hdv v dvcpro hd

[Elton]

what is "CC" Chroma Ceying?

can HDV just be converted to dvcprohd? is it just a point and click thing? and I was under the impression capturing uncompressed with the canon requires a tether to a 25k deck.

cc is color correction.

Yes, HDV can be converted quickly to DVCPRO HD. I capture directly to a Dual 2.7 G5 equipped with a Kona card and FCP...often to a mere off-the-shelf firewire drive. Works amazingly well, but yeah, it's obviously not as convenient as tape or P2. That said, it's an amazing value when you consider the camera for a serious film-style shoot, and typically those have a "video village" and often an editor on set. The editor can be your tape operator too, so to speak. You can roll tape and record direct to computer. Ideal for greenscreen shoots too.

Anyone that's willing to lug lights and heavy production gear around for the sake of production values shouldn't find carting a computer workstation around to be that much more onerous.

I can see a day coming soon when someone's going to do the poor-man's Sin City with a set up like this.

 

[Emanuel]

Good points Jack, Ash and Barlow.

Jack, regarding HD100 or even HVX vs. XL-H1, my doubt is the higher rez 1080 -- pro Canon; and the progressive mode vs. interlaced one -- pro M a t s h u s h i t a. [I'm not sure but I read in order to film-out the interlaced mode is better than 24F? -- and the pixelization hassle? Don't bother? What's your opinion?]

 

[brianluce]

cc is color correction.

.

Anyone that's willing to lug lights and heavy production gear around for the sake of production values shouldn't find carting a computer workstation around to be that much more onerous.

I can see a day coming soon when someone's going to do the poor-man's Sin City with a set up like this.

which camera you referring to? hvx or canon?

 

[Elton]

The Canon using SDI output, but it applies to either camera.

 

[dregenthal]

DVCPRO HD sounds great in theory, particularly because it's simply an Intra-frame HD format, but that doesn't necessarily mean squat. It's how the images are rendered into the format that matters. Take a look at the HVX and H1 footage floating around. Also consider that 720p DVCPROHD @24fps is really only 40mbps for all the frames, so it's actually a fairly heavy pass of compression for the frame size. . . . (snipped for brevity)

I might suggest (politely) that it's more than "a theory".

I may have this wrong but I think the DVCPro spec is constant but that because you are only saving 24 frames per second (in 24p) instead of 60, that you only require 40% of the 100mbps. So, instead of the 4 minutes (at about 1 gig a minute) you get on a 4 gig card in DVCPro 50, etc., you can record about 10 minutes on the same card. Really cool, huh?

 

[Elton]

Yes, of course that part of the equation is cool. However, if you want to maximize your image in 1080p (debateable) you have to use the 1GB per min. again.

My point was that I don't think the HVX really does justice to the codec in general. And also, when you factor in MPEG2 efficiencies of at least 2-3x, the JVC would seem to be the least compressed of the "affordable" cameras...but of course, that's just theory. I think the HVX is unfortunately creating a new definition of "motion artifacts". It's those dancing pixel blocks in the noisy areas. Look at some of the cc'd blowups of HVX stuff and you can see that the compression is fairly severe. Not at all like some people thought the format might perform with the camera.

 

[Elton]

Good points Jack, Ash and Barlow.

Jack, regarding HD100 or even HVX vs. XL-H1, my doubt is the higher rez 1080 -- pro Canon; and the progressive mode vs. interlaced one -- pro M a t s h u s h i t a. [I'm not sure but I read in order to film-out the interlaced mode is better than 24F? -- and the pixelization hassle? Don't bother? What's your opinion?]

Scott Billups and the Cineform team did film-out from 24F and called it "awesome", and that was in comparison to an F900, which is known to transfer extremely well to film.

