Re: HD on the Cheap
Looks like.
Looks like.
HD on the Cheap
- Thread starter Zot
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: HD on the Cheap
That's the way I see it.
That's the way I see it.
Re: HD on the Cheap
Yup...That's about it. But that's gotta be like half the people on this board. However, Barry, I'm curious about what you think about doing your own uprez before a film blow-up. I remember you expressed at least some concern at the fact that your 35mm tests were uprezzed, but you were not sure using what method and soforth. Wouldn't doing this give you a little more control? (perhaps save some money?) Or would it just piss off the post house who already have their method and want to do it their way?
Yup...That's about it. But that's gotta be like half the people on this board. However, Barry, I'm curious about what you think about doing your own uprez before a film blow-up. I remember you expressed at least some concern at the fact that your 35mm tests were uprezzed, but you were not sure using what method and soforth. Wouldn't doing this give you a little more control? (perhaps save some money?) Or would it just piss off the post house who already have their method and want to do it their way?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: HD on the Cheap
I wouldn't worry about making them angry, because they also transfer HD stuff to film, so you could tell them it was HD.
But, while you'd have more control, would you do a better job? That's the part I don't know. The film transfer house makes its entire living on up-rezzing and transferring video to film. I would assume (yes, the deadly word "assume") that they would have more expertise and experience and skill in doing a successful up-rez than I would, playing around with a $120 program.
Which, again, is why tests are good. You could always do your own up-rez, and then send them the up-rezzed footage and the raw DV footage and have them do their up-rez process on the raw footage, then transfer both up and you could judge for yourself...
I wouldn't worry about making them angry, because they also transfer HD stuff to film, so you could tell them it was HD.
But, while you'd have more control, would you do a better job? That's the part I don't know. The film transfer house makes its entire living on up-rezzing and transferring video to film. I would assume (yes, the deadly word "assume") that they would have more expertise and experience and skill in doing a successful up-rez than I would, playing around with a $120 program.
Which, again, is why tests are good. You could always do your own up-rez, and then send them the up-rezzed footage and the raw DV footage and have them do their up-rez process on the raw footage, then transfer both up and you could judge for yourself...
Bart_Boge
Well-known member
Re: HD on the Cheap
Zot,
HALF the people on this board have HDTV as their final intended display medium? Wow. That's hard to believe. I would have thought more would be in either the event videography to DVD or print to 35mm film camps. If this upres process is a recent discovery, how else were you all getting your DV footage over to HDTV?
But I'm new. Being wrong is pretty much my modus operandi right now.
Zot,
HALF the people on this board have HDTV as their final intended display medium? Wow. That's hard to believe. I would have thought more would be in either the event videography to DVD or print to 35mm film camps. If this upres process is a recent discovery, how else were you all getting your DV footage over to HDTV?
But I'm new. Being wrong is pretty much my modus operandi right now.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: HD on the Cheap
I can't go along with the idea that half the people on this board are shooting for HDTV... someone must have misunderstood somewhere along the line.
There are two basic camps here, that I've seen: videographers and aspiring filmmakers. The videographers are interested in either broadcast (standard-def TV) or DVD/VHS. The filmmakers are interested in DVD or film transfers. HDTV, as near as I can tell, really doesn't register on any significant percentage's radar.
I can't go along with the idea that half the people on this board are shooting for HDTV... someone must have misunderstood somewhere along the line.
There are two basic camps here, that I've seen: videographers and aspiring filmmakers. The videographers are interested in either broadcast (standard-def TV) or DVD/VHS. The filmmakers are interested in DVD or film transfers. HDTV, as near as I can tell, really doesn't register on any significant percentage's radar.
Re: HD on the Cheap
Okay, two bones to pick -
1. Some people understand the heart of the matter - converting DV to DVCPRO100 in FCP 4.5 would give you greater color sampling, allowing for better color correction and allowing titles from LiveType to be in full DVCPRO100 resolution. When all this is (likely) compressed for DVD, the results will undoubtedly be better than if done in DV.
2. Even though I'm sure people are arguing that they have HDTVs and would like to take advantage of such a thing, if they don't already have a native HD signal (from an HD camera inputed from a HD VTR), they probably won't have the capability to send an HD signal back out to the TV.
I just got a DVX100A and this is my first post. I've been following the forums for the few weeks and find them to be wonderful. I was planning on using this technique for my projects this summer and this thread caught my eye.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you shouldn't need a different program to upres if you're using FCP HD (4.5). Can't you just finish off you just finish your project in a standard DV sequence, create a new DVCPRO100 sequence, drop in the DV and render? The resulting render movie should be in DVCPRO100 if I'm not mistaken.
