HD>SD downconversion Mac/FCP only

Mitchell Lewis · December 30th, 2008, 10:05 PM

Yes, I think so Leonard. The video behind my graphics always seemed to look pretty good, but then I never really looked at it that closely.

Greg Voevodsky · December 31st, 2008, 01:40 AM

I have always found Bitvice much better than Compressor for DVDs. My current tests from HD to SD and then to mpeg2 - showed sharp text and nice sharp moving video from 1080p 30fps (down to 480i for DVD) from bitvice, where compressor on its best settings soften my text and added jaggies and soften my video to unacceptable levels. Plus Bitvice has great noise reduction that does not soften the image unlike most programs.

Mitchell Lewis · December 31st, 2008, 08:25 AM

Good advice Greg. But BitVise is only a MPEG-2 encoder. It doesn't encode to any other formats. Looks to be a great product though, and they have a free demo you can download.

Darren Ruddock · December 31st, 2008, 12:15 PM

I'd say its more DVD Studio thats the problem. The burning is where we are getting aliasing and the dreaded jaggies!

Anyone had any luck with Encore?? I might give BitVise a go!

Leonard Levy · January 4th, 2009, 11:12 PM

Mitchell,
If downconverting graphics is the big problem, why not cut in HD until you are ready to do your final graphics, then downcovert and finish in SD. Of course that's only relevent for something that doesn't need an HD version at all.

Mitchell Lewis · January 4th, 2009, 11:24 PM

Our projects are so graphics intensive I might as well do the whole thing in SD.

I'm still not convinced there's a good solution. I've just put off testing until our equipment finally arrives....THIS WEEK!! (Tuesday to be exact)

It's going to be a VERY busy week though. Brand new camera, brand new 35mm adapter, old-dog cameraman who hasn't shot with an adapter before, first shoot on Friday afternoon. (cross your fingers)

Vincent Oliver · January 5th, 2009, 01:51 AM

I was disappointed with the final SD output from the EX3. Over Christmas I shot some family footage using both the Sony EX3 in 1440x1080, and with the Canon XH A1 using SD mode. When I put the two editied sequences onto a standard DVD the Sony footage stood head and shoulders above the Canon SD footage.

When I first started out as a stills photographer I was given the advice, buy a box of 10x8 B/W paper and use it all up in the darkroom, by sheet 45 you will know almost every thing about printing, by sheet 95 you will have perfected the technique. The same holds true for creating DVDs, buy a 100 stack of DVD + and burn short clips - 5 min max duration, and try every permutation. So far I have used up 55 discs and am finding subtle differences in the various settings. Keep notes of the settings being used. By disc 100 I hope the phone will be ringing from Steven Spielberg

Andy Nickless · January 5th, 2009, 02:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mitchell Lewis

Brand new camera, brand new 35mm adapter, old-dog cameraman who hasn't shot with an adapter before, first shoot on Friday afternoon. (cross your fingers)

Fingers definitely crossed for you Mitchell - you certainly are an optimist!

Good luck!

Robert Bale · January 5th, 2009, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Voevodsky

I have always found Bitvice much better than Compressor for DVDs. My current tests from HD to SD and then to mpeg2 - showed sharp text and nice sharp moving video from 1080p 30fps (down to 480i for DVD) from bitvice, where compressor on its best settings soften my text and added jaggies and soften my video to unacceptable levels. Plus Bitvice has great noise reduction that does not soften the image unlike most programs.

Hi greg, are you shooting in 60p, i have bitevice buy seem to find to no good, can youu let me know your bite vice settings,

rob.

Mitchell Lewis · January 5th, 2009, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Nickless

Fingers definitely crossed for you Mitchell - you certainly are an optimist!

Good luck!

Stop it Andy! You're not helping! :)

Andy Nickless · January 5th, 2009, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mitchell Lewis

Stop it Andy! You're not helping! :)

Well Mitchell, it took me a couple of months to get fluent with the EX1 - let alone an adaptor! (But then, I'm a 49'er . . . REALLY old)!

I hope you can get plenty of practice between the EX3's arrival tomorrow and the shoot on Friday afternoon!

Please let us know how you get on with it (them).

Vincent Oliver · January 5th, 2009, 10:55 AM

You deserve a medal for bravery Mitchell. I would have a spare camera with you ....... just in case

Mitchell Lewis · January 5th, 2009, 12:32 PM

Hahaha. Good idea.

Mitchell Lewis · January 19th, 2009, 09:03 AM

Well it's been a VERY busy last couple of weeks, but I thought I'd report back on my recent experience with HD to SD downconversion. I edit my 30-second commercials in AfterEffects because I find it easier to use for complicated multi-layered projects with lots of keyframes, so this won't apply if you edit in Final Cut Pro. The final rendered file was used to play back in Final Cut Pro to send duplicates to the broadcasters.

