of recording rates and options, including PH mode (21Mb/s VBR), and a bunch of options in SD, as well.

Which brings me around to recommending one of my cameras, the Panasonic AG-HMC40. This is nearly identical (same sensors, modes, lens) to the AG-HMC80, but without the shoulder mount… it’s a smaller handle-mount camera, like the Canon GL-1 was in its day. You certainly could put it into some kind of shoulder rig, just like the Canon, but it’s not a shoulder camera. And I’m not entirely in love with the viewfinder, though I’m not sure the HMC80 or AC7 win prizes here, either. You can buy the AG-HMC40 for $1700-ish… XLR inputs are an add-on (via dedicated port with lock, not 3.5mm jack).

Not sure which Sony you were looking at… maybe the Sony HXR-MC2000U? That’s a $1750 shoulder mount AVCHD model, which seems to be exactly Sony’s answer to the AG-AC7. This is also a single-chip, 1/4″ sensor camera, which Sony’s top consumer encoding AVC modes (which go up to 24Mb/s… Sony always quotes peak rates, Panasonic always average, so they’re closer than they look, but Sony’s got the edge), interlaced-only video modes, 1080/60i or 480/60i, just like the AG-AC7. Also has audio in only via the 3.5″ mic input.

As before, I wouldn’t personally choose this. If I absolutely had to have shoulder mount, I’d choose the AG-AC7… I think it’s pretty similar to the Sony, but cheaper. At the price of the Sony, I’d buy the HMC40, hands down.

Another possible choice in this price range is the Canon VIXIA HF G10. That’s about $1500, and yeah, it’s a single-chip only model. However, it’s essentially the same (consumer version) of the $2000 Canon XA10, lacking the XLR module. This has the same sensor as the XF100 and XF105 (and the even more expensive XF300/305 use three of these sensors), it’s a very modern and larger 1/3″ sensor that seems to be getting very good reviews. I’d look at it, but it’s going to be very small, so maybe not what you’re looking before. Prior to the Panasonics, I used a Sony HVR-A1, which was a similar model in its day — single chip, but pretty good for a single chip camera.

-Dave