Does HDV loses its quality when Color Correcting?

Chris Barcellos · November 24th, 2009, 12:31 AM

Sorry, I have never used Matrox stuff. About 5 years ago, I was running Premiere 6 with an edit card. Capture was through Premeire and the firewire on that card. When I later stopped using the card, I still used the firewire input for capture. Purely anecdotal, but my thought would be it would work the same way.

An easy way to test that is to download HDVSplit and see if you can control and capture from your through the Matrox firewire set up. Of course, if you are downloading the NeoScene trial, you could check it out that way too.

HDVSplit utility for HDV capturing with scene split - HDV capture utility

Brian Luce · November 24th, 2009, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

And if you ever "key" your material, CineForm’s chroma interpolation will substantially improve your resulting visual fidelity."

Cineform NeoScene : Features

Has anyone tested this? I didn't know CF makes your keys better. I have a hard time pulling HDV keys especially in that I'm limited to keys within Sony Vegas. I don't have AE and haven't found any of the aftermarket keyers substantially better than the Vegas built in.

Rich Mayer · November 24th, 2009, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

Sorry, I have never used Matrox stuff. About 5 years ago, I was running Premiere 6 with an edit card. Capture was through Premeire and the firewire on that card. When I later stopped using the card, I still used the firewire input for capture. Purely anecdotal, but my thought would be it would work the same way.

An easy way to test that is to download HDVSplit and see if you can control and capture from your through the Matrox firewire set up. Of course, if you are downloading the NeoScene trial, you could check it out that way too.

HDVSplit utility for HDV capturing with scene split - HDV capture utility

yeah it looks like its going to be too much downloading and testing in doing this, as I explained I dont even touch drive C on my editing system, I might be too neurotic about this but at least Im never complaining about my system crashing or not being able to work. Thank you anyways!

Chris Barcellos · November 24th, 2009, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Luce

Has anyone tested this? I didn't know CF makes your keys better. I have a hard time pulling HDV keys especially in that I'm limited to keys within Sony Vegas. I don't have AE and haven't found any of the aftermarket keyers substantially better than the Vegas built in.

Brian, I have pulled at least one decent key with my 5D footage and NeoScene, in Vegas. I say decent because I am sure there are those who will notice a couple of messups and some green screen reflection due to my poor lighting technique. But within a week of getting camera we shot this little promo using a green painted canvas in my garage. It was easiest pull I ever did:

Jim Snow · November 24th, 2009, 12:25 PM

Nice job Chris. A significant benefit to Cineform is that it converts to 4:2:2 color space which provides more "depth" when color correcting / grading as well as green screen editing. Even if the footage wasn't shot as 4:2:2 video, it helps a great deal to convert it to 4:2:2 before editing because it holds up better when editing.

Mike Calla · November 24th, 2009, 11:01 PM

Rich, i think you are missing the point - all cineform is, is a file type (and it comes with small little program used for capturing, or changing files all ready on your computer)

When you capture from your HDV cam, you normally capture to .m2t files, but with cineform you capture just as you did before, but now the file type will be an .avi file.

Rich,
You can continue to have a rock solid computer with medicore renders - or you can take a small little chance and install cineform and have great quiality once again. BTW they have great support should any problems arise!

Rich Mayer · November 25th, 2009, 07:00 PM

THANK YOU everybody for your answers and potential solutions to this problem.

Let me ask you all one more question.... by your answers I think one of the problems is that the codec that HDV use basically doesnt allow you to store too much information so that it loses resolution once you apply the color correction.

One of the solutions that you present is to be able to capture to a more pure HD format, and one of the solutions would be by transforming the file thru Cineform. On another forum they told me that another solution would be to capture thru the SDI HD connection on the Matrox box instead of using firewire as I am using now.

A friend showed me this product a while back but I didnt think of it until now, because basically it is a converter that would allow me to connect thru firewire on one side and export an SDI HD signal thru the other side:

Convergent Design, experts in HDMI, SD, HD, and HDV

Please check out the product and please let me know if you think this would help the problem by capturing a more pure HD signal with the codecs that dont lose so much resolution as the HDV does

Thank you!

Brian Luce · November 25th, 2009, 09:23 PM

I don't undertand how sdi will improve anything, it's still the same amount of data, it's just a better pipe. CF a lot though because it makes each frame a discreet frame and elimates the GOP.

Peter Manojlovic · November 25th, 2009, 10:08 PM

Brian is correct...

