View Full Version : Capturing using firewire or capturing using capture card? The difference?


Zulkifli Yusof
April 14th, 2007, 03:56 PM
Hi all

I've been looking at Blackmagic's capture cards and it got me thinking how could a capture card be of difference when ingesting HDV/DV materials as compared to capturing them using firewire?

David Tamés
April 14th, 2007, 06:59 PM
One advantage of capturing HDV with a capture card is that in real time you can capture to a codec that's more suitable for editing, for example, DVCPRO HD or some uncompressed format. The "conform" time with HDV on a Mac, even on a Mac Pro Quad is a pain.

Another advantage of a capture ard is they also offer HD component or HD SDI output for monitoring on an HD monitor, essential for color correcting on a broadcast monitor.

Zulkifli Yusof
April 16th, 2007, 08:48 AM
One advantage of capturing HDV with a capture card is that in real time you can capture to a codec that's more suitable for editing, for example, DVCPRO HD or some uncompressed format.

By that you mean that I dont have to deal with the long GOP which comes with HDV materials right?

Would capturing to a better codec also means that I'll have better colour space to work with for colour correction/grading as compared to native firewire capture?

Nelson Gameiro
January 21st, 2008, 07:14 PM
Hello!
I would also like to have an answer to this unfinished question...I did a search in the forum but all I found was the need of having a capture card for previewing video on a monitor.

To sum up:
If someone captures to a miniDV tape a HD clip (let's suppose Sony Fx1 in HDV mode), will it make any difference, on the file you capture to hard-drive, wether if capture was done via a "SuperGT" capture card instead of a "regular-bundle" firewire port?

What quality increase do I get? Will it provide me better images?

Regards,
Nelson

Bill Davis
January 21st, 2008, 09:09 PM
This confuses people a LOT - and it shouldn't.

You get NO benefits from a dedicated card if you're working with HDV.

Here's why...

You must think of your entire edit workflow as a pipeline.

If you're working in DV or HDV, your imaging is being done at STANDARD DV data rates. So the amount of "water" at the start of the pipeline is relatively small. 25Mbps small. This is true of DV, DVCAM and HDV - ANY 25Mbps format.

If that's all the data rate you're ORIGNIATING there will be NO advantage to doing anything other than simple firewire capture - and you will NEVER need a more robust capture card. Period.

Regular old Firewire 400 has PLENTY of bandwidth to handle that stream. Period.

The place where Kona cards and AJA cards and the rest come into play is if you are ORIGINATING your material at higher data rates - like with DVCPRO-50 or digitizing from Analog High-def - or a Genesis, or a RED camera, etc. - THEN and ONLY then will a workflow that supports higher data rates THROUGHOUT the system make sense.

And you MUST maintain those higher datarates up and down the workflow. You can't dump to DVCAM for editing then dub that back to a higher def format - because once the signal is downsampled, it's DOWNSAMPLED. (you can work with offline proxies, but the END to END datastream from source tape to master MUST preserve the high-def signal or you're wasting your time pretending to work in high-def)

So your need for a dedicated card STARTS and ENDS with your ability to originate, work with, monitor and output HIGH DEF. Period.

If you don't have high-def monitors, a deck, and the ability to output a high-def master - the card will just sit there and depreciate. (quickly!)

There's a sorta-maybe exception to this is if you're preparing SD or HDV footage for HD broadcast. Then it might make sense to prepare your titles and graphics in high def over SD footage - and a card will help you do that on a somewhat older computer - but that's a pretty specialized game.

Again, if you aren't finishing to HD, there's NO need for any cards.

And with the continued processing speed increases in computers - the ability of native Quad and 8 core processors in stock computers to handle even High DEF (like Apple's new codec solutions) is getting better all the time and making it increasingly unnecessary to require specialized hardware to work with native HD streams in a standard computer box.

So if you need real HIGH DEF and need it RIGHT NOW and you don't have a brand new computer - look into those outboard cards. They're the way to go.

If not, forget about them.

FWIW.

David McGiffert
January 22nd, 2008, 01:49 AM
Now there is a nice cold splash of common sense Bill.
I haven't seen it put so clearly before.
(and I feel better for getting ready to hurl my
money at one of the new Mac Pro's)...

David

Christopher Drews
January 22nd, 2008, 02:30 AM
I agree with most everything Bill said but would like to add my situation.

For our feature, we shot on 24P DV (XL2), with a 2:3:2:3 pulldown. I captured all 35 hour long tapes via firewire. I later removed the pulldown (creating true 23.976 media) but was shocked to see the loss in quality. There were artifacts, movement blur and other nasty traces.

Additionally, our perspective distributor warned us about editing in DV. He requires an HDCAM SR @ 23.98 1080.

I made the decision, as it is always better to catch a workflow problem earlier than paying through the nose later.

I deleted all 35 tapes. Our editor threw away all final cut project files. And all the logged timecode logged by the director were moot.