I shot this project entirely in 1080 30P. I imported everything using XDCAM Transfer. I then imported it into AfterEffects and edited the project using a 1080p (29.97) timeline. When I was finished here's what I had to do:

1. Edit the HD project as normal in AfterEffects and Save
2. Duplicate the AE Project and name one file HD and other SD (I like to be organized)
3. Open the new project named SD
4. Choose File>Remove Unused footage to remove all the footage not used in the project (this narrows down your footage to only the clips you ended up using in the project)
5. One by one, select each piece of video used in the project and type "Apple-F" to Interpret the footage.
6. Change the Separate Fields to "Lower" for each piece of footage used in the project (DV footage is always lower field dominant)
7. Create a new Composition that's the size of your SD format. In my case I chose standard DV (720x480 with non-square pixels).
8. Render using standard DV settings (720x480, DV codec, Lower Field First, etc...)

This worked great! All my graphics were clear and clean just like if I had edited the project in SD to begin with. The "key" was to Interpret the footage so that AfterEffects treated it as Interlaced (i) instead of Progressive (p). Before I did this, the rendered file had lots of horrible looking horizontal lines whenever I would fade between two pieces of footage. Interpreting the footage first fixed the problem (The AfterEffects help menu is a great asset!)

I'm wondering if I should just shoot future projects in interlaced mode (1080 60i) to make things easier in the future?

Next hurdle is to figure out how to do the same thing in Final Cut Pro.

Darren Ruddock · January 19th, 2009, 03:31 PM

Hi,

Interesting findings!

The ongoing debate about downconversion will go on longer I am sure.

I recently shot a music video in 720 25p with a shutter speed of 1/50. I was not looking forward to the downconversion as I knew the project would include a hell of a lot of subject movement. As for camera movement I am learning to shoot completely differently for progressive footage!

However the downconversion has been pretty damn good. Hardly any jaggies and the stuttery movement is not noticeable at all, however this is due to the right shutter settings and learning what you can and can't do with the camera in progressive mode.

There are some slight artifacts but I'm only seeing them coz I'm really searching for them. Others that have watched it on DVD can't see anything.

All I am doing is exporting to Compressor straight from the HD timeline to the 90 min DVD best quality setting.

I have used the frame controls with some anti-aliasing on but not sure if it makes much difference.

I am very picky about picture quality and therefore to get this good a result, I'm over the moon. Maybe you guys are even pickier, be interesting to swap some footage to see if all our expectations match!

December 30th, 2008, 10:05 PM	#151
Mitchell Lewis Trustee Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Kennewick, WA Posts: 1,124	Yes, I think so Leonard. The video behind my graphics always seemed to look pretty good, but then I never really looked at it that closely. __________________ Sony EX3, Canon 5D MkII, Chrosziel Matte Box, Sachtler tripod, Steadicam Flyer, Mac Pro, Apple/Adobe software - 20 years as a local videographer/editor

December 31st, 2008, 08:25 AM	#153
Mitchell Lewis Trustee Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Kennewick, WA Posts: 1,124	Good advice Greg. But BitVise is only a MPEG-2 encoder. It doesn't encode to any other formats. Looks to be a great product though, and they have a free demo you can download. __________________ Sony EX3, Canon 5D MkII, Chrosziel Matte Box, Sachtler tripod, Steadicam Flyer, Mac Pro, Apple/Adobe software - 20 years as a local videographer/editor

January 4th, 2009, 11:24 PM	#156
Mitchell Lewis Trustee Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Kennewick, WA Posts: 1,124	Our projects are so graphics intensive I might as well do the whole thing in SD. I'm still not convinced there's a good solution. I've just put off testing until our equipment finally arrives....THIS WEEK!! (Tuesday to be exact) It's going to be a VERY busy week though. Brand new camera, brand new 35mm adapter, old-dog cameraman who hasn't shot with an adapter before, first shoot on Friday afternoon. (cross your fingers) __________________ Sony EX3, Canon 5D MkII, Chrosziel Matte Box, Sachtler tripod, Steadicam Flyer, Mac Pro, Apple/Adobe software - 20 years as a local videographer/editor

January 5th, 2009, 01:51 AM	#157
Vincent Oliver Trustee Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Chislehurst, London Posts: 1,724	I was disappointed with the final SD output from the EX3. Over Christmas I shot some family footage using both the Sony EX3 in 1440x1080, and with the Canon XH A1 using SD mode. When I put the two editied sequences onto a standard DVD the Sony footage stood head and shoulders above the Canon SD footage. When I first started out as a stills photographer I was given the advice, buy a box of 10x8 B/W paper and use it all up in the darkroom, by sheet 45 you will know almost every thing about printing, by sheet 95 you will have perfected the technique. The same holds true for creating DVDs, buy a 100 stack of DVD + and burn short clips - 5 min max duration, and try every permutation. So far I have used up 55 discs and am finding subtle differences in the various settings. Keep notes of the settings being used. By disc 100 I hope the phone will be ringing from Steven Spielberg __________________ Eyes are a deaf man’s ears. Ears are a blind man’s eyes