Unless you're talking about bypassing the tape, and going straight to disk for uncompressed capture, i don't know what advantages you're getting...
Please be specific in your taping environment and final delivery.
Your opening comment talks about colour correction. Now we're being lead down the path of chroma keying.

If taped correctly, HDV will hold enough information to pull correct colour correction.

I can assume you have the AXIO box, since you mention SDI inputs, correct?

Rich Mayer · November 25th, 2009, 10:39 PM

thank you Peter, I dont care much about chroma keying, still my main concern is how "I believe" color correction makes the HDV footage lose resolution when applied.

As mentioned I record on a Sony V1U on miniDV tapes, and load the footage onto the system thru firewire.

The reason why I brought the whole SDI is because one poster (on another forum) suggested that I should try uploading the footage thru the "component" option on the Matrox box, he said that I would be surprised how the component option "could" give me better quality of video than the firewire.

Since he suggested that, I thought... well if component "could" give me better quality than firewire then SDI should give me even better quality than that... that was just a conclusion I was arriving at.

Also I remember that when this person suggested that converter (mentioned on the link) a while back he did mention how uploading thru SDI could give me a better quality than firewire, that person was not a salesperson of the product, he was just a regular production guy who knew about the product.

Brian Luce · November 26th, 2009, 01:00 AM

I believe it's not so much that HDV will lose resolution as it will break down with excessive CC -- which isn't the same as a resolution hit.

If your camera is capable of RECORDING directly from component or SDI that allows for bypassing HDV altogether and recording uncompressed, but usually you need a fast RAID for that. The simple thing is use Pro Res if you're in Mac, Cineform in PC or the freebie Avid codec. Transferring your footage via firewire, sdi or whatever is all the same, only the speed will vary. That guy is wrong. M2t is more of a delivery format than one to edit in, although every generation of NLE seems to improve native m2t support.

Rich Mayer · November 26th, 2009, 11:05 AM

Well I believe the advantage of capturing thru SDI instead of firewire is that when capturing on firewire the ONLY format I can capture in is MATROX MPEG-2 I-FRAME. When capturing thru SDI or component Matrox lets me capture the video on 4 different 4 formats incluing MATROX 8 BIT UNCOMPRESSED.

Isnt it better to capture the files on 8-bit uncompressed because Id have more information in the footage so that it would be less destructive when applying Color Correction?

Please let me know, I am just assuming all this, based on everything I have read on this thread.

Thank you.

Mike Calla · November 26th, 2009, 11:12 AM

wait, wait, wait

Very simply....

AFTER you record something - it doesn't matter how you transfer it to the computer - via firewire, SDI, hdmi... its still the same quality. (bit for bit transfer)

the SDI idea only works if you RECORD LIVE to through SDI (you bypass the cameras internal recorder/codec, say HDV, and you record/use a better codec on your computer , say cineform)

capisce?

Rich Mayer · November 26th, 2009, 11:46 AM

Mike,

This is the advice I got from a person:

"IF YOU WISH TO USE A BETTER CODEC, YOU CAN TAKE THE COMPONENT HD OUTPUT OF YOUR CAMERA AND CAPTURE IT USING THE MATROX BREAKOUT BOX. THIS WILL CAPTURE TO THE MATROX MPEG-2 I-FRAME HD CODEC, WHICH HAS A DATA RATE UP TO 100MBPS AND ALSO HAS 4:2:2 COLOR SPACE. COMPARE TO HDV AT 25MBPS WITH 4:2:0 COLOR.

I'VE DONE THIS FOR GREEN SCREEN FOOTAGE I NEEDED TO KEY AND DID GET BETTER RESULTS. YOU MIGHT BE THINKING THAT USING ANALOG CAPTURE WOULD LOOK INFERIOR TO 1394, BUT TRY IT AND YOU WILL BE IMPRESSED. NOTE ANALOG CAPTURE DOES NOT WORK FOR PROGRESSIVE, MUST BE 1080I.

JEFF PULERA
SAFE HARBOR COMPUTERS"

Now I SINCERELY appreciate your input on this, but understand that you and this guy Jeff Pulera are 2 unknown people to me, I am not saying you are wrong and he is right or you are right and he is wrong. I read your input on this and I appreciate it very much but I need to hear opinions from MANY different people and MANY different points of view to then have a real idea of all my options. This has been the way that has worked for me for many years and just by looking at this thread I can see many perspectives on this.

