|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 9th, 2009, 11:14 AM
|
#16 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 692
|
It's been my understanding that you import HDV to PR, Edit PR, and Export PR for best quality.
Understanding that this uses more hard drive real estate. This may help you out, starting at post #27. Actually the whole thread is helpful: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/non-line...uestion-2.html Jonathan |
|
|
|
November 11th, 2009, 11:56 AM
|
#17 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 616
|
I think it depends on your camera, and in my case the Sony FX1 can be captured as HDV and rendered as ProRes. Because it is already compressed as HDV in the camera and capturing it as such offers zero loss of quality.
Check out this thread, specifically Jason Livingston's articulate response. http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/non-line...hq-vs-hdv.html This clears up the confusion on my end at least! |
|
|
|
|
November 17th, 2009, 08:41 AM
|
#18 | |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London
Posts: 222
|
Quote:
i am told that if you apply color correction and other filters there is a definite advantage to applying it to prores files rather than native hdv files (same applies why people use cineform instead of m2t files on PCs) - it results in a better quality mpeg2 file on the final output to dvd cheers |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
