Compressor 2 and HDV footage

[mtiffee]

Were you shooting in HDV mode or DVCAM mode? I like the FX1 much better then the Z. Saying that HDV will be around for the next 5 years is rediculous.

HDV mode. We were doing a HD broadcast. The FX1 is better? How's that? The FX1 and Z1 are the exact same camera except the Z1 has XLR inputs, DVCAM, a slightly different power system and more software features. Same CCD's, same optics, same everything. The Z1 is much better because you have much better control over it's picture with the addtion of a much better cinelook mode, black stretching, etc.

HDV isn't going anywhere.. people predicted DV would be short-lived and it's still around. Just because there's a 4k video camera being developed doesn't mean all the broadcast networks are going to trash the billions of dollars of gear they just purchased industry-wide to go HD under the ATSC standards to adopt a newer 4k HD standard- especially not in the next 5 years. 1080/720 isn't going anywhere anytime soon- neither is HDV.

 

[Empty V]

I never said anything about broadcast, I said video in general. It's funny how every post I've put on this thread has has been taken out of context and twisted. As far as the output for TV, it will stay the same resolution, hopefully everyone's field scanning will change to progressive. MY experiences with the Z1U have been nothing but less then satisfactory. I get strobing, everyone I know who has used the camera gets strobing in HDV mode, that's a fact. You cannot argue my experiences. I never heard any predictions of DV having a short shelf life. Where I was at in the industry, it was welcomed with open arms. I don't understand how you can say that a 4K camera for less than $20,000 will not rupture the industry as a whole. Acquisition is one thing, you could always output to whatever you want, it will just look that much better. Have you played with the XL-H1? It looks 1000 fold better than the Z1U, and has useful options like a macro focus, and no on board color correction.

For some reason it's always like this, the film people versus the broadcast people. It's not bad, it's just the way it is.

 

[sharksdelight]

I still disagree with you on this. For one thing, the Red One will not even be out for about a year and then we will see if it delivers as promised. On the same note, the great majority of uw videographers have only the budget that their 'real jobs and their wifes or husbands' will allow. Personally, I do not have 17k to spend. But lets say the Red One is as great as all that...it will still take some time for the technology and the price to filter down to the consumer level. Look at the new Panasonic....don't you think more people would have it NOW if the P2 cards held more and didn't cost as much as they do. A trips worth of cards would cost more than the cam itself. That too will come down but it will be awhile before it reaches the level that most users on this board can consider.
Another thing, the Red One may turn out to be wonderful but its obsolesence is already in the works as there are those who are developing holographic cams....can't wait till I get one of those but that might take 5 1/2 years.
Steve:14:

 

[mtiffee]

I never said anything about broadcast, I said video in general. It's funny how every post I've put on this thread has has been taken out of context and twisted.

You make statements like HDV is gone in 5 years then talk about how great the XL-H1 is which is an HDV camera. It seems you dislike the Z1 which is fine, everyone has their own experiences and opinions. I have seen the XL-H1 and like it much better than the Sony cameras. I own a FX-1. Not everyone on here can afford a 8k XL-H1 camera, much less a FX1 or Z1. This is ScubaBoard, not a SMPTE board. The original poster didn't even ask about the Z1 and you reply with how bad the camera is and how HDV is a dead-end format. If you're going to make those statements, you're going to get replies from people who believe otherwise. HDV may have some great competition coming in the high resolution indie and professional EFP market, but it will be around for quite a while in both the professional and consumer area. I'm active in both the film and video industry and am very familiar with the RED camera and it's impact on the industry. BTW 17.5K only gets you a camera body- no lens, viewfinder, storage device.

 

[rjsimp]

Is anyone having success with outputting HDV underwater footage to Compressor for DVD authoring on a Macintosh? Curious, as I'm about to upgrade my entire shooting/editing rig.

Well, since nobody will answer your question and they are too busy hijacking this thread with a pi$$ing contest over the quality of HDV, I'll answer your question. I just finished an HDV video with FCP and saved it as a native HDV MPEG2 file to play on my theater here in HD, but I also used compressor 2 to make a DVD.

I used the 90 minute best 16x9 setting and it downsized it perfectly, no artifacts that I could see and the colors remained very vibrant. Obviously the HDV version I play on my HDTV looks far superior, but the DVD version looks great too.

On a side note, you really don't realize how much more resolution you are working with until you use Motion 2 to make an intro and other clips for the movie and you set the size to the HDV resolution. Really gives you some nice resolution for titles and graphics.

Hope this helps with your decision.

 

[PeaceDog]

Hope this helps with your decision.

It does. Thank you very much.

What particular footage was in it, and did you use compression markers and such? I assume you had u/w footage in there.

 

[rjsimp]

It does. Thank you very much.

What particular footage was in it, and did you use compression markers and such? I assume you had u/w footage in there.

I recently did a 20 minute underwater video from my recent trip to Grand Cayman. Of course a lot of motion, blues, and even dark areas that are typically hard to get good quality compression without artifacts on. It all came out clean and I was happy with it.