You have to remember that 24F is a truly progressive frame sequence. There's no interlacing in what's rendered out via the DIGIC processing. However Canon arrives at the image is of course their secret,(48i extremely well deinterlaced or 24PsF) but I can't think of anyone that would want to try to squeeze out a little more image via software and 60i footage...and then arrive at 24F again. Also, remember that 24F has a little more bit rate alloted to the frames written to HDV tape, as it is truly 24FPS and not packaged within a 60i stream, ala DVX in SD. The decoder from the camera (or in the future, compatible decks) inserts the pulldown frames upon signal output to be 1080i compatible. So whatever might possibly be lost by the deinterlace process is more than likely made up for by added bits per frame.

 

[Emanuel]

Thanks Barlow, very useful my friend of Salt Lake City (right?), as usual.

Two doubts and a half:

1.

Pixelization, none?

2.

a) I read somewhere that 50i or 60i is better than 25F or 24F to film-out or am I wrong? [BTW good news regarding Scott Billups' 24F test]

b) HD-SDI only to 50i or 60i, isn't it? [So, this 24F test was from HDV and not from uncompressed HD stream through HD-SDI?]

 

[Benton]

Yes, HDV can be converted quickly to DVCPRO HD. I capture directly to a Dual 2.7 G5 equipped with a Kona card and FCP...often to a mere off-the-shelf firewire drive. Works amazingly well, but yeah, it's obviously not as convenient as tape or P2..

Elton,
-You record to Tape in HDV with the Canon and then you convert this to DVCproHD in final cut and get a better Image in DVC pro after it's already been encoded in HDV? Isn't this just adding another layer of encoding?

- with the Canon, is it more advisable to shoot 1080 60i, capture to Final Cut, and then conform to 24p (DVCpro HD/...however one goes about it before a FCP 24f fix)
to get the maximum amount of resolution?
So you have something akin to 1080 24p?
assuming the transmutation doesn't lose too much quality

- If you capture to Tape with the Canon, what is the advantage of capturing that footage through SDI, as opposed to firwire? better quality HDV, but You loose the sound correct?

Thanks Elton,
you and Pappas are making me Lean

 

[Elton]

Hey Benton,

I'm not out to convince you that the H1 is the ultimate camera...just want you to know what the realities of the camera are and it's strengths, as well as it's shortcomings.

That said: I've found very little loss going from HDV tape playback OUT SDI into DVCPRO HD 1080i. There's something interesting going on this way, because the camera plays out a 1.45gbps (Gigabits per second) SDI spec signal from 25 mbps HDV material. There's something in that oversampling that helps the color rendition when converted this way, rather than through software. The advantage of this is that you're done with your conversions and can now edit in an I-frame format that is fairly robust. If you do a lot of grades and FX work, you can change the timeline to uncompressed 10bit and output a QT of it to a large Firewire drive and have it mastered to a high-end HD deck (D5 or HDCAM SR would be ideal), and you can also encode your HD-DVD or Blu-Ray h.264 from this version and get phenomenal results.

This is what I would suggest if your going to do a lot of cc, FX and maybe Magic Bullet stuff (looks and deartifacting). DV100 is fine for editing and experimentation, but I would always render the final output into an uncompressed format so that you do less damage to the original footage. You could also have a version rendered into DV100 that you could output to a 1200a deck (Panny 20+K deck) for safety's sake. Lots of options.

You don't get audio through the SDI, but you can go analog into your Kona card, or even to a Decklink HD plus, I believe. ($695?) I've actually captured audio in throught the built-in port of the G5 and it's surprisingly very good. Just boost the signal slightly through a mixer and you will be fine. Or just convert from the HDV audio and sync on the timeline if you want ultimate fidelity. If you're shooting a feature, I would suggest going dual system audio, and feeding tc to the camera from a DAT...and maybe sending audio to the H1 also, for safety.

