...I shoot all my footage in HDV with the sony FX1 & HC1. Everything looks great. I then take the footage and edit it in Premiere Pro 2.0 as HDV footage. All effects, color correction, and any other process is done in HD as well. After completion of the project, I dump all the edited HDV master back to tape and archive it. The client receives a Standard Definition DVD. My questions is...if I do not offer anything other than a Standard Definition DVD to my client then why am I editing in HD? If I was to edit in SD it would speed up my render times drastically, and potentially save hours on each project. I think I've made up my mind already, but would like to hear what everyone else is doing that is shooting in HD. Do you deliever only in SD, or do you have an option for HD DVD / Bluray?? I personally don't see the market being in high demand for HD for another couple of years.

What's your thoughts...?

In Belgium (Europe) hd is starting to get up to speed, a Dutch manufacturer of pc's (Medion) who primarily sells his pc's quite cheap trough food stores like Aldi has a pc for sale with a build in blue ray player. In stores selling tv's the only thing you can find now is widescreen hd ready and full hd screens. The full hd screens are half the price now compared to what they costed one year ago and Sony's playstation 3 has dropped 30 percent in price.
As for this side on the globe I expect the first blueray and hd dvd requests by mid or end 2008.
Currently I still shoot and edit sd but think I will have no other option then to invest in hd by the end of 2008. Hopefully the pmw-ex1 has dropped 50% in price by then as well. ;)

I already own the HD cameras, but my question is more for workflow. I will always record in HD but when I go to edit should I edit an HD project or an SD project? What are the benefits and what is the majority currently doing as well?

I've found very good quality with editing HD and then exporting SD. I preview on an SD monitor to get an idea of final output to SD viewers... but retain my pretty HD masters for future use with no recapture/reedit. As well, I can share HDV tapes with anyone using this method. But... it comes down to space/computing requirements - is this worth it to you?

C

I recently posted about this.
With HDV I have audio sync issues editing with pp2.
The output is NOT as good as editing in SD with a downconverted capture done by the camera.
Apply any filter and it wont play smooth.

I think for the moment Ill shoot in HDV to have it on the tape.
Downconvert while capturing.
Edit in SD and output in SD.

Later, if someone contacts me for a HD version it really quite easy to provide.
I tested it.
Here is the process.

1) set up a new HDV project.
2) Import the sd project into it.
3) right click on clip in bin, hit make offline.
4) right click clip and hit link media.

The media you link it to in the future is the recaptured HDV clip.
Obviously if you dont split your clips while capturing and work with one long clip of the full tape, then on relinking you are only linking one file.
All the cuts should be in the same place (although there may be a frame or 2 in the difference with this approach. The more tedious (yet probably more accurate) option is to relink each split clip. Only an hours work at the most anyway, outside of capture and render time.

I too shoot HDV on the Z1 and backup FX1, and downconvert in camera to edit on the timeline and produce DVDs in SD. Sometimes I run the FX1 in the DV mode simply so I can shoot in LP - that way I can get good timelapse of the church + sky exterior, and if the bride's late I know the camera will run for 90 mins.

That's the one reason I chose an FX1 rather than another Z1 as my backup cam.

tom.

This has been discussed in more threads than only this one. I think it's basically depending on;

- How fast is your edit station? If you've got the power to edit in HD, then why shouldn't you? On the other side, if you plan to deliver in SD (and won't ever plan to use the HD material again), why enlarging the rendertime?

- Do you capture sound on camera? in SD you capture uncompressed sound, which has some benefits. However, the soundquality of the compressed sound in HD-mode is not bad at all.

- Do you shoot fast objects? Some ppl prefer shooting fast objects in SD to prevent loss of imagequality.

As for me I prefer shooting SD when my client wants SD delivered. Sure it's nice to shoot HD when you're able to and it can feel a bit of a pity not to use the full potential of your camera, but I just don't have that high-end system (or intermediate codec) so I'm just glad when I can shorten the rendertime. I haven't noticed any difference in soundquality between HD and SD.

I agree with Noa Put regarding the upcoming of HD in western Europe. Prices are dropping, HD comes into the range of consumers who don't have a pool in their backyard (which includes me).

[QUOTE=Noa Put;788200]In Belgium (Europe) hd is starting to get up to speed, a Dutch manufacturer of pc's (Medion) who primarily sells his pc's quite cheap trough food stores like Aldi has a pc for sale with a build in blue ray player. QUOTE]

In the UK Medion are selling a PC with an HD-DVD player as well as a BluRay player.....

This is probably a dumb question. If you shoot in HDV and down convert in the camera can you use SD tapes to capture?
Thanks,
John

Don't quite see what you're driving at. If you downconvert HDV in camera then SD goes out the Firewire. You could capture this to a computer of course, or record it in SD to tape.

[QUOTE=Tom Hardwick;788309]I too shoot HDV on the Z1 and backup FX1, and downconvert in camera to edit on the timeline and produce DVDs in SD. QUOTE]

I'm a bit surprised you downconvert in camera and edit in SD, Tom. I thought editing effects in HDV - colour correction for example - kept their quality better than during an SD edit and that this alone outweighed any other considerations...

For my next project, I am planning on editing it in SD. I am going to use the EDL and recapture the footage in HDV and see how different everything really is. I'll try and post something within the next few weeks to show the differences.

I've got a feeling that for the next year or so I'll be sticking with SD and hold off till HD is wide spread. I have not had one request for HD yet, but if I do I have the equipment.