Trying the process again, I captured 35 tapes via a Sony DSR-1800 with SDI/AES (AJA Io) into final cut pro using the "SD Pro-Res HQ" setting.

Once all 35 tapes were captured I went to After Effects CS3.
In after effects, we removed the pulldown, created and stretched our SD to 1080 Pro-Res 23.976 media.

The result - WAY BETTER. More latitude with the colors (upconverted on the DSR-1800), less distortion in the blacks and zero signs of interlacing. I'm not prescribing this for anyone yet I honestly see a huge difference in the DV media once upressed.

Some say Garbage in - Garbage Out.
DV upressed over SDI to Pro-Res, Upconverted to HD - is totally better than Firewire anything (in my opinion of course).

Hope this helps.
-C

Dylan Pank
January 22nd, 2008, 06:18 AM
I agree with most everything Bill said but would like to add my situation.

For our feature, we shot on 24P DV (XL2), with a 2:3:2:3 pulldown. I captured all 35 hour long tapes via firewire. I later removed the pulldown (creating true 23.976 media) but was shocked to see the loss in quality. There were artifacts, movement blur and other nasty traces.



There's your problem, you needed to shoot in 24p 2:3:3:2 format for clean i frame removal. The cadence in 24p 2:3 is AA BB BC CD DD therefore frame C has to be reconstructed from adjacent fields in different frames. This has to be processed and rendered (and may cause ALL your media to be processed and rendered, even complete discrete frames) adding artefacts.

24pA works in AA BB BC CC DD, therefore, the third frame is simple dropped or skipped with no loss as the information is fully present in the proceeding and following frames.

Howe were you converting from 60i to 24p?

Nelson Gameiro
January 22nd, 2008, 06:42 AM
I'm convinced with Bill Davis arguments.
Thanks a lot for clearing it out.

Regards,
Nelson

John Miller
January 22nd, 2008, 07:41 AM
Some say Garbage in - Garbage Out.
DV upressed over SDI to Pro-Res, Upconverted to HD - is totally better than Firewire anything (in my opinion of course).

Hope this helps.
-C

That doesn't follow. All it means is that somewhere in your FireWire-based workflow there is a flaw (as Dylan suggests).

The source material is DV. If you send it via FireWire it is still DV. FireWire introduces absolutely no side effects - adverse or beneficial. Software can convert the DV material to HD material as good as any hardware solution. After all, the hardware solutions are merely dedicated computers running dedicated code. It's a matter of having the right software tools for your FireWire workflow.

The advantage of the SDI route is one of speed - that's all.

Dylan Pank
January 22nd, 2008, 09:41 AM
John,

having said that, there are advantages to doing effects, titles and colour correction in another codec. The DV codec is very limited in terms of colour space compared to other heavy duty codecs (it was never intended as a professional format).

But you're right: artefacts, motion blur and interlacing problems are NOTHING to do with firewire, but to do with a error in the workflow in the first place.

Andrew Kimery
January 22nd, 2008, 11:07 AM
DV upressed over SDI to Pro-Res, Upconverted to HD - is totally better than Firewire anything (in my opinion of course).

Hope this helps.
-C

Capturing DV uncompressed via SDI will help reduce some of the chroma noise so in a situation like this where every bit and byte counts since you are taking DV to HD I'd say the additional cost and storage space of capturing DV over SDI is worth it.

Graeme Natress wrote a very good article on chroma sampling in FCP a couple of years ago.
http://www.lafcpug.org/Tutorials/basic_chroma_sample.html


-A

John Miller
January 22nd, 2008, 12:04 PM
John,

having said that, there are advantages to doing effects, titles and colour correction in another codec. The DV codec is very limited in terms of colour space compared to other heavy duty codecs (it was never intended as a professional format).

But you're right: artefacts, motion blur and interlacing problems are NOTHING to do with firewire, but to do with a error in the workflow in the first place.

Absolutely but the OP's source originally derives from DV so the colour space issues can be addressed equally well via a post-FireWire process as via the SDI route.

Either route involves "nothing more than" digital signal processing and, if anything, the FireWire route offers much more flexibility than a fixed hardware solution - it just takes a l-o-t longer.

Christopher Drews
January 22nd, 2008, 04:02 PM
Capturing DV uncompressed via SDI will help reduce some of the chroma noise so in a situation like this where every bit and byte counts since you are taking DV to HD I'd say the additional cost and storage space of capturing DV over SDI is worth it.

Graeme Natress wrote a very good article on chroma sampling in FCP a couple of years ago.
http://www.lafcpug.org/Tutorials/basic_chroma_sample.html


-A

Thank you Andrew. You stated what I see. That is exactly why the SDI solution is better for my needs. The chroma noise is visibly less than what it was over firewire. As for 2:3:2:3 pulldown, it indeed was a poor choice, one I intend to correct in future projects.

