RE: Argument against native HDV

["Tim Bolt" <TimB(at)bigbangpost.com>]

I’ve recently completed an SD show that was shot on HDV and HDcam.

 

The show was cut on Xpress pro, ingest of the HDV and HDcam being via downconverted firewire.

 

To get the downconverted HDV into DS we just copied it to a media folder and linked to it via AFE.

 

For the HDCam material we re-conformed via the downconverted SDI op of a JH3.

 

This all went without a hitch.

 

However the difference in picture quality is immediately apparent, the HDV stuff being much softer.

 

This could be the downconverter in the HDV camera or just HDV.

 

But then what do you expect from a £3k camera?

 

 

Ta

 

Tim

---

From: owner-ds(at)Softimage.COM [mailto:owner-ds(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of Tony Quinsee-Jover
Sent: 29 July 2005 09:27
To: DS(at)Softimage.COM
Subject: Re: Argument against native HDV

 

Hi Graham,

How good is FCP's HDV to HD SDI RT conversion?

Regards,
Tone :)


At 02:16 29/07/2005, you wrote:

How about Capture conform HDV in FCP and play out HDSDI  live grab to DS import edl ( for splitting sequence) and off you go.
Its pretty painless.
 
Graham

----- Original Message -----

From: Tony Quinsee-Jover

To: DS(at)Softimage.COM

Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 1:59 AM

Subject: RE: Argument against native HDV

I think the point that's being missed here is whether you'd want to edit native even if you could (like FCP can right now).

There was another thread yesterday on an FCP list where the consensus appeared to be "Forget native HDV - where are the benefits?". 

Whatever your destination format, the timeline still has to be rendered, and that takes a looooooong time.

So I'd just like to see Sony bring out an HDV VTR with 422 control and an HD SDI output.  Or get a box which achieves the same thing, which currently the Miranda box won't do.

Regards,

Tone :)

At 16:38 26/07/2005, you wrote:

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