HTH,

Elton

 

[Benton]

So it is that much better than Firewire capture? Colorwise?
The Canon seems to have a longievity that the HVX may not, but it is a bigger investment too...
- I would like a small monitor for it, in the field, it seems like a must
- I would like a firestore (eventually, Though I will be capturing direcdtly to powerbook, maybe with HDVXDV)
- I would like a Kona (eventually, installed in a friends G5)
- I would like a 35mm adapter and relay lens (eventually, when Cinemek comes out with it, but the Canon DOF is nice straight off the bat)

That being said, I am still in line for an HVX, which would be 6K and I would stream into my PB all from the get go. Simple
And with experience I am sure I will be able to get most of what I'm looking for with it.
Who knows, Reelstream might come out with an HHVX solution and then this will be the Primo camera to have...

Right now it's about getting the image into my PB and scrutenizing my needs...

Thanks, I know you are not advocating any particular way to go, but your experience is great

 

[Elton]

Cool man.

With the XL-H1, I think of SDI as a super-firewire. It enhances things and solves problems along the way. It's probably the item that most justifies the price premium...not that I'm happy to pay a premium...but the benefit is worth it to me.

 

[brianluce]

Cool man.

With the XL-H1, I think of SDI as a super-firewire. It enhances things and solves problems along the way. It's probably the item that most justifies the price premium...not that I'm happy to pay a premium...but the benefit is worth it to me.

have you tried cc and other stuff in hdv? had problems? is that why you like using the sdi and recording in dvcprohd?

btw, is the dv100 you're talking about dvcprohd?

thanks

 

[Elton]

brian,

yes, I've tried cc in HDV and while not terrible, it's just a bit more recompression than I'm happy with, and you have to "conform" the timeline before output, which means the computer has to build new GOP's (groups of pictures) to match your edits. That part of it is definitely a step backwards, and I just don't like it. DVCPRO HD and other intra frame formats are where it's at in post for me. My ideal would be to have Cineform in FCP, but I don't think that's gonna happen anytime soon, so the next best alternative when considering all the options is DV100 (DVCPRO HD 100 mbps), IMHO.

I've said this before, but ironically, (because MPEG2 is generally considered a distribution format) I think of HDV as an acquisition format only for my purposes.

 

[brianluce]

brian,

y

I've said this before, but ironically, (because MPEG2 is generally considered a distribution format) I think of HDV as an acquisition format only for my purposes.

to get the hdv switched over to dvcpro codec you gotta use that sdi out?

you can't capture in hdv and then convert?

 

[Emanuel]

Yes, I've tried cc in HDV and while not terrible, it's just a bit more recompression than I'm happy with, and you have to "conform" the timeline before output, which means the computer has to build new GOP's (groups of pictures) to match your edits. That part of it is definitely a step backwards, and I just don't like it. DVCPRO HD and other intra frame formats are where it's at in post for me. My ideal would be to have Cineform in FCP, but I don't think that's gonna happen anytime soon, so the next best alternative when considering all the options is DV100 (DVCPRO HD 100 mbps), IMHO.

Why not JPEG2000@post? Is it a free codec or isn't it?

 

[Elton]

to get the hdv switched over to dvcpro codec you gotta use that sdi out?

you can't capture in hdv and then convert?

Yes, you can do that right now with HDVxDVand or DVHScap and MPEG Streamclip...but for a min. of $595 more (Decklink HD) you can avoid the extra steps and get a slightly better conversion through SDI.

 

[Elton]

Why not JPEG2000@post? Is it a free codec or isn't it?

There are practical considerations that come into play, at least for me, in going w/DVCPRO HD. It's a widely used broadcast format that would be easy to master on if the need arose.

JPEG 2000 may be an advanced codec, but it all depends on where you think your program or film is going.

 

[Emanuel]

Well, according the Google search JPEG2000 is the future Digital Cinema format and a DVCPRO-HD 8-bit codec is always a possibility to broadcast delivery from a 10-bit JPEG2000 master or I'm thinking wrongly?

 

[Alex Leith]

Do any of the popular editing application actually support real-time JPEG2000, yet? I believe it a more processor intensive codec than HDV.