Steve Oakley
January 22nd, 2008, 11:20 PM
well it seems that sony DV decks with SDI out do some chroma smoothing ( Blurring ! ) where the SDI may look a little bit better when captured via SD to uncompressed or a lossless codec. with HDV, I would NOT use DVCpro HD anymore because it trashes 25% of the horizonal resolution. you can see the difference, even in a SD down convert. instead use a lossless full raster codec like ProRes when using a capture card.

Dom Stevenson
January 23rd, 2008, 04:08 AM
Thanks for that Bill.

A couple of years ago i worked for a guy who was running an early version of Premiere to edit DV CAM stuff on. It was a nightmare and despite my attempts to get him to put his hand in his pocket and get a Final Cut system he refused. He didn't want to spend the money. After 10,000 crashes and several expensive cock ups he eventually decided to take the plunge. Only now he couldn't spend enough, and insisted we needed a top of the range Blackmagic card to capture DV at high quality. I told him it was a waste of money and that there was nothing to be gained by the considerable expense.

He won. Hey, it's his money.

To my knowledge he has never had the slightest benefit from having this £1500+ gizmo in his computer.

And your post confirms this.

Steve Oakley
January 23rd, 2008, 10:19 AM
You get NO benefits from a dedicated card if you're working with HDV.

If that's all the data rate you're ORIGNIATING there will be NO advantage to doing anything other than simple firewire capture - and you will NEVER need a more robust capture card. Period.

So your need for a dedicated card STARTS and ENDS with your ability to originate, work with, monitor and output HIGH DEF. Period.

There's a sorta-maybe exception to this is if you're preparing SD or HDV footage for HD broadcast. Then it might make sense to prepare your titles and graphics in high def over SD footage - and a card will help you do that on a somewhat older computer - but that's a pretty specialized game.

Again, if you aren't finishing to HD, there's NO need for any cards.

If not, forget about them.

FWIW.

this really is not correct.

1. kona, BM and MXO cards handle the scaling involved between the codec's native res of 1440 to 1920 output res. that takes the load off of the CPU/GPU. DVCpro100, HDV, HDcam all reduce the res.

2. capture via SDI in DV may produce somewhat better looking images due to the VTR processing the chroma channels. SDI -> uncompressed or lossless may well indeed produce better results than DV native capture. it all depends on the camera used and the quality of shooting.

3. capture to 10 or 12 bit color space can very much indeed improve things when doing color correction, especially when pushing those color corrections. while the source it only 8 bit, using a higher color space will reduce banding and noise when pushing things hard. of course you generally don't need to do this if the shooting was good in the first place but sometimes life isn't perfect and you have to deal with bad shots. 10/12bit color space also allows for more finesse when doing even modest corrections. if you haven't done this, you need to try it. I would also say that FCP is a less then great place to do this. combustion, smoke, flame, even AE if you must are better places to do this. this process doesn't add anything, it simply reduces the rounding errors that happen when you work entirely in 8bit color space. if you look at the image ona wave form and work entirely in 8bit, you can see bands of no pixels. if you go to 10/12bit space, those bands are reduced or eliminated depending on how you process the footage.

4. a I/O card is a requirement to monitor HD simply for color managed output. SD and HD color space are different. monitoring in the correct color space is critical for color correction. one reason I like the MXO for my laptop.

5. An I/O card will provide realtime downconvert to SD which is something I use to make DVD-R's for preview almost daily.

6. using SD material in HD projects is very common these days. an IO card won't help here in uprezing, but if you have betaSP sources, you need something to bring it in and I'd rather pull it in via 8/10 bit uncompressed or lossless then loop thru a DV deck to convert it to DV any day. That will produce much better results. fact is, the worse you source, the more you need uncompressed/lossless to preserve what is there. compressing to DV only makes it worse and harder to fix.

John Miller
January 23rd, 2008, 10:55 AM
The ONLY benefit of using the hardware described for HDV (or DV) source material is that it is dedicated to the job and, therefore, operates in real time as well as freeing up other computer resource(s).

Mathematically, everything that can be done with the dedicated hardware solution can be done with a computer ingesting DV or HDV material. The hardware solution is, after all, nothing more than a dedicated digital computer running specific and highly optimized algorithms. Whether the right tools exist on a given computer is another matter.

This applies to material that is already in the DV or HDV format. Obviously, live source material will benefit from the SDI route assuming that the live feed from the camcorder is the original uncompressed material.

The real consideration here is the cost vs. benefit of investing in the hardware vs. additional computers + corresponding software.

Chuck Spaulding
January 23rd, 2008, 11:22 PM
Wow this conversation covers about all the misconceptions about HD...

There are several things to consider in developing an efficient workflow, one is obviously how you want to capture your footage.

Uncompressed HD is 1920x1080, it is 4:2:2 8 or 10 bit with a data rate of approximately 192MB's/sec. [that's mega BYTES] The variable for the data rate is the frame rate.

There's also 1280x720 which is also 4:2:2 8 or 10 bit with a data rate which I believe is about 20% less than 1080.

