Mitch_Ives
Well-known member
Has anyone captured the 24P 16:9 footage through SDI uncompressed, like through an Io, Kona, DeckLink etc.?
24P 16:9 with something other than firewire?
- Thread starter Mitch_Ives
- Start date
Re: 24P 16:9 with something other than firewire?
Actually you can catch the footage before it goes to DV tape and I tested this using a DVCPRO50 deck and I ran via firewire into the deck from the DVX and recorded on DVCPRO50. There was a difference, the footage had a better clearer image.
What I was talking about before was actually the way you capture your footage in Post. I was saying that because the footage is already compressed going to DV in your camera it means that if you digitize that DV footage uncompressed or slightly compressed it still has that inital DV compression so you are not going to magicly lose the DV compression by digitizing using an uncompressed codec. The PhotoJPEG codec is what I like to use when capturing DV via a Kona card because it is quite a bit uncompressed compared to your typical DV codec. It gives you better colors...thats about it. Hope you can understand that..
Actually you can catch the footage before it goes to DV tape and I tested this using a DVCPRO50 deck and I ran via firewire into the deck from the DVX and recorded on DVCPRO50. There was a difference, the footage had a better clearer image.
What I was talking about before was actually the way you capture your footage in Post. I was saying that because the footage is already compressed going to DV in your camera it means that if you digitize that DV footage uncompressed or slightly compressed it still has that inital DV compression so you are not going to magicly lose the DV compression by digitizing using an uncompressed codec. The PhotoJPEG codec is what I like to use when capturing DV via a Kona card because it is quite a bit uncompressed compared to your typical DV codec. It gives you better colors...thats about it. Hope you can understand that..
Mitch_Ives
Well-known member
Re: 24P 16:9 with something other than firewire?
[quote author=Kyle Sherman link=board=Events;num=1085972464;start=0#3 date=05/31/04 at 13:53:37]I was saying that because the footage is already compressed going to DV in your camera it means that if you digitize that DV footage uncompressed or slightly compressed it still has that inital DV compression so you are not going to magicly lose the DV compression by digitizing using an uncompressed codec.[/quote]
We have been capturing DVCAM in uncompressed 10bit (big difference over 8 bit), using SDI for some time. It makes a HUGE difference. It also works with DV. Taking it out of the deck SDI upsamples it to 4:2:2 before it enters the NLE. Chroma keying works well, there is no ringing around titles, color correction at 32bit on a 10 bit image is stunning, and DVDs look completely different. We have been shooting infomercials on DVCAM and editng them this way for producers who "used to" require DigiBeta... it makes that much difference.
If I sound a bit sstrong, it's because I have a lot of experience in this area, and have successfully argued this on other forums. DVX-100 footage brought in and edited this way looks great. Now I want to do 24P the same way...
[quote author=Kyle Sherman link=board=Events;num=1085972464;start=0#3 date=05/31/04 at 13:53:37]I was saying that because the footage is already compressed going to DV in your camera it means that if you digitize that DV footage uncompressed or slightly compressed it still has that inital DV compression so you are not going to magicly lose the DV compression by digitizing using an uncompressed codec.[/quote]
We have been capturing DVCAM in uncompressed 10bit (big difference over 8 bit), using SDI for some time. It makes a HUGE difference. It also works with DV. Taking it out of the deck SDI upsamples it to 4:2:2 before it enters the NLE. Chroma keying works well, there is no ringing around titles, color correction at 32bit on a 10 bit image is stunning, and DVDs look completely different. We have been shooting infomercials on DVCAM and editng them this way for producers who "used to" require DigiBeta... it makes that much difference.
If I sound a bit sstrong, it's because I have a lot of experience in this area, and have successfully argued this on other forums. DVX-100 footage brought in and edited this way looks great. Now I want to do 24P the same way...
Re: 24P 16:9 with something other than firewire?
I do agree with you that there is a difference in your text and some of the colors in your footage when you capture uncompressed. It does look better. There is no compression.
There is a diffrence, however the PhotoJPEG codec compresses the footage in such a way that it really looks good. Try it out and see how much your footage looks like it was captured uncompressed..You will always have that intial compression.
I do agree with you that there is a difference in your text and some of the colors in your footage when you capture uncompressed. It does look better. There is no compression.
There is a diffrence, however the PhotoJPEG codec compresses the footage in such a way that it really looks good. Try it out and see how much your footage looks like it was captured uncompressed..You will always have that intial compression.
alpi69
Veteran
Re: 24P 16:9 with something other than firewire?
we are still capturing in MJPEG cos somehow the image looks not so crisp. i hate this clear sharp edges video makes. so all our DVstuff comes in via S-Video.....i can imagine that a 10-bit card would help though. firewire is not good IMO for the look we wanna achieve....but it is cheap....
we are still capturing in MJPEG cos somehow the image looks not so crisp. i hate this clear sharp edges video makes. so all our DVstuff comes in via S-Video.....i can imagine that a 10-bit card would help though. firewire is not good IMO for the look we wanna achieve....but it is cheap....
Mike_Donis
Veteran
Re: 24P 16:9 with something other than firewire?
why not capture in firewire and then soften the image in post, if anything...??