I have done in the past land video as well and it all looks great. I have a VX2000 and when the HDV is down converted, the video I think looks every bit as good as the VX2000 native DV results if not better. Now when watching it in HDV on a HDTV screen, there is no comparison, the HDV really smokes the SD (even professionally produced SD).

 

[cap_bert]

There is a lot of chatter here, and info, but these last few posts seem to speak to the original question posted. HDV is a VERY compressed format, but can look very good if shot correctly and handled correctly in editing. The biggest drawback of HDV comes in the editing of the footage in programs such as FCP or Premier or whatever you have for an editor. HDV is a high bitrate flavor of MPEG-2 and uses the same basic compression tactics to achieve the data reduction. The compression works by first encoding a full frame of video info, then subsequent frames (usually 11-14) only contain info on how that frame changes over time, then it encodes another full frame, and so on. This compression achives a great data rate, but in editing, if an edit is done on frames that fall between these fully encoded frames, then the computer must recompress that section of video to complete the render. this usually doesn't cause too much trouble for simple edits, but if it is done several times over, it can seriously degrade the image quality, especially on low light, dark, areas and on areas with high motion. If your edits are simple and straight forward, then i would support the method described by rjsimp above. If they are really complex and layered i would suggest converting the HDV to another codec for editing to avoid too many compression cycles. If you are only going to be outputting to DVD than you could convert and edit to DVCpro50 or Apple Uncompressed (or similar). If you require an HD output, then DVCproHD would be the best solution unless you have a screaming machine and drives that can handle editing uncompressed HD. Ultimately the fewer compression cycles you can put your footage though the better, but sometimes it is unavoidable. Good luck with your future edits and DVDs... i hope that this message helped a bit.

 

[rjsimp]

... This compression achives a great data rate, but in editing, if an edit is done on frames that fall between these fully encoded frames, then the computer must recompress that section of video to complete the render. this usually doesn't cause too much trouble for simple edits, but if it is done several times over, it can seriously degrade the image quality, especially on low light, dark, areas and on areas with high motion. If your edits are simple and straight forward, then i would support the method described by rjsimp above. If they are really complex and layered i would suggest converting the HDV to another codec for editing to avoid too many compression cycles. If you are only going to be outputting to DVD than you could convert and edit to DVCpro50 or Apple Uncompressed (or similar). If you require an HD output, then DVCproHD would be the best solution unless you have a screaming machine and drives that can handle editing uncompressed HD. Ultimately the fewer compression cycles you can put your footage though the better, but sometimes it is unavoidable. Good luck with your future edits and DVDs... i hope that this message helped a bit.

I wouldn't agree with the statement that the computer will do "compression cycles" during editing. If you capture your footage as HDV and use that footage in your time line sequences, nothing is really rendered until you do your final output at least in Final Cut Pro. The only "compression cycle" is when FCP goes through any edits in your time line such as transitions or like you said inter-keyframe edits and reconforms the HDV output. All the clips themselves for the most part are NOT recompressed and no quality is lost since FCP is editing in HDV and not an intermediate codec.

Now, if you have an editing style of putting a sequence together and then dumping that to an HDV file and then using that clip and cutting it up again with edits, then I guess I could see your point. However, that kind of workflow doesn't make sense.

I forgot to add though, any color correcting or filters you have applied to the clips will require it to examine each frame and modify it. I did that in my video and not only was FCP very efficient at doing it, I didn't see any loss of quality. Again, I suppose if you saved as HDV, then bought it back in and did more edits and then saved as HDV again, over and over, that would degrade the video but so would DV or any other codec that compressed.

 

[cap_bert]

I wouldn't agree with the statement that the computer will do "compression cycles" during editing. If you capture your footage as HDV and use that footage in your time line sequences, nothing is really rendered until you do your final output at least in Final Cut Pro. The only "compression cycle" is when FCP goes through any edits in your time line such as transitions or like you said inter-keyframe edits and reconforms the HDV output. All the clips themselves for the most part are NOT recompressed and no quality is lost since FCP is editing in HDV and not an intermediate codec.

Now, if you have an editing style of putting a sequence together and then dumping that to an HDV file and then using that clip and cutting it up again with edits, then I guess I could see your point. However, that kind of workflow doesn't make sense.

I forgot to add though, any color correcting or filters you have applied to the clips will require it to examine each frame and modify it. I did that in my video and not only was FCP very efficient at doing it, I didn't see any loss of quality. Again, I suppose if you saved as HDV, then bought it back in and did more edits and then saved as HDV again, over and over, that would degrade the video but so would DV or any other codec that compressed.

rjsimp, thanks for clarifying on some of these points. They are totally true. I was alluding to the sort of editing that you described above when i made my rather broad statements. As i said; for simple editing HDV will do fine... especially if the end product will be a standard def DVD or the like. But i have noticed significant degredation in the video quality with edits of the type you describe... cross disolves, slow fades, fades from black, color correction, etc. Any operation that has to access continuous frames is going to introduce artifacts, sometimes it is worse than others and honestly, a lot of it has to do with the content in the first place. But in generally, it is a 'cleaner' (though not necessarily straighter, or practical) path to convert HDV and other tricky media to a format that is designed to edit better.