For compressed HD there's DVCProHD which is 1280x1080 4:2:2 8 bit with a data rate of approximately 100 Mb's/sec [that's mega BITS][the DVCProHD codec is also a constant bit rate]. For 720P - the DVCProHD is resolution is 960x720.

HDV is 1440x1080, it is 4:2:0 8 bits with a data rate of 25Mb's/sec.

These are acquisition standards. There are also codecs that can be used as a digital intermediate or "post" production format.

ProRes which is a wavelet VBR codec that comes in various resolutions, 8 bit and 10 bit and is 4:2:2 with two HD data rates, medium quality 140Mb's/sec and HQ 220Mb's/sec. Keep in mind that Sony HDCam has a bit rate of 140Mb's/sec, so if your going to finish on tape the medium quality is fine. Also you should be aware that this is NOT a lossless codec and not only is it a MAC Quicktime only codec its a FCP only codec. [This may have changed but last time I attempted to use it with the Adobe CS3 Production Suite it did not work] and it does not support an alpha channel.

There's the Cineform NeoHD codec which is similar to the ProRes codec and anyone whose interested can check it out at [http://www.cineform.com/] but ther is a sginificant difference -- CineForm QT files are compatible on both Windows and MacOS and is compatible with Adobe CS3; Apple Final Cut Pro, and Motion. This is also a LOSSY codec.

SheerVideo is a LOSSLESS codec that is platform and application agnostic which also does support an alpha channel. This is a great choice if your shooting uncompressed HD.

Aja and BlackMagic video cards can capture HDV, HDSDI and component HD and convert it to either DVCProHD, ProRes or the Cineform NeoHD in realtime. This can have a significant impact on your workflow.

First, for anyone who's been editing HDV they know the time it takes to conform before writing to tape. Although this eliminates the conforming time all of these compressed codecs have larger file sizes comsuming more disk space and requiring more bandwidth [FW800 and eSata are generally fast enough].

And although a capture card can't add more quality than what was in the original, converting from a long gop 4:2:0 (HDV) to an intra frame 4:2:2 is much better for any kind of image processing, color correcting, or compositing.

I use Motion and Color correct quite a bit so when I edit HDV I almost always capture to either DVCProHD or ProRes and not only is the quality better but the projects are much more efficient (smooth).

Anyway, I hope this helped.

David Knaggs
January 24th, 2008, 01:44 AM
Wow this conversation covers about all the misconceptions about HD...

HDV is 1440x1080, it is 4:2:0 8 bits with a data rate of 25Mb's/sec.



Just to clear up another misconception ...

There are TWO types of HDV: HDV1 and HDV2.

Chuck is referring to the interlaced format, HDV2 (Sony and Canon).

HDV1 is a progressive scan format, 1280 X 720, 8-bit, 19.7 Mbps (JVC). It is compressed with MPEG-2 and the first JVC HDV cameras used short GOP (6 frame). The later, more advanced models are using a longer GOP, I believe.

For more info, see the article on this link by Chris Hurd (under the section "What is HDV?"):

http://www.hdvinfo.net/

Bill Davis
January 24th, 2008, 01:01 PM
There's already too much needless complexity here.

I'll just say a few simple thing.

HDV is an absolutely wonderful format for budget video producers. You get a LOT of bang for your buck. If that's what you're working in, EMBRACE it. But don't attempt to tart it up and act like something it's not.

IF you're working with HDV - stop worrying about the perfect back end workflow and also don't waste your money on fancy computer add-on cards.

Spending hundreds or thousands to achieve a few percentage points of better color correction is a WASTE of time and resources IMO.

Trust me, NOBODY's going to sit down after viewiing your work and say...

"Nice effort - however it was ruined by the fact that the color of the glass of Bordeaux on the table in shot 152 was slightly off..."

You can get PERFECTLY acceptable color - and a PERFECTLY acceptable and watchable video program out of a stock HDV camera and a stock editing system WITHOUT ANY ADD ON CARDS. Period.

Spend that money on other things - like audio or lighting gear or self-education - that will have a REAL impact on the professionalism of your work output.

The rest of this discussion is like arguing about a blemish on the back of a supermodel's knee.

It might well exist, but it's largely irrelevant in the overall scheme of things.

Jim Fields
January 24th, 2008, 01:27 PM
This is what I read in all of the replies..

Blah Blah blah, GOP, 4:2:2, 4:2:0, blah, Pro Res, 24P, blah blah.

I take the KISS method, if I shot the event ( I shoot weddings) in HDV 1080i I then use a firewire cable and import using...get this.....easy setup HDV 1080i 60.
The funny thing about doing that, is i am working in the native format i shot in. I know I know it sounds really stupid of me to do something so simple, but, I do like to Keep It Simple Stupid.

I know what your saying though, just weddings, thats all I am doing, and your working on a budgeted feature, well, I know alot of people who shoot weddings at 24P, and try to replicate a film look, and in the end they take 3 times longer than I do to finish an edit.