Just thought I'd see if I was taking crazy pills.
Okay, two bones to pick -
1. Some people understand the heart of the matter - converting DV to DVCPRO100 in FCP 4.5 would give you greater color sampling, allowing for better color correction and allowing titles from LiveType to be in full DVCPRO100 resolution. When all this is (likely) compressed for DVD, the results will undoubtedly be better than if done in DV.
2. Even though I'm sure people are arguing that they have HDTVs and would like to take advantage of such a thing, if they don't already have a native HD signal (from an HD camera inputed from a HD VTR), they probably won't have the capability to send an HD signal back out to the TV.
I just got a DVX100A and this is my first post. I've been following the forums for the few weeks and find them to be wonderful. I was planning on using this technique for my projects this summer and this thread caught my eye.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you shouldn't need a different program to upres if you're using FCP HD (4.5). Can't you just finish off you just finish your project in a standard DV sequence, create a new DVCPRO100 sequence, drop in the DV and render? The resulting render movie should be in DVCPRO100 if I'm not mistaken.
Just thought I'd see if I was taking crazy pills.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: HD on the Cheap
I have no experience with FCP so I can't answer that.
I know that if you were in Vegas and editing in an HD timeline, and you dropped DV footage in the timeline, Vegas would automatically up-rez and upsample the footage to be compliant with the HD timeline. But it wouldn't do nearly as good a job up-rezzing as S-Spline/PhotoZoom does.
I have no experience with FCP so I can't answer that.
I know that if you were in Vegas and editing in an HD timeline, and you dropped DV footage in the timeline, Vegas would automatically up-rez and upsample the footage to be compliant with the HD timeline. But it wouldn't do nearly as good a job up-rezzing as S-Spline/PhotoZoom does.
Re: HD on the Cheap
It would be very interesting to see the comparison of how an up-rezed DV frame compares between FCP, Vegas and PhotoZoom. At least with the "sequence in sequence" process, you wouldn't have to go frame by frame (just take a few days vacation while it renders instead).
I always hate to see DV artifacts in my LiveType titles when I know it can output much higher quality. So at least the LiveType titles are guaranteed to look better in the DVCPRO100 sequence.
It would be very interesting to see the comparison of how an up-rezed DV frame compares between FCP, Vegas and PhotoZoom. At least with the "sequence in sequence" process, you wouldn't have to go frame by frame (just take a few days vacation while it renders instead).
I always hate to see DV artifacts in my LiveType titles when I know it can output much higher quality. So at least the LiveType titles are guaranteed to look better in the DVCPRO100 sequence.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: HD on the Cheap
As long as you stay in DVCPRO100, yes. But when you make a DV dub, all the same artifacts are going to be re-introduced. Or when you make a DVD, different (but similar) artifacts will be re-introduced.
As long as you stay in DVCPRO100, yes. But when you make a DV dub, all the same artifacts are going to be re-introduced. Or when you make a DVD, different (but similar) artifacts will be re-introduced.
Re: HD on the Cheap
..i very much agree with barry on this.. most nles, just stretch, and then interpolate the footage, to any larger size, and introduce jaggies, and other junk from the uprez. and the overall image is actually the same or worse in quality. and isnt really getting any sharper or detailed.. just gaining resolution. but with photozoom you can uprez to hd and end up with a much BETTER image than you started with. sharper and more detailed.. which is the bigg issue for dv film outs.. the program really rocks. i woundlt hesitate to use it on any project for film out. becuase i cant see anything wrong with giving the transfer house a higher quality version to begin with.. if they can make it even better than great!! more powaz to them. im impatiently awaiting the video version .. but the batch proccessing works fine for now.
..i very much agree with barry on this.. most nles, just stretch, and then interpolate the footage, to any larger size, and introduce jaggies, and other junk from the uprez. and the overall image is actually the same or worse in quality. and isnt really getting any sharper or detailed.. just gaining resolution. but with photozoom you can uprez to hd and end up with a much BETTER image than you started with. sharper and more detailed.. which is the bigg issue for dv film outs.. the program really rocks. i woundlt hesitate to use it on any project for film out. becuase i cant see anything wrong with giving the transfer house a higher quality version to begin with.. if they can make it even better than great!! more powaz to them. im impatiently awaiting the video version .. but the batch proccessing works fine for now.