And again thank you very much for taking an interest in my question and provide me with an answer.

Adam Gold · November 26th, 2009, 11:59 AM

Mike's right. Jeff, in this case, is wrong. Once it's been compressed to tape it doesn't matter how you capture it; the damage has been done.

Live capture is a whole 'nother story.

It doesn't matter how big your pipe is if there's only a trickle of water. You can pour a gallon of water onto a five gallon bucket, but it's still only a gallon of water.

The better codec gives you more headroom for color correction and other manipulation, but that has nothing to do with the capturing. You can accomplish the same thing with Cineform or any other intermediate codec.

November 24th, 2009, 12:31 AM	#16
Chris Barcellos Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Elk Grove CA Posts: 6,838	Sorry, I have never used Matrox stuff. About 5 years ago, I was running Premiere 6 with an edit card. Capture was through Premeire and the firewire on that card. When I later stopped using the card, I still used the firewire input for capture. Purely anecdotal, but my thought would be it would work the same way. An easy way to test that is to download HDVSplit and see if you can control and capture from your through the Matrox firewire set up. Of course, if you are downloading the NeoScene trial, you could check it out that way too. HDVSplit utility for HDV capturing with scene split - HDV capture utility __________________ Chris J. Barcellos

November 24th, 2009, 11:01 PM	#21
Mike Calla Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Shanghai Posts: 344	Rich, i think you are missing the point - all cineform is, is a file type (and it comes with small little program used for capturing, or changing files all ready on your computer) When you capture from your HDV cam, you normally capture to .m2t files, but with cineform you capture just as you did before, but now the file type will be an .avi file. Rich, You can continue to have a rock solid computer with medicore renders - or you can take a small little chance and install cineform and have great quiality once again. BTW they have great support should any problems arise! __________________ boxoutsidemedia.com

November 26th, 2009, 11:12 AM	#28
Mike Calla Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Shanghai Posts: 344	wait, wait, wait Very simply.... AFTER you record something - it doesn't matter how you transfer it to the computer - via firewire, SDI, hdmi... its still the same quality. (bit for bit transfer) the SDI idea only works if you RECORD LIVE to through SDI (you bypass the cameras internal recorder/codec, say HDV, and you record/use a better codec on your computer , say cineform) capisce? __________________ boxoutsidemedia.com

November 24th, 2009, 12:25 PM	#20
Jim Snow Trustee Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Santa Clara, CA Posts: 1,104	Nice job Chris. A significant benefit to Cineform is that it converts to 4:2:2 color space which provides more "depth" when color correcting / grading as well as green screen editing. Even if the footage wasn't shot as 4:2:2 video, it helps a great deal to convert it to 4:2:2 before editing because it holds up better when editing.

November 25th, 2009, 07:00 PM	#22
Rich Mayer Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Miami FL Posts: 32	THANK YOU everybody for your answers and potential solutions to this problem. Let me ask you all one more question.... by your answers I think one of the problems is that the codec that HDV use basically doesnt allow you to store too much information so that it loses resolution once you apply the color correction. One of the solutions that you present is to be able to capture to a more pure HD format, and one of the solutions would be by transforming the file thru Cineform. On another forum they told me that another solution would be to capture thru the SDI HD connection on the Matrox box instead of using firewire as I am using now. A friend showed me this product a while back but I didnt think of it until now, because basically it is a converter that would allow me to connect thru firewire on one side and export an SDI HD signal thru the other side: Convergent Design, experts in HDMI, SD, HD, and HDV Please check out the product and please let me know if you think this would help the problem by capturing a more pure HD signal with the codecs that dont lose so much resolution as the HDV does Thank you!

November 25th, 2009, 09:23 PM	#23
Brian Luce Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 2,290	I don't undertand how sdi will improve anything, it's still the same amount of data, it's just a better pipe. CF a lot though because it makes each frame a discreet frame and elimates the GOP.

November 25th, 2009, 10:08 PM	#24
Peter Manojlovic Major Player Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Hamilton Ontario Posts: 769	Brian is correct... Unless you're talking about bypassing the tape, and going straight to disk for uncompressed capture, i don't know what advantages you're getting... Please be specific in your taping environment and final delivery. Your opening comment talks about colour correction. Now we're being lead down the path of chroma keying. If taped correctly, HDV will hold enough information to pull correct colour correction. I can assume you have the AXIO box, since you mention SDI inputs, correct?