I have a BM card so I can capture HD recording off of my Dish DVR, my camera never touches the BM card. I dont worry about GOP Formats, Pro Res, etc. I import in the NATIVE format I shot in (and the funny thing is, your not really shooting 24P, try using film, thats 24P) and I have no issues editing.

But what about the coloring? Well, your shooting with Video, on a camera that probably cost less than 15,000.00 . Get a camera that runs 50K or more and you will get good color compared to a Sony V1u, or a P2. Otherwise, your NLE should work fine when it comes to Color Correction, or even use Color from Apple.


I will bet my Mac Pro against anyone in DFW that I will get the same results using the KISS method, import over firewire, cut it, export, than trying to use some goofy system with Capture cards, Pro Res, etc. And get it done alot faster.

Dom Stevenson
January 24th, 2008, 05:06 PM
Another excellent post Bill.
The voice of sanity.

Jim, I'm getting great results with FCS2's Color and love working with the programme.

I would however like a Matrox MXO box to go with my 23" apple display, so i guess that's next on my shopping list.

Anyway, great thread by all involved.

Andrew Kimery
January 24th, 2008, 06:08 PM
You can get PERFECTLY acceptable color - and a PERFECTLY acceptable and watchable video program out of a stock HDV camera and a stock editing system WITHOUT ANY ADD ON CARDS. Period.


I agree w/the spirit of your post, but w/o any additional I/O hardware you can't monitor your HDV reliably. A BM Intensity card plugged into an HDTV from Best Buy
would work better than judging the footage using the just Canvas window or Digital Cinema Desktop function.

-A

Bill Davis
January 24th, 2008, 09:50 PM
I agree w/the spirit of your post, but w/o any additional I/O hardware you can't monitor your HDV reliably. A BM Intensity card plugged into an HDTV from Best Buy
would work better than judging the footage using the just Canvas window or Digital Cinema Desktop function.

-A

Andrew,

On this we're going to have to disagree.

EVERY (and I use the term EVERY advisedly) consumer television I've ever seen has been "factory tuned" for one thing and one thing ONLY. To make the picture POP in a home viewing situation. I've personally never found a consumer television that sports anything even remotely resembling the accurate colorometry of a broadcast monitor.

So, no matter how expensive your "card solution" is - if you're running it into ANYTHING less than a certified CALIBRATED professional high-def broadcast monitor, you're completely at risk for WASTING all your efforts at color adjustment.

And I've got to believe a person legitimately constrained by finance to working with a sub-$3k camcorder is pretty dang unlikely to be sitting in front of even a starter true High Def monitor (Sony BVM-A14F5U perhaps) that costs nearly TWICE that.

And if NOT, how can they justify buying the card when they can't even be sure they'll SEE the color changes they're hoping they're making accurately!!??

Makes no sense to me at all.

FWIW

Dom Stevenson
January 25th, 2008, 02:28 AM
There are some very good articles (particularly by Shane Ross) explaining how the 23' Apple cinema display or equivalent, along with the Matrox MXO, while not quite perfect, is far and away the best bang for buck HD grading set up on the market today. If you own the monitor already, as i do, it's a great budget package. Shane also points out why the BM Intensity option falls short, but you'll have to read the article yourself if you haven't done so already.

Here it is.

http://library.creativecow.net/articles/ross_shane/MXO.php

D

Andrew Kimery
January 25th, 2008, 01:05 PM
Andrew,

On this we're going to have to disagree.

EVERY (and I use the term EVERY advisedly) consumer television I've ever seen has been "factory tuned" for one thing and one thing ONLY. To make the picture POP in a home viewing situation. I've personally never found a consumer television that sports anything even remotely resembling the accurate colorometry of a broadcast monitor.

So, no matter how expensive your "card solution" is - if you're running it into ANYTHING less than a certified CALIBRATED professional high-def broadcast monitor, you're completely at risk for WASTING all your efforts at color adjustment.

And I've got to believe a person legitimately constrained by finance to working with a sub-$3k camcorder is pretty dang unlikely to be sitting in front of even a starter true High Def monitor (Sony BVM-A14F5U perhaps) that costs nearly TWICE that.

And if NOT, how can they justify buying the card when they can't even be sure they'll SEE the color changes they're hoping they're making accurately!!??

Makes no sense to me at all.

FWIW

I'm not saying it's a good option, I'm saying an inexpensive card and an inexpensive TV is better than nothing (nothing being only monitoring your footage in FCP's canvas window or using Cinema desktop).

You said, "You can get PERFECTLY acceptable color - and a PERFECTLY acceptable and watchable video program out of a stock HDV camera and a stock editing system WITHOUT ANY ADD ON CARDS. Period" and I don't think that's an accurate statement because there is no way to send the HDV signal out of your computer for monitoring w/o an additional card or box. As inaccurate as an Intensity card plus consumer HDTV is it's more accurate and helpful than no external monitoring option at all, IMO.


-A

Craig Parkes
January 25th, 2008, 07:13 PM
I've produced a short film on Mini DV, that we had the good fortune of ending up being able to grade on a Baselight grading machine ( http://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/products/baselight ).