Re: HD on the Cheap
Sorry folks, I reread my post and it is rather misleading. I didn't mean that half the posters here own an HDTV....I know I don't. I meant that half the forum members are probably aspiring filmmakers. Actually, I myself do event work and edit for a post house, but am also trying to put together a independent feature...so I guess I fit in both camps. Anyhow this thread was started as an idea for a creative and cheap workaround for the starving artist rather than the streamlined professional.
I don't really know how to fully utilize an HD final product, because I realize that HD home equipment is still just on the horizon (though I'm sure that's soon to change). Is DVHS Hi-Def? Oh...I think it's that JVC codec right? But supposedly Sundance is going to use Windows Media 9 as a projection format. Microsoft has a site where they explain how you can use your PC as part of your HD home entertainment system. Whatever. It's up to you to decide if it is worthwhile. But I think it's nice we even have the option.
Thanks Barry, you're right of course. I will do some tests to see if home uprezzing is preferable to the professional methods or not. My DIY instincts usually get the better of me.
I don't really know what happens if you put DV footage in an HD timeline in FCP. But like others have said, the NLEs aren't really set up for this kind of complex operation. People still go to programs like After Effects or Pro-tools for a lot of post work, because they are focused on a specific application rather than an NLE that has to do everything. But no reason not to test it out.
Is there still going to be a video version of this Photozoom? What would be the advantage?
Sorry folks, I reread my post and it is rather misleading. I didn't mean that half the posters here own an HDTV....I know I don't. I meant that half the forum members are probably aspiring filmmakers. Actually, I myself do event work and edit for a post house, but am also trying to put together a independent feature...so I guess I fit in both camps. Anyhow this thread was started as an idea for a creative and cheap workaround for the starving artist rather than the streamlined professional.
I don't really know how to fully utilize an HD final product, because I realize that HD home equipment is still just on the horizon (though I'm sure that's soon to change). Is DVHS Hi-Def? Oh...I think it's that JVC codec right? But supposedly Sundance is going to use Windows Media 9 as a projection format. Microsoft has a site where they explain how you can use your PC as part of your HD home entertainment system. Whatever. It's up to you to decide if it is worthwhile. But I think it's nice we even have the option.
Thanks Barry, you're right of course. I will do some tests to see if home uprezzing is preferable to the professional methods or not. My DIY instincts usually get the better of me.
I don't really know what happens if you put DV footage in an HD timeline in FCP. But like others have said, the NLEs aren't really set up for this kind of complex operation. People still go to programs like After Effects or Pro-tools for a lot of post work, because they are focused on a specific application rather than an NLE that has to do everything. But no reason not to test it out.
Is there still going to be a video version of this Photozoom? What would be the advantage?
Bart_Boge
Well-known member
Re: HD on the Cheap
Here's one more "what if:"
Do all your rough-cut editing @ DV resolution. Upres to HD via PhotoZoom. Finish editing (dissolves, color correction, etc.) at HD res. Do LiveType character generation @ HD res.
THEN use Compressor to do a two-pass VBR encoding at a very high bitrate and burn to DVD.
Still a complete waste of time? There would be mp2 artifacts, but at least it would be encoding from a much cleaner source to begin with. At the minimum, the titling would be sharper.
If the final result was even SLIGHTLY better, as long as the difference was noticeable to the non-video-tech consumer I might consider doing it. Perhaps just get a second used-but-nice Mac and stick it in the corner, having it render 24/7. Anything to gain a quality edge. Still a stupid waste of 253 GB and 10 solid days of rendering?
Here's one more "what if:"
Do all your rough-cut editing @ DV resolution. Upres to HD via PhotoZoom. Finish editing (dissolves, color correction, etc.) at HD res. Do LiveType character generation @ HD res.
THEN use Compressor to do a two-pass VBR encoding at a very high bitrate and burn to DVD.
Still a complete waste of time? There would be mp2 artifacts, but at least it would be encoding from a much cleaner source to begin with. At the minimum, the titling would be sharper.
If the final result was even SLIGHTLY better, as long as the difference was noticeable to the non-video-tech consumer I might consider doing it. Perhaps just get a second used-but-nice Mac and stick it in the corner, having it render 24/7. Anything to gain a quality edge. Still a stupid waste of 253 GB and 10 solid days of rendering?