I'd say firewire is the way to go...
why not capture in firewire and then soften the image in post, if anything...??
I'd say firewire is the way to go...
Re: 24P 16:9 with something other than firewire?
The term should be there is no "re-compression" when working in uncompressed 4;2:2 space captured vis SDI. The original captured material has already been compressed but all further work, renders, new titles etc. will be in the new color space and no recompressing of the original images.
Michael
The term should be there is no "re-compression" when working in uncompressed 4;2:2 space captured vis SDI. The original captured material has already been compressed but all further work, renders, new titles etc. will be in the new color space and no recompressing of the original images.
Michael
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: 24P 16:9 with something other than firewire?
Agreed. Capturing in SDI won't give you any higher quality than capturing firewire will, since firewire is a direct transfer of exactly what's on tape. The benefits to working in 4:2:2 uncompressed start once you start modifying the footage with keying, titles, color correction, etc. But once you go out to DV tape, you'll likely give back most (if not all) of what you've gained, won't you? If you're staying uncompressed or going out to a format like DigiBeta (or even an analog format like BetaSP) you would be better off using the 4:2:2 source, definitely... but going back to DV would re-introduce the 4:1:1 decimation and 5:1 DCT compression.
Agreed. Capturing in SDI won't give you any higher quality than capturing firewire will, since firewire is a direct transfer of exactly what's on tape. The benefits to working in 4:2:2 uncompressed start once you start modifying the footage with keying, titles, color correction, etc. But once you go out to DV tape, you'll likely give back most (if not all) of what you've gained, won't you? If you're staying uncompressed or going out to a format like DigiBeta (or even an analog format like BetaSP) you would be better off using the 4:2:2 source, definitely... but going back to DV would re-introduce the 4:1:1 decimation and 5:1 DCT compression.
Re: 24P 16:9 with something other than firewire?
You take the one hit back going to DV, but dependin on the number of renders needed during the post process, it can make a difference. There will also be a difference when compressing directly to MPEG2 from the timeline. The resulting images will be better from the uncompressed SDI.
Michael
You take the one hit back going to DV, but dependin on the number of renders needed during the post process, it can make a difference. There will also be a difference when compressing directly to MPEG2 from the timeline. The resulting images will be better from the uncompressed SDI.
Michael
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: 24P 16:9 with something other than firewire?
Yes, if you do multiple renders, there should definitely be a difference.
Would there be a difference going to MPEG-2 directly from the timeline though? If you brought DV footage in, added titling, etc., but went directly to MPEG-2, there shouldn't be any difference whether your intermediate format was uncompressed or not, would there? I mean, why would there be? All editors up-rez the compressed DV to uncompressed 4:4:4 internally, right? You only encounter the 4:1:1 decimation when going back out to tape, or making intermediate DV renders... I would expect that you'd get just as good quality going to MPEG-2 straight from the timeline, unless I'm missing something...
Yes, if you do multiple renders, there should definitely be a difference.
Would there be a difference going to MPEG-2 directly from the timeline though? If you brought DV footage in, added titling, etc., but went directly to MPEG-2, there shouldn't be any difference whether your intermediate format was uncompressed or not, would there? I mean, why would there be? All editors up-rez the compressed DV to uncompressed 4:4:4 internally, right? You only encounter the 4:1:1 decimation when going back out to tape, or making intermediate DV renders... I would expect that you'd get just as good quality going to MPEG-2 straight from the timeline, unless I'm missing something...
Mitch_Ives
Well-known member
Re: 24P 16:9 with something other than firewire?
[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=Events;num=1085972464;start=0#11 date=06/02/04 at 07:34:13]Agreed. Capturing in SDI won't give you any higher quality than capturing firewire will, since firewire is a direct transfer of exactly what's on tape. The benefits to working in 4:2:2 uncompressed start once you start modifying the footage with keying, titles, color correction, etc. But once you go out to DV tape, you'll likely give back most (if not all) of what you've gained, won't you? If you're staying uncompressed or going out to a format like DigiBeta (or even an analog format like BetaSP) you would be better off using the 4:2:2 source, definitely... but going back to DV would re-introduce the 4:1:1 decimation and 5:1 DCT compression. [/quote]
I think we have to distinguish between capturing uncompressed and capturing uncompressed through SDI.
Using SDI, it looks better even before you do anything. Most of us haven't invested the time to figure out what the deck is doing when it goes out SDI, but it improves the images. The most obvious is the edge smoothing (less stair-stepping), but there are other things.
When going out, either to DVD or DigiBeta, one keeps it all. Even when going out to DV (through SDI) it still looks better than an all firewire chain.
Try it... everyone who has seems to agree
[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=Events;num=1085972464;start=0#11 date=06/02/04 at 07:34:13]Agreed. Capturing in SDI won't give you any higher quality than capturing firewire will, since firewire is a direct transfer of exactly what's on tape. The benefits to working in 4:2:2 uncompressed start once you start modifying the footage with keying, titles, color correction, etc. But once you go out to DV tape, you'll likely give back most (if not all) of what you've gained, won't you? If you're staying uncompressed or going out to a format like DigiBeta (or even an analog format like BetaSP) you would be better off using the 4:2:2 source, definitely... but going back to DV would re-introduce the 4:1:1 decimation and 5:1 DCT compression. [/quote]
I think we have to distinguish between capturing uncompressed and capturing uncompressed through SDI.