I can tell you without a doubt, that there is a DIFFERENCE when it comes to a firewire versus SDI workflow.

The film was edited in DV, captured via firewire, cut on Avid Xpress.

As DV is a compressed format, if we had gone to a Baselight grade from that with DVCAM tapes, we would have been stuffed, we would have been stuck in 8 bit realm, the grading machine would not have had the latitude to add the depth of colour it did etc.

What we did was we ingested into Avid Media Composer at 1:1 in an online edit over SDI, output to Digibeta, and then had that sucked into the Baselight machine.

The additional latitude in the grade this gave us was amazing. If we had stayed in DV all the way there was no way we would have access to these pro tools also, it doesn't fit the workflow.

You don't gain anything in terms of picture quality, certainly - a digibeta master ungraded and a DVmaster ungraded will look identical.

However, if you then bring back that Graded digibeta master, and copy it to DV, the difference is stark and plain to see. Generational loss and less colour space has a marked effect.

Your choice of workflow should be determined by your mastering format first and foremost.

If you are hoping to go film out, then you want to keep the pipe as fat as possible all the way as long, no exceptions.

If you are going to HD Broadcast, then you want to either being doing an offline/online procedure or be working at or above your final HD Master format the entire way through.

If you are going to festivals/high end SD Broacast 10bit SD video at 1:1 should be your goal for ingest and output, again an offline online workflow is fine, but if you never get to 10bit 1:1 in the edit, you'll also never get their in the grade, and for FX and titles, and this can honestly REALLY make the difference.

If you are doing Wedding Videos, and your master is likely to be SD DVD's, and you aren't going to be grading them heavily anyway, then keeping an entirely firewire based, cut the acquisition format workflow makes sense.

To use the pipe analogy - The size of the pipe should also be relevant to the size of the bucket at the end of the pipe. If your pipe is wider than your bucket you really are just wasting water.

Going to a lot of trouble to get the highest quality images possible into your machine then not doing significant high end grading or titles/fx and chucking it all onto DVD at the end would be a complete waste of time.

However, if your take is "I don't know why ANYONE would do that" then you haven't thought about people with the bigger bucket at the end of the pipe, and you certainly haven't seen the difference in results in terms of effects work and colour correction this can lead to.

Chuck Spaulding
January 26th, 2008, 07:22 PM
This is what I read in all of the replies..

Blah Blah blah, GOP, 4:2:2, 4:2:0, blah, Pro Res, 24P, blah blah.

I will bet my Mac Pro against anyone in DFW that I will get the same results using the KISS method, import over firewire, cut it, export, than trying to use some goofy system with Capture cards, Pro Res, etc. And get it done alot faster.

First of all DVCProHD and ProRes are FREE!, both codecs come with FCP6x. Secondly you can convert HDV to DVCProHD or ProRes in REALTIME with the BM intensity Pro, a $295 card, and thirdly, any image processing is done at 8 or 10 bit 4:2:2 [depending on the format you chose to capture with] which provides a much broader color gamut and requires NO CONFORMING.

This is simple, it is not expensive and I will bet that this workflow is MUCH FASTER than editing HDV natively.

This is not an endorsement of HDV, in fact the first thing I tell everyone I work with is get out of that format as soon as practicable. But HDV is definately finding its way into just about every level of production.

Also, this is not an either or proposition. Many of the projects I work on mix uncompressed, compressed HD and HDV footage together. That's what the ProRes codec was designed for.

If your a single artisan doing wedding videos using the same HDV cameras to produce a SDDVD, fine stay HDV. But if your collaborating with other artisans with a variety of formats and/or you want to master to blu-ray you need to really understand the blah blah blah don't you think?

Bill Davis
January 27th, 2008, 08:47 PM
You said, "You can get PERFECTLY acceptable color - and a PERFECTLY acceptable and watchable video program out of a stock HDV camera and a stock editing system WITHOUT ANY ADD ON CARDS. Period" and I don't think that's an accurate statement because there is no way to send the HDV signal out of your computer for monitoring w/o an additional card or box. As inaccurate as an Intensity card plus consumer HDTV is it's more accurate and helpful than no external monitoring option at all, IMO.


-A[/QUOTE]


Maybe we just both have disagreements on what real users want to do verses what they need to do.

I have no statistical evidence of the following, it's just my gut feeling.

Most of the people who are worried about this stuff are actually working on what I heard one pro call "resume films."

This is to say they have an idea. A passion. Friends and associates who will support them. They have acquired a decent basic understanding of the production process. But they lack the funding, the track record or the connections to work inside a full-scale production but their passion drives them to do the best they can with what they can afford.

Which is GREAT. But the idea doesn't stop there...

It's a resume film because if it manages to open the right doors, they'll JETTISON HDV in the blink of an eye - as soon as they can afford to - and would LAUGH at the idea of doing Feature 2 in HDV if Feature 1 succeeds.

