HD10 Windows Media HD samples (at the risk of killing our monthly transfer allowance)
 

I've posted the final of our latest project in 3 formats:

400kbps (368x208)
2Mbps (738x416)

And, because I couldn't resist (I know I'll live to regret this) . . .

Windows Media HD (1280x720)

Here is the URL:

www.highlydef.com

You will see the "clips" link on that page.

The running time is a little over 10 minutes split up into 4 files, but even still the Windows Media HD files are 100MB each (400MB for the entire thing).

Besides shameless promotion, I am always eager to share the capabilities of this camera. When we were looking to buy, it was almost impossible to find actual samples of paying work shot with the HD10. Thus, I hope this provides some value.

Please avoid downloading the 2Mbps or Windows Media HD files if you don't think your computer can play them. Or, download the low bandwidth version first and see if you want to even bother looking at the HD or 2Mbps versions. Hopefully those little things will help save our monthly transfer allowance of 100GB.

Happy viewing! We welcome your comments.

Regards,

Ben

why does every hip hop music video always need to have an escalade with dubs in it?

Back to sing the praises of the HD10 Yang?
I think the XL2 forum is just down the hall. Watch the door on your way out :)

<<<-- Originally posted by Yang Wen : why does every hip hop music video always need to have an escalade with dubs in it? -->>>

Yeah, I agree . . .

The client already had the SL500 and the Escalade, and they wanted to use them . . .

But I agreed it is played out.

Actually the "music video" part was practically done for free, so we didn't really argue much about the content. It was shot as one day of a much longer shoot (2 weeks) for a docu-drama we are doing for those guys. I am actually shocked it came out that well for basically no budget ($500 to be exact).

Anyway, I much prefer the stuff we did for Brandy Rich, which is why the rap music video is way down on the page :)

Good Stuff
 

I agree with you, when you said that finding any clips was hard and i think thats just starting to change.

I think this is beacuse the JVC has reached its "down to business" stage, beacuse before it was just people just grilling the technology and WAY TOO MUCH theory was slung about in the form of "it cant do this," or "x is better than y" and so forth.

But now some good stuff is comming from the JVC and i think the same thing is gonna happen toi the JVC as it did to the dvx, when good example work of the dvx become availabe people started to give it cred and it just accelerated the whole process along.


after seeing the low rez clip i can see it looks great, so i'm now downloading one of the high rez clips, (it gonna be a while!)

keep up the work!

COOL!!
 

it was well worth the download!

If that was a compressed version(5 Mb WMV) i'm just thinking what the original must be just wicked!

when i'm editing with miniDV, i worry when doing CC (in Vegas) beacuse i can seen a quality hit (it makes me feel uneasy)

what was your experiance in editing this project? (please share)

Re: COOL!!
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Anhar Miah : it was well worth the download!

If that was a compressed version(5 Mb WMV) i'm just thinking what the original must be just wicked!

when i'm editing with miniDV, i worry when doing CC (in Vegas) beacuse i can seen a quality hit (it makes me feel uneasy)

what was your experiance in editing this project? (please share) -->>>

Although I have my issues with Microsoft, I must hand it to them with Windows Media HD . . . the quality is simply amazing at that bit-rate. I see why they are part of the HD-DVD spec. The quality is very close to the original HD file, and probably on an HDTV to the "average" viewer it would be indistinguishable.

Of course, rendering takes FOREVER; on our venerable Athlon XP 2000+ w/ 1GB of memory, it took about 6 to 8 hours to render a 10-minute show (give or take, to be honest I didn't sit and watch the clock).

As for editing, we use Vegas as well, and there are several great things about working in this format. I should start off saying we use Cineform's CFHD format to edit in, which is an awesome format to work with. Anyway, here are the things we liked about working with HD in the CFHD format:

1) Speed . . . although not quite DV editing speed, it is pretty close, even on our crappy Athlon XP 2000+ machine with 1GB of memory. As long as we wait and put CC and other effects on at the end, we get near 30fps preview in a half-size window at "Best Auto" quality (640x360).

2) Low Compression . . . the CFHD format is relatively uncompressed (50Mbps) when compared to the original HDV files or even DV . . . thus, there is virtually no generation loss and no quality hit when doing effects, color correction, transitions, etc.

