HD on the Cheap

Z

Zot

Member
What do you guys think of this concept. This is using the new Final Cut HD (4.5 actually) (~$900)

Shoot DV > rough cut in DV(no color correction) > uprez with photozoom($120) > put uprez into a FCP DVCPRO100 HD project > Polish the final edit (even color correct with 4:2:2 sampling!) > Output for distribution on Windows Media 9 and archive the project on DVDs or native DVCPRO100 HD tape.

The beauty of DVCPRO100 HD is the data rate is something like 13mps! It works with your basic firewire based NLE. No need for any additional hardware or drives. So your only cost really is the photozoom software and Final Cut if you're not already using it (you can download Photozoom with watermark for free to try it actually, so there is no cost to test this idea) When I finish my project I will try this. But if somebody wants to beat me to it and test this concept or just theorize please do! Or let me know if I'm deluded. I realize that there is a lot of image processing going on here, but my hope is that you gain a lot more quality than you lose from this processing.
 
Re: HD on the Cheap

Just for clarification, DVCPRO100's data rate is 100 megabits per second (hence the 100 in the name). That translates into approximately 12.5 megabytes per second, so if by "13 mps" you were meaning 13 megabytes per second, yes that's accurate.

I've up-rezzed DVX footage to 1280 x 720 res, and the results were amazingly good. But not as sharp as "true" HD from the JVC HD1. The overall picture was much nicer (factoring in the DVX's color saturation, true 24P frame rate, cinegamma, all that we know and love about the DVX) but for absolute sharpness it of course couldn't directly compare. Not bad though!
 
harlesRe: HD on the Cheap

harlesRe: HD on the Cheap

How do you go about upping the res from DVX100?
 
Re: HD on the Cheap

I used a program called S-Spline Pro, which has now been re-named to PhotoZoom. I think it's offered by a place called Shortcut Software.
 
Re: HD on the Cheap

The comparison samples that I saw made the DVX through S-Spline look a lot better than the HD1. I agree with Barry that the HD1 looked sharper, but only in some areas. I felt that the DVX not only looked better overall, but that it actually looked sharper in certain areas of each shot. The image was more certainly more consistent all around. From what I could see, the HD1, perhaps because of the Mpeg encoding, smoothed out skin tones, fir, and other subtle details. This is probably way the DVX actually looked sharper at times.

One of these days, someone will provide a video filter or plugin that will do the S-Spline thing without requiring such a convoluted workflow. And they will make big bucks.
 
Re: HD on the Cheap

I looked on the PhotoZoom site and there was nothing listed regarding upressing DV footage.  In a nutshell, how do you do it?  Is the program itself set up to take DV footage, convert it to another file format one frame at a time, upres it all, and reconstitute it as DV footage at the higher resolution? I just got the FCP 4.5 HD upgrade (for free-thanks Apple!) and this process seems like a great idea.

Another stupid question: would any of the settings be different if you are dealing with anamorphic footage?

Final question: How long would it take (per minute) to chug through footage with, let's say, a DP 1.25 ghz MMD Mac w/2GB RAM? Best guess?
 
Re: HD on the Cheap

You have to export your video as a sequence of stills, run PhotoZoom on the stills, and then import your new stills into your HD project as video.

I haven't done it, but it takes serious time.
 
Re: HD on the Cheap

YIKES!  There is no way to automate that?  At 24fps, we're talking about individually processing 86,400 images for an hour's worth of program time.

I could see doing it if it meant setting up a automated script of some sort and letting my system chug away for a three-day weekend or something.  But if it were to take longer than that I would be very concerned.

How much HD space would that eat up, BTW?!
 
Re: HD on the Cheap

Okay, first of all let's establish something: you're trying to turn a standard-def image into high-definition, up-rezzing it to three times its size. That doesn't come free or easy or cheap! It's a major undertaking.

Second, the process is quite automated: export your movie as stills. Import a batch of stills into PhotoZoom and click "run batch". Then re-import that batch of stills into your editor. It's basically a three-step process.

It does take a while. On a P4-2.66ghz, it takes about six to 10 seconds per frame. But you do realize we're talking about a "miracle" here, right? There is no halfway decent high-definition camera under $60,000 and here we're making a $3,000 camera perform like as if it was high-def. That takes time and processing power. And each frame is about 3 megabytes, so it takes up hard drive space too.
 
Re: HD on the Cheap

10 seconds/frame x 86,400 frames = 864,000 seconds, or 14,400 minutes, or 240 hours, or 10 days.

86,400 frames x 3MB/frame = 259,200MB, or 253.125 GB.

Those are both high, but not ridiculous requirements. To do this with any kind of realistic workflow, a person might want to run a "B-system" that just runs this process alone, while you edit on the "A-system."

What happens when you encode this new monster-sized movie file to mpeg2 for DVD? Any benefit over just encoding the DV itself? Or would this HD system be strictly for those who want to make 35mm prints and/or broadcast in HDTV?
 