THINK ABOUT THIS...
Why do you want to waste time learing how to MAX OUT a tool that you're gonna want to DUMP at your first opportunity???

That's the definition of a BIG waste of time, IMO.

All I'm saying in this thread is that the things that will make someone's RESUME FILM succeed have NOTHING to do with color grading or color space or the amount or kind of signal compression between the shoot and mastering. Nothing. Nada. Bupkis. Period.

I know this is true because a cavalcade of genius filmmakers from DW Griffin to Charlie Chaplin worked with gear and a workflow that was CRAP compared to any camcorder or NLE you can name today.

And in my opinion, as harsh as it is, spending significant time learning color grading is pretty useful *only* IF YOU WANT A CAREER AS A COLOR GRADER!

If you want to actually have a hope of someday making excellent FILMS - put away the distractions like becoming your own colorist - and go study Abnormal Psychology or Drama - or Religion or Music.

Because the actual useful understanding is that films and videos aren't made in cameras or NLE's at all. They're made about 5 inches behind the occupied eyepiece.

Feed your head.

And go on a diet about anything that has to do with technology that you KNOW you'll outgrow as you get better.

And that includes pushing HDV to it's uber-max limits.

For most people, in most real-world situations - it's a diversion - not a smart career move.

But that's just my opinion...

YMMV

Andrew Kimery
January 27th, 2008, 09:16 PM
Maybe we just both have disagreements on what real users want to do verses what they need to do.
I would agree to disagree but I'd have no idea what I'm agreeing to disagree about 'cause you are all over the place in this discussion.


THINK ABOUT THIS...
Why do you want to waste time learing how to MAX OUT a tool that you're gonna want to DUMP at your first opportunity???
What does enabling one to edit w/an external monitor have to do w/shooting HDV? If someone purchases, say an MXO, the MXO doesn't care if you are using HDV or HDCAM it'll still work the same.


All I'm saying in this thread is that the things that will make someone's RESUME FILM succeed have NOTHING to do with color grading or color space or the amount or kind of signal compression between the shoot and mastering. Nothing. Nada. Bupkis. Period.

I know this is true because a cavalcade of genius filmmakers from DW Griffin to Charlie Chaplin worked with gear and a workflow that was CRAP compared to any camcorder or NLE you can name today.

Agreed, but what does this have to do w/the cost of tea in china? The thread was started w/a specific technical Q. The OP didn't ask if a capture card would make him a better filmmaker (to which the answer would obviously be "no"), the OP asked what's the difference between capturing w/a card and capturing via FW.


-A

Bill Davis
January 28th, 2008, 09:55 PM
I didn't think I was "all over the place" - but acknowledging that I might have been confusing let me be a little more clear.

If you're shooting in HDV - good.

Don't let someone tell you you can't create content without a card in your computer, because you can.

You can shoot in HDV, digitize via firewire. Edit on your computer. And output to DVD without anything special.

For MOST of the world, downrezzing and outputting your timeline to SD-DVD is actually pretty smart. That's because it's the MOST compatible format and most people will be able to use it to see what you've done. And showing your work to the MOST people increases your chances for success.

If this is all that happens - AND if your script and the performances you elicited and your directing and your production values are note-worthy EVERYONE will see that perfectly well! Really!

Actually, that's ALL you need to do to show someone how GREAT your work is. Essentially, if it's not STUNNING in SD, it will NOT be stunning in HD. Period.

Now if you truly believe that your work will reach the level of excellence that ONLY HD will showcase, you can also happily output to Blu-ray (or HD-DVD if that format lasts more than a few more months) right off your timeline - with nothing but your computer!

ALL without EVER doing a "card required" transcode, color grading or futzing. Who knows, maybe you actually white balanced properly and your stuff will look GREAT.

Would it be NICE to have a powerful card and a $7k HD monitor and the ability to see your timeline in accurate color? You bet. And when you start making enough money making video to support that - I highly recommend you go out and make the investments.

But to suggest that you can't participate if you can't spend that kind of coin is WRONG. You can. And you should.

Soapbox time:

I'm firmly convinced that there's a generation of digital "filmmakers" who think about filmmaking WAY TOO MUCH in the TECHNICAL realm. They feel that those with superior technical skills will necessarily make superior movies. Generally speaking, I believe that's WRONG.

Superior movies happen in the ARTISTIC realm. Learning to make fine movies is not learning the technical stuff, it's learning the ARTISTIC stuff. The more powerful understanding is that ARTISTIC ACHIEVEMENT typically draws people to you who can handle all the tech stuff you need.

So my advice stands firm.

Don't waste your time trying to make HDV look like film.

Use what you have. And if you don't have a fancy card in your computer - DO NOT LET THAT STOP YOU from taking an incredible idea and making a GREAT piece of content.

Reminds me of the kid in Balboa Park in San Diego who used to make cool space art with spray paint cans.

He didn't have brushes. Didn't have canvas. Didn't have crap for tools. Used paper plates and chips of wood and a crappy old sponge.

