Shooting in HDV for SD

Alex Chamberlain · February 20th, 2008, 02:10 PM

Okay, the first image was shot in DV and rendered in DV.
The second image was shot in DV and rendered out to SD Quicktime H.264
The Third image was shot in HDV and rendered in DV.
The Fourth image was shot in HDV and rendered in SD Quicktime H.264.

The last two images are the most telling since the first two, being shot with DV look nearly identical (I.E. the softness is in the source), though the second file is probably a bit softer. However, the second set of images shows that bypassing the DV Codec entirely results in a perceptibly sharper image. At least it does in Premiere Pro CS3. Anyone else have this experience? Thanks.

P.S.
The difference is even more pronounced when they're moving.

P.P.S.
There's now a second set of the same images in Jpeg format for those who want to open the images in their browser.

Ryan Postel · February 27th, 2008, 11:00 AM

Alex,

You did a great job of capturing the down-conversion between codecs perfectly. Do you have any screenshot comparisons of faster motion?

H.264 is vastly superior to the DV codec in Premiere, but your examples really vividly display it.

I'm pretty sure Premiere CS3 doesn't have it yet, but I wonder if the ProRes 422 codec can produce a better image, or whether any difference isn't noticable...

Alex Chamberlain · February 28th, 2008, 10:19 PM

I don't really have any faster motion captures. This shoot was pretty much all stationary shots of the talent in front of landmarks.

February 20th, 2008, 02:10 PM	#16
Alex Chamberlain Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Hurricane, UT Posts: 186	Screenshots Okay, the first image was shot in DV and rendered in DV. The second image was shot in DV and rendered out to SD Quicktime H.264 The Third image was shot in HDV and rendered in DV. The Fourth image was shot in HDV and rendered in SD Quicktime H.264. The last two images are the most telling since the first two, being shot with DV look nearly identical (I.E. the softness is in the source), though the second file is probably a bit softer. However, the second set of images shows that bypassing the DV Codec entirely results in a perceptibly sharper image. At least it does in Premiere Pro CS3. Anyone else have this experience? Thanks. P.S. The difference is even more pronounced when they're moving. P.P.S. There's now a second set of the same images in Jpeg format for those who want to open the images in their browser. Attached Thumbnails __________________ Get rid of the "Aspiring" in "Aspiring Filmmaker." Shoot it; you're a filmmaker. After that you're just negotiating your budget. (James Cameron paraphrased) Last edited by Alex Chamberlain; February 20th, 2008 at 04:43 PM.

February 28th, 2008, 10:19 PM	#18
Alex Chamberlain Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Hurricane, UT Posts: 186	I don't really have any faster motion captures. This shoot was pretty much all stationary shots of the talent in front of landmarks. __________________ Get rid of the "Aspiring" in "Aspiring Filmmaker." Shoot it; you're a filmmaker. After that you're just negotiating your budget. (James Cameron paraphrased)

February 27th, 2008, 11:00 AM	#17
Ryan Postel Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 93	Alex, You did a great job of capturing the down-conversion between codecs perfectly. Do you have any screenshot comparisons of faster motion? H.264 is vastly superior to the DV codec in Premiere, but your examples really vividly display it. I'm pretty sure Premiere CS3 doesn't have it yet, but I wonder if the ProRes 422 codec can produce a better image, or whether any difference isn't noticable...