Xh-a1 Sd

srfer919

srfer919

Active member
Hello,

I'm new to the HD world and was just wondering if there was a difference in quality between two SD products, of recording SD to tape and editing, or recording HDV, editing, and downsizing to SD?

I can see how recording HDV is good if you plan on adding artificial zooming/movements in post, but that's about it. Is this correct?
 
From what I've read (opinions of users on this board) recording in HDV then downconverting is the best option for the best quality.
 
Ok, Thanks a lot. That's what I started thinking after reading some post, and since I didn't think it would, I wanted to make sure.
 
Although,..... the A1 captures a fantastic SD picture. That is what I tape in just cuz my computer aint fast enough to do special effects to HD.
 
The thing people don't grasp is the extra definition in the SD picture you get if you shoot in HD first. All the awesome details HD picks up are downconverted yes but they're still there later...just squeezed into a smaller package. Shooting directly into SD softens what extra details you'd get in HD and in the downconvert. If you ever watch a TV program and you swear somethings just incredible about it, its so clear and crisp but your watching it on a your normal TV...its even digitized and it looks good. Well thats because it was shot in HD and now your watching it downconverted technically. The details it picks up, downconverted or not, show in the final product. I love it :)

- Kyle
 
Even shooting native SD, the A1 gives the sharpest picture I've seen for sure, with an unbelievable amount of detail. HD downconvert is all well and good, but you still have to worry about actually editing that footage in HDV. Definitely depends on whether you want the option of possibly having an HD version later on or not. If it's SD all the way, it's a lot easier to just shoot DV in the first place.
 
And what would give deliver better results?, Shoot hdv and downconvert from the A1 or captured HDV and export to DS
 
I see. That makes sense Kyle. Thanks

And Roy, from what Kyle is saying it sounds like either choice would produce the same quality, because it's just the initial recording of HDV that gives you the extra detail.

The only set back of shooting HDV and down converting to your computer right off the bat would be if you plan on doing heavy image editing in post, it's probably a lot better to have all that extra resolution for your filters to work with, thus providing you with the highest quality rendered video to down convert with.

I guess it's really a question as to how your computer handles HDV, and whether it's worth it or not. I think it is, and with a few upgrades to my computer, I shouldn't have a problem. I also need to look in to a new version of FCP because 4.5 seems as if it doesn't support the A1.
 
well if you capture in m2t using the free tools(HDVsplit), rendering/editing in real time should not be a problem right?
 
Two more questions.
What is the quality if you downconvert in the camera out to the computer??
When you render the footage, is it in an sd timeline or is it in the output settings.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top