Re: HD on the Cheap
only advantage of the video version would be that you dont have to deasl with exporting image sequences, and then importing them and all, you could just export an uncompressed video, and uprez, and them import it again. i would think it would work a bit faster and better overall when rendering the new file for you because its newer software, and could be improoved and optimized for processing 72 dpi files specifically from 720x480 or other common scources to preset (SD, HD)or customizeable output sizes.. but who knows
only advantage of the video version would be that you dont have to deasl with exporting image sequences, and then importing them and all, you could just export an uncompressed video, and uprez, and them import it again. i would think it would work a bit faster and better overall when rendering the new file for you because its newer software, and could be improoved and optimized for processing 72 dpi files specifically from 720x480 or other common scources to preset (SD, HD)or customizeable output sizes.. but who knows
Re: HD on the Cheap
Everyone's talking FCP, but what workflows (if any) are available for Windows victims, I mean, users? Does Premiere Pro support high def yet?
Would I edit in Premiere Pro (or Vegas, or what?) in DV res, then export all frames, uprez with PhotoZoom, then import into a high-def project and do all color correction, dissolves, titles, effects, etc. in the NLE, After Effects, what have you?
Since Sundance is (or soon will be) accepting WM9 high-def, this seems like a really interesting way to go, at least until such time as Panasonic decides to release a high-def update to the DVX100 to compete with Sony's upcoming high-def prosumer camcorder!
Another question: why pick the 720p resolution of 1280x720 rather than the higher 1080i resolution of 1920x1080? Because the interlacing issue? Because of the greater storage requirements of 1080i? Or because of bandwidth limits? WM9 supports both resolutions AFAIK.
Everyone's talking FCP, but what workflows (if any) are available for Windows victims, I mean, users? Does Premiere Pro support high def yet?
Would I edit in Premiere Pro (or Vegas, or what?) in DV res, then export all frames, uprez with PhotoZoom, then import into a high-def project and do all color correction, dissolves, titles, effects, etc. in the NLE, After Effects, what have you?
Since Sundance is (or soon will be) accepting WM9 high-def, this seems like a really interesting way to go, at least until such time as Panasonic decides to release a high-def update to the DVX100 to compete with Sony's upcoming high-def prosumer camcorder!
Another question: why pick the 720p resolution of 1280x720 rather than the higher 1080i resolution of 1920x1080? Because the interlacing issue? Because of the greater storage requirements of 1080i? Or because of bandwidth limits? WM9 supports both resolutions AFAIK.
Re: HD on the Cheap
ppro does support HD. and sundance has already used WM9 for projection .. in fact this last year.. the dvx shot cinematography award winner "NOVEMBER" shot by nancy schrieber who has an interview here at dvx user in the articles section- was diplsyed on HD and WM9 - there were also a number of other films using it this last year.
i would personally just use the magic bullet plugin for editors when it comes out for color correction, and just do everything in the SD realm and not waste all that rendering time trying to do everything in HD.. then just uprez the final version to HD via photozoom, and bring over the soundtrack. cause the magic bullet plugin will gives you kick rear color correction anyway.. espescially combined with ppros color correction. its going to look great.. theres no real reason i can see to do it in HD unless you like to waste time imho. but if you dont havet the plugin.. then yes.. you could go HD for the higher color space first.
ppro does support HD. and sundance has already used WM9 for projection .. in fact this last year.. the dvx shot cinematography award winner "NOVEMBER" shot by nancy schrieber who has an interview here at dvx user in the articles section- was diplsyed on HD and WM9 - there were also a number of other films using it this last year.
i would personally just use the magic bullet plugin for editors when it comes out for color correction, and just do everything in the SD realm and not waste all that rendering time trying to do everything in HD.. then just uprez the final version to HD via photozoom, and bring over the soundtrack. cause the magic bullet plugin will gives you kick rear color correction anyway.. espescially combined with ppros color correction. its going to look great.. theres no real reason i can see to do it in HD unless you like to waste time imho. but if you dont havet the plugin.. then yes.. you could go HD for the higher color space first.
Re: HD on the Cheap
The only reason FCP is ahead of the curve right now is just the nice codec they have for DVCPRO100 HD that allows you to work with HD on a basic firewire based editor using low data rates. I'm sure the other NLEs will introduce something similar. If you have enough power you could edit uncompressed, but that would be rough. Avid already anounced some sort of new HD codec with a weird name.
The reason I've been pitching the 720p format is for its ability to do 24p. I haven't really had the chance to compare the two standards though.
The only reason FCP is ahead of the curve right now is just the nice codec they have for DVCPRO100 HD that allows you to work with HD on a basic firewire based editor using low data rates. I'm sure the other NLEs will introduce something similar. If you have enough power you could edit uncompressed, but that would be rough. Avid already anounced some sort of new HD codec with a weird name.
The reason I've been pitching the 720p format is for its ability to do 24p. I haven't really had the chance to compare the two standards though.