Using SDI, it looks better even before you do anything. Most of us haven't invested the time to figure out what the deck is doing when it goes out SDI, but it improves the images. The most obvious is the edge smoothing (less stair-stepping), but there are other things.
When going out, either to DVD or DigiBeta, one keeps it all. Even when going out to DV (through SDI) it still looks better than an all firewire chain.
Try it... everyone who has seems to agree
Mitch_Ives
Well-known member
Re: 24P 16:9 with something other than firewire?
[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=Events;num=1085972464;start=0#13 date=06/02/04 at 08:47:45]Yes, if you do multiple renders, there should definitely be a difference.
Would there be a difference going to MPEG-2 directly from the timeline though? If you brought DV footage in, added titling, etc., but went directly to MPEG-2, there shouldn't be any difference whether your intermediate format was uncompressed or not, would there? I mean, why would there be? All editors up-rez the compressed DV to uncompressed 4:4:4 internally, right? You only encounter the 4:1:1 decimation when going back out to tape, or making intermediate DV renders... I would expect that you'd get just as good quality going to MPEG-2 straight from the timeline, unless I'm missing something...[/quote]
First, every production we do has renders... color correction, exposure adjustments, compositing, graphics, titles, etc., so we benefit all the time.
Second, using SDI and UC 10bit, the DVDs look noticeably better. Since it's becoming our delivery medium more and more, this is an important consideration.
Is it for everyone? Obviously not. There's the expense of a better deck and an SDI card... there's the expense of the SDI interface (Io, Kona, DeckLink)... then there's the disk array. A one terabyte array stores 10 hours of SDI UC 10bit footage... same as a 130GB drive would for firewire. We constructed our terabyte array for only $1350, but still...
[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=Events;num=1085972464;start=0#13 date=06/02/04 at 08:47:45]Yes, if you do multiple renders, there should definitely be a difference.
Would there be a difference going to MPEG-2 directly from the timeline though? If you brought DV footage in, added titling, etc., but went directly to MPEG-2, there shouldn't be any difference whether your intermediate format was uncompressed or not, would there? I mean, why would there be? All editors up-rez the compressed DV to uncompressed 4:4:4 internally, right? You only encounter the 4:1:1 decimation when going back out to tape, or making intermediate DV renders... I would expect that you'd get just as good quality going to MPEG-2 straight from the timeline, unless I'm missing something...[/quote]
First, every production we do has renders... color correction, exposure adjustments, compositing, graphics, titles, etc., so we benefit all the time.
Second, using SDI and UC 10bit, the DVDs look noticeably better. Since it's becoming our delivery medium more and more, this is an important consideration.
Is it for everyone? Obviously not. There's the expense of a better deck and an SDI card... there's the expense of the SDI interface (Io, Kona, DeckLink)... then there's the disk array. A one terabyte array stores 10 hours of SDI UC 10bit footage... same as a 130GB drive would for firewire. We constructed our terabyte array for only $1350, but still...
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: 24P 16:9 with something other than firewire?
I will confess to not having tried it. I'm not doubting your results, I'm just trying to understand why it would be different. There must be some other process going on, like a chroma blend or something.
Strictly speaking, SDI shouldn't be capable of delivering any higher-quality image from a firewire source than firewire could. They're both simply digital data pipes that don't touch the image at all: firewire transfers compressed data, SDI transfers uncompressed digital video. So something's uncompressing the firewire signal in order for SDI to be able to transfer it. If the hardware you're using to do the DV uncompress is also doing a chroma smoothing process, that could explain everything (but then again, that can also be done in a DV environment, using the Avid or Matrox codecs). Or maybe it's doing some anti-aliasing or something. In any case, there must be some sort of image processing going on... because the raw uncompressed image should look identical, whether transferred by firewire or by SDI.
And what you're saying about doing color correction, etc... yes, that will definitely be superior in a 10-bit environment, even when rendering out an 8-bit image.
I will confess to not having tried it. I'm not doubting your results, I'm just trying to understand why it would be different. There must be some other process going on, like a chroma blend or something.
Strictly speaking, SDI shouldn't be capable of delivering any higher-quality image from a firewire source than firewire could. They're both simply digital data pipes that don't touch the image at all: firewire transfers compressed data, SDI transfers uncompressed digital video. So something's uncompressing the firewire signal in order for SDI to be able to transfer it. If the hardware you're using to do the DV uncompress is also doing a chroma smoothing process, that could explain everything (but then again, that can also be done in a DV environment, using the Avid or Matrox codecs). Or maybe it's doing some anti-aliasing or something. In any case, there must be some sort of image processing going on... because the raw uncompressed image should look identical, whether transferred by firewire or by SDI.
And what you're saying about doing color correction, etc... yes, that will definitely be superior in a 10-bit environment, even when rendering out an 8-bit image.