PDX10 16:9 footage in Final Cut Pro at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony HDV and DV Camera Systems > Sony TRV950 / PDX10 Companion

Sony TRV950 / PDX10 Companion
...plus TRV900, PD100A and other Sony DV camcorders.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old August 5th, 2004, 10:50 AM   #1
New Boot
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London
Posts: 5
PDX10 16:9 footage in Final Cut Pro

In FCP 3 I have to render all 16:9 footage shot from the PDX10 which is a pain.
Can anyone help me with what settings to use to avoid this?
Peter Rowlands is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2004, 11:21 AM   #2
RED Problem Solver
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 1,365
Make sure your easy preset is set to DV Anamorphic, and that your timeline settings are anamorphic.

Graeme
Graeme Nattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2004, 11:34 AM   #3
New Boot
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London
Posts: 5
You beauty, Graeme. Thanks for your prompt reply and for saving me so much rendering time!
Peter Rowlands is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2004, 10:39 AM   #4
New Boot
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 10
FCP and 16x9

Besides addressing the anamorphic settings, do you have to change the frame size?
Daniel Iwata is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2004, 10:48 AM   #5
RED Problem Solver
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 1,365
Nope - it's still 720 x 480 - just use the easy preset!

Graeme
Graeme Nattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2004, 03:46 PM   #6
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 11,542
The only reason you might need a different frame size would be for playback on computer monitors using Quicktime (like a web movie). Quicktime doesn't understand anamorphic video so you would need to render a version in the correct proportion for square pixel monitors. Full resolution would be 854x480 (NTSC), or use any size you choose with a 1.78:1 aspect ratio.

But for viewing on TV's and monitors it wouild be 720 x 480 as Graeme says. The widescreen monitor will know how to stretch it. Of course most 4:3 sets won't understand this and will show an image that's too tall and skinny though.
Boyd Ostroff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2004, 11:36 PM   #7
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Santiago, Chile
Posts: 932
> Quicktime doesn't understand anamorphic video so you would
> need to render a version in the correct proportion for square
> pixel monitors.

Actually QuickTime does do anamorphic video, only it doesn't automatically interpret DV as non-square (it does the right thing with MPEG though).

If you have QuickTime Pro you can save QuickTime movies with the horizontal and vertical sizes set to something different than the real pixels, i.e.: the movie can be 720x480 but the player will display the movie at 640x480 or 854x480 if you wish. Of course this means the resizing is done on the fly for each frame upon playback, which can tax the CPU somewhat, and you might get better quality by rendering a movie, since the scaling algorithm in Compressor, Premiere or After Effects might be better that the QuickTime Player's. Still, I have done this from time to time just to view the movies on the computer's screen and get an idea of what they will really look like.
__________________
Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.
Ignacio Rodriguez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 9th, 2004, 05:25 PM   #8
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 110
boyd,

i understand, to display properly anamorphic 720x480 in QT with full resolution it will have to be 720x405 (16:9).

i think with 854x480, you will lose resolution since you will be stretching it horizontally from 720 to 854.

juani
Juan Parra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 9th, 2004, 10:14 PM   #9
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Santiago, Chile
Posts: 932
> i think with 854x480, you will lose resolution since
> you will be stretching it horizontally from 720 to 854.

Hello Juan. I think you will lose vertical resolution if you scale it vertically to 405, but if you stretch the 720 to 854 you will not be losing resolution at all, just resampling the available information onto the higher amount of pixels. If Apple's on the fly resampling algorithm works as good as it should, the result will be quite acceptable. Try it and judge for yourself the image quality.