January 5th, 2009, 10:55 AM	#162
Vincent Oliver Trustee Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Chislehurst, London Posts: 1,724	You deserve a medal for bravery Mitchell. I would have a spare camera with you ....... just in case __________________ Eyes are a deaf man’s ears. Ears are a blind man’s eyes

December 31st, 2008, 01:40 AM	#152
Greg Voevodsky Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Portola Valley Posts: 105	I have always found Bitvice much better than Compressor for DVDs. My current tests from HD to SD and then to mpeg2 - showed sharp text and nice sharp moving video from 1080p 30fps (down to 480i for DVD) from bitvice, where compressor on its best settings soften my text and added jaggies and soften my video to unacceptable levels. Plus Bitvice has great noise reduction that does not soften the image unlike most programs.

December 31st, 2008, 12:15 PM	#154
Darren Ruddock Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Southend, UK Posts: 165	I'd say its more DVD Studio thats the problem. The burning is where we are getting aliasing and the dreaded jaggies! Anyone had any luck with Encore?? I might give BitVise a go!

January 4th, 2009, 11:12 PM	#155
Leonard Levy Trustee Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: USA Posts: 1,684	Mitchell, If downconverting graphics is the big problem, why not cut in HD until you are ready to do your final graphics, then downcovert and finish in SD. Of course that's only relevent for something that doesn't need an HD version at all.

January 5th, 2009, 12:32 PM	#163
Mitchell Lewis Trustee Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Kennewick, WA Posts: 1,124	Hahaha. Good idea. __________________ Sony EX3, Canon 5D MkII, Chrosziel Matte Box, Sachtler tripod, Steadicam Flyer, Mac Pro, Apple/Adobe software - 20 years as a local videographer/editor

January 19th, 2009, 09:03 AM	#164
Mitchell Lewis Trustee Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Kennewick, WA Posts: 1,124	Well it's been a VERY busy last couple of weeks, but I thought I'd report back on my recent experience with HD to SD downconversion. I edit my 30-second commercials in AfterEffects because I find it easier to use for complicated multi-layered projects with lots of keyframes, so this won't apply if you edit in Final Cut Pro. The final rendered file was used to play back in Final Cut Pro to send duplicates to the broadcasters. I shot this project entirely in 1080 30P. I imported everything using XDCAM Transfer. I then imported it into AfterEffects and edited the project using a 1080p (29.97) timeline. When I was finished here's what I had to do: 1. Edit the HD project as normal in AfterEffects and Save 2. Duplicate the AE Project and name one file HD and other SD (I like to be organized) 3. Open the new project named SD 4. Choose File>Remove Unused footage to remove all the footage not used in the project (this narrows down your footage to only the clips you ended up using in the project) 5. One by one, select each piece of video used in the project and type "Apple-F" to Interpret the footage. 6. Change the Separate Fields to "Lower" for each piece of footage used in the project (DV footage is always lower field dominant) 7. Create a new Composition that's the size of your SD format. In my case I chose standard DV (720x480 with non-square pixels). 8. Render using standard DV settings (720x480, DV codec, Lower Field First, etc...) This worked great! All my graphics were clear and clean just like if I had edited the project in SD to begin with. The "key" was to Interpret the footage so that AfterEffects treated it as Interlaced (i) instead of Progressive (p). Before I did this, the rendered file had lots of horrible looking horizontal lines whenever I would fade between two pieces of footage. Interpreting the footage first fixed the problem (The AfterEffects help menu is a great asset!) I'm wondering if I should just shoot future projects in interlaced mode (1080 60i) to make things easier in the future? Next hurdle is to figure out how to do the same thing in Final Cut Pro. __________________ Sony EX3, Canon 5D MkII, Chrosziel Matte Box, Sachtler tripod, Steadicam Flyer, Mac Pro, Apple/Adobe software - 20 years as a local videographer/editor

January 19th, 2009, 03:31 PM	#165
Darren Ruddock Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Southend, UK Posts: 165	Hi, Interesting findings! The ongoing debate about downconversion will go on longer I am sure. I recently shot a music video in 720 25p with a shutter speed of 1/50. I was not looking forward to the downconversion as I knew the project would include a hell of a lot of subject movement. As for camera movement I am learning to shoot completely differently for progressive footage! However the downconversion has been pretty damn good. Hardly any jaggies and the stuttery movement is not noticeable at all, however this is due to the right shutter settings and learning what you can and can't do with the camera in progressive mode. There are some slight artifacts but I'm only seeing them coz I'm really searching for them. Others that have watched it on DVD can't see anything. All I am doing is exporting to Compressor straight from the HD timeline to the 90 min DVD best quality setting. I have used the frame controls with some anti-aliasing on but not sure if it makes much difference. I am very picky about picture quality and therefore to get this good a result, I'm over the moon. Maybe you guys are even pickier, be interesting to swap some footage to see if all our expectations match!