3) Progressive through the entire edit chain . . . there are never any interlaced artifacts to worry about since no part of our workflow is interlaced. Even the final output to DVD is progressive. I personally LOVE this, it makes a big difference quality-wise to me, especially on scenes with lots of movement.

4) Having a CFHD .avi file as your master gives you a lot of flexibility . . . you can work with that format in any program that supports AVIs. For example, you can run it through VirtualDub, AfterEffects, etc. Again, there is virtually no quality hit because of the relatively low compression inherit in CFHD.

The cons of working with HD in the CFHD format (as compared to editing SD DV) include:

1) Speed . . . as I said, although close to DV editing speed, it isn't quite as fast (for obvious reason, it is HD after all)

2) Rendering time . . . when you are done editing the rendering times are much longer than what you are used to if you normally work in DV; again, this is to be expected

3) Although CFHD is a great editing format, it isn't great for general playback; for example, although Vegas can do 30fps previews with it, Windows Media Player chokes on it (at least on our computer). Maybe with a faster computer Windows Media Player would be able to play it back full speed, but who knows.

Anyway, thanks for the positive comments, and I hope this information helps!

Ben

<<<-- Originally posted by Ken Hodson : Back to sing the praises of the HD10 Yang?
I think the XL2 forum is just down the hall. Watch the door on your way out :) -->>>

On the Contrary Kenny, I'm making myself comfortable here in your neck of woods :)

Really? You swung over to the dark side of HDV?
Gald to see your OT, as always ;>)

Ben:
Just downloaded and viewed the first of the HD WMV9 clips. The quality of the video is AWESOME!!! (The backing band aint half bad either.....)

And, I concur with Anhar......The posting of higher bitrate HD clips will start to gag the doubters, so thanks for posting the 5m/bit clips.

Just wondering about the audio quality difference between the 'live' performance segments (no doubt from her CD) and the interview audio.... The interview audio seemed somewhat 'boxed in' compared to the 'crispness' of the musical segments. Some nice camera angles and use of subject within the 16:9 frame make for a visually interesting product, that's edited at a nice pace.

I hope the client appreciates the effort you've put into making their 17yr old talent more appealing in HD than she could have been in SD.....

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Crisdale : Ben:
Just wondering about the audio quality difference between the 'live' performance segments (no doubt from her CD) and the interview audio.... The interview audio seemed somewhat 'boxed in' compared to the 'crispness' of the musical segments. Some nice camera angles and use of subject within the 16:9 frame make for a visually interesting product, that's edited at a nice pace.-->>>

Unfortunately (due to time constraints and budget) we used single system sound recorded using the built-in sound system on the HD10 (it hadn't gone through the "canned sound" firmware fix yet). We did use a pretty decent mic.

Besides the "canned sound" problem, there is also the problem that the AGC on the camera is too hot; I had to keep the boom mic 3 ft. away from her mouth to keep it from clipping, which is a big no-no from a sound-recording standpoint.

Although I was able to cover it up somewhat by bedding the music under, it still was noticeable to me (and other professionals such as yourself). Fortunately to the typical ear it isn't a huge deal, but still as a perfectionist it was the only thing I wasn't 100% happy with.

Thanks for the positive comments on the video!

Ben

Call JVC about the canned problem. They have a fix (I need to get it done...).

hwm

It's weird, but I am not sure if I have it or not?! It seems ok when I record something in my quiet studio, but I just did a shoot where the audio seemed "tinny" and "echo-ie".

Hmm, I wish JVC knew the serial number where we know if we have what's AFTER it...we have the problem. I can't afford to let my camera go for more than 1-2 days right now.

Murph

<<<-- Originally posted by Christopher C. Murphy : It's weird, but I am not sure if I have it or not?! It seems ok when I record something in my quiet studio, but I just did a shoot where the audio seemed "tinny" and "echo-ie".

Murph -->>>

Hey Murph,
I recorded my band twice, once with the built-in mic and another time with my friends' AudioTechnica stereo microphone. I forget what model he has, but I know the mic cost him about $250. When I recorded the band with the built-in mic, the sound was pretty weak and tinny as you say. But when I hooked up the AT mic to the cam, I was blown away at the difference in sound quality. Really sounded rich. I can email you the link to the latter recording I produced in .wmv format, if interested.

Of course, I don't know if my HD10 is one that has had its audio fixed, but you might want to try a higher end microphone if you have access to one.

scott