RE: Argument against native HDV

["Chasteen, Howard" <Howard.Chasteen(at)fotf.org>]

I concur that the best way to handle HDV is to have a lesser system to deal with the files such as a FCP or an Adrenaline. (I can here the shouts of protest from the FCP crowd already :-)) If HDV has to be used on the DS then it must be frame by frame up-converted.

 

The DS and other high end systems seem best used for "premium" source material. It has been demonstrated many times over that the quality of the source footage is not NEARLY as important as who post produces and edits it!

 

Howard

---

From: owner-ds(at)Softimage.COM [mailto:owner-ds(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of Tony Quinsee-Jover
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 6:13 AM
To: DS(at)Softimage.COM
Subject: Argument against native HDV

Hiyas,

We all know we need HDV support.  And when do we 
want it?... yeah, yeah...

I've argued for a long time that editing native 
HDV didn't make a lot of sense to me - not unless you were going to end up 
laying back to HDV. So, more logically, you'd convert on import to whatever your 
destination format is.  That's what makes sense to my little 
brain.

Reading on a few FCP lists recently it appears that folks who 
already have the ability to edit native prefer to convert to some form of 
intermediate codec for the same reasons.  Plus, as one FCP editor put it 
"Native HDV is nice but the biggest downside to it is 
that when you go to do a render or export the final build it takes forever for 
the computer to convert i,b,p frames into the new i,b,p 
frames."

So, does anybody want to take up the gauntlet and 
argue FOR staying native?

I don't have any problem here, I'm just 
interested in seeing if there are any overwhelming arguments for or 
against.

Cheers,
Tone :)

t +44 (0)121 224 7555

f +44 (0)121 224 7557

http://www.hdheaven.co.uk