Oh and by the way, make sure you set the high quality bit, otherwise on-screen display of DV is very mediocre, whether with or without resampling.
__________________
Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.
Ignacio Rodriguez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2004, 12:27 AM   #10
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 110
<<<--Hello Juan. I think you will lose vertical resolution if you scale it vertically to 405, but if you stretch the 720 to 854 you will not be losing resolution at all, just resampling the available information onto the higher amount of pixels. If Apple's on the fly resampling algorithm works as good as it should, the result will be quite acceptable. Try it and judge for yourself the image quality.->>>

hi ignacio,

hmmm...
it's simple, if you are resampling you're introducing information that it's not there. it's like a predicting algorithm.

now, if you tell me that information is already there inherent to the anamorphic nature of the captured footage (i.e., pixels are not square), then i'm ok with that...

anyway, i understand what you're trying to tell me...it's just that the word "resampling" confuses me..

merci

juani
Juan Parra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2004, 12:02 PM   #11
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Santiago, Chile
Posts: 932
> it's simple, if you are resampling you're introducing
> information that it's not there. it's like a predicting algorithm.

That is not the way I see it. I think it's more comparable to, say going from analog tape to DAT. Even though the DAT can carry frequencies as high as 24 KHz, the information coming from the tape doesn't go beyond 16 KHz. There will be no additional high frequency information synthesized or predicted when you copy the tape to DAT (except maybe some noise if the AD is cheap). You could synthesize high frequencies using something called an aural exciter. In the video world, that would be like using a predictive software algorithm, a very different animal than the kind of resampling you get through QuickTime.
__________________
Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.
Ignacio Rodriguez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2004, 12:58 PM   #12
Trustee
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hilliard, Ohio
Posts: 1,193
Wow, here we go again...it sort of depends on the version of "resolution" you are after. If you would take resolution as the most pixels per square inch on the display device, stretching the image, I would think, would give you some jaggies as the pixels are interpreted over a longer width (in Boyds case) and so a 45 degree sharp line in your video, like a phone pole wire, should become quite noticably stair-stepped.

If you voluntarily give up lines of resolution as in the other idea, going from 480 veretical to 405 vertical, you loose too. This would be a straight forward loss of information however. If you recompress it to correctly fill (or the player artifically compresses the lines to fill 480), you should still see some degridation.

The more I think about it, I'll have to see both live on a screen to figure this one out. Great - more homework.

Sean
__________________
‘I don’t know what I’m doing, and I’m shooting on D.V.’
- my hero - David Lynch

http://www.DeepBlueEdit.com
Sean McHenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2004, 06:00 PM   #13
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 110
<<You could synthesize high frequencies using something called an aural exciter. In the video world, that would be like using a prodictive software algorithm, a very different animal than the kind of resampling you get through QuickTime.>>

Do you or anybody else have a technical link for this "resampling"?

I'll love to read something really technical about it.
Thanks

Juan
Juan Parra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2004, 06:24 PM   #14
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Santiago, Chile
Posts: 932
It seems one of the popular software packages for resizing video is called S-Spline, I have never tried it. Graeme Nattress is working on a "a DV <-> SD <-> HD up/down-sampler (with intelligent chroma upsampling for DV sources)". His web site is at http://www.nattress.com/
__________________
Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.
Ignacio Rodriguez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2004, 06:39 PM   #15
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 11,542
Coming back to this thread a little late....

All I can offer is that there are a number of widescreen displays intended for 16:9video, such as LCD screens, Plasma screens and projectors, that have a hardware resolution of 852x480. I have seen these described as EDTV, or Enhanced Defitiniton TV as opposed to HDTV. Visit any store that sells widescreen TV's and you'll see them.

I think Juan has it right "if you tell me that information is already there inherent to the anamorphic nature of the captured footage (i.e., pixels are not square), then i'm ok with that..."

If you size your video with less than 480 vertical lines (NTSC) then you're losing an important advantage that the PDX-10 has to offer and will get results more comparable to what you might expect from a VX-2000 in widescreen mode. Your choice: why not try a test both ways and see which you prefer?

As a matter of practicality however, you won't want to resize anything if going to DVD since there's already a standard for 480x720 anamorphic and the player (either on a computer or connected to a TV) will handle the scaling. If your audience is on the web then you will doubtlessly want to go even smaller than 720x405 to deal with bandwidth issues.
Boyd Ostroff is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony HDV and DV Camera Systems > Sony TRV950 / PDX10 Companion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:47 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network