November 25th, 2009, 10:39 PM	#25
Rich Mayer Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Miami FL Posts: 32	thank you Peter, I dont care much about chroma keying, still my main concern is how "I believe" color correction makes the HDV footage lose resolution when applied. As mentioned I record on a Sony V1U on miniDV tapes, and load the footage onto the system thru firewire. The reason why I brought the whole SDI is because one poster (on another forum) suggested that I should try uploading the footage thru the "component" option on the Matrox box, he said that I would be surprised how the component option "could" give me better quality of video than the firewire. Since he suggested that, I thought... well if component "could" give me better quality than firewire then SDI should give me even better quality than that... that was just a conclusion I was arriving at. Also I remember that when this person suggested that converter (mentioned on the link) a while back he did mention how uploading thru SDI could give me a better quality than firewire, that person was not a salesperson of the product, he was just a regular production guy who knew about the product.

November 26th, 2009, 01:00 AM	#26
Brian Luce Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 2,290	I believe it's not so much that HDV will lose resolution as it will break down with excessive CC -- which isn't the same as a resolution hit. If your camera is capable of RECORDING directly from component or SDI that allows for bypassing HDV altogether and recording uncompressed, but usually you need a fast RAID for that. The simple thing is use Pro Res if you're in Mac, Cineform in PC or the freebie Avid codec. Transferring your footage via firewire, sdi or whatever is all the same, only the speed will vary. That guy is wrong. M2t is more of a delivery format than one to edit in, although every generation of NLE seems to improve native m2t support.

November 26th, 2009, 11:05 AM	#27
Rich Mayer Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Miami FL Posts: 32	Well I believe the advantage of capturing thru SDI instead of firewire is that when capturing on firewire the ONLY format I can capture in is MATROX MPEG-2 I-FRAME. When capturing thru SDI or component Matrox lets me capture the video on 4 different 4 formats incluing MATROX 8 BIT UNCOMPRESSED. Isnt it better to capture the files on 8-bit uncompressed because Id have more information in the footage so that it would be less destructive when applying Color Correction? Please let me know, I am just assuming all this, based on everything I have read on this thread. Thank you.

November 26th, 2009, 11:46 AM	#29
Rich Mayer Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Miami FL Posts: 32	Mike, This is the advice I got from a person: "IF YOU WISH TO USE A BETTER CODEC, YOU CAN TAKE THE COMPONENT HD OUTPUT OF YOUR CAMERA AND CAPTURE IT USING THE MATROX BREAKOUT BOX. THIS WILL CAPTURE TO THE MATROX MPEG-2 I-FRAME HD CODEC, WHICH HAS A DATA RATE UP TO 100MBPS AND ALSO HAS 4:2:2 COLOR SPACE. COMPARE TO HDV AT 25MBPS WITH 4:2:0 COLOR. I'VE DONE THIS FOR GREEN SCREEN FOOTAGE I NEEDED TO KEY AND DID GET BETTER RESULTS. YOU MIGHT BE THINKING THAT USING ANALOG CAPTURE WOULD LOOK INFERIOR TO 1394, BUT TRY IT AND YOU WILL BE IMPRESSED. NOTE ANALOG CAPTURE DOES NOT WORK FOR PROGRESSIVE, MUST BE 1080I. JEFF PULERA SAFE HARBOR COMPUTERS" Now I SINCERELY appreciate your input on this, but understand that you and this guy Jeff Pulera are 2 unknown people to me, I am not saying you are wrong and he is right or you are right and he is wrong. I read your input on this and I appreciate it very much but I need to hear opinions from MANY different people and MANY different points of view to then have a real idea of all my options. This has been the way that has worked for me for many years and just by looking at this thread I can see many perspectives on this. And again thank you very much for taking an interest in my question and provide me with an answer.

November 26th, 2009, 11:59 AM	#30
Adam Gold Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woodinville, WA USA Posts: 3,467	Mike's right. Jeff, in this case, is wrong. Once it's been compressed to tape it doesn't matter how you capture it; the damage has been done. Live capture is a whole 'nother story. It doesn't matter how big your pipe is if there's only a trickle of water. You can pour a gallon of water onto a five gallon bucket, but it's still only a gallon of water. The better codec gives you more headroom for color correction and other manipulation, but that has nothing to do with the capturing. You can accomplish the same thing with Cineform or any other intermediate codec.