Re: HD on the Cheap

If you encode this monster file to DVD, you will have wasted 10 days and 253 gigabytes on a silly venture. DVD's are standard-definition, and DV is standard-def. Up-rezzing to HD just to down-rez again would be a phenomenal waste of CPU clock cycles.

Turning it into HD would be practical only if you had an HD distribution path -- broadcasting on an HD station, perhaps, or distributing on D-VHS. For film prints, the transfer house will handle all up-rezzing so you don't worry about that.
 
Re: HD on the Cheap

Barry and gang, thanks for this excellent explaination. Right on target!!! I intend to get some tests out to HD and to 35mm over the next month...will post results.
 
Re: HD on the Cheap

Barry forgive me. Look @ my avatar--"trainee!"

I suspected it would be a waste of time, but I wasn't sure, which is why I asked.
 
Re: HD on the Cheap

Bart, dude, no problem! No forgiveness needed -- sorry if I came across harsh, that was not my intent.

We had a long thread about this before, so we've hashed through this before, but you're new and probably didn't know it. So you walked into the middle of a prior discussion, whereas I guess I was carrying on from the previous.

So anyway, welcome to DVXUSER.COM, and please take no offense, I didn't mean to come off brusque (is that a word?)
 
Re: HD on the Cheap

Well, While I appreciate discussing the merits of even going HD in the first place, people are kind of missing my original point which is being able to DO something with the HD footage once you've uprezzed it. I know that my system would choke on an uncompressed HD timeline. However...

DVCPRO 100 as Barry correctly pointed out is 100 MegaBITS per second.  However 24P DVCPRO 100 (1024x720) drops to only 40 MegaBITS per second (this is a supported fomat in FCP just like the DVX100s 24p).  Meaning that nearly any system would be able to handle it and a 100 gig drive could handle over 4 hours of HD footage.  I think this is a MAJOR breakthrough.  While the uprezzing itself is time consuming, from what Barry says it's virtually automated (It could even be done in chunks if space is an issue).  The system that does the uprez doesn't even need to be an editing platform, if one needs to multitask (though I would probably take it as a good excuse for a weekend off).  However I never dreamed this process would be good for an event videographer or anyone alse who needs fast turnover (I promised cheap, not fast).  However for an aspiring filmmaker with a festival short or perhaps even a feature it seems perfect.  How better to set yourself apart from the DV cinema deluge.  There should be no cost incurred above the $120 for the uprez program either.  A more than substantial savings over a film out.  I can't see any reason NOT to go HD at a time when people are actually finally starting to buy HD televisions and theaters are talking digital cinema.  Also the beauty of this is that one can actually take their own project from DV to HD and be hands on during the whole process. This includes any and all effects, compositing, titles and color correction can be done natively in HD on a basic firewire NLE with no additional hardware.  In any case, I promise I will try this when I finish shooting my feature and report back with concrete results rather than my hypothetical ravings.
 
Re: HD on the Cheap

At the risk of sounding dumb again, I'll ask another related question:

Instead of "uprezzing" to HD, would there be any advantage to using the same program to pull in the frames at the exact same frame size and just re-encode them with a greater color depth? Sort of a "side-rezzing" vs. "uprezzing?" Or am I naive on this one as well?

I am just trying to milk this camera for everything I can...
 
Re: HD on the Cheap

Bart,

from my understanding the magic of PhotoZoom comes from its ability to scale by using splines (defining ALL edges within the picture as curves, find a mathematical function to describe this curve [using splines], then be able to scale this curve at your will without artefacts, stairs etc).

I can't see how this technique could affect color depth. Seems unlikely to me.
 
Re: HD on the Cheap

bart,

while using photozoom to enhance color is not possible, you can use it to sharpen your image while leaving it the same size. it is a much better sharpening tool than found in any nle ive worked with, and can give you an outstanding picture without introducing as much sharpening artifacts as you would normally get from a less advanced program.
 
Re: HD on the Cheap

Bart- Photozoom would not help your color rendition. It makes more pixels, not more color depth. HOWEVER....and again...I redirect you to the real issue at stake here...using the DVCPRO 100 HD codec in Final Cut Pro 4.5 WILL.

If you uprez and drop those images into this timeline, you will get not only more pixels, but 4:2:2 color sampling to play with those new pixels. And even more impressive is that all this could be done at a data rate far below that of uncompressed Standard Definition. Uncompressed SD would also give you the 4:2:2 sampling but at only SD resolution and a data rate that would choke all but the mightiest system. Check out my rant at the end of the previous page for more info.
 
Re: HD on the Cheap

So let me see if I have this straight:

If your final output is DVD, none of this will make any difference whatsoever.

If your final output is 35mm film, the place where you get the print made will handle everything.

If your final output is HD programming, THEN this Photozoom process yields fruit and is worth doing.

Independent film makers who intend to go for 35mm release needn't bother.  Event videographers shouldn't either.  Indie film makers who want to project HD or offer their programming for HD broadcast should give it a shot.

Do I have this right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top