For me there is one HUGE advantage to shooting in HD and delivering in SD - options and flexibility in editing. If I am delivering an SD product and I shoot in HD I have an original picture that is much bigger than I need. This means I can shoot wider than I normally would and make decisions as I edit. I bring the HD footage into an SD project and can zoom or pan. For example:

Sports - in football I shoot wide and then as I edit I can zoom in on the quarterback and then follow the ball to the reciever. If the ball was not caught I could instead zoom in on a great block with the same footage. I didn't have to decide as I shot.

Weddings - Set an unmanned camera in the back, shooting wide. In the edit, zoom in on the bride and groom, pan across the audience, etc. It looks like there is an operator on the camera and he is SMOOTH, no jerks or bumps and he always picks the best shot. Shoot the bride wide in front of the church - now you can zoom in or out, you can try a Dutch angle (don't like it tilting left, try right instead), pan from the bottom up or top down. Shoot the family wide and then zoom in on the bride and groom or catch the nephew giving grandpa rabbit ears.

I have learned to like editing this way so much that I hope it is a long time before everyone is asking for HD and I don't have these options any more.

Don't be surprised at my workflow Mike, it works well for me (the Canopus Storm 2 card has a most excellent one-click white and black balance filter). I've seen my DVDs projected big and wide and they look mighty fine to me.

Oh, I'm sure I could eeek out a drop or two more quality by keeping everything in the HDV mode until the end and just maybe you'd spot the differences in a side-by-side A / B test. But quality is far more about getting the shots right up front and first time than it is about downconverting now or later. Agreed?

tom.

[QUOTE=Tom Hardwick;789362] But quality is far more about getting the shots right up front and first time than it is about downconverting now or later. Agreed? QUOTE]

Absolutely couldn't agree more. My problem is that shooting with 2 or more cameras the need to colour balance happens a lot. I have not found the colour correction tools in Matrox RT.X2 and PP2 easy to use effectively. So I need that little leeway that I feel editing in HDV gives me.

I have just read Lloyd's piece with which I agree entirely. I should like to add the usefulness of correcting verticals in would-be straight shots to his list of the advantages of editing in HDV. We have an unmanned camera on a jib which nearly always benefits from a little judicious tweaking in post.

I to can film edit in HD on Sony z1 and edit with Apple Final Cut Pro but STILL no mastering facility if you use apple equipment that i know of!

Oh man, Lloyd, you're right. I didn't even think about the fact that I'll lose my ability to zoom the static cam when people go HD. What a bummer. My third static cam has made me look so cool.

yea that can make for some seriously cool editing.
Id imagine a music video would work well.
I can see it now!
10 frames to pan a camera accross a room and stop dead centre!

Hopefully by the time 1080p becomes the norm we we'll have a bigger format to use for this. Who knows, maybe by then Nikon D9 will shoot 25fps at 16million pixels for 3 hrs!

For me there is one HUGE advantage to shooting in HD and delivering in SD - options and flexibility in editing. If I am delivering an SD product and I shoot in HD I have an original picture that is much bigger than I need. This means I can shoot wider than I normally would and make decisions as I edit. I bring the HD footage into an SD project and can zoom or pan. For example:

Sports - in football I shoot wide and then as I edit I can zoom in on the quarterback and then follow the ball to the reciever. If the ball was not caught I could instead zoom in on a great block with the same footage. I didn't have to decide as I shot.

Weddings - Set an unmanned camera in the back, shooting wide. In the edit, zoom in on the bride and groom, pan across the audience, etc. It looks like there is an operator on the camera and he is SMOOTH, no jerks or bumps and he always picks the best shot. Shoot the bride wide in front of the church - now you can zoom in or out, you can try a Dutch angle (don't like it tilting left, try right instead), pan from the bottom up or top down. Shoot the family wide and then zoom in on the bride and groom or catch the nephew giving grandpa rabbit ears.

I have learned to like editing this way so much that I hope it is a long time before everyone is asking for HD and I don't have these options any more.

Brilliant!
What camera and editing software do you use?

I too think LLoyds technique brilliant. Why didn't I think of doing this? Now to figure out how to do it in Edius.

What about if you want to film and edit in HD, but then provide the client the DVD in SD. BUT, to later on provide them with a HD version that they pay extra for.

What about if you want to film and edit in HD, but then provide the client the DVD in SD. BUT, to later on provide them with a HD version that they pay extra for.
Then the pan scan version that is being discussed will not work, as your footage will be upscaled HD and blurry.

Is there any benefit to shooting HDV, editing HDV and then converting to SD for a DVD as opposed to shooting HDV, editing SD and delivering a SD DVD?

I see everyone's point on using the pan and scan technique, but at the same time to save space/processing power by editing SD with SD footage it would be kind of redundant to use HD footage in an SD project. I am choosing to keep with the downconverted SD footage for now to speed up rendering/processing power. I have a big powerful computer (in my opinion) and it gets the job done in HD but its not a monster like it is in the SD workflow.

I also don't see any benefit in editing HDV but delivery SD DVD. The only reason I can think of is that you have HDV demo reel footage for a later date for yourself, and I personally don't think anyone would come back years later for the HD version. Wedding videos are flaky as is, and to get someone to pay more later is near impossible in the market I am.

I also don't see any benefit in editing HDV but delivery SD DVD. The only reason I can think of is that you have HDV demo reel footage for a later date for yourself...

Since HDV has something like 4+ times the pixel info of DV, you have all that available for the mpeg2 encoding for a SD DVD. Downconvert to DV for capture & edit & you've thrown all those extra bits out the window to begin with & won't be available for the encoding process.

Plus... you'll have HDV raw footage for demo purposes. And I would think to up-sell an HDV version could be as simple as letting a client just see a before/after scenario.