But made some really cool art.

And I watched people PAY him for it all day long.

Your post sounds like you're arguing that the kids out there can only play the modern HD video game if they can afforrd extra GIZMOs to stick in their computers?

Yes, the gizmos have their place.

But it's NOT at the HDV resume film level of work. Which is where I think most of the people working in HDV on long-form projects are firmly situated.

That's what I was trying to say.

(Unless, of course, I messed it up and got too confusing again!) ; )

Craig Parkes
January 28th, 2008, 11:14 PM
Ok, here's my take:

I was one of those kids shooting a 'resume' film, the difference being I was a producer and I got good people on board to help out.

Their advice was to go for as professional a workflow as possible - interestingly at the time, despite HD cameras being out there, the best workflow was SD, because I could get a better ENG camera with decent lenses and a proper mattebox, which at the time I couldn't get the equivalent for in HD.

Now, also, I wasn't the sole creative - I was the producer, so it was my responsibility to ensure the film came out looking as good as possible so that it would be both technically suitable and eligible for more outlets, this includes things like sales to satellite TV/Cable providers, film festivals etc.

In the world of digital have been involved in Mini DV, HDV, DVCPRO HD, and Red ONE shoots - all of which are compressed formats which have advantages but also cause compromises in workflow and your decisions around that workflow at the end of the day.

I have watched many, many 'resume' films - and universally two things let them down more than anything in terms of pulling the viewer out of the experience, even if the film is otherwise good - those two things bad sound and that they are lacking a decent grade.

I bet you wouldn't say to someone "Don't worry, you won't need to sound mix your short film properly - people will get the idea."

I feel the same about properly graded films.

If you have the OPTION of going a non purely HDV route then it makes a difference - absolutely.

It's not always necessary, but if you are looking at doing effects work, extensive colour grading, or just eking out every last drop from whatever footage you are shooting, being able to ingest in a superior finishing codec than HDV really will make a difference.

The real film making skill, or at least producing skill is to me the ability to discern what you will need in terms of your work flow ahead of time and being properly educated on the matter.

Sure, you have multiple choices in your methodology - what you really want to be able to say to someone who is asking what your post workflow is that you decided to shoot and ingest and cut in HDV because it was less costly and more efficient for the end product, and you didn't feel you needed the extra colour space and latitude that ingesting and cutting in an intermediate format would give you in post.

You don't want to be the one saying "I didn't know there was an alternative" or "There is no difference." because if you are looking at delivering high end commercial products somewhere in the future, then that's the attitude of the under informed.

There is an alternative answer of course, and that is "Because my DOP/Producer/Editor said that's how we are going to do it. I just tell them what I want to be shot". This is the correct response for a director a lot of the time, but in HDV resume world the director is often enough the Producer and Editor as well, and even sometimes the DOP, so it really depends which hat they are wearing.

David McGiffert
January 28th, 2008, 11:50 PM
Bill,

Your last post is the real point.

I know for sure that if the string of images has meaning to the viewer,
they will watch it. Period.
I have sat slack-jawed through grainy badly focused film and video
that had meaningful and lucid content
and came away impressed.

I have also watched a gargantuan amount of technically fantastic footage
that did not have a moment of interest...unless you turned off the sound
and watched the colors.

If you have your ideas set out clearly and it transmits meaning to
the viewer, you have been successful.

An interesting thread, but as a few have said, it is vitally important
not to get too hung up on the tools,
get hung up instead on what you are saying with them.

David

Andrew Kimery
January 29th, 2008, 01:34 AM
I didn't think I was "all over the place" - but acknowledging that I might have been confusing let me be a little more clear.

If you're shooting in HDV - good.

Don't let someone tell you you can't create content without a card in your computer, because you can.
.
.
.
That's what I was trying to say.

(Unless, of course, I messed it up and got too confusing again!) ; )
I completely agree.

I feel like, though, you are taking my words and running w/them to places I never intended to go. I never said, "If you can't afford gear X, Y, Z you just need to pack up your dream now and go sell insurance" (no offense to an insurance sales people that might visit the board). Content is king. I'd rather watch a 20yr old VHS copy of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" on a 15" TV than sit through "Transformers" on a $30k home theater setup, but if people ask technical questions I'm going to give them technical answers to the best of my ability.

I never said anyone had to have a card or a b'cast monitor to make a movie. I said viewing your footage inside FCP on a computer monitor is not a true representation of what your image looks like. And if you want to view HDV on an external monitor you need a card because you can't send an HDV signal out via FW like you can DV. If the person can afford, and take advantage of, a better technical solution there's no reason they shouldn't do it, IMO. But if they can't then they'll just forge on w/what they got, understand the limitations they are working with and do their best to work around them. I just try and present people w/options and solutions. I'm not mandating for anyone to stop what they are doing if they don't have the "proper gear."


-A

Matias Baridon
May 12th, 2009, 02:29 PM
Nice thread!