Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: New to HD.

  1. #1

    New to HD.

    Hi, I'm new here having just found your forum by chance as you do (the wonders of googling). I've been shooting video for some time on Pana' DV200 with full size DV tape but I have now taken the plunge and gone all HD. Using a JVC HM700 shooting onto SDHC (I can hear the worried looks from here). I've got admit that I am a bit nervous of the SD card media but I can piggy-back onto an SxS card, the chance of 2 cards going down together is remote (isn't it?). If they do then I'm packing up and going back to chunky SVHS.

    Anyway the questions I have are about the workflow from capture to screen. I am in UK so will be shooting PAL and have been advised to record 720 50pHQ as the best all-round format. I edit in CS4 and at present output to DVD keeping in 'P' format all through (i.e. no interlacing) as I am assuming that most people are now viewing on LCD or Plasmas. Does that present problems when viewed on 1080i or CRTs if it's not interlaced?. If anyone else is using a similar workflow do they now of any pit-falls or problems I may encounter or better still any tips.

  2. #2
    Hi GeoKil
    I had similar issues when going from tape to card but don't worry!! Cards are amazingly tough and reliable!! Just make sure that you buy decent cards with a high class rating (Class 6 or higher and a brand name) and not the el-cheapo's on eBay. I personally use Transcend cards but genuine SanDisk will also give you piece of mind. Bear in mind that I shoot weddings so my footage is even more critical!! I don't think there is any reason to piggyback cards!!

    By all means shoot in progressive if you want to (I shoot 1080 interlaced!!) but I would most definately render your final file as an interlaced one. Just drop your 720P in the timeline and then render out to PAL Widescreen 720x576 which will be interlaced lower field first. That way your footage is compatible on all TV's!! Just because someone has an LCD TV doesn't mean that it can handle progressive video well!!


  3. #3
    Hi Chris.
    Thanks for your reply, I'm pleased to (virtually) meet you, I have read your knowledgeable posts and replies here with interest.

    Weddings are my big worry, most other things I can shoot with more than one camera or can re-shoot or find other work arounds so thanks for your reassurance. Thanks also for the other info. I have for years shot everything interlaced and although I understand the concept of progressive I don't fully understand how interlaced and progressive images work across platforms. I guess that the TV determines the signal it is being presented with (i or p) and outputs it as necessary.

    Out of interest why do you shoot interlaced, I have been advised to shoot progressive. This is not meant to be a challenge or criticism I understand that interlace will resolve finer detail but progressive handles movement better. I have noticed when my interlaced DV footage is played back on some LCD screens there is some smearing on moving objects. What is your experience?

    All the best, George.
    Last edited by GeoKil; 31st Mar 2010 at 10:58.

  4. #4
    Hi George

    Quite the opposite it seems for me!! Progressive footage is easier to handle in post but I found that it doesn't handle high speed movement well where interlaced does. Also I would rather also shoot with a vertical resolution of 1080 rather than 720 ... shooting in progressive makes sense if you are going to end up with a web video which needs to be progressive and also ideally 1280x720 too. For DVD output I would rather stick to 1440x1080 which gives me a better actual frame size of 1920x1080!!


  5. #5
    Hi Chris, thanks again. I'm in the early stages so I'll experiment with various settings to see what differences I can see. I can record at 1920x1080; would you suggest that I originate in that setting. At present most of my final output is to standard definition DVD, though I am going to install a BluRay burner as I've starting to be asked for that format.

    You can probably see I'm not an early adopter of new technology any more having built a fine collection of machines that were the bees kees for about six months until a better, cheaper version came along. I now wait until technology is well bedded in hence just catching up with HD and BluRay.

  6. #6
    Hi George

    It's a personal preference with me. If your 720P footage looks good then it DOES save having to de-interlace in post!! Just remember that 1920x1080 is the still frame size for 1080i . The video is actually 1440x1080 as the horizontal pixels have an aspect ratio of 1.333: 1 and are not square (much the same as PAL 4:3 is 720x576 and PAL Widescreen is also 720x576 but the pixels are just wider so it's really 1024x576 on the screen)


  7. #7
    Administrator Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Te Awamutu, New Zealand
    Blog Entries
    It's a tough one isn't it? My main camera shoots 1440x1080i on HDV tape and I'm getting frustrated with it but I can't really justify a new camera. I've been thinking about getting an external recorder and doing away with tapes, especially for jobs like event coverage (any suggestions or recommendations would be welcome). I have a smaller camera that shoots 1980x1080 AVCHD and although that's a nasty format for editing, it's a lot more convenient in other ways and I like having full HD all the way through. Of course mixing footage from those cameras is far from ideal and tends to make Premiere Pro CS4 a bit crashy.

    Looking to the future I'd recommend shooting 1920x1080 if you have a choice. It's "full HD" and likely to be a standard pixel size for quite some time. For Adobe users, AVCHD should become a lot easier to work with when the new Mercury playback engine comes out with CS5.
    Dave Owen

  8. #8
    I always tend to transcode my HD footage back to SD if my final output is going to be a DVD (With wedding gigs the bride has no idea what a BluRay player is and it's highly unlikely that great Aunt Joan will be able to play BD disks so all my weddings are SD)

    I have seriously done dozens of test DVD's with AVCHD rendered to MPEG2, HDV rendered to MPEG2 and SD rendered to MPEG2 and when you watch the results you have to be darn good to see any difference!! In fact when my so-called experts watched a set of 3 clips where I juggled the clips around (and didn't mark them or tell them) they had NO idea which was which and two out of the three actually said the SD to DVD clip was the best!!!!

    My transcoder only does AVCHD files from the Proline cameras but there is plenty of software that works well. The ONLY time I have seen a slightly better result from HD to DVD without transcoding was from a Sony EX3 camera and LOT's of processing!!! Seriously, it isn't worth the extra render times if you are just supplying a domestic product!!!

    Sony Vegas 9 handles AVCHD easily on a Quad Core but does battle a little on my DuoCore machine..but it's still do-able!!! A rather neat solution is the Transcoder from New Blue called UpShift which does a classy job of 1920x1080 AVCHD converted to HDV at a respectable 50mbps too!!!



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Subscribe to us on YouTube